Tuesday Open Thread

Our last open thread is full. Here's a new one, all topics welcome.

< Robel Phillipos: Guilty Verdict on Five of Nine Alleged Statements | Flak Over FBI and DEA Impersonations >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Less than 2000 women (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    Congrats to him (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:08:47 PM EST
    What an awesome accomplishment! <snark>

    From the article (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:10:49 PM EST
    2,100 women sued.

    So not only is he an @sshole, he also can't do math.


    Not just math... (none / 0) (#63)
    by unitron on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    ...but grammar and usage as well.

    He should have said "Fewer than 2,000..."


    Grammar is so elitist! (none / 0) (#129)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:15:04 AM EST
    He makes (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:17:38 PM EST
    my head hurt he is so stuck in the past. If he's our senator I may need Xanax for a few days.

    I think Michelle Nunn was running an ad showing this. It was pretty deadly and I guess the polls are showing that he is sucking wind with women.

    The flyers that are coming from him to my house almost daily are the same thing Obama! Black guy! Socialist agenda! Obama is going to take all our white women!! Pure tea party crap.

    Someone from his campaign called me last week and I told them I was voting for Michelle Nunn and they hung up.


    Similar story (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:21:34 PM EST
    Scott Walker

    Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) released an ad on Tuesday in which his female lieutenant governor applauds his support for equal pay for women -- just two years after the governor signed a bill repealing the state's equal pay law.

    Oh, good grief. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 06:33:00 PM EST
    I hope she does an ad showing the results aka declining wages for women in WI with the repeal of the law.

    Hardly enough to fill a binder! (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    Hey, it's only 3% (none / 0) (#10)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:17:35 PM EST
      of the total workforce.

    Of course a better question might be what percentage of  female managers did not sue alleging disparate treatment.

      As by definition, most employees are not  managers and some managers are obviously  not females, the percentage of female managers   who chose not to join the suit might be low.



    Yeah (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:37:49 PM EST
    his problem is the more you try to explain and rationalize 2000+ women suing you for pay discrimination the worse it sounds.

    Yes, while a pretty bulky (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:14:34 PM EST
    binder full of women, explanations put him in a bind.

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:18:08 PM EST
    IMO when you get into 4 digits probably just best to leave hard numbers out of the discussion.

    The debate (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    must have gone badly for him. I did not watch it but now they are sending out phone calls with Obama's voice on it.

    Are you sure it's Obama, ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 07:01:51 PM EST
    ... and not Luther? ;-D

    And You Have to Figure... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    ...a guy who has no issues discrimination with pay, might do it when hiring.  That number could easily be every single woman manager, I doubt it, but I bet my A the number of female managers, is no where near the number of male managers.  Promoting a female would mean paying her more, even if it's less then the men.

    I would really love to see a break down of the numbers.


    From Last Thread (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    Well, the answer here is simple, Jim.  You should henceforth avoid sleeping with guys who have Ebola.

    How is that insulting gay people, beyond grouping them with Jim, it's a slam on Jim's idiotic BS.  There is no other way for a man to come in contact with semen than being gay or bi.  

    What if he had said:

    Well, the answer here is simple, Jim. You should henceforth avoid avoid sleeping with women who have 90 day old Ebola laced semen laying around.

    Doesn't work because that is silly because only men have semen, and since Jim is a man, the only probable way he would handle semen is from another man.

    I think the fact that someone finds that insulting, says way more about what they think, than the comment.  Telling Jim not to sleep with men is not disparaging anyone, that comment can only be disparaging if you think gay sex is disparaging.

    I don't, no different than telling Jim not to sleep with women who have Ebola.

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:07:03 PM EST
    Completely off topic (none / 0) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 08:00:31 AM EST
    I have a photo housed at photobucket. I want to post a link to it here. Looking for "Linking Photos for Dummies" instructions on how to do this.

    You can post answer independently if you don't want to break up this topic.



    I sometimes link from photobucket (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:39:05 AM EST
    you just bring up the photo and copy the URL.

    I prefer using a photo hosting service that does not use my name.  My iPad would not let me do that for a while but that seems to be over.

    A good one is thumbsnap.com.  Very simple. You upload a pic and copy the short URL to use in a link.  No login needed.

    Try that.  Hope it helps.  


    please do not turn threads into personal (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:26:52 AM EST
    remarks about other commenters. We only have room for 200 comments per thread. If you are all that interested in Jim, start a Jim blog of your own. And Jim, please comment on topics that interest you without directing your remarks to individual commenters.

    I'm not interested in wading through 10 comments about Jim or Donald or any other commenters' perceptions of them. Keep in mind that most people who read this blog do not comment, and read it for the information it provides about current events. The personalities and traits of people who comment here are not of interest and I am not interested in hosting such comments.

    Open threads are where you can write about topics that interest you and you think others might be interested in discussing or reading about. They are not intended as a forum for commenters to discuss each other.


    I am restraining myself, Scott. (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 07:46:47 PM EST
    This was my comment.

    And 21 days may not be enough (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 07:39:20 PM CST
    "Once someone recovers from Ebola, they can no longer spread the virus. However, Ebola virus has been found in semen for up to 3 months. Abstinence from sex (including oral sex) is recommended for at least 3 months. If abstinence is not possible, condoms may help prevent the spread of disease."
    Center for Disease Control

    That was a non judgmental comment pointing out that the CDC is now backing off from their earlier comments about how you can catch Ebola.

    No snark. No nasty. No attack.

    Now let's see how Donald responded.

    Well, the answer here is simple, Jim. (5.00 / 6) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 11:22:50 PM CST
    You should henceforth avoid sleeping with guys who have Ebola.

    That was an attempt to insult. Howdy found it funny.

    Now, what did I respond with?

    Hmmm, never tried gay sex, Donald. (2.00 / 2) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:35:26 AM CST
    I love it when you, again, try to deflect a serious, accurate comment based on the CDC by making a completely off topic response that is supposed to insult me.
    As someone who has stated time and again that I support gay rights, including marriage, it is obvious that gay sex is regarded by me as the individuals business, not mine.

    But what I find interesting is that you intend your comment as an insult. Something that is supposed to insult me. I mean, you would not try to insult me with something you don't find insulting.

    It follows then that you have a problem with gay sex.

    Donald, you reveal yourself.

    I'll send Bubba to pick you up and you two can chug a few PBR's while discussing your long disguised personal views.

    Now what do you add??

    Doesn't work because that is silly because only men have semen, and since Jim is a man, the only probable way he would handle semen is from another man

    The problem with that comment is that Center for Disease Control doesn't say anything about the sex of the people involved. Obviously they mean sex. Period. Donald perverted that by trying to insult me.

    And thank you for proving my point.

    Telling Jim not to sleep with men is not disparaging anyone, that comment can only be disparaging if you think gay sex is disparaging.

    Donald wanted to insult me. He chose the comment about gay sex because he thought it insulting. i.e. He finds it objectionable. You don't try and insult someone by saying something you find nice about them.

    I'll tell Bubba to take an extra six pack and be prepared for some really sick stuff.



    Ok, let's play this game (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:26:20 PM EST
    You should henceforth avoid sleeping with guys who have Ebola.

    That was an attempt to insult.

    Please explain to us why that is an insult oh progressive one of infinite compassion and surpassing wisdom.

    IMO it seems like he offered a simple solution to your problem.


    Ok I'll explain (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:57:25 PM EST
    its not an insult.  Not to me, not to Donald - I feel reasonably confident in that statement.  It's only an insult to you.



    Don't play dumb (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:16:25 PM EST
    You know that Donald and I aren't friends.

    That means that the comment was meant to insult and bait.

    You don't attempt to insult someone by saying something that you don't find insulting.

    That means Donald has a problem with gay sex.

    He just displayed it.

    And your problem is you weren't quick enough to figure it out.


    Un huh (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:34:31 PM EST
    the guy who post more pro gay propaganda a drag queen videos than I do has "a problem with gay sex"

    Got it.


