Tuesday Night News and Open Thread

I spent all day writing my outline on social media dangers and opportunities in criminal cases for the NORML Aspen Legal Seminar next month and am just catching up on the news.

Coincidentally, I see that two big stories today are the release of the Ricin suspect:

Attorney Christi McCoy said her client has been framed by someone who used several phrases Curtis likes to use on social media.

“I do believe that someone who was familiar and is familiar with Kevin just simply took his personal Paul Kevin Curtis: Ricin Letter-Writing Suspect Released on Bond information and did this to him,” McCoy told CNN. “It is absolutely horrific that someone would do this.”

Longer article here.

And someone hacked Twitter sending the Dow plunging for a while. [More...]

In other news:

The man, known online as Aush0k, is a "well-informed" IT professional who works at the Sydney branch of an international security IT company, where he had access to sensitive information from clients that included government agencies, police said.

"He is a well-respected person within the Anonymous community, within LulzSec and that side of the house, but he has also worked in the IT professional field," said Brad Marden, co-ordinator for cyber crime operations at the AFP.

At least he got bail.

Was there any good news today? Yes.

In the TV department: Ready for Love could be the dumbest most soul-less prime time show in a while. It's frenetic, disjointed, difficult to follow, and shallow. Bachelor Nation has nothing to worry about.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Time for a Gag Order in Boston Bombing Case >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not about bombing in MA (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:11:50 AM EST
    Major discovery near the Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico. FDL

    Wow! (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:11:37 AM EST
    Really, really (none / 0) (#16)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 03:08:30 PM EST
    cool!  Thanks, MO Blue!

    I've been there! (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:26:24 PM EST
    That's totally awesome. Mahalo for the link.

    I'll bet (none / 0) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 03:03:45 AM EST
    it was your Great, Great, did I say Great, Grandfather, "Tutankedtotalk," who built it.  And, not to be outdone by Tu Tanked, your little known, but equally boring, Niece to the seventh power, "Cleoputrid," stunned the literary world by,  simultaneously, winning the mid-East sumo wrestling championship (while wearing 6 inch pumps) AND becoming the youngest Talmudic scholar to translate the Islamic Best Seller, "Chicken Fat, Seven Days to a Healthier Heart."

    Obama can be extremely tenacious (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 04:06:56 PM EST
    pursuing the agenda items that he deems important. What has he been relentlessly pursuing since 2008? Why cutting safety insurance programs.

    Obama Wants Yet Another Bipartisan Deficit Gang

    Obama is pushing for the formation of yet another bipartisan deficit group to work on cutting entitlements.

    President Barack Obama is reaching out to Republican senators -- the most receptive participants from his recent "charm-offensive" dinners -- to jump-start talks to reach a "grand bargain" on entitlements, spending and taxes, according to White House and Congressional officials.

    Obama -- fighting against steep odds to reach a big legacy deal on deficits and debts -- has personally pressed Congressional leaders for another shot at reaching an agreement similar to one that fell apart during negotiations with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in 2011.

    Per Hill staffers say some of the Republicans being considered are: Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) -- Republicans Obama considers to be committed to another round of negotiations in good faith.

    Chained CPI Worse Than You Think (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 05:18:54 PM EST
    Last week the Congressional Budget Office released a report that received little scrutiny.

    The report addressed and largely affirmed a key criticism of an inflation measure called Chained CPI, which among other things would reduce Social Security cost of living increases and kick people into higher income tax brackets, if adopted across the government.

    The implicit finding: Chained CPI -- which President Obama included as a compromise measure in his budget -- will typically harm seniors more than the rest of the population.
    But there's another. In last week's report, CBO examined an experimental inflation measure called CPI-E, which weights health care and other goods and services more heavily than existing measures of inflation because seniors consume them disproportionately.

    What they found is that over the last 30 years, inflation as measured by existing consumer price indices has typically been lower than inflation as measured by CPI-E.

