Thursday Open Thread

Busy afternoon, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Google Report on Increase in Law Enforcement Requests for Data | Lanny Breuer Reportedly Leaving DOJ >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    From our "Molehills to Mountains" file: (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    Apparently not content to have merely looked like a fool yesterday by provoking the ire of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton over the timing and sequence of events that led to deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WS) doubled down on stupid today by reprising that same challenge with Ms. Clinton's prospective successor at the State Dept., Sen. John Kerry -- who calmly compelled Johnson to acknowledge that he had earlier skipped the Senate Intelligence Committee's classified briefing on that very subject:

    Kerry: "Senator, in all fairness, I think we do know what happened, I think it's very clear -- uh, were you at the briefing with tapes?"

    Johnson: "No."

    Kerry: "Well, there was a briefing with tapes, which we all saw, those of us who went to it, which made it crystal clear. We sat for several hours with our intel folks, who described to us precisely what we were seeing. We saw the events unfold. We had a very complete and detailed description." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Great job, Wisconsin voters, for having traded in Russ Feingold for this grandstanding lemon.

    He is just auditioning for Fox News stardom (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    There is no low bar for stupidity for that job

    The question is not what ever the (1.80 / 5) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:17:18 PM EST
    classified briefing said...

    The question is why Obama did not dispatch help to the people under attack at Benghazzi...

    And the fact that the PUBLIC was not briefed. Instead we were all told it was outrage over the movie.

    Face it. The story from Obama was that all was A Okay after Osama was killed and he couldn't afford to have the truth come out during the election.


    And what "truth" is that, Jim? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:39:07 PM EST
    Get real. I'm not going to debate a Fox News soundtrack.

    Donald, you aren't capable of debating. Period. (1.00 / 7) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:26:00 PM EST
    Your ego won't let you.

    The truth?? The truth that the decision was to not send help and to deny that it was terrorists because it would destroy the fiction that Obama's ME foreign policy was working.


    "...aren't capable of debating" (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:52:54 PM EST
    said the truth-challenged climate change denier. ROTFL.

    More right-wing lies (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:29:05 PM EST
    The truth?? The truth that the decision was to not send help and to deny that it was terrorists because it would destroy the fiction that Obama's ME foreign policy was working.

    ... from the "social liberal".  There was never a decision to withhold assistance from the ambassador's team and any claims to the contrary (including yours) is just a scurrilous, baseless lie.  Of course, that's also why you provide not a single bit of evidence to support your fictional fairy tales.

    Here's what we refer to as actual evidence, Jim.  In the real world, everyone knows that the main embassy in Tripoli was talking to Stevens at 9:50 PM (local time).  The phone call was cut off, and a security team was scrambled and dispatched to Benghazi.

    Your story is just another winger myth.


    That's just bull$H!+, Jim. (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:41:00 PM EST
    From the December 2012 report on the Benghazi attacks by the Acountability Review Board, convened by the State Dept. per reuired protocol and chaired by Amb. Thomas Pickering:

    "The Board was humbled by the courage and integrity shown by those on the ground in Benghazi and Tripoli, in particular the DS agents and Annex team who defended their colleagues; the Tripoli response team which mobilized without hesitation; those in Benghazi and Tripoli who cared for the wounded; and the many U.S. government employees who served in Benghazi under difficult conditions in the months leading up to the September 11-12 attacks. We trust that the Department and relevant agencies will take the opportunity to recognize their exceptional valor and performance, which epitomized the highest ideals of government service." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Further, as word came to him about the attack in Benghazi, Defense Sec. Leon Panetta ordered the immediate deployment of two specialized Marine strike force from their base in central Europe to an Italian naval air station in Sigonella, Sicily.

    But by the time they reached Sicily, the attack was over. Contrary to some assertions, there were no U.S. forces stationed in the Mediterranean within immediate range of Benghazi that could have responded in time to save Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three other Americans killed in the assault.

    Finally, for two years now, House Republicans have refused to adequately fund the State Dept.'s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS). And last year, they actually voted to cut that funding by $300 million for FY 2013 (October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013). Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on October 10, 2012, in response to a question from CNN's Soledad O'Brien if he had voted to cut State Dept. security funding, said:

    "Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have -- think about this -- 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad. And we're talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you're in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this."