    What are you talking about??? (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:41:07 PM EST
    kdog figured it out. So has everyone else.

    it was meant to insult Jim, by implying he's gay, which implies there's something wrong with being gay, which even a perpetual juvenile like myself finds too juvenile.

    I think I understand (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:51:11 PM EST
    why you do this.   In your world you win these arguments.



    Your argument is with kdog (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:26:58 AM EST
    I Have No Idea What Donald Was Thinking... (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:25:06 PM EST
    ...so I assumed he was slamming you for being ridiculous, it never occurred to me, then or now, that he is insulting gay people.
    He chose the comment about gay sex because he thought it insulting. i.e. He finds it objectionable.  -Jim

    You can't possibly know what he thought.

    Tell me Jim, how is that not the ink blot test of blogging ?  You went with he thinks gay sex is insulting, I went with he thinks you are an idiot*.  At least my assumption is based on things you actually have written, the many insults Donald has directed your way, and the fact that I have never seen a comment by him disbarring gay people.

    What is your assumption based on ?

    * I am not calling you an idiot, that is the way I read the comment.

    No idea what this is all about, but (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 02:20:02 PM EST
    I've never read one mean spirited word from Donald.  Not one.

    I stay away from flame wars, so I'll just say this, whatever he wrote or seems to have written, which seems to be what y'all are arguing about, he didn't mean in a hurtful way.


    What if he had just said nothing? (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:09:30 PM EST
    But he didn't (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:16:29 PM EST
    he made a joke.  And it was funny.  It was not offensive.  If anything was offensive it was PPJ once again acting like the put upon and persecuted one.
    Which would also be funny if he didn't do it 50 times a day.

    The persecution (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    complex is really getting out of hand lately with conservatives. I told them today they were full of gloom and doom. They did not like it but it is the truth.

    Well, from what I've seen, (1.50 / 2) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:27:53 PM EST
    the Donald spends more time than most here on TL huffing and puffing that he's being persecuted, which makes me wonder why he would so often do the same type of thing to others, but I see your point.

    I will grant you that he, like me (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:32:48 PM EST
    sometimes uses humor like a weapon and occasionally pushes people's buttons doing it.  But IMO I have never seen him be intentionally offensive.  Unlike the other person I mentioned .

    That's not what I said. (3.50 / 2) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:40:58 PM EST
    No (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:45:02 PM EST
    but that's what I'm granting

    I'm not. (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:47:15 PM EST
    The difference is Donald can take it as well as he (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Angel on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:44:39 PM EST
    dishes it out.  

    Sure, you mean except for the (1.50 / 2) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:48:38 PM EST
    Donald spends more time than most here on TL huffing and puffing that he's being persecuted

    I disagree with your assessment, but whatever. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Angel on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:55:05 PM EST
    Usually I just scroll on by if I'm not liking what I'm reading.  Except for giving Uncle Jim the troll ratings he deserves.  

    Fair enough. If it looks like a "spat" (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:58:51 PM EST
    I usually scroll by too. Especially when it's the "regulars"...

    So Jim does take it pretty well (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:35:48 AM EST
    I don't care for Jim's opinions.  I'm not even sure I could like him in person, I am willing to try....once.  In the flesh conversations seem to be much more functional and healthy than online conversations.

    Donald's comment crossed lines, tread on his own standards for other topics and in other conversations.

    I find it hard to believe that Jim doesn't take criticism well, because that is almost all he gets here.


    He RELISHES it (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:46:13 AM EST
      Provoking it seems to be his raison d'être.

      I may be acting as an armchair psychologist, but he sure seems to take obvious delight in provoking people to respond in manners that make them appear hypocritical and unwilling to practice what they preach.

      Were it not for the responses, he'd likely have become bored years ago. He's obviously neither stupid nor delusional and doesn't believe his posts are going to change any hearts or minds. He'd have to be quite unobservant to even think he could get his antagonists  here  even to consider opposing views with an open mind.

      He's just baiting y'all, and some never seem to tire of the worms or grow more wary of the hooks.



    Please note (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:52:52 AM EST
    I don't really get involved in the "Jim must be beaten" pile ons.  Both sides of those interactions are boring and I think somewhat self serving.  There is the provoking, and the provoked, and the provoked provoking of the provoking.....life is too short :)

    No worries, I'm sure he'll chime in (1.50 / 2) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:51:11 PM EST
    sooner or later to tell us he doesn't do it.

    The way I read it... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:40:50 PM EST
    it was meant to insult Jim, by implying he's gay, which implies there's something wrong with being gay, which even a perpetual juvenile like myself finds too juvenile.

    No doubt I could have misread Don, easy to do in this format. I know you hate it but one of the dreaded smiley faces coulda clarified the context!

    Though I don't think Jim and Don are tight enough to joke like that, much less in a public forum...again I could be wrong.

    I'll never understand why he gets under so many skins here...I got past that when I last called him names while we were invading Iraq in 2003, now I just get a kick out of TL's resident kooky old man;) And can't help but like him despite our infinite ideological differences.


    IMO (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:46:18 PM EST
    you misread it.

    Quite possible... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:51:27 PM EST
    And I have found myself on an unfamiliar side of the fence in this family spat.  I'm the f#ck the pc  police guy! My soft spot for Jumbo runs deep I guess...we go back a loooong way here.

    The way I read (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by sj on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 07:20:13 PM EST
    it was a play on the response to the "[Gay marriage][Abortion][whatever] is a threat my [marriage][family][whatever]" screed.

    When reasoning no longer works, I see nothing wrong with responding "Well then, don't [get gay married][have an abortion][whatever]."

    As to your question about why he gets under so many skins? I can't speak for anyone but myself when I say that I wish no one would respond to him, and let his trolling... er "kookiness" ... fall into dead air.


    kdog, have you thought of volunteering (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:41:54 PM EST
    to broker peace in the ME?

    Sister please... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:07:13 PM EST
    I fail to make peace here, my home away from home...how could I possibly succeed in the Middle East?

    Besides, people have to have some interest in peace for peace to be made.  What we have here is written combat for the sake of combat.


    You betch'em Red Ryder (1.33 / 3) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:05:01 PM EST
    Though I don't think Jim and Don are tight enough to joke like that, much less in a public forum...again I could be wrong.

    You ain't wrong.

    The reason why I get under some skins is that while I espouse some of the things they claim to be for, the fact is they can't stand any disagreement. They don't want to expand their minds or to try and defend their positions. Some could. Some can't.

    Example. I am for single payer health care insurance based on the Medicare model. But... I say we pay for it with a national sales tax collected at the retail point of sale. That's unacceptable to some.

    You mention the debates re Iraq. They were spirited but mostly not mean. They were policy focused. Now, not so much. As NYshooter noted we have devolved into discussions about TV shows, etc.


    One more thing (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:07:55 PM EST
    I am just about half past give a sh!t with the whining about talk of TV shows.  I have been commenting here as long as you have.  I don't honestly even know how many years AND WE HAVE ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT ENTERTAINMENT.
    J has an interest in entertainment, she even had a site more dedicated to it (is that still around).
    Join it ignore it or STFU. It's not going anywhere.  

    I don't think you've been around (2.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:08:50 PM EST
    since '03. At least not under your current moniker. But so what.

    My point was that the vast majority of discussions were about policies.

    And I don't care what you, or anyone else want to discuss. Just do it. It's fine with me.

    But don't complain and snicker when I post a serious comment from the CDC about a serious issue.


    Jim, one reason you get laughed at (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by ZtoA on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:13:19 PM EST
    is that sometimes you can just be a jerk. Yes, sometimes you make offensive, jerk statements. That does not nullify every last little thing you say.

    Pope to Creationists: "Get a life." (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 06:24:07 PM EST
    "When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining God as a magician, with a magic wand able to make everything. But it is not so."
    -- Pope Francis, Address to Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 27, 2014)

    Let the Fundies' exploding head-athon begin anew.

    Trying to decide (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:46:02 AM EST
    if the troll rating is for you or for the Pope.

