Wednesday Morning Open Thread


Deeper thoughts later if time permits.

Open Thread.

< FBI's Internet Cafe Terrorist Profile | Trump On Santorum >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A Typo of a Peculiar Type (part 2) (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 09:02:43 AM EST
    Sa-weet... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 10:55:36 AM EST
    lunchtime reading...if I shrink my browser from prying eyes, will my co-workers call the FBI tipline?  

    I'm really liking this piece... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:45:37 PM EST
    Great job man...I'm sucked in, I could see myself falling for Befree...she's a lovely girl.

    Anxiously await the conclusion!


    Thank you much, my friend (none / 0) (#74)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 07:20:31 PM EST
    The experiment continues, smoke is rising from the beakers.  I predict a finish, or at least a part 3, by next week.  Peace out.

    My new fave blog (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by smott on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 09:56:25 AM EST

    Really - some great stuff.

    You go girls.

    The FAQ says they're for real... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 11:12:12 AM EST
    and how I want to believe there are 80+ year old women who say "a$$hat".  But it's damn hard;)

    Either way, good stuff...thanks.


    Cool story... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    I notice what I call the "mental filter" kinda goes with age...I see it with my moms, she comes out with sh*t that cracks me up that in the past would've been caught by her mental filter.

    And my great-uncle, forget about it...I never heard him drop so much as an f-bomb my entire life, till he turned 80 or so, now its every other word.

    Neither has added a$$hat to their vernacular...yet;)


    The age-old term (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 05:08:25 PM EST
    that says it so well is:

    "Women of a certain age."

    I long have said that I looked forward to that status -- and now that I also have achieved it, I entirely agree, Donald.  It's great fun.

    (I think that the term above, from an earlier era, was said about women because it was more shocking that they cut loose from the stricter constraints upon them than upon men.)


    My sister and I are already looking forward to (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 03:19:36 PM EST
    living together in our old age and scandalizing her grandchildren. Your family will be my role model!

    Aren't they fun? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    I've posted links here to that blog, but quite a while ago.  Good to see a reminder!

    Tony Perkins (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 01:16:53 PM EST
    In a 'prayer alert' today, the Family Research Council claimed that its campaign against the Girl Scouts was working: "Their cookie sales are suffering."

    You know you have lost your mind when you 'campaign against the Girl Scouts'.  Sure would like to get the mad Dog on record as to where he stand on the Girl Scouts.

    Tony Perkins, the actor in "Psycho"? (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    No, head of the (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:41:11 PM EST
    Family Research Council-- extreme right-wing Christian conservative group.

    In other words, (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 07:35:20 PM EST
    not the actor in Psycho, a real psycho.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 12:45:17 PM EST
    One is a nutty woman hating moralist running a family business....

    the other is the Tony Perkins from psycho


    Thanks. (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:46:12 PM EST
    Why were they campaigning against the Scouts? (none / 0) (#54)
    by DFLer on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 03:47:29 PM EST
    Something About Planned Parenthood (none / 0) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 04:41:22 PM EST
    Which the GS's deny.

    Does it matter ?


    Girl Scouts (none / 0) (#79)
    by womanwarrior on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 08:35:20 PM EST
    I thought it was that they don't exclude lesbians and transgender people, and that they teach girls to be leaders and self sufficient instead of the default barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

    You are wrong! (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 08:42:10 PM EST
    It's 4 inch heels and pregnant in the kitchen.

    and the bedroom, hallway, garage, playroom......


    Kaboom! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 04:45:47 PM EST
    Gingrich is alerting us to Mushroom Cloud Redux:

    3:07 p.m. | Updated CLEVELAND -- Newt Gingrich asserted on Wednesday that an Iranian nuclear attack on the United States was "a real danger" and that it could kill and wound hundreds of thousands of Americans.

    My question; Will Obama be echoing this?
    Actually my question is "when" will Obama be echoing this?

    I've watched so many nutty republican notions becoming mainstream democratic ones.  Will this be any different?

    Iran has to be stopped. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 04:57:58 PM EST
    They are crazy. They keep attacking their neighbors like they attacked Russia just the other day. In 1826. After Russia attacked them.

