Tuesday Open Thread

I've got another busy day today. Here's a new open thread. All topics welcome.

< New Report on ISIS: Focus on the Governance, Not Just the Violence | India May Be Softening Stance on Shami Witness >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Discounted Witness (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:55:32 AM EST
    Witness who testified before grand jury that she saw Michael Brown charge Officer Darren Wilson is revealed to be 'lying racist bipolar felon'

    She remained adamant however that she had witnessed the events .... After her testimony, prosecutors suggested that McElroy had fabricated the entire incident and was not even at the scene the day of the shooting and her evidence discounted.

    They only "suggested"???

    And discounted by whom???

    What makes them  think that all members of the Grand Jury "discounted" her testimony???

    Why did it take them so long to realize that she was a prefabricating nutcase???

    And then why was her "discounted" testimony allowed to remain in the report to be used  afterwards by the propagandists of the police union and Team Wilson.

    Well anyway hopefully the author will dig into  Witness 10 next -- the guy who saw and heard things that nobody else did with precision from 480 feet away.

    C'Mon Chip, Cut it Out (none / 0) (#25)
    by RickyJim on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:53:45 AM EST
    Your complaint is that the jury heard from a lying (pro defense) witness.  Obviously you think that they were too dumb to make a proper judgment on her.  They also heard from liars from the other side like Dorian Johnson, Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell and the construction worker who said that 3 policemen were chasing Brown.  You need to spend more time at the conservativetreehouse in order to get a more balanced view of this case.

    No keep it up Chip (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 11:41:20 AM EST
    The prosecutor went out of his way to mention the anti Wilson witnesses as discredited. Of course all eye-witness accounts are unreliable and inconsistent and Wilson's defenders are quick to label them as lies when it suits them. The major point is that witness 40 should never should have been in that GJ room. If the prosecutor was too "dumb" to realize the major problems with this witness then maybe the GJ's, who are NOT trained lawyers, might not be as skeptical as they should.

    So Come Out and Say It (none / 0) (#165)
    by RickyJim on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 07:30:23 PM EST
    Do away with juries.  Just hearing from one lying witness may make them come to the wrong decision so some method should be found that only smart people like Uncle Chip and FlJoe be allowed to decide cases.

    Is that the best you got (none / 0) (#199)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:38:44 PM EST
    one lying witness

    It's not just one. We have Witness 10 as well.

    When is the Conservative Treehouse going to apply the same measurements to Witness 10 that they did to the landscaper???

    They had a cow over a landscaper seeing and hearing what he claimed from 200 feet away.

    AND YET Witness 10 claims to investigators to have seen and heard the whole thing with precision through trees and cars from start to finish from 480 feet away.

    And not a peep out of any treefrogs over there about this.

    And they call themselves sleuths -- I laugh.


    RJ (none / 0) (#42)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    Regarding lying witnesses, I guess you and Conservative Treehouse missed this from the prosecutor:

    In his original statement, Wilson said he fired once inside the car. He told the grand jury he fired twice. Physical evidence appears to back up his initial story. [Care Main p49]

    The physical evidence backed up Dorian Johnson's story not Wilson's perjury.

    So you were saying????


    No Chip (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:25:27 PM EST
    Johnson claimed that Wilson had choked Brown. But the ME said there was no evidence. I post again actual testimony from the GJ proceedings:

    Johnson's testimony:

    A No, ma'am, at this time when the door had
    9 closed back on him, he didn't say anything. His arm
    10 almost in an instant came out the window, his left
    ll arm, I remember it was his left arm, came out the
    12 window and touched Big Mike around his neck area and
    13 his throat. I watched his hands, you know, they
    14 really tightened up, so yeah, he had a good grip on
    15 it, that what's I saw first.

    What the ME said.

    11 A That's one of the abrasions next to it.
    12 So his chin is up a bit; is that right?
    13 A Correct.
    14 You can fully see his neck in that
    15 picture?
    16 A Correct.
    17 Did you notice anything when you examined
    18 his body, was there any bruising of his neck?
    19 A No.
    20 Any abrasions on his neck?
    21 A No.

    22 Have you ever seen an injury, and injury
    23 to a person who has been choked?
    24 A Yes.
    25 Okay. Can you describe someone who has...
    21 If enough force is applied there, you
    22 can see hemorrhaging within the soft tissues of the
    23 neck and then also you have a bunch of structure



    You love to major on the minors (none / 0) (#74)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:26:32 PM EST
    Johnson said that Wilson's hand started out at the throat and then it moved down to his shirt as Brown started struggling to get away.

    Wilson even admits to holding Brown -- he says he had him by the wrist.

    Throat, collar, sleeve, shirt, wrist -- take your pick. It could have been all of the above -- from throat to wrist -- as the interaction at the window proceeded.

    You notice that the PA has not released photos of Brown's bloody shirt which could settle the issue as to just what Wilson had a hold of.

