Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Getting busy now (no radio obviously). But here is an excellent post from Ed Kilgore on the The Phony War in the GOP over its future:

Yes, years from now conservatives will sit around campfires and sing songs about the legendary internecine battles of late 2012, when father fought son and brother fought brother across a chasm of controversy as to whether 98% or 99% of abortions should be banned; whether undocumented workers should be branded and utilized as “guest workers,” loaded onto cattle cars and shipped home, or simply immiserated; whether the New Deal/Great Society programs should be abolished in order to cut upper-income taxes or abolished in order to boost Pentagon spending. There’s also a vicious, take-no-prisons fight over how quickly to return the role of the federal government in the economy to its pre-1930s role as handmaiden to industry. Blood will flow in the streets as Republicans battle over how to deal with health care after Obamacare is repealed and 50 million or people lose health insurance. Tax credits and risk pools or just “personal responsibility?”

Heh, indeed. Open Thread.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Natalie Khawam: Here's Gloria >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I Love... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    ...how the 'leaders' of the republican party act like all they have to do is cater to minorities and they will be back on track in 2016.

    It is (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:10:44 PM EST
    my opinion that nobody is catering to minorities or the poor.
    Nobody. Occasionally some ambiguous rhetoric gets thrown around, but really - what has government done for minorities or the poor during the last 12 years?

    That same question might well be ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:24:13 PM EST
    ... directed toward any one of us, as well.

    That's (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 07:01:14 PM EST
    a deflection.

    The government has a responsibility, in my opinion, to do something to help the poorest and weakest among us. And it has failed miserably.

    Many of us have given to charities.
    Many of us have given to private fund-raising events.
    But these are no substitute for the obligation of the government with its vast resources to do what it should be doing to make us proud of our country.

    We do pay taxes - 300 million dollars of which are going to Afghanistan every day.

    Individuals, the people to whom you wish to steer this conversation, are not the problem.

    It is an uncaring bunch of self-involved and self-serving people who use their elective offices to feather their own nests and the nests of their corporate donors and masters.


    Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:22:01 PM EST
    What you're saying isn't anything that hasn't already been said countless times before by many others. So, what are you presently doing about it, or what are you prepared to do about it?

    Speaking for myself only, I'm out there trying to secure public support and funding for community health centers that serve poor, rural communities in Hawaii and California, and teaching citizens who share some of my concerns how to lobby effectively for their respective causes at their city halls, their state capitols and in Washington.

    I consider myself blessed that I've been able to carve out a niche for myself as a public advocate for causes in which I truly believe, and that I can make a decent living at it.

    Additionally, I've long been active in local politics, and currently serve as a district chair for the Hawaii Democratic Party, which allows me to support those candidates whom I feel have the best opportunity to move progressive causes forward.

    And quite often, that means challenging and opposing those members of my own party who use the "D" as a political flag of convenience to further their own narrow interests in this overwhelmingly Democratic state.

    My experiences in this business over the last 25 years have taught me to choose my battles wisely, because when people draw lines in the sand and demand either all or nothing at all, nine times out of ten they're going to come away completely empty-handed.

    While I don't fear failure, I really don't like to lose, and so I try not to take unwise or unnecessary risks, and thus pre-program myself for that eventuality -- particularly when it's on someone else's dime.

    Sometimes, I find that it's in everyone's best interest to acknowledge our own present limitations and seek compromise. I'm perfectly willing to settle for half a loaf now, with the unspoken acknowledgment that given the first available opportunity, we're coming back and grabbing the rest.

    I make no claim to having all the answers, but I try my best to walk the walk, and not just stand above it all and talk the talk.

    I think you'd be surprised as to the progressive impact you could have upon your own local community, were you to simply leap into the fray with both feet, and not be afraid to get your hands dirty every once in a while.



    Well (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 01:29:28 PM EST
    I'm teaching, and oculus is tutoring, and others here also have written of direct, hands-on involvement in getting disadvantaged kids to graduations at various levels.

    Now, we need leaders -- and more voters -- who will stop the continuing devaluing of the importance of education.  

    (Even despite the economic recession, so devastating to our recent grads at all levels, they still have done better on the job market than peers with lower levels of education.)


    Thanks, Towanda! (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 01:40:06 PM EST
    Dumb... (none / 0) (#106)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:07:29 AM EST
    ...entirely missed the point, but as a whole, I would say ACA, EPA (equal Pay Act), and the stimulus were directed towards the groups of people that include minorities, the have nots if you will.

    The point you missed is that D's don't have to target minorities because they haven't spent the couple of decades singling them out as the problem with America.


    wouldn't you hate to find out (none / 0) (#2)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 11:59:48 AM EST
    that was true? It is possible.  They have been catering to the white male minority for years and that seems to have locked up that vote for a long time.

    So In Your Mind... (none / 0) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:25:08 PM EST
    ...this can happen ?

    They might want to let everyone else in on that plan, because even their candidate blamed the moochers for his loss.  Rush is still ranting about women and Mexicans.   And if I cared I would Google for more examples of how the right can't cater to the people they built the party on, with pure, unadulterated, hatred.

    Trotting Rubio, Jindal, Cain, and Haley around the country isn't going to cut it, when they cheer and support Sheriff Joe's crusade against the brown peoples, or when they disenfranchise black voters en masse, under the guise of fairness.


    first of all (none / 0) (#37)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:01:39 PM EST
    I guess I should have made my snark signal stronger.
     But, also I have seen it done, you tell a group what it wants to hear and then you go in secret behind their back and say to the other group "don't worry, that was only campaign rhetoric".  If you have the media on your side because you are the chosen one of the powers that be, it works like magic.
    BTW, Rush is nuts, women are a majority and woe to both parties when women finally figure that out.

    I Never Know Where You Are Coming From... (none / 0) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    ...but now that you say it, I see it.

    This is Nutz: Rove vs. Anonymous in Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:53:17 PM EST
    Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted had installed an untested, unapproved software patch for ballot counting just a week before the election. When various groups protested to the courts, Husted responded that the software patch ran outside of the federally-approved voting machinery. Therefore, it did not need testing and did not to be reviewed by the state election commission. The courts went along with him.

    A few days later, the international hacker group Anonymous released a video. In it Anonymous warned that they were monitoring all the computers of Fox News analyst and Republican chief fundraiser Karl Rove. Anonymous warned Rove personally to not interfere with the election results.

    Interesting, on election night, when the Ohio computers came back online, the vote tallying went on without the patch, and Obama won.