    In other words, prices rise faster for seniors than for the population at large -- which means slowing the growth of cost of living increases will particularly disadvantage seniors, who are already seeing their living costs outstrip their benefits. link

    Rhode Island Marriage Equality (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 05:12:37 PM EST
    The Rhode Island Senate approved a marriage equality bill 26-12 Wednesday afternoon. The Rhode Island House passed the bill in January 51-19, but needs to re-vote after a few Senate changes and then it's off to the Governor.

    If the House agrees to the ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:41:44 PM EST
    ... Senate amendments, then the Senate draft will be sent to Gov. Chaffee for his approval. If the House does not, then the measure will be referred to a joint House-Senate conference committee to resolve the differences.

    I have not seen the two versions of the bill, so I can't comment on those differences. However, many times a standing committee in one or the other legislative chamber will make an insubstantial change to keep the discussion going, even though members may not necessarily object to the measure.

    In my own experience out here, if we decide that something needs to be discussed further, my favorite amendment is to change the effective date of the measure once approved. Most bills will have an effective date of "upon approval" or the first day of the fiscal year (usually July 1) for appropriations measures.

    So, let's say the Senate passes a measure to take effect upon approval, but someone in House leadership wants to discuss it some more with their counterparts in the Senate, regardless of reason. I'll then change the enacting clause in the House draft to read, "This measure shall take effect on July 1, 2099." That forces the bill into conference, because both chambers have to pass the exact same measure, word for word and puctuation mark for puncuation mark, before it's to be sent to the governor for his or her approval.


    AP is reporting (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:22:59 AM EST
    it's just a procedural vote with no issues to overcome, that it will be passed by the House next week, and signed by Governor Chafee.

    Rhode Island will join Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa, Vermont, New York, Maryland, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

    The legislation would remove gender-specific language from the state's marriage laws, and add new language that allows anyone to marry any other eligible person, regardless of gender. It would take effect Aug. 1.

    For once in my life (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:20:04 AM EST
    I agree with Barbara Bush.

    Appearing in an interview Thursday on NBC's "Today" show, Mrs. Bush was asked how she felt about Jeb, the former governor of Florida, seeking the presidency in 2016.

    Mrs. Bush replied, quote, "We've had enough Bushes." link

    Amen to that.

    Ready for Love has already been cancelled. (none / 0) (#1)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 11:23:46 PM EST
    Two episodes was all it took for NBC to pull the plug. I guess almost nobody tuned in.

    Never heard of it. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 04:20:54 PM EST
    But then, I never heard of its competition Bachelor Nation, either. Reality television is definitely not my bag, and I'd sooner pull my hair out by the roots with a pair of vice grips, than to have to watch it.

    then no need for you to comment (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 04:28:51 PM EST
    on it. If you aren't interested in something, scroll on by.

    Bachelor Nation is not a show. It refers to the legion of followers of the shows The Bachelor and The Bachelorette.


    See what I mean? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:35:07 PM EST
    It's a good thing we're not married to one another, Jeralyn -- because no doubt we'd each be busy plotting the other's demise, given our respective tastes in television programming.

    Give me a Dodgers game on TV, and I'm happy and content.


    Apparently Gun Control (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slado on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    Wasn't quite so popular.

    PEW Poll

    That being said it depends on what question is asked etc...

    Oh, Slado...it helps to read all the (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:20:33 AM EST

    Like this (my bold):

    The overall balance of positive and negative reactions to the Senate vote tracks more closely to earlier measures of the public's broad views on gun control than to attitudes toward background checks specifically. A Pew Research Center/USA TODAY survey in February found the public divided over whether gun control (50%) or gun rights (46%) should be the higher priority. By contrast, making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks was supported by an 83% to 15% margin in the February survey.

    There are "broad views" and there are specific elements of gun control, and when you get specific with people, you get a much better idea of what people really want.