    They're nuts. They'll be especially scary if they manage to build a nuclear bOMG, since NetanYahoo only has a couple or three hundred and the US only has a few tens of thousands.

    And since they are suicidal they'll probably use it right away to attack somebody, just like North Korea did the day after they built one. I mean, ummm, oh, never mind.

    Look, if they aren't stopped now by destroying their economy and starving millions of them to death like Poppy Bush and Clinton did to Iraq they might start supplying oppressive dictatorships with terror weapons and murdering millions of people all over the mideast and around the world and acting like the US Government does, for gawdsakes.

    Besides... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 05:01:33 PM EST
    how dare they put their country so close to all those US military bases. They are threatening Americans!

    An Iranian crisis on its nuclear (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 07:07:52 PM EST
    program, when the Obama administration also objects to tightening nonproliferation conditions on US civilian nuclear exports.   Bush's nuclear-cooperative agreement with UAE required the Emirates to forswear making nuclear fuel, a process for acquiring bombs, along with inspections of its nuclear facilities.   At first going along with Bush's so called "Gold Standard", sales ran into trouble with Jordan, Vietnam, South Korea and the Saudis--they were reluctant to forswear enrichment.  But, then, it may well turn out as it did in India, we will come out with mangoes.

    Prediction:Romney will be the Republican Nominee.. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 08:53:34 AM EST
    ... if he's willing to spend $100 million on attack ads on Santorum/Gingrich (the only reason Romney won in Florida was because of the millions on attack ads).  Anything less, I wouldn't bet on it (another alternative is to spend millions of dollars buying off the Republican superdelegates and state GOP establishments where the votes by the ordinary Joe the Plumbers at the caucuses/primaries are non-binding).

    One question (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sweet Sue on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 09:13:30 AM EST
    I'm looking over last night's results and have only one question: do Republican voters want to win the election?

    The thing (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 09:20:08 AM EST
    is they think that Santorum is an acceptable candidate for a national election. Too many people stuck in the talk radio echo chamber I guess.

    I'm tellin' you guys... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 10:16:27 AM EST
    a front runner emerges, GOP voters focus on front runner, GOP voters realize front runner is a bag of crap, they vote for one of the other guys, rinse and repeat.

    The only GOP candidate with a true base of support from a voting block that I can see is Ron Paul, but his block is too small. And he alienates the rest of the party by not being a war monger.

    The rest rise only to have their many flaws exposed.  The more press Santorum gets now the lesser his chances in the next primary/caucus.


    That's pretty (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    much been the pattern but the only one who doesn't seem to be benefiting from all this is Ron Paul. They are running out of "others" at this point. I'm sure Pawlenty must be kicking himself over and over for getting out of the race.

    Exactly my thought... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 10:44:11 AM EST
    poor Pawlenty...if he only knew then what we know now!

    Ron Paul gets his solid percentage, but he'll never win anything making all that sense on foreign policy and drug policy.  Like Dennis Kuchinich, he's a pol without a party.  We'd need a 3,4,6 party system for cats like that to have a chance.


    They are so stuck (none / 0) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 11:05:00 AM EST
    in the echo chamber that they truly believe all but a small handful of American voters think as they do and the only question is who they prefer as president-- note, not nominee, president because they're supremely confident whoever they pick will beat Obama.

    Mitt Romney denounced the California Prop 8 (none / 0) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    decision as an attack by "unelected judges" on "traditional marriage" and predicted (smart man, he) that the Supreme Court would decide the issue. "That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values."  continued Mittens.  Does that mean that  Romney thinks the Supremes are elected?  As for that "traditional marriage" part, that is interesting coming from his traditions  

    Lately (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    everything any of them says sounds like it came out of the central casting speech writers at wing-nut central.

    You can bet that he hired (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    as many as he could find!

    It Was Mormon Money (none / 0) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    Behind prop 8, and all of it wasted.

    If only they could have found it in their religious hearts to use that money to help people...