    This whole thing might mean that the patch should be subpoenaed into court and examined for its potential to rig an election--especially since no one dared to complain that it did not work. And the counting kept on going, anyway, unquestioned. But that's not all.

    Anonymous claims that Mitt Romney's Orca program was a fake, also. It was not meant to be used as a get-out-the-vote program as stated by the Romney campaign. Rather, it was meant to be used to divert and flip flop the vote in two other states, Florida and Virginia. Like Ohio, both states have Republican Secretaries of state who resolve voting issues. Makes you wonder, right? But there is more.


    So this story is growing some legs (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:03:11 PM EST
    I had to apologize to Debbie Wasserman for doubting her Florida ground game :) Am I going to end up apologizing to Anonymous too?

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    Thanks for the link and the update. Let's hope that the authorities have the cojones to follow up on this story and see where it finally goes.

    If a subsequent investigation confirms that nothing sinister occurred in this instance, then that could serve to re-affirm our constitutional right to "one man, one vote." Regardless, nobody should ever be given cause to suspect that the integrity of our electoral processes has been unduly compromised by the partisan whims of public officials.


    RIP, Sen. Warren Rudman (1930-2012). (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:37:47 PM EST
    The co-author of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 died last night at age 82.

    The former New Hampshire senator and state attorney general proved himself to be one of an increasingly rare breed, a principled Northeastern Republican moderate, at a time when the GOP was clearly lurching ever-rightward with the wholesale migration of Southern Democrats to the GOP. He was very much respected across the political spectrum in his home state, and he'll be missed.

    Oh BTD, I have you to blame (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by me only on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:58:17 PM EST
    You linked to EE one too many times.  Now I am unable to resist the temptation of glancing at the various stupidity.

    Why did you inflict this upon me?  I did not deserve this.  While you and I are not regularly in agreement, I can usually respect you.  The social conservative movement is loony toons.

    If Rubio cannot answer that the earth is several billion years old for fear of alienating his base, that speaks to the stupidity of his base.

    Hear Hear! (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:59:36 PM EST
    "The Neigh of the Generals" (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    Lt. Gen (ret) "jerry" Boykin explains it all to you and Tony Perkins of  American Family Flakes or some such moral group, on  General Petraeus and his embedded  biographer, Paula Broadwell : the gays did it.   "what you are seeing is a declining morality in our military...it is very deliberate. the military is targeted largely by the gay and lesbian lobby.."  

    General Boykin, former commander of the US Army Special Forces, former  deputy director of the CIA, and a former deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, has received attention for some of his eccentric characterizations, such when in a speech that referred to a Muslin fighter's Allah countered that his (God) was bigger than his.  

    Pat Robertson,  who may be considered a general nuisance, notes that we should not condemn Petraeus for his adultery because  "Paula Broadwell is an extremely good looking woman and he is a man."  

    In the general news category,  Tea party favorite, Congressman Allen West finally conceded his loss to Patrick Murphy.  West proved to be quite the actor what with his Joseph McCarthy imitation, but all things considered of the show biz Wests, I prefer Mae.

    "... Come up and see me... (none / 0) (#75)
    by DFLer on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:22:49 PM EST
    between the holidays."

    What a maroon! (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:36:54 PM EST
    Never mind how Boykin rose through the ranks to become a general. I'd like to know how in the world he ever got accepted into OCS or West Point in the first place.

    Oh my, oh my! (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:03:10 PM EST
    You sure stuck it to the Republicans with this post about how there aren't any "real" issues separating parts of the Republican party... Oh, wait, you didn't?

    Well, you sure gave that Strawman a good spanking!
    I wonder if you deal so "honestly" with issues concerning the Democratic party...

    I don't understand your comment (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:20:13 PM EST
    nor the relevance of your link.

    Me either (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    And I seriously made an effort

    Well BTD to explain it to you (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:31:11 PM EST
    See, I can explain when asked even if someone and I do not get along:

    The fact is there is a tremendous split between forces in the Republican party over what their future immigration policy should be. Will "pandering"  on amnesty /immigration to Hispanics give them more votes or not?
    As the guy said there is often a split between neocons and other Republicans on this.

    Your link, by a Democratic partisan, basically claims there's no substantive difference between policies on immigration in the Republican party. He's a downright liar, esp as you can find :
    A. Some Republican votes for amnesty both now, and in Reagan's day
    B. Hardline immigration restrictionist politicians like Tancredo was, though most of them are out of the Republican party now
    C. Lots of Republican votes for H1B programs that help keep US tech wages low

    And etc.


    What does "pandering" mean? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    What are the specific splits on immigration policy in the Republican Party? Who are they between?

    My link claimed there are no substantive differences among Republicans on a number of issues.

    Please elucidate the differences if you please and we can judge whether they exist and whether they are substantive.


    "Pandering" = "gifts" (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:36:34 PM EST
    = "entitlements" = "welfare" = etcetera.

    Same-old, same-old.


    I think they were making fun (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:41:54 PM EST
    of the fight.  I don't think there's going to be much of a fight.  The Republican party has been the party of racism for so long, we know how this "fight" ends.  And there will be no bloodshed.  Every Republican who voted Republican in the last election is just fine choking down raw racism.  I didn't see any of them outside their polling locations throwing up in the gutters because they were sick to their stomachs.

    Really? how long? oh for 'so long' (1.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:26:46 PM EST

    White democrats refuse to vote for black democrats- that is why they have to draw those absurd minority-majority districts,  yet black republicans seem to get elected by white republicans with little problem.  (I know you are ready to yell "house negro" -well just suppress that KOS training and try to think for yourself for once)

    In fact I recall YOU Military Tracy making some very ugly remarks about Herman Cain- what was it again- something about "those people" can't control their sexual impulses?


    Yeah "those people" (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:37:29 PM EST
    the forever entitled, sycophant-surrounded-and-enabled 1%.

    If I said that (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    I wasn't talking about the color of his skin.  I was talking about his entitlement complex.  The guy had several sexual harassment complaints filed against him for feeling up those who he felt entitled to feel up because he's the boss.  I'm talking about "those people".  Funny how YOU took that to mean something about melanin

    So you are offended by a false charge (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:22:23 PM EST
    of racism from a (sort of) innocent remark? How does it feel?  Not good- right?  Can you put yourself into the shoes of any non-democrat now?  

    I think our borders are too open, and while the dream act has certain favorable aspects, it should be part of a comprehensive immigration reform, and not allow the president to do end runs around the constitution.

    And its worth noting that again Obama has given away his most valuable card in any negotiation. Granting citizen status to veterans was a rep idea.
    As was the 2 year college qualification. What is Obama going to offer now?  