    If my right to privacy can be so universally compromised as to allow cameras everywhere, facial recognition, electronic surveillance and monitoring of e-mails and other communications, I don't really think it's too much to ask for more regulation on the sale and transfer and licensing of guns.


    "Apparently" - heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:35:15 AM EST
    Only in an alternate universe could someone claim that a plurality of 47% being angry or disappointed that a bill didn't pass (with 80-90%+ support for universal background checks and majorities supporting the other measures) means that the bill wasn't "popular".

    "Apparently" opposition to gun control is much less "popular" than gun control.


    If you recall (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 04:28:26 PM EST
    my point during the initial thread on this was while the bill was "popular" it wasn't "popular" enough to make this bill happen.

    Meaning that while people might prefer it over not doing it they were not engaged enough to move the needle.

    I think this poll shows that in terms of how people reacted when it failed.

    To me for congress to act and curtail something people have to really want it.   I'd rather that be the case then some sort of mob rule.

    That's just me.


    I hate to be the one to tell you this, but (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 05:17:10 PM EST
    what the people want has been largely irrelevant for some time now; it seems like legislation is worked out between and among the members of Congress and their largest donors/lobbyists, and if the end result happens to mesh with what we want - great - and if not, oh, well...too bad, so sad.

    It would be great if they were listening to us, wouldn't it?  It pains me to think of where we could be and what we could have if only we were as important as those who have bought and paid for Congress.


    Sometimes votes have consequences (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 05:38:06 PM EST
    WASHINGTON -- A new poll has New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) down a total of 15 points from her previous approval rating in a survey that followed her vote against requiring background checks for firearms purchases.

    Ayotte's plunge underscores the changing politics around gun control and gun safety. In years past, lawmakers worried that a vote for gun control would bring the anger of the National Rifle Association. In the new reality, votes against gun control also carry a political risk, as the Ayotte poll indicates.

    A full three-quarters of New Hampshire voters support such background checks, along with 56 percent of Republicans, according to Public Policy Polling. A WMUR Granite State Poll taken in January and February found that more than 9 in 10 state residents supported implementing background checks at gun shows.
    Local coverage has not been friendly to Ayotte. Sunday's Portsmouth Herald headlined its editorial: "If you want gun control, vote Ayotte out of office."

    "New Hampshire voters who care passionately about sensible gun legislation can contribute to the effort by defeating U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, the only senator in New England to vote against the Toomey-Manchin bill. Ayotte justified her vote by parroting the NRA, saying the measure would 'place unnecessary burdens on law-abiding gun owners and allow for potential overreach by the federal government into private gun sales.'"

    The Concord Monitor was flooded with angry letters and ran a rough cartoon of her. The editorial page called it a "double abomination." She was hit by a tough ad paid for by Gabby Giffords' group -- the kind of on-the-ground spending that is helping to alter the political dynamic. link

    Too early to tell how long this disapproval will last or how it will impact her election but her vote was against the wishes of the majority of people in her state.


    It really depends on how many times ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:02:49 PM EST
    ... Sen. Ayotte and her fellow antideluvians are called upon to vote against cloture on the issue of background checks. The downside for those 41 Republicans and four Democrats who voted to maintain the filibuster is that Majority Leader Harry Reid changed his own vote to "Nay," which procedurally allows him to bring the question to the floor again at a time of his own choosing.

    If Reid plays his hand right, he can use successive GOP cloture votes against them like a proverbial hammer. Each time Ayotte is compelled to vote against cloture on background checks, Reid will be reminding New Hampshire voters that she's in the pocket of the gun manufacturers' lobby and she'll be driving down her approval ratings.

    And in the meantime, the GOP and NRA better pray to the Heavens above that another gratuitous slaughter of unarmed civilians by some wingbat with automatic weapons doesn't take place before the next election. Because were that to happen, given the public's present mood the political roof could well cave in on them, and that aforementioned hammer won't necessarily be metaphorical.