    Either way Wilson was holding Brown trying to keep him from getting away by the testimony of the two people there.

    Holding someone who is trying to go is an odd behaviour for someone who later claims that he was the one trying to get away.

    Anyway the prosecutor said that the physical evidence re the shot in the truck does not back Wilson's story.

    And the blowback of that means that Wilson lied about a whole lot of other things that he claims happened there.


    No Chip and for goodness sake how can you (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:45:04 PM EST
    try to change his actual testimony>>

    A No, ma'am, at this time when the door had
    9 closed back on him, he didn't say anything. His arm
    10 almost in an instant came out the window, his left
    ll arm, I remember it was his left arm, came out the
    12 window and touched Big Mike around his neck area and
    13 his throat. I watched his hands, you know, they
    14 really tightened up, so yeah, he had a good grip on
    15 it
    , that what's I saw first.

    Johnson testimony

    And are you kidding me??

    You notice that the PA has not released photos of Brown's bloody shirt which could settle the issue as to just what Wilson had a hold of.

    Why should he??

    17 Did you notice anything when you examined
    18 his body, was there any bruising of his neck?
    19 A No.
    20 Any abrasions on his neck?
    21 A No.
    22 Have you ever seen an injury, and injury
    23 to a person who has been choked?
    24 A Yes.
    25 Okay. Can you describe someone who has...
    21 If enough force is applied there, you
    22 can see hemorrhaging within the soft tissues of the
    23 neck and then also you have a bunch of structure

    Are you saying the ME lied??

    And yes, that is important because it proves that Johnson lied.

    Now, what is this BS about what the prosecutor said. Let's see some proof.


    Is there some reason (none / 0) (#127)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:37:33 PM EST
    that you failed to bolden these words:

    that what's I saw first.

    Would you like to tell all of us what he saw next and next and next.


    I really don't care what he (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:19:11 PM EST
    claims to see and see and see....

    He was proven to lie under oath by the ME's forensic evidence.

    And he wasn't charged with perjury because it really isn't worth while. Witnesses lie.

    BTW - I'm still waiting for some proof about what the prosecutor said.

    Cat got your tongue??


    It's right here: (none / 0) (#187)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:36:00 PM EST
    I've posted it a half dozen times --

    Do I have to hold your hand and read it for you too???

    here on pg 49

    Read it and weep:

    In his original statement, Wilson said he fired once inside the car. He told the grand jury he fired twice. Physical evidence appears to back up his initial story.

    He not only changed his story three times but he perjured himself in the Grand Jury with his last set of prefabrications it did not go unnoticed to the PA.  

    It's one thing to appear there voluntarily -- it's another thing altogether to lie through your badge there.


    comment in response to this (none / 0) (#200)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:49:40 PM EST
    deleted for reprinting an entire page of a document. This space is for comments. You may quote a short paragraph or two, provide a links, and make your point. Bandwidth adds up.

    So silly (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:13:49 PM EST
    And yes, that is important because it proves that Johnson lied.

    No, Jim ... it absolutely does not prove that Johnson lied, which is precisely why you haven't (and won't) see him charged with perjury.  You "forgot" (as always part of DJ's testimony - the part where he said he had a hold of Wilson's shirt.

    "The officer grabbed, he grabbed a hold of Big Mike's shirt around the neck area" (p. 49)

    Even your own, partial quote is ambiguous - "His arm almost in an instant came out the window, his left arm, I remember it was his left arm, came out the window and touched Big Mike around his neck area and his throat.


    Did DJ mean his shirt, neck area or by the actual throat - or was he just using the terms interchangeably?  We don't know, and it doesn't matter, because all he said was that Wilson's grip had "tightened up" and he had a "good grip on it".  He never said that Wilson was applying enough force for long enough to cause any hemorrhaging.  He never even said Wilson "choked" him, as you've repeatedly (and falsely) claimed.  All of which is supported by DJ's and the ME's testimony.  The ME testified that bruising can (not will) occur, if enough force is applied.

    "If enough force is applied there, you can see hemorrhaging..."

    And some ME testimony you ommitted:

    Q:  What kind of injury would you see on someone who has been strangled? (as opposed to grabbed in the neck area).
    A:  Externally, you may see abrasions from, you know, people who have nails or whatnot and the rough nature of the event, you can create abrasions on the outside of the neck.  You don't always see them, but you can...

    Q:  But someone who has been grasped very tightly around the neck,you might see bruising?"
    A:  Correct.

    See all those qualifiers, Jim?

    "If enough force is applied ..."
    " ... you may see ..."
    "You don't always see them, but you can."
    "... you might see bruising..."

    The reason the ME adds all those qualifiers is because, despite the questioning from the DA designed to lead to a certain conclusion, he wants to be factually accurate.  He's pointing out that - even in cases of strangulation - you don't necessarily get bruises.