    You made an innocent remark (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:33:15 PM EST
    and I attacked you?  Or are you attempting to say the Republican party is innocent of racism?  If it is the latter it would be more enjoyable for me if you went to sell crazy someplace else.

    No, not at all, (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:38:05 PM EST
    poor reading skills on your part.  Read it again

    This is not what the Republican base wants (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:44:19 PM EST
    They want everyone OUT.  I guess you didn't read the memos or snowflakes or whatever it is that defines the Republican talking points.  You know what it really sounds like.  It sounds like YOU need a new party to belong to.

    Okay, I was just racist there (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    I'm sorry.  I deliberately used the term snowflakes because Rumsfeld led us into a horrible hell in Iraq and he daily issued those memos called snowflakes, but I used it too because almost the whole Republican party is snowflake white.  I did also call the poor white voting block down here the crackertastic voting block as well and I'm sorry.

    But black people get to call each other the "N" word, so don't I get to call white people snowflake and cracker :)?


    I'll Be Your... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:03:49 AM EST
    ...Whitey McWhite Snowflake
    ...Honky Tonkn', Mayonnaise Eating, Casper Ghost Lovin', Thick Slice of White Bead.

    I hate mayonnaise BTW.


    "Crackertastic?" (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 09:06:24 PM EST
    Never heard that before....Cool word.

    Jeralyn said looking the Republican Convention was like looking at a "sea of mayonnaise."


    I couldn't stand all of the horrible things (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 08:35:12 AM EST
    Said to me after the election. People here are so bitter you just don't know.  Or maybe you do.  It was more than I could just swallow though so I posted about it on my Facebook.  This state is so broke, and many of it's citizens are so beaten down and impoverished and so many of them white.  They so often vote Republican though and they really did this election.  They have has their whole focus set by Fox News.  Dental health is something very overlooked here by the impoverished.  Teeth are for the gentry.  It makes me ill what many Alabamans have come to accept as their fate, and all they can focus on is deep-seated racism and what Fox News tells them to focus on.

    FB - ugh. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 10:30:02 AM EST
    I grew up in a pretty conservative area of PA.  Couldn't believe some of the ridiculous things posted by some of my FB "friends" after the election.  They were apoplectic.

    Tweety showed (none / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    stats showing that Romney got some huge number of the White vote, something over 80%, in Alabama and Mississippi.  Obama was in the teens or single digits of the White vote there.

    MT and et al (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:56:06 AM EST
    I swore off this place for a while. Needed to get my head straight on what actually happened before I subjected my self to too much far left stuff... (Did the same on some Rightie sites.)

    But I see that nothing has changed...

    This is not what the Republican base wants..
    They want everyone OUT.

    And you can't figure out why the Repubs aren't willing to try and make nice?



    Make nice with who? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:20:49 AM EST
    Me? Brown people? Liberal blogs?  Are you telling me that Republicans choose poisonous policy and belief systems because they are pouting?  Seriously?

    Jim's been "making nice" ... (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    ... by calling Obama-voters "fools", claiming Obama instituted "illegal alien amnesty" by EO and claiming that people who didn't vote this time will be escorted to the polls by Obama's "militia?/Waffen SS".

    He's just a "making nice" kinda guy ...


    Yman, you've got a strong stomach (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:39:01 PM EST
    On the one occasion I visited the cuckoo confederate website, the poison (and the unbending stupidity) wafted out of the computer screen, infecting the entire earth's atmosphere.

    People reveal themselves ... (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:07:20 PM EST
    ... when they're in a comfortable setting and they think they're just spouting off to a few friends.  "Reasonable, independent (heh) Jim" disappears when he wanders into the tall cotton ... not that anyone here is fooled.

    shoephone (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 10:32:11 AM EST
    Yman didn't tell you he was banned for personal attacks.

    I suspect you would be too.

    Have a Happy Thanksgiving!


    Banning would be unnecessary (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by shoephone on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 11:29:53 AM EST
    One perusal of your webby stinkpot was enough. There's no reason to ever venture into the tall cotton tall tales in the future. (I noticed hardly anybody else ventures into it either. Your visitors seem to be few and far between.)

    Happy Thanksgiving right back atcha!


    Jim's conspiracy theory (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    regarding Benghazi is a doozey.

    No pretense even of a factual discussion.


    Of course not (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 09:48:11 AM EST
    It is a Internet Theory. Perhaps you didn't note that.

    We all know that Internet Theories are correct. Right?


    What I want to know is what the President knew and when did he know it.

    And why he didn't send help.

    My theory is he didn't want to admit his Middle East policy was in flames and he was afraid if he did he would lose the election.

    Heck, even LBJ had enough shame to not run for re-election.


    Sticking to the facts helps (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    Doing that will eliminate almost all of the conservatives' "questions."  Maybe all.

    What I don't understand is that conservatives just got a rude wake-up call regarding their cock-sure certitude that Romney would be elected.  One would think that would give them pause before they launch off into this world of anti-factual conspiracy theories.

    But, then again, facts matter to me.


    PROUDLY banned, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 10:05:29 AM EST
    What Jim failed to mention was that I only made personal attacks AFTER Jim decided to go that route.

    Like most wingers, Jim likes to dish it out, but whines like pre-schooler when he's on the receiving end (no offense to pre-schoolers).


    MT, as a NON-Republican I don't feel bound (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:58:16 PM EST
    by your definitions.

    But I do enjoy pointing out that your claim that what the Repub base wants is based on nothing but your extreme dislike of anyone who disagrees with you about anything.

    I actually know a whole bunch of Repubs. Most just want the borders shut down.

    I mean, what a concept.

    Secure borders.


    Oops! (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:55:24 PM EST
    You replied to me, Jim.  Good to know you're paying attention to my posts, but now you have to start the non-response-clock over ... again.

    BTW - You keep emphasizing that you're not a Republican.  Tell us, ... as an "independent", how many Republican candidates have you voted for in the past 30 years?  How many Democrats?



    Keep on with that secure border philosophy (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:05:28 PM EST
    Knock yourself out talking about the evils of those illegals here.

    No problemo.

    Maybe the Dems will get 90% of the Latino vote next time.


    I know (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 07:22:24 AM EST
    Our borders are so unsafe, we now live in hell on earth.  You have people working day and night to secure the border.  You are just flat out crazy.

    Perhaps you don't remember (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 10:28:41 AM EST
    but my stated solution has been simple.