    For what it's worth (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 04:32:15 PM EST
    Yep - gun lovers ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 06:37:01 PM EST
    ... have stronger feelings about gun control than the rest of the general public.  They're willing to contribute $$ to the NRA, who in turn raises more $$ from gun manufacturers, then uses the $$$$ to push lies to fire up their base and pressure Congress.

    I do recall (none / 0) (#31)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 06:42:41 PM EST
    I believe your point was that gun control wasn't popular because only 4% rated it as the most important issue facing our country.  Now, it's not "quite so popular" because only 47% were angry or disappointed that it failed, despite the fact that large majorities supported it, and despite the fact that only 39% were happy or relieved that it failed.

    It was funny logic then - and it's even funnier now.


    What's funny (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:59:46 AM EST
    is you're refusal to see my basic point.

    That's fine if you don't but I don't need the snarky smugness that always comes with your posts.

    We can agree to disagree and skip the snarkyness.

    My point is this bill was not popular enough because more senators felt they were more likely to lose a seat voting for it then lose a seat voting against it.

    Time will tell.


    Really? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:59:27 AM EST
    My point is this bill was not popular enough because more senators felt they were more likely to lose a seat voting for it then lose a seat voting against it.

    Setting aside the fact that was not your original claim, how does that explain the fact that, in fact, 8 more Senators voted for it than against it?


    Maybe I should have been clearer (none / 0) (#46)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 12:44:10 PM EST
    And that was my point.

    The swing senators needed to get to 60 (red state democrats) felt pressure from their constituents to vote against it.

    Hard to say that would be reality if 90% of Americans supported the bill.

    We're not going to agree so enough said.

    I'll let Nate Silver say it better..

    My view, in other words, is that polls showing 90 percent support for background checks will tend to overstate how well the Democrats' position might play out before the electorate in practice, though public opinion was on their side on this vote.


    Yeah, I know (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 03:04:16 PM EST
    I just thought it was strange that you thought more senators voted against it than for it.

    The swing senators needed to get to 60 (red state democrats) felt pressure from their constituents to vote against it.

    Hard to say that would be reality if 90% of Americans supported the bill.

    Sorry, but polls show that@ 90% of Americans do support it - that's just a fact.  There are many reasons why a Senator from a swing state would vote against it, but the primary reasons are:  1) the disproportionate influence of the NRA/gun lobby, 2) the zeal of gun nuts and their willingness to vote based on this single issue.

    We'll use your words and call it "(minority) mob rule".

    BTW - You're a big advocate of cutting taxes, right?  Turns out that cutting taxes must not be popular, either, given that only half the number of people rated it as the most important issue as did gun control.

    Go figure.


    saying "someone else" impersonated her Elvis impersonator client, she named J. Everett Dutschke.

    Everett, who claims complete innocence, is now having his life turned upside down by the feds and the media.

    It seems Christi named Everett because he had an on-line tiff with her client back in 2010.

    When someone claims he was "framed" (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    and not just "wrongly accused," it is unsurprising that he would be asked to suggest possible names of folks who might have a motive and the personality to do such a thing.  It is then up to the authorities, not the wrongly accused suspect, to investigate (or not).  Neither the former suspect nor his lawyer is responsible for how the authorities go about renewing and carrying out their further investigation, it seems to me.

    On the one hand I agree with you, (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:54:12 PM EST
    it appears that a person committed a crime against him, and he, rightly, wants that criminal brought to justice.

    However, the guy he sicced the feds on is someone he had a internet tiff with in 2010 and, according to Everett, neither of whom have been in touch with the other since.

    Sure hope no one on TL thinks they were framed and start pointing the finger at other TL'rs they had disagreements with about Lebron James' decision to to to Miami, or Sesame Street's decision not to let Katie Perry appear their show back in 2010.