    So, no ... in fact, your "proof" of lying ...

    ... is proof of nothing.


    I like this guy (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by CST on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    The "investigation" into American nuns has turned into a pat on the back.

    "An unprecedented and highly controversial Vatican investigation of every community of Catholic sisters in the United States that began with criticism of nuns as having a "secular mentality" ended Tuesday with a report full of praise, and without any disciplinary measures or new controls."

    The nuns always win. (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    I have been saying all along to anybody that was listening, especially my still practicing Catholic family members, that the nuns would win out over the Vatican.

    Anybody who attended Catholic school knows that the nuns always win. :-)


    I have a question... (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    How come the media falls all over itself to give people like Dick Cheney and John Brennan and Michael Hayden air- and press-time to justify a policy of torture, minimize the methods used, quibble about the meaning of the word, but those upon whom the torture was inflicted don't get a chance to tell the American people what was done to them, and let the American people see how it has affected them?

    Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept:

    Ever since the torture report was released last week, U.S. television outlets have endlessly featured American torturers and torture proponents. But there was one group that was almost never heard from: the victims of their torture, not even the ones recognized by the U.S. Government itself as innocent, not even the family members of the ones they tortured to death. Whether by design (most likely) or effect, this inexcusable omission radically distorts coverage.


     What this glaring omission in coverage does more than anything else is conclusively expose the utter fraud of the U.S. media's claims to "objectivity" and "neutrality." Outlets like The Washington Post and NPR still justify their refusal to call these torture tactics "torture" by invoking precepts of "neutrality": we have to show all views, we can't take sides, etc.

    But that's pure deceit. They don't show all sides. They systematically and quite deliberately exclude the victims of the very policies of the U.S. Government they pretend to cover. And they do that because including those victims would be too informative, would provide too much information, would be too enlightening. It would, for many people, shatter the myths of American Goodness and the conceit that even when Americans do heinous things, they do it with Goodness and Freedom in their hearts, with a guaranteed and permanent status as superior. At the very least, it would make it impossible for many people to deny to themselves the utter savagery and sadism carried out in their names.

    Keeping those victims silenced and invisible is the biggest favor the U.S. television media could do for the government over which they claim to act as watchdogs. So that's what they do: dutifully, eagerly and with very rare exception.

    If the media wants balance, if it wants to put it all out there so people can make up their own minds, then they should do just that - but that's not what is happening.  They seem to want to believe that the Executive Summary IS the sum total of the "other side," that its recitation of what was done to people is as good as hearing from those who actually experienced it.  

    And I don't think it is.

    Anne, you wanted a strategy (2.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:38:56 PM EST
    and I gave you one in the last thread. I was most happy to do so.

    Read at your leisure.

    And was I correct in my assessment of your position or do you actually have one?

    And maybe the media is trying to even things up since the Demos didn't have a single Repub on the committee or interview a single person from the CIA.



    Not taking sides in (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    and not much of an opinion on the Cosby story. But am I the only one who thinks its not the best approach to have his wife ask publicly "who is the victim".

    Yeah, pretty bad form dragging his wife (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    out to defend him

    Which oddly (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:44:54 PM EST
    as I understand it, she never actually did.  She never said he didn't do it.

    Btw (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:46:53 PM EST
    of all here I think you might like Ascension.  See my comment below.  In a review I read the guy compared the approach to Mad Men.

    Quote (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:54:01 PM EST
    In the first season of Mad Men, in the episode entitled "The Wheel," pitchman poet Don Draper reframed a carousel slide projector as a time machine and defined the word "nostalgia" not as "a sentimental longing" or "wistful recollection of the past" but by the Greek meaning, "pain from an old wound." Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner not only gave us a way of understanding his show and its haunted antihero but also a perspective on '60s nostalgia in general, a genre of entertainment unto itself.

    Going on the Offense... (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:48:17 PM EST
    ...works better if you don't have over two dozen women with, more or less, the same story.

    Same thing with Sandusky, at some point it becomes improbable that people who don't know each other have the same basic story, told over decades.  And until there are actual lawsuits, claiming the accusations are financially motivated is disingenuous and simply not true.  I think one has filed a suit.

    I think Cosby is as deluded as Sandusky was, believing he has the ability to walk away reputation in tact.  Which would be a real shame if he didn't do it, but just speaking my mind, seems highly unlikely.  He can't be charged with a crime, so there is a good chance no one will ever know but the people actually involved.


    I don't want to harm the CIA (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:39:57 PM EST
    I want it gone.

    These are the guys who killed 4000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis and cost the taxpayers $2T by BEING WRONG about the WMD.  They have harmed the United States more than all the terrorists acts in our history.  Why wasn't 4000 dead Americans and $2T in wasted taxpayer funds enough of a screw-up to cost someone a job?