    I saw this (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 06:45:15 PM EST
    (your link didn't work for me but I'm sure it's about him saying evolution makes sense)

    The first thing I thought was "ok, this guy is enjoying this"

    He is becoming the Bart Simpson of the Vatican.


    Do'h! (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 06:48:21 PM EST
    Don't know how that happened. Let's try it again.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 06:53:43 PM EST
    if you know fundamentalists like I do you know the magic wand thing ain't nothing but a sharp stick in the eye.

    They have come to view words like magic and superstition, when used in a religious context, as hate speech.

    In other words at least some of them, like my older brother,  are just smart enough to know how ridiculous their beliefs sound when said out loud.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:01:15 PM EST
    his statements will start back up the fundamentalist probably screaming that Catholicism is a cult left over from medieval days and the Pope wants to control the world too.

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:21:17 PM EST
    thats true but the idea of a bunch of superstitious lunatic cultists who want to live in the 12th century calling the Pope medieval and the church a cult for trying to reconcile science and faith makes my head hurt.

    This Pope's the MAN, dude! (none / 0) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 07:22:17 PM EST
    Francis tossed the Pat Boone records belonging to his predecessor, broke out The Beatles' White Album, and gets this party started.

    FTC Finally Buys a Dictionary, Sues AT&T (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:49:16 PM EST
    The Federal Trade Commission has looked at the evidence and, apparently, the dictionary and decided to hold AT&T Mobility to the standard that it should mean what it says when it promises "unlimited data." Imagine that.

    I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that the definition of "unlimited" is not "limited."

    I don't know if it is a coincidence (none / 0) (#200)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 02:33:07 PM EST
    but yesterday the ATT reception that has been horrible in the building my new cubicle is in suddenly got better. Still not as good as the rest of the plant, but it seems to me ATT might have boosted the signal enough to overcome more of whatever interference is in this part of the building. Went from brick to 2 bars of 4G.

    Thanks FTC!


    Well... (none / 0) (#205)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 03:02:56 PM EST
    ...it is unlimited, that isn't the issue, it's the speeds being reduced after hitting x number of GBs.

    T mobile was 6 GB, which seems like an insane amount of data, but nearly the end of the every month, I went from 4G to 2G(EDGE on Tmobile) because I was streaming radio at work.

    The problem is AT&T was not upfront about it like Tmobile was.  You get as much data as you can use, but realistically, you get say 3GB's at 4G, the rest is 2G, which I would say is about as fast as dial up.  But they are not lying about unlimited, they are lying about chocking off speed when you reach a threshold.

    It's unlimited, not sure why why the FTC think otherwise.  At no point was data cut off, they simply neglected to inform customers that unlimited data meant speed reduction after reaching a threshold.

    It would be like a car rental company claiming unlimited miles, but neglecting to inform people that after 500 miles, a governor kicks in and they are limited to driving 10mph.

    Making the case that is in itself a limit is fine, but many places don't have 4G or even 3G, how do people who live in areas without access to fast data plans any different than the people getting reduced to the same speeds, when they are on the same plans.  Basically anyone not getting 4G, according to the FCC is being limited, that is a lot of places and an argument I don't think they can win.


    Transmission of ignorance (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    through the TV is easier than transmission of many microbes by casual contact.   And, may be more dangerous.  Quarantine anyone?

    Jurassic televangelist, the Reverend Pat Robertson, responded to a write-in on his "700 Club" TV show who was seeking advice on travel to Kenya in light of the Ebola outbreak in west Africa.  The writer was torn because God was summoning for a mission, but temporal anxieties for contacting Ebola were on the mind.

    The Reverend, in a paroxysm of sanity,  discounted the inevitability of contacting Ebola in Kenya, but warned that  "You might get AIDS in Kenya, people have AIDS, you've got to be careful.  I mean, the towels could have AIDS."  

    Putting aside the technicality that an inanimate object, such as a towel, could have AIDS, his idea of likely  transmission for this disease is, well-- outmoded.    

    Amusing political ad here in FL (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 08:10:40 PM EST
    apparently the worst governor ever was Republican Gov. Charlie  Crist....says the current GOP governor.

    nycstray (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by cpresley on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:54:53 PM EST
    Your prayers were answered. Giants 2014 World Series Champions.

    Too soon... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 03:45:12 PM EST
    to be an Ebola patient for Halloween?  Cuz I was thinking a staining myself with fake blood/vomit/feces, carrying a suitcase and a fake travel visa from Guinea.  

    Over/under on landing in quarantine with such a costume?

    just make sure (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 03:53:31 PM EST
    you don't drink too much and actually start puking.  Or you might end up like this person.

    "the MBTA alerted passengers that the Orange Line train was suspended between Back Bay and Ruggles stations "due to a medical situation." A woman was reported to be throwing up"

    "Transit Police told Boston.com that a bystander called 911 around 11 a.m. saying "there's a woman from Liberia here and she has Ebola." Both claims were wrong. Boston EMS responded and asked the woman routine medical questions and determined she was of Haitian descent."

    "Both claims were obviously wrong," James Witzgall, Deputy Chief of Transit Police told Boston.com."

    Probably helps if you aren't black though.


    Yep... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 03:58:52 PM EST
    the ol' white boy break would probably save me.

    You've reminded of an especially crazy Hallow's Eve past, walked from a party in Soho to Penn Station blind drunk and puking every half block or so...followed by a lil nap on the Penn Station floor before getting on the train and dry heaving my way back to the ghetto burbs.  The ticket-taker took one look at me and let me ride for free that night.  I was very lucky not to get rolled or hit by a car...or arrested.

    Better not pull a stunt like that this year...white privilege only goes so far! ;)


    You won't be alone (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    And a California company, Brands on Sale, has sold hundreds of Halloween costumes meant to resemble Ebola containment suits.

    So I recommend going for authenticity.

    REAL blood vomit and feces.


    You guys are sick... (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by fishcamp on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:04:17 PM EST
    I'm going as Typhoid Mary...

    This is probably the most tasteless (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:11:53 PM EST
    thing I've seen in a while-

    Ray Rice for Halloween?

    Probably the only thing worse than doing it would be doing it in blackface.  ( see photos. )


    In the 21st century news cycle... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:51:31 PM EST
    That already feels like last year's costume.

    Roger Goodell and Co. must be lovin' them some Ebola and ISIS.


    Ha (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:28:10 PM EST
    same reaction

    That was this year?


    If I have too much fun... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:53:43 PM EST
    that can be arranged;)

    Oh, kdog, that's just sick, sick, sick! (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:49:43 PM EST
    Why can't you just stay home, greet the young trick-or-treaters who come to your door, and offer to them packs of cigarettes and those little shot bottles of Cuervo and Jim Beam, like you do every other year?



    Sshhh... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 06:12:28 PM EST
    Neighborhood parents might be reading and you'll blow up the kids spot for the best treats on the block! ;)

    Somebody call Pat Robertson (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 04:58:59 PM EST
    Mahertered (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 05:54:11 PM EST

    no real interest in renewing that tired discussion but one about universities silencing voices you disagree with might be a conversation worth having.  Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Condi Rice.

    UC Berkley students try to stop Bill Maher from speaking

    Now this is familar ground! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 06:07:02 PM EST
    F#ck Berkley...few are as close minded as the supposed open minded.

    I said the same when they tried to boycott Ahmenijad  outta speaking at NYU.


    From the petition (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 06:15:38 PM EST

    "Bill Maher's public statements on various religions and cultures are offensive and his dangerous rhetoric has found its way into our campus communities."

    The first thing I would say is thank god for that.   The second would be that is a chilling statement from a supposed institute for higher learning.  
    UCBerkley sounding a little like Bob Jones.


    The Band summed this up best... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 06:28:09 PM EST
    Well we could try to reason, but you might think it's treason!

    Some men see things as they are, and ask why. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 06:37:05 PM EST
    I just look up at them from my smoking bong and say, "Why the f--- not?"