    The State Dept. had initially complained in its performance evaluation report to Congress last February that Diplomatic Security lacked adequate fiscal resources to meet the increased security needs at embassies and consulates around the world, not just in Libya:

    "We cannot sufficiently meet the additional training recommendations outlined in the Secretary's QDDR (quadrennial review). Therefore, DS is aggressively pursuing on-line alternatives, e.g., distance learning of FACT lessons minus the hard skills (i.e., weapons familiarization and driver's training) to increase training capabilities."

    You want to discuss this subject, Jim, I'm right here. But you best be prepared to defend your statements with something other than a personal attack on me.



    Pure utter nonsense (1.00 / 4) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 10:00:47 AM EST
    Forces and material was available at the NATO air base at Sigonella, Sicily and could have been launched immediately. Gun ships could have been on scene in time to provide life saving covering fire.

    And don't play the "Obama didn't know" card. The President is advised immediately whenever America is under attack.

    No, Obama knew but decided to "lead from behind" and people died.

    And then we had the Rice cover up.

    So don't quote me press releases and squawk about budgets. The facts are plain to see.

    Obama has blood on his hands. American blood.


    The real tragedy here is that, the (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    whole time things were falling apart in Benghazi, neither the president nor his Secretary of State nor the CIA Director were aware that somewhere in the heart of Klan Kountry was  someone who had all the answers that could have saved the lives of those who ultimately died: you.

    I guess they didn't know and they didn't care, because, let's face it, why would a Muslim Socialist America-hater who's not even a real American do more than pretend to address this tragic situation?  I mean, let's get real, here, shall we?

    But, speaking of "leading from behind," that's also something you'd know a lot about, since the kindest thing I could say about these comments of yours is that that's where they appear to issue from - your behind.


    "Utter nonsense" is right (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 12:41:47 PM EST
    The difference being it applies to your right-wing, armchair warrior, fairy tale ... not Donald's post.

    Obama has blood on his hands. American blood.

    No, it's you Tea Party armchair warriors - demanding budget cuts in all other areas (i.e. diplomatic security, social programs, etc.) in order to preserve your government benefits while cutting your taxes - that have blood on your hands.


    BTW - adding one more lie ... (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 12:57:38 PM EST
    ... to the ever-expanding list:

    Forces and material was available at the NATO air base at Sigonella, Sicily and could have been launched immediately. Gun ships could have been on scene in time to provide life saving covering fire.

    No, they weren't.

    But other military forces were too far away or could not be mobilized in time. The closest AC-130 gunship, a devastating and accurate weapon against insurgents in urban areas, was in Afghanistan, a senior official said.

    There are no armed drones within range of Libya. The closest fly out of Djibouti, in the Horn of Africa, and were not in range of Benghazi. There was no Marine expeditionary unit -- a large seaborne force with its own helicopters -- in the Mediterranean Sea. American F-16 fighters in Europe were not on alert, and General Ham concluded they would not have been useful in a confused fight in a major Arab city.

    Acting on Mr. Obama's order, the staff of the Joint Chiefs presented the options. Around 6:30 p.m., oral instructions were given for the units to get ready to deploy and formal deployment orders were issued after 8:30 p.m. The early reports in Washington noted that Ambassador Stevens was missing, and a major worry was that a hostage-rescue mission might be needed.

    The Pentagon sent the Delta Force commandos to the Sigonella base in Sicily, to put them in position to deploy to Libya. Two 50-strong platoons of specially trained Marines, from Rota, Spain, were ordered to get ready to deploy, too.

    Another option approved was to send the European Command's quick-reaction force, which consists of about four dozen Special Forces soldiers and other specialists. But it was in the middle of a mission in Croatia. Elements of the team began leaving for Sigonella by 9 p.m., and the unit completed its deployment to Sicily shortly after noon the next day, a Pentagon official said. By then the 30 or so surviving Americans, and the bodies of their four colleagues, were in Tripoli.

    Keep swinging, Jim.  Those linkless, baseless, evidence-free lies are easy to dream up ... particularly if you watch enough Faux News!


    I'm through here. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    You're just wrong. The facts, as they are laid out by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen in the ARB report linked above by both Yman and me, simply do not support your contentions.