    Then they tortured prisoners in violation of the 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments.  At least one victim was perfectly innocent but tortured to death because his name was the same as another guy's.  If torture were "effective" in eliciting "truth," don't you think the poor schmuck would have told them he was innocent BEFORE he was tortured to death?  Why didn't it "work" in proving his innocence?  


    Can you think of anything more evil than torturing an innocent person to death over a period of weeks?  No one who condones that has any right to complain about terrorists who choose a gruesome, but by comparison mercifully quick, form of execution.

    Can you have a standing military (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:00:39 PM EST
    700 bases around the world etc without a CIA or an intelligence gathering arm like the CIA?

    We've slowly built up an unwieldy and massive infrastructure for permanent war. How make friends and intimidate people. We have a lot of disassembling to do.


    Honestly though (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:13:03 PM EST
    what good are they?  They had no clue about the WMDs, Arab Spring, 9/11 the fall of the Berlin Wall and pretty much everything in between.
    For a so called intelligence gathering organization they sure seem pretty damn clueless every time it counts.

    I'm betting more on (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 07:18:01 PM EST
    they had a clue but lied out their asses. Which is about all they're good for. If good is the right word.

     That, and being the unofficial private goon squad for the investor class. There's a reason why so many deputy directors came from Wall St.


    But why would they want to look (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 07:35:59 PM EST
    ignorant and incompetent?  I think you are going them to much credit.

    They count on the people (none / 0) (#172)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:18:21 PM EST
    who click their heels and obey, the people paying no attention whatsoever,and the utterly terrified..

    And they count on a battery of lawyers and pr firms.

    The scared and the attention deficient seem to be.the real ace in the hole..


    The drought is over (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:55:56 PM EST
    At least in the part of California where I am sitting, Marin County.

    Two days ago our reservoirs were at 89% capacity, compared to 53% this time last year.  We've had 4 more inches of rain since then, and it is pouring right now.

    Rainfall total last year at this time, measured from October 1, was about four inches.  Average to date is about thirteen.  We should hit 24 inches in the next hour or two, at least ten inches ahead of schedule.  More important, if it stops tomorrow, we're filled to capacity.

    Pouring again? (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:01:39 PM EST
    Oy, just checked, here also. My poor doggie is too young to remember this much rain. She thinks I'm being evil every time I open the back door!

    Back door (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by sj on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:41:08 PM EST
    Did she make you check out the front door as well? My girl has to check both before she really believes it. And then somehow it's my fault...

    I just went out back with her (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 07:19:01 PM EST
    and tried to make it 'fun' again :P The cats are checking both the back and front doors, but Rox is only let out the back door off leash, so the front door is just something she watches the world from (pane glass). Last night I opened the door and she bolted back through the house like she had been electrocuted, lol!~ It could be a very long rainy season . . .

    My spaniel absolutely refuses to go out (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by vml68 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    if it is raining. He will wait a day if he has to and when he can't hold it any longer, he will inch out till he is barely outside the door and go right there. God forbid, his paws get wet!
    He has absolutely no problem going swimming though!

    A new thing he has started in FL is that he will not step on the grass. No amount of coaxing, tugging on the leash, etc., has worked. We have to stick to the sidewalk, road, or mulched areas. In NJ, he only had an issue if the grass was wet. Here, wet or dry, he wants no part of it.
    Fun times!


    Rox was fine until recently (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:40:48 PM EST
    She actually has a 'command' of 'go to the back and potty!" and she will. But we have been having heavy no-stop down pours that last 48hrs! She is pretty much over it, so I'm happy if she will go out by the door and do her thing. I REALLY don't want to have to start getting into my rain gear every time she needs to potty and standing out there with her :P

    Both Dot and Rox were/are grass hounds. It's a tad embarrassing . . . Rox will crawl and roll herself through the park. I think Dot blessed her with that stunt . . .


    The grand beagle (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:25:28 PM EST
    (Daughter's dog) hates getting wet. You literally have to throw him outside to do his business if there is even the least little bit of rain.

    Throwing yours outside would be more of a challenge.😊


    My mom's beagle is the same (5.00 / 5) (#180)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:43:07 PM EST
    she won't even go out if there is dew on the back deck!

    Rox almost knocked me on my back when she bolted from the open door. Trust me, I can throw her out back, lol!~ ;)


    I guess I'm lucky (none / 0) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:55:21 PM EST
    2 of my dogs have no problem with any kind of weather.  At all.  They seem to prefer it.  And Daisy the female husky doesn't really like to get her feet wet but it won't stop her from doing her business.   She just won't play in the rain with the boys.

    Not in the forests (none / 0) (#202)
    by ZtoA on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:54:14 PM EST
    "Even though we've had, what, 5 or 6 inches of rain, we're only getting soil wetting down to about a half an inch to an inch," he says. "We're dusty dry down below an inch."