    1. Close the borders. Totally.

    2. Issue everyone here, who don't have legal problems, green cards. Capture and deport the criminals after they have served what ever sentence they are given.

    3. Allow everyone to apply for citizenship but do not allow them to bring family members into the country.

    Pretty simple, eh??

    This would do a couple of things.

    First it would stop the flood of illegal immigrants. That would remove the unending supply of cheap labor and make unions effective in raising wages and improving working conditions.

    Secondly it would give us enough to figure out how many immigrants we really need and what skills they should have to be allowed entrance.


    Still Dealing.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:06:11 AM EST
    ....with the fact that Fox spun the election, I'd take a break too.  I certainly did after 2000.

    Nothing here has changed, it was peaceful for all of a day and a half.


    Oh, things changed. More trolls showed up. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:56:58 AM EST
    Did I miss some first class snarks?? (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:02:13 PM EST
    Actually I knew that Sandy flipped the scales and gave a bunch of people a reason to change their minds.

    Sad thing is we still don't have a workable healthcare system...unemployment is still around 8% and the Middle East is lost.

    Hopefully I won't be here when China demands payment.


    Republicans just got fleeced (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:12:20 PM EST
    by what David Frum calls the conservative entertainment complex, and you go right back there for the explanation?

    Hurricane Sandy explains Tester and Heitkamp?

    If you look at the graphs of the polls shown to be accurate (that means not Rasmussen or Gallup) you will see that Obama was leading before Sandy.  We've been down this road of gut instinct that ignores evidence before.    

    Show us a link to credible evidence that shows Sandy made the difference.


    You may be right (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 10:15:51 AM EST
    but my comment was to what I believed before the election.

    Instinct is what kept our ancestors alive by telling them to dodge seconds before Mr. Lion leaped for his lunch.

    My take on the election is that we have lost that very helpful talent.


    I'm shocked (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 08:53:05 AM EST
    You publicly admitted that you and everyone else owe all of our DNA to Africa.

    I am not shocked (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 09:56:00 AM EST
    that you are shocked.

    Now, go on and tell us how you hate where you live and all your neighbors are Republicans and racists.

    You suffer from the Chinese Curse doubled.

    Not only do you live in interesting times you live in an interesting place.

    Dog whistle anyone??


    Hey I just put up a link to great (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 10:09:57 AM EST
    Article written by a great humanist that has much to say about where I live, and also studies that basically agree with my self assessment.  He also brings up how we aren't supposed to talk about it because we might offend and that we should do away with that concept!

    A lot of people migrating into the South too.  Who knows over time what could happen to the toxins around here once the reality sets in that the Confederacy succeeded in making the Republican Party unable to ever win the White House again.


    Link??? What link? (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 12:22:58 PM EST
    MT your hatred of the south is truly toxic. You really should consider what that is doing to you.

    I don't know how she does it (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 01:29:10 PM EST
    Living in the deep South and dealing with the widespread ignorance and racism on a daily basis would be truly toxic.

    Thank you Yman (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 09:35:42 AM EST
    Some days it isn't easy.  I am meeting more local Liberals/Democrats and birds of feather, and every day it gets a little bit better.

    The life lessons I have learned (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 09:40:18 AM EST
    Say something a little bit different.  The situation in the pockets of heavy racism are difficult for everyone living here.  And if you live here and love and embrace the status quo, your mental and spiritual health are at much greater risk than mine.  The first step to well being or being well is shedding denial.

    Many push forward (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 10:51:03 AM EST
    accepting facts, reason and science.

    Instinct, faith, superstition or whatever you may call it, can be reassuring but do not bring progress and very often do not reflect and distort the truth.


    I find in the case (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 09:52:32 AM EST
    of Obama that faith is a necessary part of his followers make up.

    Instinct... not so much.


    God (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Politalkix on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 11:01:15 AM EST
    created Hurricane Sandy so that President BHO would win and people like poor Jim would get his 4-yearly proctology exam (recommended by Dr. Haley Barbour)through Obamacare.
    God created Hurricane Sandy so that Prophet Mittens would get tossed out in a blue sea and get swallowed by an ORCA link.
    The ways of the Lord are indeed mysterious!

    So now you are an expert on (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 09:58:28 AM EST
    prostrate cancer?


    Perhaps Obama will name you to one of the Medicare Death Panels.



    Prostate. It's prostate cancer. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Angel on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 02:26:44 PM EST
    I don't know anyone who's died from prostrate cancer.

    Also: Prostate exam vs. proctology exam (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 03:26:27 PM EST
    Apparently, Jim doesn't know the difference between those either.

    Wait till Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#147)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 06:49:50 PM EST
    informs Jim what a proctology exam is and how Obamacare will make it mandatory for people like him and watch the sh#t hit the fan. He may freak out more than he does now about gas prices!
    Poor Jim!

    I love it when people (none / 0) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 12:20:30 PM EST
    can't make a response seize on a misspelled word to try and act intelligent.

    So stick around. I msipell lots of wrods and even one out...

    lol at your sad responses.


    Not "a misspelled word" (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 01:27:25 PM EST
    This isn't a typo or misspelled word, Jim - you're incorrectly substituting one word for a similar word.  You do this kind of thing all the time.

    Nice try, though ...


    "Prostrate" cancer - Heh (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 24, 2012 at 10:16:41 AM EST
    Doctors warn, "Prostrate cancer not to be confused with prostate cancer!"

    Prostrate cancer, a form of cancer that occurs in people who spend more than 95% of their time reclining on their couches watching T.V. or playing video games, should not be confused with prostate cancer, a cancer that usually affects men, says the American Medical Association.

    Wonder if it's a problem for Lazy-Boy warriors, too?


    Armageddon is coming!!! (none / 0) (#119)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:35:13 PM EST
    Jim said it, so it must be true!!



    Actually it is here now (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 10:16:59 AM EST
    it just hasn't reached you just yet.

    Give it time.


    Citizenship for all (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:34:30 PM EST
    I would do it in time for the midterms.

    Let the Republicans try and block it.


    Gutsy,sure would make the midterms interesting :) (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:09:22 AM EST
    Gee, I really don't know, Jim. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:37:03 PM EST
    Jim in St. Louis: "And its worth noting that again Obama has given away his most valuable card in any negotiation. Granting citizen status to veterans was a rep idea. As was the 2 year college qualification. What is Obama going to offer now?"

    How about the opportunity to finally do the right thing for some of the hardest working people in the country?