    Why can't you just accept those facts as they are, and perhaps learn about something as important as the Benghazi tragedy that's actually grounded in reality -- rather than forever doubling down on stupid like the honorable senator from Wisconsin and his GOP colleagues? Do you think we enjoy watching you guys make fools of yourselves?


    C'mon Donald (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by shoephone on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:23:38 PM EST
    Why can't you just accept those facts as they are, and perhaps learn about something as important as the Benghazi tragedy that's actually grounded in reality -- rather than forever doubling down on stupid like the honorable senator from Wisconsin and his GOP colleagues?

    You are too hopeful with that question. Jim does not deal in facts, never has, never will.

    And so it goes...


    I know. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:47:31 PM EST
    But one can always hope that he'll one day have one of those enlightened palm-to-forehead moments and then wonder what he's been thinking all these years.

    It's too bad the palm has to belong to (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:58:12 PM EST
    the person whose forehead gets slapped because otherwise, I suspect ol' jim would have been enlightened a long, loooooong time ago.

    Be grateful, Jim, that Anne ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    I like that you're a positive person, Donald ;-) (none / 0) (#51)
    by shoephone on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 02:09:58 PM EST
    Apparently, you've never trod through the muck that is the foundation of Jim's blog. Believe me, that is a place where facts are not only not required, they are not permitted.

    Why would I ever subject myself to that? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 02:35:45 PM EST
    I'd sooner watch a Halloween film series retrospective after dropping some acid. Even then, I'll offer you better than even odds that I'd still be more reality-based than anyone on that blog.

    And that's what's really scary -- the fact that these bat-guano crazy wingbats sound like they're totally stoned, when they're actually perfectly sober.


    But to look further at the positive side, ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 02:42:19 PM EST
    ... we should probably congratulate Jim, who now holds the unofficial TL record for most "1.00" ratings received in a single subthread -- at least 13 of them, by my count. And not a single one of them are from me!

    jim-bo: You are overdoing it...the BS (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 10:15:58 PM EST
    All the Senators present (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    Who watched the classified videos of what happened said that how everything unfolded made complete sense.  Funny thing about the Republicans attacking Clinton and Rice and Obama over Benghazi, they can't seem to show up for any of the classified briefings on Benghazi.  Which seems strange if this really was a security failure that they mean to fix because the safety and security of Americans serving abroad is high priority for them (not).  But hell, they refused additional funding to embassies now on alert yesterday so who knows what the crazy assholes will do next?  

    It's a lot like this, Donald (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:38:06 PM EST
    From a great little cameo by Jack Black in a great little indie movie from 10 years ago, MELVIN GOES TO DINNER. (link)

    I don't mean to piss off the loyal opposition, but this is the closest you can come to pegging the system of "logic" at work.


    There's a rumor going round... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by unitron on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:38:48 PM EST
    ...that the Senate Dems are going wuss out and go for something less than full on Mr. Smith mode when it comes to new filibuster rules.

    At which point we need to start looking for an anti-Republican party with which to replace the Democratic party.

    If they don't understand that trying to be civil and work out compromises with the GOP is destined to be no more successful than to try to do so with a rabid animal, they're no longer going to be much use.

    This isn't supposed to be pro wrestling, where they only pretend to be on opposing sides.

    Yep (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    Here's the deal.

    Their package would eliminate the ability to filibuster motions to proceed to new business. Under current rules, a senator can hold up a motion to even begin debating legislation.

    The majority leader would be able to bar a filibuster on a motion to proceed if he allows each side votes on two amendments, according to a Senate aide familiar with the package. Non-germane amendments would be subject to a 60-vote threshold, under this scenario.

    The tentative deal would expedite the process for sending legislation to conference negotiations with the House. But lawmakers would still be allowed to filibuster any effort to send legislation to a Senate-House negotiation.


    In return for these concessions from McConnell, Reid will hold off from using the nuclear option to change Senate rules unilaterally. The controversial tactic allows the majority leader to change the Senate rules with a simple majority vote.

    Under regular order, it takes 67 votes to enact a permanent rules change. Sixty votes are required to modify the rules under a standing order.