    I was thinking the same (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 06:26:59 PM EST
    thing ala Bob Jones.

    I want the sane to have the conversation (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:05:37 AM EST
    The churches around here are having right now.  Not where I want that "meaningful" conversation to happen.  But my daughter said that her pastor gave his sermon last week on the violence of the Quran, and how the comparison to Biblical violence is a false equivalency.

    I did not hear the sermon.  She said he read passages from the Quran in the sermon.  But the Bible is being cleaned up now.  I gave her my mom's Bible, and she can see for herself that what she is carrying around has received a makeover since 1960.  Nobody speaks of that though because how can you make over the word of God?  Someone has though, and it continues.


    Well, unless someone (none / 0) (#126)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:07:52 AM EST
    Reads Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (and some Biblical scholars do), you're going to be reading some different, in some cases widely different, translations of the Bible.
    There have been lots of English translations, and some of them, let's face it, get skewed by the beliefs of the particular translators.
    So it depends upon who, or what organization, is putting out a particular translation.  Does it say in your daughter's Bible who translated it?  Or, look up her version online, and you can probably find out.

    I haven't gotten that close to it Zorba :) (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    It is one translated into more "modern" language which seems to be a huge window for retranslation.  When I attended church though in the 80's I was also gifted such a Bible, and hers seems to me to be a modified version of that modification.  My mother's Bible is old school King James, and my daughter says she can't even read it.  The only Bible she has ever really been exposed to and been able to read and gain comprehension from is her new age Bible.  She says she can't even read her grandmother's Bible and understand what it is supposed to mean :)

    Oh heck, Biblical scholars (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:57:58 AM EST
    are still arguing over which translation is the most accurate.
    There are even several versions of the Greek New Testament, and they argue about which one is the oldest and most accurate, and that the most accurate English translation would be using the oldest, closest to the original, Greek version.  But they can't agree on which version that is.
    The theological discussions are way beyond me.
    How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?   ;-)

    I asked my Born Again niece (none / 0) (#160)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:18:57 PM EST
    why there were so many Bible versions :P I mean shouldn't there just be one?

    Oh good greif, she sent a religious text to me earlier and I just got another one that said "Amen!" The first one was a photo she took of a bible page which I can't read in a text messgage, so who the heck knows what that Amen was about, lol!~


    Wanna see (none / 0) (#167)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:47:07 PM EST
    her head explode?
    Send her this link to the New Testament in Greek.  It's the 1904 version from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (yes, the Orthodox still call it "Constantinople.")
    Or she may prefer one of these many other versions of the Greek New Testament.

    OT, but will you please tell the Giants to get it together and win tonight???


    Something very popular (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    with Evangelicals is called "The Everyday Bible" or something like that.  I have seen a couple.  They could have called It The Bible For Dummies.  Or Bible Cliffnotes.  

    Tell them, (none / 0) (#177)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    If they're not reading the New Testament in its original Greek, then they're not really reading the New Testament.
    I'm sure they'll appreciate your advice.  :-D

    Had an interesting conversation (none / 0) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:29:12 PM EST
    with my fundie niece about this.  I say "you know, this is really just some guys interpretation of what the Bible actually says."
    She says, "well, if you listen to a preacher isn't it the same thing?"

    I had to admit she had a point.


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#185)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:31:42 PM EST
    But I probably would have said, "And why are you listening to a preacher?  It's just his interpretation.  Why not come to your own conclusions?"
    Depending upon how much you like your niece, that is.  ;-)

    My normal response as well (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:36:40 PM EST
    but the truth is my niece is not a person who comes to her own conclusions.

    I second the baseball request... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:55:00 PM EST
    Statistics aren't in their favor, though.  

    Something like 8 of the last 10 teams who were down 3-2 and returning to their home field have won the Series.

    But who cares about statistics?  


    Baseball request is in :P (none / 0) (#178)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:16:16 PM EST
    I really hate game 7s . . . .

    Be interesting to see what they do with pitching tonight . . .


    It's baseball, Anne (none / 0) (#190)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    Anything can happen!  Keep the faith.

    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 06:28:53 PM EST
    why anyone wouldn't want Condi Rice to come unless she didn't allow questions and answers. I certainly would love for her to answer some questions about what the heck she was doing yammering about a mushroom cloud.

    ... about the "smoking gun" part?

    Lots of people love that First Amendment, ... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 07:34:58 PM EST
    ... but apparently only so long as they agree with you.

    A lot of people don't really understand (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 09:35:48 PM EST
    what the First Amendment says, so I will quote it here, with bold added by me:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



    Congress not involved (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:10:02 PM EST
    This is between the students and their college.

    I guess I'm going to be the odd one out on this. Maher had the freedom (right) to give his opinion on religion. Specifically, the Muslin religion. The students have the right to their opinion that "Bill Maher is a blatant bigot and racist."  They also have the right to petition the college
    for "redress to their grievance (I.e. remove him as speaker)." IMO it is not an either or. It is their college and their commencement.

    But students at the University of California, Berkeley aren't laughing at his latest antics; they're petitioning to have him removed as their 2014 fall commencement speaker.

    To be clear (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:29:54 PM EST
    i don't really disagree that it is their right.   My question was is suppression of ideas, which has become something of an epidemic on university campuses the last few years, a good thing.   There have been books written on the subject.  Right and left.  

    Maher certainly has a megaphone.  And I doubt that he would care much if the invitation to speak, which he was not being paid for, is withdrawn.

    I would add its a commencement.   Hard to skip.  I get that.  


    Petitioning to change the university's choice (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:00:12 PM EST
    of commencement speaker is not a suppression of free speech; it's an exercise of free speech. No one has a "right" to be the commencement speaker. I would feel differently if the students were demanding that Maher not be allowed to speak on campus at all. (Berkeley being a state university, however, it is itself subject to First Amendment restrictions, via 14th Amendment "incorporation.") Although even then, Maher has an opportunity to be heard on campus whenever his show is on.

    Thanks - As always, (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:43:07 PM EST
    you make my point better I ever could.

    The point I was trying to make is that (none / 0) (#87)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 07:10:39 AM EST
    the First Amendment protects us from statutory restrictions and impositions - and that is not what's at work here.

    I agree that college can and should be a forum for the free exchange of ideas; students and young people should be challenged to think and explore not only their own feelings and beliefs, but be exposed to and have the opportunity to explore ideas and beliefs that are new and possibly repugnant to them.  As expensive as a college education is these days, the least we ought to get for the financial sacrifice borne by students and parents is the ability to think and analyze and challenge.

    That being said, I sometimes get the feeling that whatever committee or individual is choosing the commencement speaker is choosing controversy and the attention it brings to the institution in the mistaken belief that it is in the spirit of challenging the students and making them think, instead of what it really ends up being: a big blot on the memory of an important moment in these students' lives.  

    It would be like the parents of the bride and groom choosing the bride's and groom's attendants for them, and picking the worst and most contentious of the people the couple had dated to make some point that would be completely lost on the bride and groom, whose most important day would be essentially ruined, and the memory of the day forever marred.  

    As for Bill Maher, I don't know who he is, whether what he says comes from a place of belief or a desire for attention and ratings.  Like others in the entertainment field, he appears to have a massive ego and a little bit of a mean streak, and I can easily picture him purposely delivering a speech to anger and upset students just for the attention it will get him.

    Who needs or wants that on graduation day?


    Then your point is wrong!!!!!! (none / 0) (#103)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:16:26 AM EST
       The First Amendment does not  prohibit only statutory restrictions on establishment of religion, free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, peaceable assembly or petition for redress of grievances.



    Is it? And here I thought that the (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:06:32 AM EST
    whole point of the First Amendment was to protect us from the government's interference with and restrictions on the freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, the freedom to assemble, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and so on.  It also has been held to guarantee the separation of church and state.

    Oh, wait - you agree that that is the point of the Amendment, but wanted to let us know that there are ways other than by statute that the government is prohibited from restricting our rights under the First Amendment?  If so, perhaps you could have provided some examples, rather than using all those exclamation points to shriek that my point is wrong, when we know that what I said is true - that the Amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws that restrict these rights and freedoms.