    Another big environmental move today. (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:58:16 PM EST
    Obama announced today that he's removing more than 52,000 square miles of Bristol Bay and nearby waters off Alaska's coast from oil and gas exploration or drilling.

    Let's (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:07:48 PM EST
    hope that he vetoes the Pipeline.

    The republicans, with an assist from Landrieu, are hell bent on passing it.


    Jim, you're like a human Möbius strip... (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 07:29:20 PM EST
    Stuck in an endless loop of tired, right-wing talking points, you might as well be typing "I know you are, but what am I?"

    Eyes wide shut, lacking even the courage to read a whopping 6 pages of the Summary to find out how the report was compiled, you persist in making statements that only Fox News devotees would accept.

    You do not have an "inquiring mind;" someone who did would not so persistently refuse to educate himself.

    My strategy for the foreseeable future is going to be to make a concerted effort to ignore you.

    Only in Virginia (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:52:19 AM EST
    First Bob McDonnell and his lovely bride got  caught up in corruption and were found guilty of multiple charges, and now this:

    From Richmond's New Kingdom Christian Ministries on Sunday morning, Virginia state Del. Joseph D. Morrissey (D-Henrico) announced that he will soon decide whether or not to resign in the wake of a conviction that would see him serving in the legislature during the day and reporting to jail at night.

    Morrissey, 56, entered an Alford plea Friday to a misdemeanor charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in a case where prosecutors accused him of both having sex with and sharing a naked photograph of a 17-year-old girl. Alford pleas allow the accused to maintain innocence but acknowledge that there is enough evidence for a conviction.

    He was sentenced to 12 months in jail with six suspended. However, his work-release arrangement would allow him to not only continue practicing law as a private attorney, but writing it in the General Assembly during the 2015 legislative session.

    Gotta love Virginia politics.

    Sadly (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:05:05 AM EST
      I'd say only in Virginia is an unrealistically optimistic view.

    Well, I think it's a rather sad statement ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    ... on the present state of affairs in Virginia GOP politics that Del. Morrissey is even allowed by party leaders to pray for divine guidance on such a decision, and doesn't feel compelled by public pressure to simply resign his seat out of a sense of decorum and common decency.

    But then, why should he? Look at how thoroughly compromised Virginia Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli was ethically on so many levels, and yet he still came this close to defeating Terry McAuliffe in the 2013 governor's race. Are voters there even paying attention?

    Yeah, I know what some people here will say, that McAuliffe is really no great shakes, either. But that's totally beside the point, given that he's never even been charged with -- never mind tried and convicted for -- public or personal corruption. I bet if Bob McDonnell were somehow still eligible to hold public office, he'd likely enjoy a 50 / 50 chance of getting elected.

    And that's what's really wrong with this picture. It isn't just that the aforementioned public officials are compromised ethically and / or morally. It's also that a better then decent-sized chunk of the state electorate oftentimes just dutifully flocks to the polls, and then tells us with their votes that we must have them confused with someone who actually gives a damn.



    So this is the fault of the (none / 0) (#46)
    by me only on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:20:35 PM EST
    Republicans?  Sheesh

    Oops. My bad. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    Thanks for taking note of that error. I'd have never re=read the original piece were it not for your prompting. I totally misread jb's post. I'll sheepishly take my Emily Litella mulligan and say, "Oh -- Never mind."



    Horrific slaughter of children in Pakistan (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:33:36 AM EST
    The details of this (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:07:46 AM EST
    are even more terrible than the headline.  Children being shot one by one.  Dousing a teacher with gasoline and lighting her up while children watch.  What kind of people do this?

    It Was Retalitory... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:44:28 AM EST
    ...attack because Pakistan has been cracking down on the Taliban because it's been growing since the US pulled out of Afghanistan.  But executing kids, that is just so far out there.

    Speaking of monsters, one of the people killed in Australia yesterday was a lawyer protecting her pregnant college.  Not sure why, but that really got to me today when I read about.  The other person killed was the cafe owner trying to wrestle the gun away.  LINK

    The shooter was on bail for stabbing and lighting his gf on fire.  We was convicted of sending disbarring emails to the windows of Australian solders.  And lastly he was under investigation for 40 sexual abuse claims at his spiritual healing clinic .  LINK


    Capt, surely you know the answer to that question (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:50:05 PM EST
    Oh, absolutely, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:06:30 PM EST
    The perpetrators of this heinous act are exactly the sort of people who share a mindset with those persons who thought it perfectly okay to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and see the dead infants, toddlers and pre-schoolers in the resultant wreckage as nothing more than collateral damage.

    Sociopathy is hardly exclusive to any race, ethnicity or religion.


    True enough story except (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:48:41 PM EST
    the people you mention don't happen to be around 20,000 or so in numbers and are currently trying to establish a caliphate.

    Donald, quit trying for a moral equivalency. It just doesn't work.