    Californians Against Hate released figures Tuesday showing that $17.67 million was contributed by 59,000 Mormon families since August to groups like Yes on 8. Contributions in support of Prop. 8 total $22.88 million. Additionally, the group reports that Mormons have contributed $6.9 million to pass a a similar law, Proposition 102, in Arizona...


    I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Mitt tossed in a few bucks himself.


    We don't know if Mittens' tithing (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    found its way to Prop 8, but we seemed to get an LDS flavor in the inane dissent of  Ninth Circuit Judge Randy Smith (Brigham Young undergrad and law graduate).  Like the sea captain who lost his way, Smith followed the stars (or planets), latching onto Baker v Nelson (1971) to take him home--to the safe harbor of his prejudice.

    Baker was comfort food for him. Two men in Minnesota were denied a marriage license. The MN Supreme Court held Equal Protection of the 14th Amendment was not offended by the state's classification of persons to marry, and the Supreme Court rendered a summary dismissal for want of a federal question, which was enough, he argued,  for a decision on the merits.

    Smith's argument that Prop 8 was rationally related to a legitimate  government interest took starboard turn after starboard turn. Smith does mention the crucial Lawrence v Texas decision (200l) but not in the context that Baker (1971) may have been affected (sodomy laws were overturned, including for MN, so a possible argument for a government reason would seem to go overboard with Lawrence).

    Smith's use of Lawrence was not related to rights, but to the animus-filled dissent of Justice Scalia--that morality for decision-making is sustainable in light of validation of laws based on moral choices, such as state laws against bigamy, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery (Gingrich take note), fornication, bestiality, and obscenity. Apparently, seeing no offensiveness in his defensiveness.

    Of course, Smith pooh poohed, in his dissent, the majorities' drawing of remarkable similarities between Evans v Romer (majority opinion by Justice Kennedy)  where the Supreme Court found Colorado's Amendment 2 to violated the Equal Protection Clause.


    Doesn't the California Supreme Court (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 01:34:33 PM EST
    consist of elected judges?  They're the ones who held a few years ago that the benefit(s) and privileged status of state-endorsed marriage could not constitutionally be withheld from gay couples.  The "unelected" federal appeals court yesterday only said that if that elected-state-court-granted right was to be taken away from gay couples (only), there had to be a rational and non-discriminatory reason for doing so, and there wasn't.  Anyway, it's the U.S. Constitution that says our federal judges are to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve for life ("during their good behavior").  Are Romney and Gingrich opposed to the Framers' Constitutional plan for judicial independence?

    Well, maybe this is a case where Mittens (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    is a tad more "moderate" than Newt.  Last December, Gingrich said we should send U.S. Marshals to compel "radical judges" to explain their decisions to Congress.  

    Neither of them could take an oath (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 05:26:14 PM EST
    to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," including Article III, without committing perjury, it seems.

    If their continued tenure on the court requires (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 07:41:31 PM EST
    winning an election after a number of years, then it's the same difference, as far as my point is concerned.  Elected judges, electorally confirmed judges, or Senate-confirmed never-elected judges, all of them, state or federal, take an oath to enforce the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land.  Elected judges should not be expected, any more than unelected judges, to disregard their oaths, as Gingrich and Romney seem to think.  And none of them can be properly criticized for not following the popular will.

    Hey Willard... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    Dennis Hamill found a hole in the safety net, how would you fix it?  Lemme guess, mandatory minimums for shoplifting to feed hungry kids.

    Have a heart Pathmark...drop the charges, the good pr will be more than worth it's weight in cold cuts.

    Digby has interesting, if infuriating, (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 01:30:06 PM EST
    info re Obama admins. waffling on whether Catholic employers must provide insurance including free birth control pill prescriptions.  

    Ladies interfering in men's business

    Obama (none / 0) (#21)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    just doubled down and indicated that he is not going to change his base position.  I would note that no one is talking about churches. This is really hospitals and such.

    Yes. (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:14:33 PM EST
    It is about hospitals - and what they choose to refuse people based on the religious beliefs of management.