    Too much caffeine this morning?


    literally and in context.

      Yes, now that you composed yourself and engaged in some thinking about it. You seem to grasp that governmental action not involving legislative enactments can violate the 1st Amendment.

      If you need examples, consider:

      An administrative agency refusing to allow persons opposed to a certain policy from addressing their concerns in the same manner it allows people who support the policy.

     A city garbage department director requiring his employees to begin the day by reciting the Lord's Prayer.

      A college that accepts federal funding refusing to admit muslims.

      A judge who has the Sermon on the Mount painted on the wall of his courtroom.

      The list is virtually endless.


    I am not stupid. I am aware of all of the (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:52:32 AM EST
    things you gave examples of.  

    You can pretend that I meant that statutes were the ONLY government action we are protected from, instead of what was obvious: that I was addressing the particular language of the Amendment for those who don't seem to understand that it addresses protection from government restriction.

    You could take some lessons from PeterG, who has a deep knowledge of and practical experience with constitutional law, and yet, he never uses that knowledge to make others look or feel dumb. He will certainly correct people when they are wrong, but manages to do so kindly and with an eye toward educating us, rather than making us sit in the corner.  

    Everyone feels better - and smarter - after a conversation with Peter.


    Recon's style is abrasive as to your initial (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:06:53 AM EST
    pedagogical effort. But his point was correct. Why not acknowledge your instruction was too literal and narrow.

    Perhaps, (none / 0) (#145)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:27:44 AM EST
     just perhaps, had you not chosen to underline the adjective that made your statement false, your subsequent effort at rehabilitation would not be so futile.

      Of course, even without the emphasis of "statutory" we still have you saying " and that is not what's at work here."

      Obviously, the implication from that construction is that you believed the First Amendment could not be applicable where a statute is not involved.

      If that is not what you intended to convey, then please refrain from EVER presuming, under any circumstances whatsoever, for any reason whatsoever, to even consider suggesting someone else's writing is not clear you and your failure to understand is his fault.

      Either you were very wrong with your initial statement because you misapprehended the scope  of the 1st Amendment or you  are no authority on clarity of writing.


    Recon, that's a very vitriolic explanation. (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:42:40 AM EST
    There goes the open thread. Sigh. (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    Some people (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:11:58 PM EST
    cannot stand to be disagreed with, without spewing vitriol.
    Makes you wonder what they are like in real life, or if all their bile is reserved for Internet comments.
    Perhaps Talk Left is their video gaming.  They can figuratively "shoot it out" here, while living a pretty normal real life.

    This is the rationale for a TL (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    meet-up. A couple of glasses of wine and the fiercest critic turns into a gentle soul. (Or a mean drunk!)

    depends (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by CST on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    on the wine :)

    Perhaps instead of salsa (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:17:02 PM EST
    this time could be a discussion on the pros and cons of cold soup.

    Love gazpacho; loathe borscht! (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:52:41 PM EST
    I totally agree (none / 0) (#179)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:22:27 PM EST
    Despite the fact that I know a lot of Russian-background people who claim their borscht is the best, and keep pressing it on me.
    By then, I've never been a fan of beets in any way, shape, or form.
    Their Beef Stroganoff and their Chicken Kiev, OTOH, are to die for.   ;-)

    PS (none / 0) (#182)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:29:03 PM EST
    Vichyssoise is also pretty darned good.
    How could anything with that much heavy cream in it possibly be bad?   :-)

    Cucumber Soup (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:31:39 PM EST

    That's good, too. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    Andrew Zimmern has a nice recipe for cucumber soup.

    cold soup??? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by CST on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 02:31:22 PM EST
    you mean melted ice cream?

    That is the only acceptable cold soup, IMO.


    Melted ice cream? (none / 0) (#201)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 02:36:06 PM EST
    Don't you mean a nice, thick milkshake?  Preferably chocolate.

    Certainly, I could have employed (none / 0) (#197)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 02:29:30 PM EST
     more temperate language and standard punctuation had I felt that appropriate.

      I felt, however, that the strongly worded correction was appropriate because Anne (and a couple of other of the cool kids) like to act both as if they are knowledgeable experts on subjects which they  clearly are not ( in Anne's case everything from epidemiology, to grammar to constitutional jurisprudence) and also that their opinions are the only morally worthy ones and that anyone who disagrees with them is fair game for attack.

      I also feel these same people are highly hypocritical and jump with glee into frays with insults and snark but act tremendously aggrieved when on the other end.

      If Anne doesn't like being corrected or having her opinions challenged, she (and the other of the clique) can: not misstate facts; and, at least occasionally, acknowledge their opinions are not sacrosanct truths.

      If she and the clique choose to ignore that advice, they should be strong enough at least to weather responses no "harsher" or ore "vitriolic" than the ones they frequently dish out.



    Sock it to me Recon, (none / 0) (#204)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    I can take the hits, and often do.  But on further reflection, I wonder, did I learn anything more about the 1st Amendment today, or become more confused.  The many interpretations become more confusing to laymen almost daily.

    Take a chill pill, Recon (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:07:20 PM EST
    You have gone way over the top in several comments.  As fishcamp said, vitriolic.
    Take some deep, cleansing breaths.   Ommmmmmm.

    The last person I am going to take (none / 0) (#158)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:16:12 PM EST
    advice from is the one who thought that garbled mess of a sentence involving vaccines was intelligible.

    Are we or are we not protected from statutory restrictions or impositions of the rights and freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment?  We are.  That the meaning and interpretation of what is a law has evolved over many years of litigation does not change that, does it?  No, it does not.

    Nor does it change my overall point, which is that far too many people do not understand that the First Amendment is about protection from the government.

    "What's at work here" is, as I understand it, the objection by students to the choice of commencement speaker, and the opinion by others that for the university to rescind the invitation is tantamount to a restriction of free speech under the First Amendment.

    Has the invitation been rescinded?  Has the putative speaker expressed that he feels his rights have been infringed upon?  Is he insisting that, come hell or high water, he WILL speak at the commencement?

    Does the university, as a public institution to some extent and the likely recipient of federal funds, step into the shoes of "the government" and if so, is it then deemed to have abrogated the rights of a commencement speaker to whom it extended an invitation to speak?

    If anything I wrote confused you, or you felt it wasn't clear, I can only tell you, as I have tried in subsequent comments, what I had intended to convey.  You can continue to reject any and all explanations, can continue to be sidetracked by this how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin exercise, or we can find some point of agreement and move on.

    If that doesn't interest you, and you prefer to keep after me, well, you and your exclamation points can just bite me.


    FWIW, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    I also interpreted your initial comment as advancing the overly-literal and mistaken idea about the scope of the First Amendment's reference to "Congress" that Recon latched on to.  I'm glad you've corrected yourself.  And I do appreciate the compliment you posted a few comments back. Thank you for that. From my perch on the moral high ground, I will also say that I thought Recon's response to you, while unnecessarily harsh, was not as excessive as your rejoinders to him. As I started out saying, his understanding of your comment as meaning that the First Amendment (and its application to states and their subdivisions through the Fourteenth) only restricts legislative action, to the exclusion of other forms of governmental action, was quite reasonable; I also thought that's what you were (mistakenly) saying.

    Thank you for your gracious (5.00 / 5) (#203)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 02:41:45 PM EST
    reply, Peter.

    I initially just posted the text of the Amendment, hoping that its presence would bring people back to a reminder of what it was intended to do: protect us from government restrictions or impositions.  The bold was intended to highlight the edict to the government, not that "laws" were the only avenue not available to the government to impose itself on us.

    My mistake was clearly the reference in my next comment to "statutory;" apparently, it was not one of my finer rhetorical moments, although I have to say that I didn't think it warranted the level of vitriol that came back my way.  I suspect it has something to do with earlier encounters with him on the interpretation of his words as they related to the Ebola situation.  Who knows?