    You're just so full of it today, Jim. (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:29:39 PM EST
    This country has a serious problem with militant anti-government extremism, and has further had one for quite some time. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are 1,360 active right-wing militia groups in the United States, which represents a seven-fold increase in their numbers from 2008. And there are 1,007 documented hate groups, a 40% increase in numbers since 2001.

    Look at all the crap that happened in the Las Vegas area just this past spring, with all those militiamen in an armed confrontation with federal marshals at the Cliven Bundy Ranch, and the subsequent shooting deaths-by-ambush of those two Las Vegas police officers by "Freedom Fighters" Jerad and Amanda Miller in a fast-food restaurant in June.

    But every time an atrocity in the Middle East or elsewhere Asia occurs in which Muslim extremists are either suspected or identified as the perpetrators, you appear here like clockwork, availing yourself of the occasion to cast aspersions (as you did above) upon an entire religion for the horribly misguided criminal acts of a minority of them who are crackpots. And quite often, you appear to be urging Americans to engage in violent retribution in the name of the country.

    "Moral equivalency"? Nobody here is saying that the Taliban is the equivalent of a policemen's benevolent society, and everyone is rightly appalled at what happened in Pakistan today. But extremism in the defense of right-wing faerie tales is hardly a virtue, Jim. And whenever you go on your fact-free Muslim-bashing tirades, I'm left to wonder if you actually have any moral compass at all.



    Donald, quit trying to defend (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:37:48 PM EST
    the actions of radical islamists by using the old moral equivalency trick. And you cannot deny that is what you are doing.

    Real people in the real world understand we don't have an internal terrorist problem.

    As for your dastardly claim that I

    cast aspersions (as you did above) upon an entire religion for the horribly misguided criminal acts of a minority of them who are crackpots.

    I direct you to what I wrote,and have written time and time again.

    (Anne)"Since you apparently see every person of the Muslim faith as a potential radical..."

    (My reply)"You are either deliberately making a false statement or truly have great difficulty in understanding simple English.

    My point was and is that the radical islamists, as OBL noted, won't willingly stop until we let them have their way in the whole world.

    Note the specific words. "Radical islamists." That defines them quite well and separates them from the rest of the Muslim world.

    As for moral compasses, I do not wonder. Your compass has failed completely.


    So you distinguish ... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:45:21 PM EST
    ... between Muslims and radical Islamists, yet you want to kill all Muslims who live "near where the weapons are", which naturally includes many Muslims.



    Yman, you are an intelligent person (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2014 at 06:16:01 AM EST
    so when you wrote:


    you want to kill all Muslims who live "near where the weapons are",

    So that is a deliberate misstatement of the facts. IOW, a lie.

    What I had wrote, and it is very plain, is that Hamas, the people who locate weapons and rocket sites where civilians are is the group responsible for any harm that comes to them when Israel defends itself.


    What I wrote is entirely accurate (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 17, 2014 at 06:24:09 AM EST
    Sadly, yes.

    Kill everyone who is where the weapons are.

    Men, women and children too.

    That was you, Jim.

    Oops.  Yeah - any sane person would try to deny that.


    One more time (2.00 / 1) (#211)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2014 at 06:51:50 AM EST
    It is Hamas who is placing the civilians in harms way.

    If Israel wants to defend itself it has no choice.

    Hamas is the killer.

    Of course if you don't want us, or Israel to defend ourselves that is understandable.

    Now, why did you not provide entire quote?

    How many innocent children have to die (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:09:41 AM CST
    in order for Israel to feel that it has sufficiently protected its' citizens.
    Correct answer:  "All of them, Katie."


    Almost correct. But the answer is: (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:13:28 AM CST
    "All of them put in harms way by Hamas."
    BTW - How many German and Japanese children do you think we killed in WWII??

    BTW - You do understand that you can lie by omission, don't you???


    If course you can (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 17, 2014 at 07:52:21 AM EST
    You do understand that you can lite by omission, don't you

    You do it all the time.

    Problem is, that wasn't the quote I was referencing.  My quote of yours was before Mordiggan was even a poster, and it was a complete quote.



    You're the one (none / 0) (#184)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:14:16 PM EST
    Equates no agressive intervention with a hands-off policy, so your moral compass seems to be as skewed here, not Anne'ss

    Mordiggian, bin Ladin's words are plain (2.00 / 1) (#210)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 17, 2014 at 06:37:57 AM EST
    Let's review them.

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    That's called a question. A simple question and very clear. If the US withdraws from SA, will that end the jihad against the US. Will the withdrawal bring peace? His answer:

    BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated.

    What was the act?? The support of the US of Israel, the Christian government in Lebanon, Egypt, Desert Storm and the stationing of troops in SA and the opposition of the Taliban in Afghanistan. (Read the interview)

    The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula.

    He has expanded it to cover the "entire Muslim world." What would that be? Where would it end? Doesn't matter because he clarifies his position.