    Reid and McConnell have also agreed to some informal changes intended to push senators to play a more active role if they choose to filibuster legislation or nominees, according to a Senate aide familiar with the talks. Bill managers and the Senate leaders will from now on ask senators who want to hold up a bill or nominee to come to the floor to announce their objection.

    The leaders will henceforth require lawmakers to actually debate on the floor if they seek to slow the agenda by using a full allocation of time after the Senate has voted to end a filibuster.

    I've yet to see what's being proposed. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:36:23 PM EST
    I'll have to reserve judgment until I do. If it prevents the minority from filibustering motions to proceed or motions to bring a bill to the floor, then there's some progress here. But that said, Senate Democrats really need to stop acting so damned feckless, especially after winning an election.

    If Republicans understand one thing about practical politics, it's that they're not elected to be everybody's pal. When they're in power, they do everything they can to advance and implement their own agenda, whereas Democrats waste far too much of their time worrying about comity and bipartisanship, or how mad their GOP colleagues might get were they to ever -- heaven forbid! -- assert their majority to get things done.

    Speaking as someone who has two decades of experience in a legislative capacity, I would contend that truly effective bipartisanship only occurs in politics when one or more of the following three conditions are present:

    • The party that's currently in the minority gets punchdrunk from having their a$$es handed to them on a regular basis by the majority;

    • Select members of both sides share a mutual concern or interest, and choose of their own volition to work together to attain a common goal or objective; or

    • Both sides simultaneously perceive a mutual threat to their collective existence, and therefore consider it in their respective best interests to share the political risk in confronting the problem.

    Our country's political system was conceived by its founders to be inherently adversarial in nature, and actually works optimally when there are clearly delineated differences of opinion, and both sides are willing to mix it up and try to impose their will upon the other. Solutions are eventually reached when either one side or the other cries uncle, or both are too bloodied and / or exhausted to continue and therefore seek mutual accommodation.

    As the late Tip O'Neill was wont to quip, politics ain't beanbag. And in my honest opinion, seeking out comity and cooperation merely for their own sakes is really a slippery slope to political nowhere. The worst legislation is often that which has been hastily enacted without due regard for political debate and proper deliberation.



    If you haven't seen Frontline's (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:51:46 PM EST
    The Untouchables, I hope you will take the time to do so. For those who don't know, the film is about why the banksters and Wall Street higher-ups have managed to escape investigation and prosecution for fraudulent activities, mainly in the mortgage /housing sector.

    Watching Lanny Breuer weasel his way around the DOJ's Criminal Division's failures to hold any of these people accountable will make you want to hurl heavy objects at your screen.

    Worth noting is that Breuer's resignation was leaked today; I guess having two PR nightmares like Fast and Furious AND Wall Street on your watch is enough to encourage you to seek employment elsewhere.  I'm sure there's a nice, fat job waiting for him in the private sector, so attentive was he to the fortunes of the banksters...

    Virtually every problem we face (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:07:43 PM EST
     as a country has an indelible, umbilical chord connecting them to the unspeakable depravity known as Wall Street. I'm not talking about the Wall Street as it was conceived, to raise and distribute capital for its most efficient and productive end, and thereby acting as the vehicle that "raises all boats." No, I'm talking about the Wall Street mutation that curses our country today, having been created by the criminal conspiracy headquartered in N.Y.C. & D.C.

    And, like slavery once did, this metastasizing cancer guarantees that our Founder's dream of us becoming the democratic ideal envisioned in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution will remain just that....a dream.

    It is also the reason I refrained from joining the almost universal praise of Obama's Inaugural Address. I couldn't help getting the image out of my mind of those millionaires & billionaires, on their yachts and at Davos, laughing their heads off with each standing ovation. "The People" sent Obama to Washington to attack this cancer; his puppet masters told him, "give'm a good speech instead."

    I gotta admit, he gives a helluva good speech.


    At least he won't be on our payroll anymore (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:21:37 PM EST
    Small consolation.

    Tina Turner... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 11:27:38 AM EST
    officially escapes Thunderdome!  

    If anybody knows about abusive relationships it is Tina Turner, and she is dropping the USA like she dropped that bum Ike.  

    Hey, didn't we allow her to (none / 0) (#39)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 12:43:25 PM EST
    appear on shows like Shindig! and David Letterman?  What more does she want?