    Well, suo, humans have been known to ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 03:55:41 PM EST
    ... carry personal grudges for an incredibly long time -- I swear, some of my own relatives have probably set records in that category -- and have also gone on some remarkably stupid and destructive vendettas in overreactive response to a perceived wrong or insult (see Dorner, Christopher).

    I had a client in California's Central Valley whose executive director had quit her former longtime job as chief nurse at an area hospital to take her present position at a community health center (which was my client). She had once been in a personal relationship with the president of the hospital that had long since ended when she decided to leave.

    However, the president -- who proved himself an emotionally unstable man -- subsequently decided to take her departure as a personal slight, even though she had taken her new job for reasons of professional advancement, and it had nothing to do with their prior relationship.

    To make a long story short, he began stalking his former girlfriend at work and home, and spread professional rumors about her around town that she was a drug addict whom he had asked to resign her post because she was stealing pharmaceuticals at the hospital to feed her habit. When I had prepared a USDA grant application for my client, he called D.C. and said that my client was about to declare bankruptcy. And ultimately, he sent his own sons to vandalize the health center itself, resulting in his own eventual arrest when those three young baboozes were caught in the act by the police and confessed who put them up to it.

    Incredibly, this clown still has his job at the hospital even after pleading no contest -- honestly, what does one have to do to get fired at that place? -- but his teenaged kids now also have juvenile criminal records, and both muy client and its executive director have gotten retraining orders against all four of them.

    Did you see Kevin Curtis's presser yesterday, after charges were dismissed and he was released? Suffice to say that these two birds in Mississippi both sound like they're out to sea without mainsail, rudder and compass.

    I try to never underestimate people's capacity for stupid behavior -- including my own. Aloha.


    Well, if your point is that this "KC" (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 04:44:30 PM EST
    guy, who sicced the feds on some other dude to get himself off the hot seat, is carrying a personal grudge against that other dude, I agree.

    There was no evidence to substantiate ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:21:38 PM EST
    ... the initial contentions by federal authorities that Kevin Curtis was the guy behind the ricin mailings; that's why the charges were dismissed.

    The subsequent allegations by Curtis and his attorney that Everett Dutschke had somehow framed him had absolutely nothing to do with Curtis being released.

    In that regard, it's also important to note that the federal judge dismissed the charges without prejudice, which gives the U.S. Attorney's office in northern Mississippi the option of refiling those same charges against Curtis at a later date, should investigators somehow come up with actual physical evidence against him.

    In the meantime, federal investigators are presently turning Dutschke's life upside down, and one has to admit that Dutschke had a more plausible motive to send those ricin-tainted letters than did Curtis. But again, the feds are going to need more than motive to charge Dutschke with the crime; they'll need actual physical evidence to support it.



    fingering Dutschke isn't what got Curtis released.

    Not really buying the "Dutschke had a more plausible motive to mail ricin letters than did Curtis" claim though.

    The judge that was sent the ricin letter was the presiding judge at Curtis' assault conviction and she sentenced him to 6 months in county jail.

    Dutschke got beat by that judge's son in an election and there are reports that the judge said mean stuff to Dutschke in public.

    I'll leave it up to you to choose one or the other for more motive, I think they both had motive.


    Smelling like... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 01:32:02 PM EST
    the all too common "use of law enforcement as your personal weapon".

    I don't what we can do about it while maintaining a free press, but it feels like people are getting Richard Jewell'ed left and right lately.  So uncool.


    Seriously. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 02:57:44 PM EST
    If the "crime" had been sending a mean picture by instagram, sure, if I was Curtis maybe I'd point my finger at Dutschke.

    But fingering him as someone I thought would trying to poison the friggin' POTUS?!



    Sickening: Medical repatriation (none / 0) (#8)
    by Gerardo Rodriguez on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:11:53 PM EST
    Many health insurance policies have a clause in the contract requireing the insured be a legal resident of the US. If the insurance doesn't have to pay because the patient is an undocumented, the hospital or the government has to cover the costs of ongoing medical care. Bank in their citizenship country, they can be treated without paying.