    So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    That is a declaration of war.


    Aggressive intervention (none / 0) (#212)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Dec 17, 2014 at 07:24:24 AM EST
    Is what he said,  again, equating it with hand-off is only a sh*tty interpretation of his statement.

    Thanks again, Humpty Dumpty.


    For once in your life you are correct (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:08:17 PM EST
    How many children have our drones killed jimmy.  You don't give damn about that but you never miss an opportunity to clutch your pearls when people with no drones show you what will means and execute some children face to face.  Your twisted war mongering is typical of the thinking that caused this every but as much as if you struck the match that burned that teacher alive in front of her kids.  So don't ever try to use my comments to make it seem like I agree with you about anything.



    That if They Find a Bomb... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:10:27 PM EST
    ...they were justified ?  

    I think everyone knows you position on muslim kids, Jim, but you don't have to brag about it.


    Scott, if you can't do anything except (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:04:43 PM EST
    make false claims you are going to look foolish.

    You refer, of course, to my position that when Hamas, by placing weapons and launch sites in places where civilians will be, then Hamas is responsible for any harm that comes to them when Israel responds to an attack.

    War is nasty and should be avoided. But when attacked it is perfectly moral to respond with all available force to end the fighting as quickly as possible rather than let it drag on and on killing thousands. See the Vietnam war as an example of how deadly so-called proportionate response really is.


    Background: Peshawar, from a Brit talkboard (none / 0) (#204)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 11:04:10 PM EST
    [from] hailesaladdie - 16 Dec 2014 12:59:06 (#38 of 84)

    Peshawar is the capital of the NWFP, and frontier town for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas - the name itself being an acknowledgement that Pakistan has little to no control over them. They are self administered, and act as little sub-states (you cross what's effectively a checkpoint to get into them, and as a foreigner, need to hire an armed guard specific to that area).

    The one I visited was the Khyber district, whose border starts in Peshawar itself (at the time, you had to pass through terrifyingly huge Afghan refugee camps to get there). It's home to the smugglers' bazaar, a market where you can buy pretty much anything you want - weapons and drugs being the obvious ones (nuclear material is allegedly there if you look hard enough). As a result, our guard was stocked up with ammo, and utterly stoned without about 5 minutes of arriving.

    The city itself suffers from the tension between Pakistan itself and the tribal areas. And it's a seriously tense place - I witnessed a severe beating as a result of a minor traffic accident when passing through part of the road from the Afghan border.

    The cinemas show big action movies - soldiers, guns, blood, and (again allegedly) the occasional 1-second image of pornography.

    But you don't have to scratch the surface too hard to find your average punter, who will treat you like a brother from the second you meet.

    Abbotabad is in a very different part of Pakistan - the hills above Rawalpindi (and Islamabad), not far from Murree, long since the most liberal place in the country. It's also a stop on the Karakoram Highway, the main through road to China and beyond (which was the reason I ended up staying there for the night). It had all the shadowy goings on associated with such towns.

    Abbotabad is where bin Laden was found, about 200 miles away from Peshawar.


    Police in action (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:53:17 AM EST
    Video shows John Crawford's girlfriend aggressively questioned after Ohio police shot him dead in Walmart

    Police aggressively questioned the tearful girlfriend of a young black man they had just shot dead as he held a BB gun in an Ohio supermarket - accusing her of lying, threatening her with jail, and suggesting that she was high on drugs.

    Tasha Thomas was reduced to swearing on the lives of her relatives that John Crawford III had not been carrying a firearm when they entered the Walmart in Beavercreek, near Dayton, to buy crackers, marshmallows and chocolate bars on the evening of 5 August.

    "You lie to me and you might be on your way to jail," detective Rodney Curd told Thomas, as she wept and repeatedly offered to take a lie-detector test. After more than an hour and a half of questioning and statement-taking, Curd finally told Thomas that Crawford, 22, had died.

    "As a result of his actions, he is gone," said the detective, as she slumped in her chair and cried.

    The police go from trying to get Thomas to claim Crawford walked into the store with a gun to repeatedlingly suggesting to Thomas that Crawford was in Walmart to attack the mother of his sons.

    Watch the video. But of course athletes wearing T-shirts is the problem.

    That Curd... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    is a real piece of work ain't he?  Totally f*ckin' shameless, classless, and corrupt.

    How can you trust any witness statement when cops like that are taking the statements?  Any confession?  Anything???

    It's stuff the TL crew has known for years of course, but I hope other's are opening their eyes to our massive & endemic policing and criminal justice problems.  


    Compare and contrast (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    "I was taught that justice is a right that every American should have. Also justice should be the goal of every American. I think that's what makes this country. To me, justice means the innocent should be found innocent. It means that those who do wrong should get their due punishment. Ultimately, it means fair treatment. So a call for justice shouldn't offend or disrespect anybody. A call for justice shouldn't warrant an apology.