    Though there are a lot worse countries to flee to, and of course she'd be well positioned to open up one of those fancy Swiss Bank accounts.  Of course, neither Switzerland nor Europe are quite what they used to be a few decades ago, with economic stresses and immigration issues.

    Still, if things don't improve over here in the new Obama admin, if the right choices aren't made and right principles fought for, I might be doing a Tina Turner by 2016.

    Switzerland or Denmark would be okay.  Scandinavian countries are too cold.  Much as I would prefer Paris, France is too troubled by immigration, England, Spain and Italy too troubled economically, ditto most other Euro countries.


    She's got it pretty good over there. (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 12:48:53 PM EST
    Living pretty large for almost 20 years now in a house on the shore of Lake Zurich with her music exec boyfriend, so I understand why she'd want to stay there.

    Giving up her US citizenship clearly means something additional to her, although I haven't seen any explanation of what.


    Granted, Tina has not confided in me. Still, (none / 0) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 05:10:16 PM EST
    I think it is possible that her decision to become a Swiss citizen is nothing more and nothing less than an acknowledgment that her life is in Switzerland, has been there for decades now, will be there until the end and she would like to live as a fully participating member of the country in which she has built that life.

    I don't see this as any more nefarious than when the late Peter Jennings gave up his Canadian citizenship to become an American or Craig Ferguson surrendered his UK passport to become an American citizen or any of the multitudes of people who have emigrated to and built lives in countries different than the ones in which they were born.


    "nefarious"? Not sure that word was (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 08:35:18 PM EST
    at all my intent, but regardless it could well be that she simply likes the country enough to want to be a citizen.

    My sister lives just outside Nice. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:40:06 PM EST
    She's been married to a Frenchman for nearly 25 years now (as of July of this year). Ironically, while she says that her in-laws have no problems with the many foreigners who live in Provence, they detest Corsicans -- and the island of Corsica is part of France!

    Hasn't Tina Turner been living in Europe ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    ... for the better part of two decades now? Let's face it, her personal life in the United States wasn't exactly a happy one, and she's been with her current partner, who I believe is a Swiss citizen, since 1985. I've long been a fan of the hardest working woman in rock'n'roll, and I wish her nothing but the best.

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:50:36 PM EST
    she just made the divorce final, and I too wish her (and her legendary sticks for that matter;) nothing but the best.

    Like so many jazz greats of yore, she was always more appreciated in Europe for her immense talents than in her country of birth.  


    Divorce? From whom? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 05:18:01 PM EST
    Ike Turner died of a cocaine overdose in 2007, so it certainly can't be from him.

    Oh, you mean the United States! I guess it would be too much to conceive that our country could collectively die from a cocaine overdose -- from national hubris maybe, but not from cocaine.


    Paging Cap'n Casey... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:51:01 PM EST
    what is up with this clown in the Oregon legislature trying to make cigarettes prescription only?  April Fools Day come early or something?

    No, not April Fool's Day. Mitch Greenlick (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:35:26 PM EST
    is proposing a bill to classify cigarettes as a prescription drug. I doubt very much that the bill will get any traction. It may spark some discussion about the deleterious health effects of cigarettes.

    Mitch spent much of his working life in the public health field. So, he often thinks of things within a public health framework. Last session he proposed a ban on those carts that attach to bicycles and are used by parents to haul their small children around. Portland is, for an American city, very bike-centric. So, one sees those carts filled with babies and toddlers all the time. Mitch was concerned that those carts were so flimsy and did not protect the kids very much at all in an accident.

    That bike bill was never going to pass, but it did spark a lot of discussion in and out of the legislature, and people gained an awareness of the need to better safeguard the babies on bikes.

    I expect that there will be much talk about the cigarette ban, some serious and some mocking, that the awareness of the dangers of smoking cigarettes will get some press, maybe a few people like teenagers maybe decide not to start smoking. And the bill never sees a vote.

    And honestly, kdog, while I know you think this is a stupid bill, I can assure you that so very many bills that are so stupid and in some case downright vile as to make Mitch's cigarette idea seem sober and right, will be introduced and voted on in state legislatures all around the country.


    You mean like New Mexico (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:34:00 PM EST
    and the bill to outlaw abortions for rape victims so as not to tamper with evidence?

