Sunday Open Thread

Another Sunday with weather too nice to stay indoors. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Limbaugh Advertisers Suspend Ads Despite Apology | W. Va. Debuts iPhone Snitch App >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Republican purity pledge in SC (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    Wanna be a Republican candidate on the ballot in Laurens County, SC?  You now have to take a pledge which requires (among other things):

    • you must have abstained from sex before marriage.

    • you cannot (from the moment you sign the pledge) look at pornography.

    ... as well as the usual (oppose abortion, uphold gun rights, blah, blah, blah).

    Well, ... that should cut down on the list of prospective candidates.

    Can you have paid for an abortion (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    Or taken your best friends girl or your best friend to the clinic when nobody else could?  I need all that in there too, because all that stuff happens too.  I have done all those things.  So if they want to avoid sluts like me who don't care for porn they had better get that stuff in there.

    You're my kind of slut. (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Towanda on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 01:37:47 PM EST

    Your Sister Slut


    Nah. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    It just means they're all going to lie.  ;-)

    Link (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 10:49:21 AM EST
    Meteor Blades has a great (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 04:15:22 PM EST
    diary up about how 93% of the "recovery" is being experienced by 1%.  This was always going to be the reality as long as shadow banking and TBTF was left intact.  Sad state of our affairs.

    My daughter has been really pushing her future spouse to save more, be more frugal.  She is sort of upset that he bought the big tractor because it is a payment, but it kept money coming into their household all winter...what there is of winter here.  I tried to tell her that if the bills are paid in this economy, the roof over your head is solid, and the kids are fed and clothed and you are 22 years old....a miracle has occurred.  She wants the reality to be what Suze Orman (who I can't stand) preached about in 2007.  That isn't where we are, that isn't the reality we live in now.  And it all makes me sad.  I don't know when my young adult children get to work towards the life their parents got to have.  It was always getting harder and harder to do too, and now it is damned near impossible and it is impossible for my son-in-law to make a living without the equipment he needs to compete and provide "NEEDED" services.  A huge dead tree will be tended to long before flower beds will be planted and built these days.

    Suze Orman doesn't believe the stuff (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 05:07:00 PM EST
    she preached in 2007 anymore. If your daughter considers Orman a sage financial person, tell her to read up on Suze's new beliefs. She has completely changed her tune. No longer preaches the gospel of the ownership society.

    It's an interesting turn-around. Orman seems to have been shocked, shocked I say, by the egregious and criminal turn the financial industry took.


    I stopped listening to her ever again (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 07:50:11 AM EST
    When she started pushing ARMs.  She had already done and preached a few questionable things, along with having a few questionable contracts.  If I understand how the economy long term functions better than Suze Orman, it is time for me to stop listening to her.  Maybe she needs to listen to a few other people.

    I don't care what she believes now, and it isn't that my daughter is reading any of her old stuff.  It is that my daughter remembers her old stuff, she was listening then, and nobody has anything new to offer our children so she still has much of that "talk" in her head.  There is no road map that leads our children to financial independence at this point.  There is no game to be played by our children that leads to a bit of their own prosperity, a reward for being a hard working responsible American.


    HR.347 - from the Dept. of Limitless Proscription (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 02:39:58 PM EST
    ... it seems to be a trend that vague or overly broad language could be fairly described as being purposefully adopted allowing "wiggle room" for Federal authorities to potentially abuse civil and human rights under the color of authority. This is a dangerous practice.

    ... the newest attack of vague language is aimed at your 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Petition. It is found in the pending legislation of H.R. 347, innocuously titled the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011″. As currently worded, it might as well have been called the "Federal We're Too Important To Be Annoyed By Your Protest Act of 2011″ or (as described by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), one of the few Representatives to vote against the bill) the "First Amendment Rights Eradication Act" because it effectively outlaws protests near people who are "authorized" to be protected by the Secret Service. - Gene Howington writing for Jonathan Turley

    It looks like (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    Larry Flynt will perhaps have at least a few politicians deleting emails, hiding telephone records, and otherwise scurrying for cover soon.

    He apparently has a full page ad in the Washington Post today offering $1 million for information about the sexual indiscretions of well-known US politicians or government officials.

    Ha. I just knew something new would (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 03:06:56 PM EST
    happen today, thank god.  

    I seem to remember that Flynt (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    has done this before, in election years.

    your campaign-contribution dollars at work (none / 0) (#6)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:17:18 PM EST
    meaning that politicians (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:19:21 PM EST
    will pay Flynt much more than $1 million to retract his offer or keep his findings under wraps

    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 10:12:50 PM EST
    Larry Flint can't be bought on this.  And as much as the guy makes my skin crawl usually, he's doing this because of the current attack on birth control which translates into an attack on having a sex life for many.  So GO LARRY!  With my blessing on this.

    Yeh, but he stopped short (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Towanda on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 11:47:58 PM EST
    of following through with his threat to tell the truth on Senselessbrenner.  So we're still stuck with him.  I sure hope Flynt still has that story in his files.