    Dull Donald, very dull (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:34:47 PM EST
    The President signed the non-deportation instruction because it was the 'right thing' to do? C'mon -don't be a chump, he did it for pure political reasons.  He had said in the past that he just couldn't set aside the law, but  when his Hispanic poll numbers went soft he now was doing the 'right thing'?
    I don't buy that- it looks like a cheap pol pulling a cheap pol trick and for that you want to polish his halo.    



    How misleading you are (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:50:16 PM EST
    It will always be a challenge discouraging criminal elements from simply showing up here to hide.  That will always be the Presidents challenge in all of this and that was what he was saying.  He's not in the business of enabling terrorist cells setting up shop here and if he had said anything any different than he did "people like you" would have been all over him for being a President who compromised national security.

    It isn't always easy providing needed safety while being humane, but our President does his best.  Much to the chagrin of every Republican I know.


    Oh, really? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    Jim in St. Louis: "C'mon -don't be a chump, [President Obama] did it for pure political reasons."

    Are you a mind reader now, that you can divine someone else's heretofore-unstated intent?

    Speaking as the son-in-law of formerly undocumented immigrants who are now naturalized citizens, I'd offer that:

    • Comprehensive immigration reform that offers a reasonable pathway to citizenship is absolutely the right thing to do; and

    • Anyone who truly believes that we can and / or should somehow deport 12 million-plus people from this country for immigration violations, is living in a White-Wing Cuckooland.

    Good politics and good policy (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:14:28 PM EST
    go together.

    If conservatives want to stand in the way of a pathway to citizenship, then they really haven't learned much.


    Obama's Hispanic poll (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:16:54 PM EST
    numbers went soft?  Show us the data that supports that.  Otherwise, it is just a feel-good talking point.

    fair enough, however (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    if it were a republican, Romney voter or just a democrat who didn't vote for Obama for whatever reason (I know because I got called racist many times by many democrats including Obama) and they used the same language as you did, I think you would not let them claim "those people" meant anything other than "black people".

    And that is fair enough too Teresa (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:22:50 PM EST
    Being online makes many things difficult to discern. And it also makes it too easy to play that "talk to the hand" game when people are expressing their opposing views sometimes.  And I would not expect you to vote for someone who just flat out doesn't represent you or your views.

    Aha (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:48:15 PM EST
    White democrats refuse to vote for black democrats

    That explains why Deval Patrick, and, oh yes, Barack Obama aren't in office.


    West Didn't Get Elected... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:29:35 PM EST
    ...by white voters in Florida, he lost, leaving exactly 1 black Congressional member who wears an R.  Read the list and weep if you are an R.

    MT says a lot of stuff, but trying to paint something on her that is racist is not realistic, it's a product of your warped mind.  The fact that you dug that gem up from what 6 months ago, seems to indicate you might have some issues that go beyond race, but are tied to it pretty tightly.


    Racist comments here are nothing new (2.33 / 3) (#52)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:47:57 PM EST
    ..as long as they are by the approved people.  And you don't need to go back 6 months. Why are there hearings about fast and furious?  Why is Susan Rice being called out as a liar? Why has the President been unable to get his democratic senate to pass a budget? Why are muslims so unstable that they are unable to control their emotions and riot just from hearing about a video? etc etc

    The answer to all of the above is 'racism', at least that is what has been posted here on Talk Left, and a lot of it directly by MT.  

    I don't think any of the above has anything to do with racism, I guess I haven't been brainwashed enough yet.


    It wasn't raising those issues (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:48:04 PM EST
    but the argument is that Republicans have targeted African Americans such as Eric Holder and Susan Rice with particular and very personal vitriol.

    Not sure I agree, but it is interesting to note that.

    Republican elected officials, however, have cleary shown Obama more physical, in-person disrespect than any other President.  From Joe Wilson shouting "You lie!" during the State of the Union, to Jan Brewer's finger wagging in Obama's face on the tarmac (the only thing she forgot was to call Obama "boy"), to the dripping disdain Romney  showed Obama during the debates, such physical disrespect was never visited on other Presidents....

    It makes reading Hugh Hewitt write about the "shattering loss" of this election that causes him to want to only hang Christmas lights and not answer the phone, sheer pleasure.

    And the racist troll Sununu telling the world Obama was lazy and not very bright....

    I like watching Fox to see just how flabbergasted they have become.  Very, very funny.


    I didn't say any of that about race (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    I am pretty anti-religion though, but religion and race are not the same things.  And pointing out that certain religions enable the abuse of other human beings is not racist.  I offend many people when it comes to religion but they don't seem to care if the actions of those practicing their faith or even their practice of their faith is inhumane and deeply offends me.

    I am okay being at such odds with others.

    I like how you hope to paint me as a racist though to stir a pot.  I'm pretty anti-religion for rational reasons and I'm okay with that.


    Well, MT, I'd say that ... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 06:17:39 PM EST
    Militarytracy: "I'm pretty anti-religion for rational reasons and I'm okay with that."

    ... your skepticism about religion certainly appears warranted in some instances.


    Facebook (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 06:56:42 PM EST
    I went looking for a virgin to sacrifice (none / 0) (#84)
    by Rojas on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 06:42:45 PM EST
    Never did find one...

    It can be hard to know people via (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    The internet.  It is hard to pick up inflection and intent.  As for West, speaking of selling crazy :)

    You claim to be from St. Louis? (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:59:33 PM EST
    Maybe it is a different St. Louis than the one in MO. White Democrats have been voting for black Democratic candidates for a heck of a long time in St. Louis, MO.

    Is that true, re: your last paragraph? (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    So.. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    this "takers" narrative thats been making the rounds on the Right has nothing to do with promoting an all-AAs-on-Welfare-and-Food-Stamps stereotype?

    Romeny wasn't attempting to stigmatize any group in particular with his "47%" comment?


    whoa (none / 0) (#61)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    this conversation is confusing me.  Are you suggesting that Romney thinks AAs make up 47 percent of the population?  

    It was dog whistling (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:24:23 PM EST
    We know who these 47% are kind of thing, they are the welfare queens and such.

    TeresaInPA: "Are you suggesting that Romney thinks AAs make up 47 percent of the population?"

    ... Mitt Romney apparently thinks that when combined, African Americans and Hispanic Americans currently comprise 47% of the U.S. population, and that we'll all be force-fed tacos with collared greens before long, now that the president has been re-elected.

    I find it deliciously ironic that when all the votes from across the country in the 2012 elections are finally tallied and the final numbers are made official, Mitt Romney may indeed wind up with having won only 47% of the vote.


    And I am fine voting for (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    any brown person who is the best person for the job.  And there are many of "those people" too.