    Religious beliefs of the Catholic (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:46:54 PM EST

    In your opinion, do the Pope and Cardinals (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 04:56:52 PM EST
    really believe the Church must ban birth control?

    If they want collection plates... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 08:48:06 AM EST
    filled in 20 years, they need babies today!

    Otherwise they might have to start emptying the Vatican vault to sell sh*t on ebay to stay high on the hog.


    you didn't ask me (none / 0) (#72)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 07:06:47 PM EST
    but who knows if they even believe in god

    "People" as in (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    employees.  This isn't about patients.  They've never been required to go that far.

    Exactly. Imagine the employees (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 03:49:12 PM EST
    in my town -- and this could be so in your towns, soon, with the increasing reach of Catholic hospitals -- who long had worked for the premier hospital in town, founded more than a century ago as a nonsectarian option amid the religious wars here (Catholic, Lutheran, and Jewish hospitals were the only options).

    Then a Catholic hospital bought the nonsectarian hospital a few years ago, and down came the boom.  All women employees who had insurance coverage for contraception, and for several services, lost it.  No negotiation with those in unions, the lowest-paid.  None.  And please note that the vast majority of employees at hospitals are women.

    Also note that their insurance costs did not go down, not at all, although many now had to pay a lot more out-of-pocket for contraception and services.

    I am extremely disappointed in Obama, yet again, on this issue of workers' rights, health insurance, etc.


    Huh? Why are you disappointed? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 06:08:10 PM EST
    You just laid out a great case for exactly what the administration has done.

    I had read he pulled back (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 08:59:03 PM EST
    on this since yesterday.  If I'm wrong, then my disappoointment is wrong, and I will be glad to see my friends get coverage again.

    You're extremely disappointed in Obama (none / 0) (#65)
    by Farmboy on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 04:46:43 PM EST
    for the policy of requiring health insurance to include birth control and other preventative health services for women?

    Or does your disappoint stem from his defending the rule against the onslaught of right-wing faux rage?

    Whatever the reason for your disappointment, I hope it's not from Obama caving on the issue, because that didn't happen.


    See the latest on this (none / 0) (#88)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 11:06:52 AM EST
    and I'd rather not retract my apology, as I'd much prefer that Obama not reverse yet again on this.

    The President's base position (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 03:38:03 PM EST
    is the right one--exemptions have been made for coverage of contraception as a preventative service (churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, religious elementary and secondary schools). The Catholic Church hierarchy (given their record in sexual abuse /cover-ups should remain silent for at least a hundred years) see an affront to religious freedom and, in effect, control over women.  However, there is also the fairness for their employees of other/no faiths as well as for respect for the free will of all employees.  The political discourse these days is skewed with the focus on competing Republican primary candidates infusing right wing thinking onto the media and common sense.

     Having said that, it would probably be prudent to make some accommodation in process so long as the outcome is the same--access and availability without co-payments (e.g. separate insurance, with direct/reimbursable payment).  Another, possibility, would be to eliminate the tax exempt status of Church-related organizations and use the revenue for coverage.  The hierarchy may not warm to that idea the president's base position may not seem so bad, after all.


    Cenk Yugar had a great rant about that topic (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 03:33:48 PM EST
    on Young Turks last night. Basically that expanded access to birth control is a winning issue, even among Catholics. Upwards of 80% of Catholics support it. Why on earth is he even thinking of giving up on this?

    The Administration is (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 08:52:07 PM EST
    Not talking about giving up.  Yet, there may be a way to accomplish the same result in the same mandated way with a different supplemental/rider approach.  if a compromise is ultimately worked out there--as in the Hawaii approach--then full expression can be afforded both sets of rights implicated here...the First Amendment & the Ninth Amendment/penumbra.  That judicious resolution could avert the growing noise and debilitating distraction of this potential political wedge issue; and, most importantly moot out a Supreme Court challenge where a key question would obviously be phrased as one whether the contraception mandate here impermissibly infringes on religious freedom per the First Amendment.