    It just seemed to me that there was potential for a civil, rational, educational discussion about the First Amendment as it may or may not apply to the Bill Maher thing, and to the extent my responses to Recon got in the way of that, I apologize.  

    These are the kinds of blow-ups that will remind me not just to be more careful in my own choice of words, but to ask someone whose words I'm not sure I understand the meaning of what it is he or she intended to say before jumping in with both feet.

    Maybe we are all in middle school some days...


    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:13:22 PM EST
    my original comment about UCBerkley is necessarily a first amendment issue.  Definitely about free speech.  Which is what I thought an institute of higher learning was all about.

    Free exchange of ideas.  Even ones you don't like.  It always seemed to me that a person afraid of a debate is a person who is afraid they might be wrong.  


    "Free speech" (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:32:17 AM EST
      can be a term of art as used in constitutional jurisprudence or it can be meant literally.

      If the local flower club refuses to allow a guy who hates roses from speaking at their meeting to argue against people planting roses in their gardens, the club is literally suppressing free speech.

      If the owner of a blog deletes posts with which he disagrees, he is literally suppressing free speech.

       Because neither involve governmental action (assuming neither receives any federal funding)these are merely examples of private actors permissibly suppressing free speech.

      If, however the local school board, which does receive federal funds were to prevent a person who opposes preschool for three year olds from being heard  in the same manner as it allows someone who supports it is allowed, that would be an impermissible restriction on free speech.

      Likewise, if an executive branch administrative agency were to allow for public comments on an issue but struck  from the record comments opposed to one course of action but preserved those supporting that course of action, it would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.


    The students who initiated the petition (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:37:03 PM EST
    consider it hate speech. From their POV it is the equivalent to hate speech directed at AAs, the LGBT, etc. Students at colleges across the country have petitioned withdrawal of commencement speakers who they felt did not represent their values.

    Last spring saw debates that led to the withdrawal of graduation speakers at Rutgers University (Condoleezza Rice, opposed for her role in the administration of President George W. Bush), Smith College (Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, opposed for IMF policies) and Haverford College (Robert Birgeneau, the former chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, opposed for his handling of campus protests).

    I Mentioned some of those (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:46:32 PM EST
    in the original comment.  The fact that it's happening a lot is exactly my point.  From a post on this-

    Oh Lord--now Berkeley students want to ban a commencement address by Bill Maher

    I always considered myself pretty much on the left politically. When the University of California at Berkeley had the Free Speech movement fracas back in the 1960s, in which students vehemently asserted their right to discuss political matters in public on campus, I was fully behind it.

    But somehow, now, I feel like the left is closing circles and meeting the right.  The Free Speech movement at Berkeley has turned into this, according to yesterday's Daily Cal (the student newspaper; my emphasis):
    Get it: "Free Speech, not Hate Speech"? Doesn't that sound so reasonable. But one person's reasonable speech is another's hate speech, and in a democracy they all should be heard.  Who is the arbiter of what is "hate speech"? Why, the fragile students of Berkeley, of course!

    Navid and the members of MEMSA should grow up. You don't need to agree with all of Maher's views to recognize that a lot of what he says about religion is thoughtful, and, even if you don't agree with him, he makes you think--and leads you to hone your own arguments if you want to remain a believer in belief.  These students are like little kids: stopping their ears and going "nyah nyah nyah nyah" when they hear something they don't like.

    When my own college class graduated in 1971, and the College of William and Mary chose as commencement speaker a right-wing politician (Thomas Downing, a congressman from southern Virgina), we didn't demand his removal. Instead, we organized a "counter-commencement" featuring Charles Evers, the brother of slain civil rights worker Medgar Evers. (Notice as well, that although I was valedictorian of that class, they didn't let me give a valedictory address--the College had none in 1971 and 1972--because I was a known "radical.")

    If you don't like who your college chooses to speak, oppose his or her speech with counter speech, but don't try to prevent people from speaking. It's the clash of opposing ideas that I found the most exciting part of college. The coddled and misguided students at Berkeley don't recognize this, for they want to hear only the words that are soothing to their ears.


    Let's personalize this for a minute. (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 11:27:31 PM EST
    This is a commencement speech at your graduation and you are a gay man. The college has decide to invite Rick Santorum or before his death Fred phelps to be the speaker.

    This is a commencement speech at your graduation and you are AA. The college has decided to invite one of the politicians that is known for the remarks depicting all AAs as lazy, thugs who never work.

    If it was my graduation and the college chose to invite Todd Akin to be the speaker, I would be gathering signatures for his removal.


    I would not be happy (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:03:43 AM EST
    but I would prefer the approach in the comment you responded to.  I grew in the same era.   An era when activism was about more than complaining about being victimized and trying to silence others.  I'm sure Ben Affleck would love to come and tell them all what a horrible person Bill Maher is.

    Why not do that?


    A year or so ago (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 07:10:13 PM EST
    David Corn was stopped from speaking at a local college with a petition.  

    Lawsuit over Ebola hysteria. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Angel on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 08:57:55 PM EST
    Game 7 (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jack203 on Tue Oct 28, 2014 at 10:29:53 PM EST
    World Series tomorrow night 8 EDT

    Go Royals!  David vs Goliath is right.

    St. Louis County to take over Ferguson police dept (none / 0) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 07:10:41 AM EST
    CNN) -- The police chief in Ferguson, Missouri, is expected to step down as part of the effort by city officials to reform the Police Department, according to government officials familiar with the ongoing discussions between local, state and federal officials.

    Under the proposed plan, after Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson leaves, city leadership would ask the St. Louis County police chief to take over management of Ferguson's police force.
    Jackson said Tuesday he is not being pushed out.

    "Nobody in my chain of command has asked me to resign, nor have I been terminated," he said on the phone to CNN link

    Some more sobering political news (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 07:41:09 AM EST
    The state governments

    The Big Picture: Public dissatisfaction with President Obama and the direction of the country give Republicans an edge in the midterm elections, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Six in ten say they can't trust the federal government to do what's right. There is less interest in the midterm elections than there was in 2006 or 2010, but Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting. Republicans lead the generic ballot 50 percent to 44 percent. In states with competitive Senate races, Republicans lead the generic ballot 57 percent to 39 percent.

    What That Means In The States: Republicans control 59 of 98 partisan legislative chambers across the country. A favorable political environment is likely to boost that number this year, giving Republicans control of an unprecedented number of legislative chambers. The GOP controlled both chambers in 30 states after the 1920 elections, and their modern record is 62 chambers, following special elections in 2011 and 2012.

    Chambers To Watch: New Hampshire House, and its 400 members. Washington State Senate, where Republicans govern with centrist Democrats. Nevada Senate and Colorado Senate, which Democrats hold by one-seat margins. Iowa Senate, Kentucky House and West Virginia House, all of which are governed by slim Democratic majorities. Arkansas House and Pennsylvania Senate, two Democratic opportunities to make gains.

    Generic (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 08:28:57 AM EST
    ballots are great until you actually put a name on them like David Perdue.

    The fact that it's even as close as it is in so many races show how trashed the GOP brand has become.


    Anecdotally and otherwise (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    As you suggest, Ga6th, the interest on all sides appears to be quite strong in those "swing" and/or battleground states.  And, as Sam Wang mentions today in his Princeton Election Consortium, the close races are statistically set in such a way as to be within a 1% range across the board for several of those races.

    In the 6-year-itch year--with regard to anything else--political scientists expect a loss for incumbents.  Everyone knows that ... and, if the Dems lose more than "expected", I'm sure that I and my party will say "That is what should be expected, historically:)"  OTOH, if the eventual outcome is a 50-50 tie or better, we will claim a minor miracle combined with a major rejection of the opponents' methods, candidates, and very being :)  Whatever happens next week, I'm guessing that the curve balls in the process outnumbered the series count. Who would have thought ....