    Let's start with my President :) (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    MT (none / 0) (#77)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:24:46 PM EST
    I have been reading through this whole discussion and it seems like a lot of people yelling past each other.
     Sure there is racism in the republican party. But there is racism in the democratic party too. It is often expressed in different ways and to my mind more insidious.  I think your statement is unfair and hyperbolic.  I have several gay friends who are republicans.  We had many arguments over this last year on Facebook. They supported Romney and believe in the wrong headed policies of the right, but I can assure you they are not racist.  Neither are my straight friends who are republicans.  Saying they are okay with racism is a pretty ugly charge.
    If they are the party of racism we are the party of self righteousness and shaming.

    What you came so close to, but missed, (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:43:14 PM EST
    is that the people comprising the party are not necessarily ideologically aligned with the hierarchy of the party - the head of party, the faces we see on the TV, the people running campaigns, the ones making decisions about agenda, etc.

    And this is true with both of the major parties.  How else to explain how we keep telling the people who represent us what we want, and they keep patting us on the head, thanking us for our vote, and moving ahead with whatever agenda is working best for them?

    We are screaming into the void, it seems.

    People throw their lot in with whatever party best represents their own views and vision and interests - and that means that if you align Republican because of fiscal issues, you're stuck with whatever ugliness is in the mix.  Same with being a Democrat: I get stuck with drones and invasions of privacy and the security state and the push for austerity - none of which I support.

    None of us rolled off an assembly line with "R" or "D" stamped on our foreheads, although considering the execrable representation we seem to end up with, I do wish I could stamp "L" on a lot of Republican AND Democratic officials' foreheads.


    I don't think you are even close Anne (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 06:47:54 PM EST
    The Democratic base is cat herding, the Republican base is about getting in line. Republican voters are not known for challenging their candidates much.  When they did recently we got insanity, we got the tea party.

     When you get in line for poisonous values and heinous rhetoric you blow your own selves up.  The way both parties arrive at their principles and energizing the vote couldn't be more different though IMO.

    What shocks me right now is Obama has made no big promises to Latinos or Blacks but they turned out in droves to vote for him because of the things coming out of the mouths of Republicans unchecked.  Before I easily dismiss how overtly and covertly racist the Republican Party has become, I think I should check first with some individuals who aren't white.  I remember every horrible thing they said about women because I'm a woman.  I know many horrible racists things were said and implied but they didn't end up seared into my memory.


    People get in line for all kinds of reasons, (none / 0) (#91)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 07:41:21 PM EST
    but I'm pretty sure they don't do it because they think their own values or rhetoric are poisonous or evil; I can't think of a single person I've spoken to who, when I said, "well, did you know Rommey/Ryan said this, did that, wants to do this," responded with, "yes, I know, and that's why I'm voting for him."  What they said was some version of, "no, he/they didn't," "you don't understand," or "well, Obama is worse."

    As for "getting in line," have you already forgotten the too-many-to-count times when so-called progressives admonished the skeptics and naysayers and delivered lectures about why we "had to" vote for Obama or some other Democrat lest we be responsible for the apocalypse that would follow should Republicans take office?

    My original point was that "the party" isn't necessarily representative of the average person registered as such; I say this as a Democrat who hasn't felt for some time that "the party" is representing my interests the way I think it should.  And I know a lot of Republicans who feel the same way about their party.

    I honestly don't know who the current GOP appeals to, but the truth is that some people are conservative, and they aren't going to feel at home or comfortable voting for Democrats unless Dems keep doing what they've been doing for some time: move to the right.

    What I see coming at some point, is the death of the GOP and the eventual split in the Democratic Party as liberals and real progressives decide they can't live with the increasingly conservative agenda.


    Nothing you've typed out makes sense to me (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:14:30 PM EST
    I live in one of the reddest of the red states, the backbone of Conservative values and voters and it was horribly overtly racist right before the election.  Things were said right to my face before the election because I'm a white girl that I could not deal with.  I had days of feeling horribly depressed because this is basically where I have to live right now.

    Secondly, all the preachers and chastisers who attempt to make left leaners vote the way they want them to usually end up getting verbally shot in the face because there is one thing you aren't telling most lefties.....and that's how to vote :)

    I don't hang out at Red State but I don't think that happens there that much and is tolerated in any way.  Liberal blogs are full of infighting that we make an effort to tolerate.  Democrats fight in caucus states.  Liberals argue among themselves, or at least that is what the paternalistic call it.  We call it discussion and use different adjectives.


    Just reinforces my feeling that I could not (none / 0) (#95)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:35:33 PM EST
    live in a red, red state like Alabama; I'd be in 4-point restraints, I'm sure.

    Why are you holding them to a different standard (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:49:10 PM EST
    Than you hold yourself?  You said you didn't vote for Obama because you don't support his policies but your friends voted for Mitt Romney because they didn't support his policies?

    To continue (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:42:25 PM EST
    what is the Republican split on foreign policy?

    BTD : A question (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    When you talk about "substantive differences" in the Republican party do you want me to answer only using Republican governors and members of the House and Senate, or can I include editorial positions by big Republican supporters and mouthpieces? And do I have to stick to this election or can I go back in time?

    Now to answer your second question:

    There are basically no substantive differences on foreign policy between Republicans and Democrats , let alone between Republicans.

    Neocon Uber Alles can pretty much describe most of the US's foreign policy the last 12 years. Yeah, some Republicans will claim Obama isn't "tough" enough, but the argument between the two parties is usually over the means to an end and not the end itself, thus I say there is no difference in mainstream American politics in general when it comes to foreign policy.


    So John McCain screaming about (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:17:50 PM EST
    Benghazi and Issa witch hunting Benghazi means there is basically no discernable substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats on foreign policy?

    The fact that Republicans are constantly dogging Obama because he maintained no troop presence in Iraq I'm supposed to take, or is it mistake, for no substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats on foreign policy?


    Ignore him, BTD. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:30:52 PM EST
    Instead, let Garry Trudeau explain it all to Zero in this week's thread of Doonesbury:

    "And it's perfect weather for today's Post-Election Math & Science Victory Lap, Chris ..."

    Today's strip is HERE. Looks like Trudeau's on a roll.


    why not take a shot at it? (none / 0) (#4)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:16:39 PM EST
    take a shot at discussing the issues which divide the democratic party. I'll jump in after I get back from the doctors office.

    Teresa (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:38:52 PM EST
    From past interactions with you, I am WILLING to believe that your question is friendly and meant in good faith.