    Since some citizens want to help undocumented and others want to reduce or eliminate the costs that undocumented cost the US, those who want to give them money should start a donation fund to support undocumented who need assistance. By making everyone else pay for their medical or other costs, this country is continually in conflict. This is not good for other immigrants who are legally here.

    It would be best to find a donation way to pay for undocumented without the government paying.

    What would be "best," in fact (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:16:56 PM EST
    is a single-payer, universal coverage system.  Just as European countries' systems pay the medical costs of American tourists and students, etc., who may fall ill while over there.

    Well, see, the fact that you had to (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    use the example of Europe just proves Obama's point that we couldn't have single-payer because it's not uniquely American enough...

    Sorry for the sarcasm, Peter; it's just that the utter waste of an opportunity to do something to truly reform the system and make it function for people rather than holding us all hostage to it really gets to me.


    That's true. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    When I had an accident and separated my shoulder while visiting my sister in southern France in 1994, I received wonderful care at a hospital emergency room in Nice and never had to pay a cent. The doctor also gave me copies of my x-rays and records, and she urged me to follow up with my own physician back home in one month's time to ensure that my shoulder was healing properly.

    But then thay have same problem. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Gerardo Rodriguez on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    The citizens who are paying for the universal coverage system will be angry about undocumenteds using the system. Especially when business owners don't buy insurance at all because their employees are undocumenteds. Even now with Obamacare, the insurance companies don't have to cover undocumenteds by putting the required legal resident.

    The same problem occurs. Some people want to help the undocumenteds, others want to help citizens legal residents only.  The conflict making other citizens pay for undocumenteds causes the problems for legal residents.


    The most difference between (none / 0) (#15)
    by Gerardo Rodriguez on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    universal coverage system for travelors and visitors in Europe and other countries is that here we have a problem with many many undocumenteds, not just travellors. People break rules for many years, make a life of breaking the rules. In many countries that is not so much of a problem because undocumenteds are put in jail so most foreigners are travelors, not undocumenteds living there all the time. There is lower cost for the few travelors or students compared to the millions of undocumenteds who come to this country to live forever.

    You seem to be implying that Europe (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 04:20:55 PM EST
    does not have have to contend with undocumented workers. They just put them all in jail and none of them remain and live and work in the various countries.

    Sorry, you just funked the class on current events in Europe. Please do the research and try again.  


    The European Union countries (none / 0) (#54)
    by DR Sofia on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 09:50:30 AM EST
    can detain their undocumenteds for up to 18 months before deporting them. They deport hundreds of thousands every year. South and Central American countries vary, but many arrest and deport. Mexico spends millions every year deporting mostly Hispanic undocumenteds. We're not the only country expending huge sums of public money dealing with this problem.

    I think the point is that if you are a legal immigrant in the US, you are severely impacted by the actions of people who come or stay here illegally.


    Krugman gloats. See Colbert. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:33:08 PM EST

    Of course they do want it (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:00:20 AM EST
    Different slant than Politico (none / 0) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:08:50 AM EST
    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#47)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    however let's see how this plays out because Ezra is the biggest cheerleader for Obamacare there is.

    OTOH - We already know how this claim ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 03:12:46 PM EST
    ... played out just a couple years ago when the very same claim was made.

    Did members of Congress exempt themselves from complying with the health care reform laws? - Pants on Fire rating


    Wrong again Yman (none / 0) (#52)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    Meagan McCardle doesn't agree.

    Pants on fire indeed.


    Oh, ... a fellow, wingnut libertarian ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 12:56:51 PM EST
    ... who's been attacking the ACA for years based on nothing more than her opinion and made-up statistics - claims it's true?!?!



    Former Paul Ryan intern (none / 0) (#43)
    by Angel on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:10:46 AM EST