    Yes, who would have ventured to assume a close contest at this late stage in Kansas, Georgia, and (sometimes) even Kentucky?  I never saw anything seriously predicting that several months ago.  On the Democratic side: Who would have thought that what-looks-like-a-Bachmann-twin, Joni Ernst may well win that race? Or that (to my dismay ... especially given the many hours in the field on Senator Udall's behalf; iow, a strong personal investment) Senator Mark Udall in Colorado may well have been out-maneuvered by the smiling, pleasant face of the "personhood" "social security privatization" advocate Cory Gardner?  There have been lots of shifts within shifts.  

    What is even more fascinating is the state of the gubernatorial races.  On the horizon, we may be seeing both parties losing (e.g., the Republicans in Kansas, Pennsylvania, Maine & the Democrats in Colorado and Rhode Island.)  Even the Republican Governors in Wisconsin and Michigan aren't home free.  

    Lots of anti-incumbency out there.  That is to be expected.  For me, tho, I'm on the campaign trail to keep our two top-line Colorado incumbents ... Let's hear it for Senator Mark Udall & Governor John Hickenlooper!!! Yea! Vote! Votar Hoy!  (See that's what happens when I've knocked so many doors and gone to almost too many gatherings, fundraisers, and rallys that the focus becomes so focused it is hard to see anything else.  Yesterday, it was a great rah-rah and talk from the whole slate and the best-of-the-enthusiasm-builders, former President Bill Clinton. BTW, Clinton seems indefatigable and in perfect pitch.)


    And yet (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 08:33:15 AM EST
    They are probably going to gain seats in the House, probably going to take the majority in the Senate, and probably going to take over even more state legislatures.

    Better hope (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 08:37:19 AM EST
    The single, college-educated women come to vote in droves.

    For the third consecutive election, congressional Democrats are facing the prospect of a decisive rejection by most white voters, including not only white men but also white women who are either married or lack a college degree. But in surveys of both individual Senate races and national preferences on the generic congressional ballot, Democrats are showing stubborn strength with college-educated and single white women.

    That performance--combined with preponderant leads among minority voters in almost all surveys--represents the Democrats' best chance of overcoming gaping deficits with the remainder of the white electorate in the key contests. Yet in a measure of the party's vulnerability, even that advantage rests on an unsteady foundation: National Pew Research Center and ABC/Washington Post polls conducted in October found that college-educated white women, though strongly preferring Democrats on issues relating to women's health, actually trust Republicans more on both managing the economy and safeguarding the nation's security.

    Both the national surveys and recent polls in the key Senate races display strikingly consistent patterns of support that transcend state boundaries--and follow deep grooves of the parties' recent competition. They reinforce the portrait of a modern Democratic coalition that is demographically and geographically better positioned to compete for the White House than to consistently control majorities in Congress--and a Republican coalition that faces the opposite problem.

    This year, Democrats continue to post big advantages among minority voters in both the national polling (where the Pew and ABC/Washington Post surveys each show them leading Republicans in the generic congressional ballot by just over 4-to-1) and the state surveys (where African-Americans are providing the party lopsided margins in Arkansas and North Carolina.) But minorities are relatively less numerous in many of the states that will decide Senate control.

    No one comes out in droves in midterms (none / 0) (#94)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 08:44:45 AM EST
    Exactly my point (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 08:49:22 AM EST
    So don't (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:19:14 AM EST
    expect the GOP to come out in droves either.

    Except they are energized (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    Democrats are not - except maybe in areas where Democrats will win anyways.

    If the whole (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:00:15 AM EST
    Obama thing worked both Perdue and Deal would have  at least 10 points on their competition. They do not. If the GOP was so energized why are we looking at runoffs down here in GA? It undercuts the whole Republicans are energized argument. Maybe the problem is is that there just aren't enough Republicans anymore.

    GA (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:03:21 AM EST
    is not the whole country - you understand that, right?

    Yes (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:06:53 AM EST
    but it's a GOP state. Right? If the whole GOP is so energized statement was so on the money would not that also apply to Georgia being a red state? If the GOP was so energized all across the nation like the beltway nitwits are saying Deal should be walking to reelection and Perdue should be walking to the senate neither of which is happening.

    The latest GA poll (none / 0) (#138)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    Survey USA - FWIW, has Perdue up by 3. So does the ACJ and CBS/NYT over the last week.  Last week Nunn was up in those polls, so something happened to switch those numbers, and we're under a week to go.  Which way is the momentum going to go?

    They flip (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:09:07 AM EST
    a few points for one of the other every poll that is taken lately. It means nothing when it comes to momentum. I know you want the GOP to take the senate but it's been predicted before and didn't happen. I don't know why this time it is supposed to be so different. The truth is no one knows what is going to happen.

    Couple of things (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:59:15 AM EST
    i just heard a very funny and typical pundit conversation from the kitchen where I am making fat free oatmeal cookies.  It was about the Iowa senate race.  It seems a poll is out today saying Earnst is up by 3-4 .  Well this is definitely baaaaaaad news for the democrats.  Yes there was a poll yesterday that had Braley up, but this is baaaaaaaad news for the democrats.

    Another thing is that in every one of these pundit conversations there is the small print end of the conversation in passing CYA acknowledgement that it's "quite possible" the democrats will hold on.   The punditocracy would love a republican takeover.  It would give them something to scream about for months.   ONCE AGAIN the Obama presidency is OVER. ITS OVER
    but oh by the way even if they take the majority by one or even two nothing will pass any more easily than it does now and dems have been given explicit permission to obstruct obstruct obstruct.  By what you say? By six years of relentless republican obstruction.

    2016 is going to be. Very favorable year for senate democrats.


    Reminds me of a story I read someplace (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    regarding Obama's approval ratings. All the pundits for the last few months have convinced me that it has been plummeting into the gutter. I was surprised to learn that in reality it is right about where it was a year ago.

    Wish I could make a living in the field of data free analysis.


    Ha (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:34:58 PM EST
    see budget deficit, job creation, healthcare costs, etc etc.

    Well, (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    what I expect to happen is that if the senate doesn't vote in all the crackpot legislation that the house is going to kick up to them McConnell is going to be stabbed in the back. It's going to be a major shooting match with the tea party shooting and McConnell taking fire. It's not like they don't already detest the guy.

    And then I have to wonder about some of those R senators from blue states like Ayotte. One way or the other she's probably going down in 2016 because the senate being taken over by the GOP is going to be a lose/lose proposition for her unless she somehow has figured out how to thread the needle. So far she seems to be just aligning herself with the crackpots.


    I really really (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    think Mitch will not be part of the equation.  

    are they though? (none / 0) (#115)
    by CST on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:46:25 AM EST
    I mean Obama as bogeyman isn't that scary anymore, he's been in office too long and is on his way out.

    To be fair, I don't really know these people, but it doesn't feel like a highly energized election season in general.


    I agree (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:55:57 AM EST
    and there are two things that could effect that in a positive way for us.  One is GOTV.  Dems are pouring money into this.  The other is the attempted repression of voting.  I was just reading last night hie AAs are coming out in surprising numbers as a reaction to this.

    Also the republicans have two messages.   Stop the President.  And Stop Gridlock.  
    Even republicans know that makes no sense.  


    Well (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:02:31 AM EST
    that's pretty much what I'm seeing down here in GA. The whole Obama as boogeyman has lost it's salience. You have to remember that the GOP was talking about how the world was going to end and unemployment was going into double digits because of Obamacare. They pretty much shot the scare wad already and they made these pie in the sky predictions that have killed their credibility.

    Well, (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:02:31 AM EST
    Every report in every political publication and major news outlet has been saying that for months, so it could be all manufactured, but I don't think so.  Heck - this is a blog that discusses politics, and there's been very little discussion about the upcoming election - doesn't seem like a lot of enthusiasm around here, but conservative blogs are very enthusiastic, so why should the rest of the country be any different?

    And they (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    all were reporting that the GOP was going to have 75 seats in the senate in 1998 and over 300 seats in the house. These predictions have been wrong a lot of the time. It's why I no longer listen to them.