    However, while I think I see a few potential faultlines among the various mostly disgruntled groups that make up the Democratic coalition I am NOT a Democratic party activist (as some here are) or expert, and so :
    A. If I'm right about my hunches I have no desire to warn the Democratic party. I want both parties DESTROYED you may remember as I consider them both too corrupt to govern.
    B. I have no desire to get jumped because of this or that small error or unnuanced statement from people who truly know more about me about some things concerning the DP and who , at the same time are partisans and willing to overlook the truth of a larger point to focus on minuate.

    So I decline. It's not really the question in this thread anyway, which is about supposedly how all the Republican party are racists who want to slave or exploit brown skinned people and are only arguing to what degree and how to do that.

    Oh , and the Republican party supposedly doesn't disagree about anything ELSE important either.
    In fact, I think the Republican party will split before the Democratic one does so I really think Kilgore is out to lunch, but he's a professional political hater and being whatever he needs to be to smear the Republicans is what he does.

    Normally I find BTD to be intelligent and usually right, and even when I disagree I think he makes a good argument. But not this time. This seems to be up just to poke at Republicans.


    We Dems are good on jumping on each other (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:45:19 PM EST
    We don't need any assistance.

    I get it (none / 0) (#82)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 06:15:13 PM EST
    I don't agree with you on the need to destroy the two parties.  I think any party which replaced them would have to do as they do and would look just like them.  What needs to change is our failure to regulate money in politics etc...
    I respect your choice not to get pulled in to a useless argument and admit you are probably right about how it would play out.  

    BTW, my offer was sincere. I have been happily kicking my party around since 2008.


    The Elusive Wapiti? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    What a busy fact bristling environment that is :)  When discussing feminism they link to a make believe e-mail from Satan.

    I've said it before MT (none / 0) (#12)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:42:07 PM EST
    I go all over the place. I'm not someone who picked a few websites that were ideologically congruent five years ago and mostly just goes back and forth to them. Sometimes I go far left, sometimes far right. Sometimes I go foreign, sometimes I stay domestic for news.

    I LOVE the internet.


    Yes (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:44:59 PM EST
    I'm a Liberal who married a soldier.  I live in an ideologically congruent bubble and I never trouble my pretty little head :)

    You do make me smile though, and that is not nothing.


    There must be something more important (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:07:38 PM EST
    to talk about :)

    I can't believe the writers of Boardwalk Empire just killed Owen off like that.  Those people!  Who do they think they are?

    I didn't get to watch it until last night but I've been in a funk ever since.  I know there was no Owen in gangster history, but you killed the hot bad boy with the soulful eyes who was going to save the distressed girl.  It's as depressing as how they wiped out the Darmody couple.

    Owen had to go, (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:33:41 PM EST
    Margaret could not leave Nucky.  But cheer up,  there is now an opening for that clinic doctor and Mrs. Thompson--as friends with benefits and for Margaret to be a "Margaret Sanger" type  birth control advocate.    1920's meets 2012 and the Republicans.

    But the doctor has a girlfriend (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    I looked up who she was supposed to be awhile back.  That was when I realized there was no Owen and they would KILL HIM for fun.

    And Chalky wants to open a club where Babbettes was, so I had to look that up and Atlantic City had Club Harlem.  It looks like Chalky and Nucky are going to scrap a bit.


    I'm watching it over again right now (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:41:40 PM EST
    I was too tramatized last night to warn him.  Owen just walked into the bath house.  Don't do it Owen, don't go, it's a setup.

    Yep. that (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    delivery to Nucky was not a box of candy (maybe eye candy, in a previous iteration).

    The parents of a 14-year-old freshman ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:06:09 PM EST
    ... at Maine West High School in Des Plaines, IL have file suit against both school officials and the coaches of the boys' varsity soccer team, after their son was allegedly assaulted and sodomized by several of his older teammates during an apparent hazing gone terribly awry.

    Given that the local school and law enforcement authorities were apparently made aware of the alleged assault contemporaneously to the time of the Sept. 27 incident, why does it take a lawsuit by the parents in order to compel those same authorities to finally bring this sort of pseudo-sanctioned brutality to an end?

    I played baseball for eight years in high school and college, and I can say with utmost confidence that my own coaches would have never, ever tolerated this sort of ritualized bullying and humiliation of younger teammates by upperclassmen. There is simply no place for it in the duly organized student activities of any school.

    Well, that's disgusting. (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:32:47 PM EST
    I gotta say, while I can believe there was hazing, I really can't believe the coaches stood "idly by" and watched what is alleged, nor can I believe the other kids on the team did what is alleged:

    The suit alleges that coaches ordered a "campus run," a term which was a code indicating the hazing should commence.

    At that signal, older team members grabbed Romanucci's client, tore off his pants and underwear, held him down on the school's soccer field and sodomized him with their fingers and other foreign objects, the suit alleges.

    While this went on, the coaches "stood idly by" according to complaint.

    Agreed. (3.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:45:19 PM EST
    Maybe these types of stories will finally shock people into demanding that all institutions of learning, from elementary schools to colleges and universities, adopt and implement zero-tolerance policies on both student bullying and the rather barbaric practice of ritualized hazing.

    The "LAST THING" we need is a (none / 0) (#101)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 09:47:04 PM EST
    'zero tolerance' policy on "bullying" a term, that like "stalking" and "grooming" has been badly abused.

    And by the way I WAS never a bully but was bullied physically -sometimes by groups of 10 or 12 or so boys and girls - in elementary school and it went on to a lesser extent in middle school.

    My issue is that "zero tolerance"  one -size -fits all policies often don't really solve a problem, remove discretion (and often the ability for the culprit to learn)from those in charge and thus remove an element of "justice". Under "zero tolerance" policies in schools kids have been suspended for fighting when they were the ones defending themselves, under "zero tolerance" policies for weapons students have been suspended or otherwise punished for having butterknives in their lunch, and under "zero tolerance" policies for drugs, kids have gotten in trouble for over the counter packages of aspirin.

    I literally cannot believe that anyone considers "zero tolerance" policies  a good idea after all this time.


    It should further be noted that ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:55:55 PM EST
    ... doctors examining the boy after the alleged incident in question have apparently confirmed that the boy had been sexually assaulted.

    of the report other than what I linked to.

    I simply refuse to believe that a bunch of HS kids in the middle of soccer practice, with their coaches standing "idly by," in the middle of the the soccer/football field, stripped their teammate, beat him, and shoved their "fingers and other foreign objects" into his anus.

    Perhaps I'm being Pollyanna, but this really stretches the outer bounds of any sort of credulity.