    Given that the legal challenge outcome is not that predictable, it makes sense to reach an amicable resolution IF that can be done without undercutting the substance of the mandate (the guarantee of readily accessible health care via contraception.). IMO, the focus on the delivery mechanism--again, see the Hawaii method of allowing Church to provide coverage thru a third party--gives the model for resolution before the issue mushrooms into giant fundraisers on both sides, tempers rise and we are trapped anew in our Culture Wars, etc.  

    Yea, it is far better to navigate an amicable resolution than eight months of energizing the Righties and awakening them from their Enthisiasm Gap.  As for the targeted states: Start with Pennsylvania & Ohio and those electoral votes. Then, turn to key states such as Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado &
    factor in the influence of the parishes on Hispanic voters.  my real concern: there is a history of "social" wedge issues getting very much out of control (e.g., 2004 & Rovian-inspired ballot issues in Ohio that have been shown to be a major factor in Kerry's loss of the set--and, therefore, the election to Bush.). Believe me, if there are ways to resolve this fairly early on, they need to be explored.  


    The church? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 09:09:48 PM EST
    Don't see providing contraception as providing Health Care. They know debauchery when they see it.

    This requirement is not something new (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 10:56:39 PM EST
    to the Catholic Church. In 28 states, the Church, like other employers, is already legally obligated to provide coverage for contraception in their employee health plans. In addition, a number of Catholic universities and hospitals voluntarily provide such coverage.

    The current indignation on parade is nothing more than a cheap election year trick by the GOP supporting Catholic bishops.

    There is no good reason to make any accommodation to the Church on this issue. The vast majority of women in this country who have had sex, around 99%, have used contraception. That number declines all the way to 98% for Catholic women who have had sex. This is not a Catholic issue. This is the bishops and the cardinals shilling for the GOP.

    The majority of voters in the United States are women. And we have already seen, much to the Komen Foundation's regret, how angry women get when they perceive that their health is being used as a political football.

    Obama could turn this to his advantage so very easily.


    Well, in a surprise to no one, the Catholic (none / 0) (#84)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 09:34:22 PM EST
    Bishops have rejected the "Hawaii Compromise," which had been seen as one way to deal with the issue.


    On the flip side, reproductive health advocates aren't thrilled with the Hawaii compromise, either. Sarah Posner quotes Jon O'Brien of Catholics for Choice as saying that the Hawaii law "puts the onus on employees to jump through hoops" to get contraceptive coverage.

    "It may seem reasonable on the surface," said O'Brien, "but it sends the wrong message, namely: that an employer's personal beliefs may interfere with an employee's conscience and therefore make it more difficult for him/her to access the healthcare coverage that he or she needs."

    In New York, which allows for this "self-insurance," O'Brien said, "we have heard horror stories" of how it operates in practice. Imagine, he said, working at a Catholic school and going to your employer to request this special coverage. "We've heard anecdotal evidence that some workers at certain religious institutions have had to sign testimonials stating that they understand that contraception is against their employers' beliefs, thereby bullying them into either not seeking insurance that covers contraception or into jumping through hoops to try to access it," O'Brien said.

    Try as I might, I cannot fathom how this is fair to the women who are employed by Catholic institution; to have to essentially violate their own right to make a private medical decision is just wrong.


    Maddow has a completely different view (none / 0) (#51)
    by Farmboy on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 03:37:35 PM EST
    on the contraception discussion than Digby, and some words of advise for bloggers/pundits.

    video link


    Drones and Obama (none / 0) (#23)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    "The vast majority of Americans -- 83 percent-- say they approve of Obama's use of unmanned drones against terrorist suspects, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday. And two-thirds of those polled say they also support using drones specifically against American citizens in other countries who may be terrorists."


    I fall into generally the same camp.  I don't think there is a slippery slope that leads to the gov targeting me for death on the way to the grocery store. But I was surprised that others, including many feel the same way.

    Only 4% strongly oppose this stuff.  Interesting poll that gives perspective on the issue from outside of our debates.

    That is interesting.... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 03:15:30 PM EST
    and disappointing....

    "against American citizens in other countries who may be terrorists."

    Wow. Count me as a proud dissenter from that majority opinion.