    (And because of the commitee post and power that Sensenbrenner had then, I think that you are correct; I also watched closely then and recall that the Repubs backed off Clinton soon after the threat about Sensenbrenner, which seemed to be a reason for Flynt stopping then.  Hmmmmm.)


    Is that what was meant by (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 05:27:34 PM EST
    Obama again has done what he excels at (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 04:21:42 PM EST
    He made another good speech today.

    I've noticed that often his intentions can be discerned from the opposite of his fine words.

    Allow us to assist you with WORM (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Towanda on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 06:00:33 PM EST
    thanks to our anger translator, Prof. Luther.

    This one's also for our own anger translator ABG, aka Angry Black Man.  Enjoy!  


    If the Republicans have been sounding (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 06:52:38 PM EST
    particularly insane, this year, it's because Barack Obama has staked out so much traditional Republican political territory, they have been forced into Loony Land. The GOP presidential contenders spend their time taking bizarre positions on social issues as "a direct result of Barack Obama having taken over every other Republican talking point." Obama has traveled "as far to the right as Ronald Reagan but Democrats still see him as their savior, the facts be damned."

    - B.A.R. Senior Columnist Margaret Kimberley


    Good observation. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 09:12:02 AM EST
    Obama killed the GOP by becoming one.

    How better to pull the rug out from under their feet? No republican could ever hope to equal him.

    Kimberly goes on in that article to identify the real problem of politics, that the the two party system is a two-faced monster that oscillates back and forth promising promises to half the people while screwing the other half.

    What is a conservative to do? Conservative pundit Bill Kristol called Obama a born again neo-con and Republican commentator Ben Stein said that Obama was the perfect Republican candidate. There is nowhere for the Republican faithful to go except to rail against the birth control mandate in the health care plan and call Obama an enemy of the Catholic church.

    It isn't difficult to amuse oneself when Rick Santorum says he throws up thinking about John F. Kennedy's promise to the American public to keep religion out of government. It is all seemingly harmless theater, but the economic elite, the 1% if you will, win no matter who is in office.

    And people still believe they have a real choice, or that one face is somehow better than the other, while the two faces laugh and work together putting on the show, while collecting bribes from their real constituents who are very happy with them both.


    secret "grand bargain" on deficit (none / 0) (#12)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 07:06:55 PM EST
    in the works, according to The Hill:

    The core House group of roughly 10 negotiators is derived from a larger Gang of 100 lawmakers led by Reps. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) and Health Shuler (D-N.C.), who urged the debt supercommittee to strike a grand bargain last year.
    That larger group includes GOP centrists like Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), who has said Republicans should abandon their no-new-tax-revenue pledge, as well as Tea Party-backed members like Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.).

    The key test in the coming months will be to see whether the core group can get buy-in from many of the 100 members who vaguely support "going big" on the deficit once real cuts and tax increases are identified.

    The talks are so sensitive that some members involved do not yet want to be identified.

    Shuler, who is retiring this year, is keen to establish a legacy as a deficit cutter before leaving Congress and he is involved in the drafting effort.

    His efforts have the strong support of House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who is actively meeting with individual Democrats to try to get them on board with finding a compromise that stabilizes the national debt.

    The House members are working in tandem with Senate negotiators who are looking to turn the outline produced by the Senate's Gang of Six into legislative language.

    1937 (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 09:08:43 PM EST
    As a bonus, $5 gasoline.

    YUP (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 10:51:48 AM EST
    I put up on my facebook that Sluts Vote, and my crazy Christian gun loving Republican friend then put up that his liberty is being infringed on.  Government is not supposed to take your liberty away.  He's having a hell of a time making a coherent connection via a facebook photo that his motivational poster is connecgted to mine :) but he put it up 15 minutes after I put up mine and even if nobody else gets what the hell he's simpering about I get it.

    And Sluts still Vote.  If he wants something different he is free to go live in the middle east where sluts have problems voting.

    I would unfriend him, but then miss all the opportunity there is in studying and knowing my enemy well.

    Apparently, though, we're not entitled to (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    Freedom from Stupidity; if we were, just imagine how much we'd be spared from enduring...it's almost too painful to think about.

    Would it be too much to suggest that there might be a correlation between non-usage of birth control and an increase in all this stupid?  Because it's just everywhere, from people who seem to think employer-provided insurance coverage that includes contraception is being paid by taxpayers because it's provided at no additional cost to the employee, and that just having it available in the coverage is an affront to people's religious beliefs - to people who think same-sex marriage threatens "traditional" marriage, but who ignore the divorce rate and all those children who don't get to grow up with two parents, much less two parents of opposite gender - to people who think putting people's rights up for a vote is a good thing, I guess as a way of "proving" they are better people, better citizens, better stewards of freedom than people they want to deem less worthy by legislation.  It just flat-out appalls me that people of color, not so far removed from the back of the bus, might still be sitting there if thier rights had been put up for referendum - and then, they'd have no say at all in any of this.

    And now, "purity tests" in South Carolina?  Can't wait to find out how people are going to prove they never had sex before they were married, and who's going to pay for the GYN exam to prove virginity of any unmarried woman who wants to run for elected office?  Or is this going to just be a meaningless oath?  In which case, what's the point?  