    Well, let's put it this way: (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:32:17 PM EST
    We'll know one way or another soon enough, but if this mother's allegations about her son's coaches turning a blind eye are subsequently proved through discovery, then this really stretches the outer bounds of any sort of civilized behavior.

    Indeed, time will tell, however (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:35:09 PM EST
    of the 6 kids who were charged, none were charged with sexual assault.
    Last week, Des Plaines police said six juveniles have been petitioned to juvenile court. Police Chief William Kushner said Monday each juvenile was charged with one count battery and one count hazing. None was charged with sexual assault.

    That, in and of itself, proves nothing. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    It certainly does not preclude the possibility that either additional charges may be filed in this case, or that the current charges may be upgraded as any evidence may so warrant.

    Aaaah, thanks for the edumacation. (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:40:28 PM EST
    Why don't we just keep an eye on this and see how it turns out?

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 06:06:07 PM EST
    Regardless, the underlying facts established thus far should move us all to demand that those persons nominally in charge of our schools actually assume some responsibility for what goes on during their watch. This should never have happened.

    That's thin gruel Donald (none / 0) (#102)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 09:53:32 PM EST
    We were given next to no details, but it's possible that the sexual assault nurse (or whoever did the exam) used that normal "is consistent with" phraseology, which from the Duke Lacrosse case (which I followed on here for nearly a year)is not very indicative of a diagnosis of sexual assault. It merely doesn't rule it out.
    Now I don't know if that's what happened here because the paper gives us next to no details about who examined this boy , what tests were performed and what they found. But I'd be very careful about screaming "smoking gun!" if I were you.

    I'm With You... (none / 0) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:33:31 PM EST
    ...I have played organized sports from age 8 to the end of high school and never saw, much less participated in hazing.  That's not to say I didn't get the beat down often because of my smart mouth, but it was never organized.

    It's nearly impossible for me to imagine a kid sodomizing younger kids in the name of a team, soccer no less.  That's the violent sport alternative, a sport you kids won't get hurt seriously, playing.


    tell that (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    To my knees/ankles!   In all seriousness, I know its not football or hockey, but concussions and other serious injuries do happen in soccer.  There is very limited padding and it is a contact sport.

    This story is insane though.  I can't even fathom something like that.  Soccer is also not as high status as football in most schools, so you'd think any incentive to haze would be minimal.  Nevermind freaking sodomy.


    Honestly, I once thought the same thing ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:38:52 PM EST
    CST: "Soccer is also not as high status as football in most schools, so you'd think any incentive to haze would be minimal."

    ... about school bands.


    Status Doesn't Matter... (none / 0) (#107)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:19:54 AM EST
    ...some cheerleaders on the outskirts of Houston bound and blindfolded the rookies and threw them in a pool.  No one got hurt, but people were flipping out, cheerleaders ?!?!

    Apparently Houston has anti-hazing laws that they charged the girls with, they ended up with probation.


    The Literary Review of London has ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:22:25 PM EST
    ... announced the names of eight finalists for its 20th annual "Bad Sex in Fiction Award," the purpose of which is "to draw attention to the crude, badly written, often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in the modern novel, and to discourage it."

    Author Tom Wolfe heads this year's list of distinguished nominees, thanks to the following bit of literary excess: "[The] flood in her loins washed morals, despair and all other abstract assessments away in a cloud of some sort of divine cologne of his."

    This should be both interesting and funny.

    Hostess/union talk unsuccessful, (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 06:56:46 PM EST
    back to bankruptcy court tomorrow.

    Not surprising (none / 0) (#89)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 07:12:33 PM EST
    since the company had said, even if the baker's union agree to our terms it's still over.

    Not exactly a path to successful mediation.


    Both sides agreed to give it one last try. (none / 0) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 07:26:32 PM EST
    It seems to be too late, unfortunately.

    what "try" did the owners side bring (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by DFLer on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 09:11:20 PM EST
    to the table exactly?

    (or should I say the hedge funds controlling the company's debts?)


    Dunno, I wasn't at the mediation. (none / 0) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 09:30:50 PM EST
    What "try" did the unions bring?

    what's to bring to this situation? (none / 0) (#105)
    by DFLer on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:02:55 AM EST
    As part of its liquidation filing, Hostess is requesting approval to pay $1.75 million in bonuses to executives--the same executives who ran the company so poorly it is closing its doors and liquidating its assets. The pattern of paying executives large sums of money while firing workers is nothing new for Hostess.  The CEO at the time of the most recent bankruptcy filing, Brian Driscoll, is guaranteed as much as $2 million even as the company liquidates.

    from a worker:
    In July of 2011 we received a letter from the company. It said that the $3+ per hour that we as a Union contribute to the pension was going to be "borrowed" by the company until they could be profitable again. Then they would pay it all back.

    This money will never be paid back. The company filed for bankruptcy and the judge ruled that the $3+ per hour was a debt the company couldn't repay. The Union continued to work despite this theft of our self-funded pension contributions for over a year.

    1. 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.
    2. They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.
    3. Doubling of weekly insurance premium.
    4. Lowering of overall quality of insurance plan.
    5. TOTAL withdrawal from ALL pensions. If you don't have it now then you never will.

    I agree, niether side had much to bring. (none / 0) (#113)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    And the situation sucks. fwiw, 1.75M is a tiny amount. 10x that, heck, 100x that, 175M, would have no effect on the co's fate. The co was losing at least 175M every day of the strike.

    Presumably the brands will be bought and production will resume and new employees will be hired, though is seems clear that the brands cannot support as many employees as Hostess had.


    South Carolina... (none / 0) (#108)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:34:29 AM EST
    ...had it's revenue server hacked.  The hackers got social security numbers, tax returns, credit card numbers, and bank accounts.  It's bleak as some people have already had funds removed from their accounts.

    The entire situation sucks, but you will never guess who Governor Nikki Haley is blaming:

    Haley on Tuesday blamed the federal government for not requiring Social Security numbers to be encrypted. She released a letter to IRS Commissioner Steven Miller "to strongly encourage the Internal Revenue Service to require all states to have stronger security measures for handling federal tax information, particularly encryption of tax information that is stored or `at rest.'"

    Republican hypocrisy knows, no bounds.  It's the Feds fault for not forcing the states to do it right.  A+ on taking responsibility.    Idiots.

    Obama is killing it in Newport News (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 12:42:36 PM EST
    And these people are not happy.  This is not a rah rah party cobbled together.  These are the same faces on Fort Rucker.

    Oops, wrong Tuesday (none / 0) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 12:44:28 PM EST