    Why, yes, CG, that very bill was (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:57:04 PM EST
    the first that came to mind.

    Apparently what she had in mind... (none / 0) (#27)
    by unitron on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 03:06:52 AM EST
    ...was to keep the male in a rape or incest case from forcing the female to have an abortion, but no one explained to her that she should know something about how to write (and explain) laws back when she first thought about running for the legislature.

    She may have even been in the vague neighborhood of good intentions.


    That doesn't make any sense though (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:52:14 AM EST
    If I have the right to make my own healthcare decisions nobody can force me to have an abortion.  Isn't it currently practically legally impossible for anyone to force me to have an abortion?

    For sure... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:16:05 AM EST
    bigger clowns in the clown business, and more dangerous ones...but clowning is clowning and Greenlick is clowning big time.

    Not a fan of using legislation as a ploy to make hay and make points...it's all fun and games till the sh*t becomes another bad law.  If he wants to be an anti-smoking zealot that's his right, but leave the law out of it.

    I have no more patience for the nanny liberal benevolent tyrants than I do the for the more nefarious tyrants...like the conquistadors of the uterus you mentioned.  We have serious business in every state that could be attended to without legislators looking to expand their business into our private lives where it has no place...like my lungs and your uterus;)


    Heh The Repubs want to get in your (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:24:20 PM EST
    bedroom and the Demos want to get in your smokes...

    I tell you Kdog it just gets worse and worse.


    Prescription? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:36:39 PM EST
    Speaking of drugs that have no known medical purpose ....

    Not true (none / 0) (#16)
    by sj on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:44:14 PM EST
    At one time they did a very good job of keeping my fangs retracted.  Okay, so that's anecdotal and not scientific, but still.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:05:55 PM EST
    I'd love to meet the doctor who'd write THAT particular prescription.

    David Headley sentenced re Mumbai: (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:55:18 PM EST
    35 years, exceeding life expectancy (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:47:11 PM EST
    And the judge stated that he regretted not being able to impose a death sentence in the case.

    We're defendant in India he'd (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:44:23 PM EST
    be lucky to be alive.

    Saxby Chambliss (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:14:34 AM EST
    to announce his retirement effective in 2014. Now if only Georgia had a middle of the road blue dog Dem candidate that was well known state wide to challenge what will surely be a tea party darling, an extra Senate seat could be available for the taking.

    So, not much time for you to pack up (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:27:20 AM EST
    and move to Georgia and start getting your face in front of the voters - better get to it!

    Ha (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:31:34 AM EST
    only well known Dem in Georgia with a solid chance would be Max Cleland. Have no idea how his health is. He'll be 72. If not Max, it's likely the Senate seat from Georgia will go much further to the right that where it currently sits.

    You would think by now (none / 0) (#37)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    Dems would be better positioned to take advantage of political openings in states like Georgia, given the large (30%) black population, and growing, and the influx of Latins last I checked.  Apparently not.  It's the Dem Party after all -- always a day late and dollar short.

    does it really have to be a blue dog? (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 12:17:58 PM EST
    How about coming at it from another angle - John Lewis?

    Because (none / 0) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:41:49 PM EST
    they'll be electing a Senator for the State of Georgia, not a Senator for Atlanta.

    Sad to hear that Chambliss is not considered (none / 0) (#59)
    by shoephone on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:53:21 PM EST
    to be wacko right wing. After what he did to Cleland during that first Senate campaign, I thought he gave up the right to be labeled anything but wacko winger.

    Amazing isn't it (none / 0) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:22:59 PM EST
    and yet to the Republican party of Georgia he's considered too willing to compromise and was on the hit list to primary from the right.

    Stephen Colbert (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:21:53 PM EST
    on Republicans and Secretary Clinton. Sorry, if already covered in previous threads, just returning and thawing out from travel--that Senator Johnson guy definitely has an IQ to match this week's temperature in Chicago, although I could understand why he was not at the briefing--the one where with the tapes and explanations and all.   Just the cool kids were invited.

    Johnson is a standing member ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:44:17 PM EST
    ... of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which until this week was chaired by Sen. John Kerry. The "briefing with tapes" was for members of the Intelligence Committee, and perhaps Johnson skipped it because the chair told him that his presence rendered the committee's name an oxymoron. ;-P