    I always panic first though (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:07:25 AM EST
    I don't panic over Ebola, or clowns under the bed, but I will panic over that prediction over and over and over again :)

    I don't (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:08:41 AM EST
    Whatever is gonna happen is going to happen. My biggest worry would be if the GOP takes the senate is that Obama is going to cave and sign their crackpot legislation.

    I know :) (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:10:39 AM EST
    I don't think he would, they've beaten the crap out of him so badly for six years I'd think he'd learned something.

    But maybe not :)  He doesn't like public or publicized fights.  Will do anything to avoid it.


    I doubt he will (none / 0) (#131)
    by CST on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:19:17 AM EST
    He has no reason to.  It's a much bigger fight to actually try and get something passed than it is to not pass something.  So I suspect it will be more of a whole lot of nothing getting done.

    He has to have a budget though (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:20:22 AM EST
    Who knows what they would try to do him over that?

    Why (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:09:11 PM EST
    would it be different this time? This has been Obama's MO for quite some time.

    he hasn't had a republican senate (none / 0) (#161)
    by CST on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:19:29 PM EST
    to send him truly crackpot legislation - so I'm not sure we can say that one way or the other.

    Also, he no longer has an election to win.


    Republicans will take control of the senate (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 08:57:47 AM EST
    It may take until January to know that but they won't.

    Big oops they will NOT take the senate (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 08:58:55 AM EST
    early more coffee

    Howdy, try some Japanese (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:27:21 AM EST
    green tea. Much better for you in the long run,  through life and blogs.  :-)

    Better yet (none / 0) (#147)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    Go for a long run.

    I love green tea (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:00:38 PM EST
    that has nothing to do with caffeine

    Oh, yes (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 08:59:14 AM EST
    Runoff almost assured in LA, possibly GA

    And it usually takes weeks (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:13:59 AM EST
    to know about Alaska.  All three could play into who is Majority Leader.

    But I repeat.  Conventional wisdom will be wrong.  I think it's even possibly we may know who runs the senate on election night.


    I'm interested (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:26:05 AM EST
    to see how many votes these tea party candidates running as independents pull from the GOP.

    You are engaging in wishful thinking (none / 0) (#133)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    Try to step outside your political persuasion and face reality that Repubs will win the Senate.

    All traditional metrics and polls point this way.

    You appear to be living in the same world I was in 2008.   A world of denial.

    You could end up being right because anything can happen but most likely you will be wrong.


    That is an opinion (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:26:31 AM EST
    my opinion is that there are reasons to doubt the takeover talk.  It's not wishful thinking.   It might be wrong but it's not wishful anything.

    Here's the thing: (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:06:31 AM EST
    The GOP has been saying the same thing for the last 2 election cycles: we're going to take the senate. Heard it in 2010 and then in 2012. Didn't happen. This year they are rerunning their 1998 campaign it would seem. It didn't work then but maybe it will work this time.

    An important thing about Landrieu (none / 0) (#188)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:37:43 PM EST
    I would never count her out. From the swirling eddy of the last week before November 4th, for the biggest surprises: Senator Begich in Alaska could do much better than predicted as a result of intense organization among the Alaska Native population (@16% of the populace) AND since I've learned not to bet against the very adept Senator Landrieu, I look to her experience in seeing her through a December run-off.

    I happen to agree with you. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 08:59:57 AM EST
    A sad state of affairs, going to be a whole lot of hurt with the GOP in charge of almost everything.

    Yes (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:18:12 AM EST
    I guess we shall see. I've heard the predictions for years now. We've heard the same thing in 2010, 2012, and now 2014. That is what the beltway is saying but they sure are not giving anyone anything to vote for. The GOP campaign is we suck less than Obama.

    Not sure what you're talking about (none / 0) (#134)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:23:44 AM EST
    Prediction 2010 - Repubs would gain against Obama and they did.

    Prediction 2012 - Obama would win and he did.

    Prediction 2014 - Repubs will win.  

    Not sure why you are arguing the pundits get it wrong.  They've been right and only missed the margin.   Meaning the party predicted to win won by more.

    I would argue the repubs are more likely to win by more then actually lose.


    Let me offer a reason (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    there are more races this year within a point or two than ever before.  Even the prediction models are saying the will very likely be wrong.  The NYTimes model said that less that 3% of those currently "ahead" will win on election night.

    You are missing (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 11:15:36 AM EST
    the 2010 prediction that the GOP would take the senate which was wrong.

    But for the crackpots the primaried in (none / 0) (#162)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:24:45 PM EST
    Problem with your theory is that it didn't happen this time.

    I know you want the GOP to take the senate....

    Um, no.  I just think I live in reality and you think the TEA PARTY is taking over the world.


    Where are you getting (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:35:43 PM EST
    this "tea party is taking over the world stuff" I have never said that along with saying that Mitch wasn't going to be nominated by the GOP back in 2012 but you keep applying those statements to me.

    The tea party has the GOP by the short hairs. If Republicans were willing to blow up the country for fear of losing their seats by a challenge from a tea partier I would say the GOP has the problem not me.

    If you want a tea party infested senate have at it. I really don't think you know what you are wishing and hoping for.


    Anyone who doubts (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:42:46 PM EST
    should take a look at the positions of the GOP senate candidates in CO and Iowa.  To start.  They both slightly ahead and the are both in Michelle Bachman territory.

    There is no tea party.  It is the Republican Party.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    pretty much. The GOP has "gone there". It's certainly the way it is here in GA and lots of other places it would seem.

    And again (none / 0) (#171)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 12:56:25 PM EST
    I really don't think you know what you are wishing and hoping for.

    No idea what you are talking about since I don't WISH for that, but EXPECT it.

    Why do you keep making stuff up?  You're usually better than that.


    Honestly (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    you're the one that keeps making stuff up. The only thing I have said is I'm not making predictions and I'm certainly not going to make a prediction based on what the beltway is saying. They've been wrong so much I take everything they say with a grain of salt. They're so clueless they're stuck in 1980 with a different GOP and are in complete denial of how the fundamentalist radicals have taken over the GOP.

    Just heard Chuck Terd (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:38:29 PM EST
    from Arkansas admit Pryor can win.  

    At this point (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    with the closeness of the races I can't believe they are actually making any kind of predictions. They should be saying either could win but then this is the beltway and they're invested in this GOP taking the senate thing.

    Pryor can win (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    been saying it for months.  Chuck is CYAing.

    If you go by the RCP (none / 0) (#193)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 02:03:24 PM EST
    averages Repubs take the Senate.

    If you went by their averages in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 you got the result you got.

    So you are basically arguing that all the polls are wrong or are cherry picking the ones you like to fight off the reality that the averages point to a republican victory.

    Looking at the Map and going strictly off the averages today it's 52 48 in favor of repubs.

    Senate Map no Tossups

    I learned in 2014 that one shouldn't fight the math with partisan opinions.

    Especially when history suggests a sitting president always gets hammered in their second off year election and any sitting incumbent who polls under 48% before election day almost always loses.

    All signs point clearly towards a republican Senate and gains in the house.

    I'd prepare yourself to be disappointed.


    Well (none / 0) (#194)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    i won't really be disappointed.  Nothing will change.  Gridlock will endure.  
    I WOULD be surprised.

    Do I get a high five and a six pack from you if I am not?


    Well (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 09:28:24 AM EST
    if it's anything like here in GA they've gerrymandered themselves into districts and so with no competition are going to make themselves more hated than they already are.

    Capt (none / 0) (#206)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 04:03:18 PM EST
    Six pack bet it is

    The ACLUs support of Citizens United.. (none / 0) (#207)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 29, 2014 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    it's always seemed to be the Mrs Robinson of discussion topics here.

    Just a little secret, just the ACLUs affair..Most of all we've got to hide it from the kids..

    I've thrown this out here a couple of times before, and it's always crickets, grasshoppers, and katydids..

    Like bringing up old kindly Father So-and-So down the street who was just busted in a kiddie pron ring..