    It won't surprise you to know that (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 03:41:47 PM EST
    this liberal isn't swayed by poll numbers into approving the use of drones (or any of the other authoritarian policies this president supports).

    And I'm pretty sure that if it were Bush - or any Republican president - engaging in the targeting and killing of American citizens by drones, the din of disapproval fron Democrats across the board would be so loud you wouldn't be able to hear yourself think - and those approve/disapprove numbers would by upside down.

    Problem is, we have a Democrat in the WH who is getting virtually no pushback from loyal-to-their-president Congressional Democrats, so what noise is being generated against the use of drones amounts to little more than a whimper.  What does no noise mean?  That the American people have been led to believe that well, it must just be a perfectly fine policy.

    Well, it isn't.  And if you brought us a poll that said everyone in the country except me thought it was no problem, it would still be a problem for me, and you aren't going to shame me into hopping on your authoritarian, anything-goes-as-long-as-a-Democrat-approves-it, just-trust-us, bandwagon.

    You should be appalled that that many Americans approve of the policy, not taking comfort in what is likely your endgame: it's good news for Obama.

    Makes me think that if all your neighbors and friends decided it was a good idea to jump off the roof, you'd think it was, too.



    Those poll results (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    just don't smell right. Without seeing the actual questions, how it was framed, those that came before it, etc. a simple "yes, or no," answer is worthless.

    You mean to tell me that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that  "use of unmanned drones against terrorist suspects" is fine with them? American suspects too?

    I call BS.


    Possibly your most offensive and (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by observed on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 07:51:37 PM EST
    thoughtless comment ever. Although since I only read a fraction of your continuing opus, I've probably missed worse.
    It is not a stretch to say that, in this case, your moral reasoning is close to Nazi level.
    Absolutely appalling.

    "many liberals" (none / 0) (#24)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 01:37:37 PM EST
    I meant

    Fox News (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:04:29 PM EST
    uses the phrase, "some say".

    And (none / 0) (#32)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:12:18 PM EST
    what percentage of Americans say that they approve of the use of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques upon "suspects"?

    Way lower amount (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:23:37 PM EST
    I too have different feelings about torture and the drone stuff because torture and the drone stuff are not the same.

    Most people live comfortably in the gray areas.  Very small percentages see these issues 100% one way or another. They view the drone issue as a different fact pattern than the torture issue even though small minorities might not.


    You (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 04:31:30 PM EST
    think they're different. I think the issue is all too similar. People who are frightened are encouraged by their government to accept the deliberate or "collateral" killing of innocent people. They are encouraged to accept torture. And they will.

    You are comfortable living in what you call a "grey area".
    I am not.

    Where you get your assertion that "most people" are comfortable living in a state of the suspension of moral beliefs is anybody's guess. Once having set out a bogus premise, you go on to tell us what "they think".

    This is really Fox News.

    The people who view issues 100% - people like Malcolm X for example - are my heros.

    People who live in grey areas, and are comfortable there, live in fear and stand for nothing.


    And, according to Glenn Greenwald, (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    approval rating has gone up since Obama campaigned on closing Gitmo, etc., and was subsequently elected President.

    Leadership! (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:49:00 PM EST
    Hopey, Changey! (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:51:20 PM EST
    Have you been hijacked (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 03:01:30 PM EST
    and become a pseudonym for Sarah?

    All the broohah re Trump/Santorum (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 03:02:53 PM EST
    is having an adverse effect.  Also, finishing, finally, "1Q84" at 1 a.m.  

    I missed 6 (none / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 03:20:27 PM EST
    on your quiz. I'm too far removed from the classroom and would probably benefit from more Towanda tutorials to up my score.

    Thought some of the questions were (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 04:05:02 PM EST
    "loaded" and the choice of answers somewhat skewed.  

    for jim (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 01:48:33 PM EST
    Romans 1:29 They have become filled withevery kindofwickedness,evil,greedand depravity.They arefull of envy, murder, strife,deceit andmalice. They aregossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogantand boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God'srighteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    New testament?

    St. Paul on a roll. Nothing more (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 02:52:12 PM EST
    fervent than a convert.