    I'm sick of the stupid and I'm sick of the indulgence and accommodation of it that is doing nothing to make the stupid go away; it's just being encouraged to stick around and get more stupid.  

    You know those people who think allowing gays to marry will help "recruit" children and young people into being gay?  I'm more upset about the stupid people getting help in recruiting more for Team Stupid from brilliant politicians who see electoral benefit in it.

    Maybe it's me; maybe I'm the stupid one, because I just don't get it.  Never have, never will.  

    Thank God.


    I don't think we will ever be free (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 12:44:22 PM EST
    from stupidity.

    If it is any consolation, the current path that Republicans are on is destroying their party according to Morning Joe.  And they had some graphs and polls giving evidence, and the party leaders keep doubling and tripling down on the attack on women.


    Just a humorous thought (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    but maybe one day in the not so distant future the few of them that are still left will be trying to pump their ancestors out of the ground to refine into gasoline?

    It certainly paints a picture, no? ;-)


    Wow, I just read about the purity party (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 12:48:54 PM EST
    I want them all to sign it, and then live it.

    Well it does obscure... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 11:10:21 AM EST
    real threats to liberty...the war on drugs, the over-criminalization of Americans in general, domestic surveillance programs to name a few.

    Oh but see (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 12:46:06 PM EST
    The war on drugs does not impede my friends liberty.  He supports that infringement 100% too.  And he likes the over-criminalization of Americans, he feels it keeps him safer.

    So he's not talkin' about liberty.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 01:37:14 PM EST
    he's talkin' about the culture war...'nuff said;)

    Well according to him (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    this isn't a culture war.  There is the culture, and then there is the counterculture and he is not ever a part of the counterculture...never, just you.......never him.  He loves Ayn Rand too so I posted that Rush had lost seven advertisers now and I put up this Ayn Rand quote.

    "The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgment."

    So then he posted an article about Drano bombs in plastic bottles being found in people's yards and mailboxes in Michigan.  Don't try to be as classy and correct as he is okay?  I'm certain it is all a strange coincidence, and has nothing to do with his boiling anger over those of us pushing for Rush to be removed from Armed Forces Radio.


    Is Glenn Greenwald correct? Is (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    U.S. bound by Pres. Obama's promise to AIPAC?

    Whatever else is true, by having President Obama issue these clear and inflexible threats against Iran to which the nation is now bound, the once-controversial notion of "preventive war" just became much more normalized and bipartisan.


    oh noes (none / 0) (#30)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 12:50:09 PM EST
    Obama has pledged to obliterate Iran?

    say it ain't so


    It ain't so (none / 0) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    Just more o' that "no option is off the table" stuff for stopping Iran's nuke program if they don't respond to sanctions and diplomacy.  Same stuff he's been saying for quite some time.

    I think he's ramped up the rhetoric in (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 01:33:11 PM EST
    advance of Netanyahu's visit - remember that the last time these two met, it didn't go too well, and I think Obama really wants Bibi to like him.  Israel certainly loved the AIPAC speech, so there's that.

    From Glenn:

    And I've noted many times that I believe that the Obama administration -- whether for political and/or strategic reasons -- does seem genuinely to want to avoid a war with Iran, at least for now.

    But what this really shows, as was true for the run-up to the Iraq War, is how suffocatingly narrow the permissive debate has become. The so-called "gulf" between Israel and the U.S. -- the two viable sides of the debate -- consists of these views: (1) Iran should be attacked when it develops the capacity to develop nuclear weapons (Israel) or (2) Iran should be attacked only once it decides to actually develop a nuclear weapon (the U.S.). Those are the two permissible options, both grounded in the right and even duty to attack Iran even if they're threatening to attack nobody -- i.e., a preventive war. That it's unjustified to attack Iran in the absence of an actual or imminent threat of attack by Iran, or that international law (as expressed by the U.N. Charter) bars the use of threats of military attack, or that Iran could be contained even if it acquired a nuclear weapon, has been removed from the realm of mainstream debate (meaning: the debate shaped by the two political parties). Obama yesterday:

    Iran's leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.

    Just as was true in 2002 and early 2003, everyone agrees that a preventive war would be justifiable and may be necessary, and the only permitted debate is whether it should happen now or a bit later (where should the "red lines" be?).

    Whatever else is true, by having President Obama issue these clear and inflexible threats against Iran to which the nation is now bound, the once-controversial notion of "preventive war" just became much more normalized and bipartisan. Witness the virtually complete lack of objections to President Obama's threats from either party to see how true that is.


    I guess there are Democrats out there who are really getting off on this macho posturing, but it smacks of the same sort of primitive schoolyard taunting that I hated during the Bush years. The celebration of assassinations, sanctions on innocent children -- oh, excuse me, "terrorists" in Iran -- is unseemly to say the least and not just a little reminiscent of the way our enemies tend to behave. It breeds more of that shallow cruelty that led Americans into the morass of Iraq in the first place. It's hard to see much daylight between the flagwaving chauvanism of the Bush administration and that chest thumping screed.

    So, yeah - kind of the same old, same old...the Bush same old, same old.