    "To clarify, I utterly respect and appreciate every police officer that protects and serves all of us with honesty, integrity and the right way. And I don't think those kind of officers should be offended by what I did. My mom taught me my entire life to respect law enforcement. I have family, close friends that are incredible police officers and I tell them all the time how they are much braver than me for it. So my wearing a T-shirt wasn't a stance against every police officer or every police department. My wearing the T-shirt was a stance against wrong individuals doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons to innocent people. Andrew Hawkins

    Yessir. Know your rights. (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    Are you under arrest?

    If yes, clearly state that you are exercising your right to be silent and immediately request a lawyer.

    If not, don't agree to be interviewed in the first place. Also you have the right to leave the interview at any time.


    That's the answer... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:17:03 PM EST
    no doubt...but it sure would be nice if authorities didn't prey on any ignorance of civil rights. Especially in this case, with a distraught woman who's significant other just got gunned down.  Where's her service and protection in her time of need?  Something especially unsavory about this particular grilling my man...trying to twist her into incriminating her departed and make a bad shooting a good one. Good lord.

    Ideally, in a more just system, we wouldn't even have to be put in the awkward position of having to assert our rights to angry armed men with the color of authority...they would be universally acknowledged and respected by the authorities, no assertion necessary.


    Completely agree. (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:41:27 PM EST
    I posted the details of our rights in case anyone reading was not familiar.

    What are we going to do to stop this (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:01:08 AM EST
    seriously.  We better do something.  This has gone way past out if hand.  I honestly can't watch the video.  Nothing will happen to the cops that did this.  They will do it again.  

    ThIs has to stop or crazy tea party types are not going to be the only ones calling for armed resistance.  We, individually and as a society, seem totally impotent and powerless to stop this.

    In all seriousness.  I'm worried.  


    We'll never stop it, but (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:19:24 AM EST
      among things that would help include:

    1. Structural reform aimed at eliminating the "paramilitary" institutional mindset.

    2. Stronger standards and more effective testing for psychological/emotional issues in applicant's makeup.

    3. Stricter, and enforced,  grounds for termination of employment and revocation  of certification for those who commit wrongful acts.

    4. Money-- better pay, better training, greater staffing levels, fewer hours worked, more patrols conducted by partners not solos, etc.

    5. Greater diversity in hiring so forces are more representative of the communities they police.

    You know what it reminded me of? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    Colonel Kurtz's creepy monologue about the little arms-

    "There they were, a pile of little arms...."


    Damn (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 11:27:25 AM EST
    that reply was meant for scott about the children in Pakistan

    Omg (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 07:02:03 PM EST
    tweety just made the same analogy.

    Now I'm worried.


    It's official (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:13:40 AM EST
    There (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:16:09 AM EST
    goes any pretense that he's the smart one in the family down the drain.

    IMO (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    he has as good a chance as any.  And better than most.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    i guess I would say better than some for sure but him not pandering to the pin heads is not going to get him the nomination for sure.

    It will be interesting to see him squirm and squirm though trying to say he's not his father and not his brother. And dems can say to the voters are you going to be fooled yet again by another Bush?


    I am putting $2 on "Bluebird," (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 11:07:36 AM EST
    and $5 on Bush, by a nose.  Jeb is not really a 'horse of a different color'  given the pack in which he will be running.  His gubernatorial record in Florida was very conservative--it is just perceptions and, perhaps, positions on immigration,  that make him seem moderate.  

    His big problem, of course, is to get nominated by the extremist base, especially since the wingers feel that they are on a roll.  He surely is an anathema to rank and file, at this point.  But, I have confidence that Jeb's back flips will make Romney look like Mr. Consistent.  

    The Republican base is nostalgic for Bush, and his cowboy foreign policy, including support for torture. They like that rectal stuffing stuff--a minaret would be even better. That is were the Bush name will be more helpful than not.  Also, the dynasty issue will be muted with Secretary Clinton as the Democratic nominee or presumptive nominee.

    And, it will be wind up being a battle of money against wingers.  The Republican high rollers will go for Jeb.  After all, the Bushes have been campaigning and raising big money for generations.  Bush will be promoted as being acceptable and electable--not ringing endorsements or giant sparks for ignition, but enough.  

    If Bush succeeds in getting the nomination, he will quickly move back to perceptions of moderation;  naming Ted Cruz or Scott Walker as his running mate to keep the wingers energized and on the way to the voting booths.  And, there is always voter suppression activities to give a boost, and with Jeb's Florida experience with hanging chads and all, he is almost perfect.    


    Jeb's actions during the Terry Shiavo (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    debacle should be enough to disqualify him from ever holding any kind of power again. Instead, that whole disgraceful and inhumane event will probably endear him to the Tea Party.

    I think the republicans (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 11:16:23 AM EST
    may decide they can use the dynasty thing in a tactical way.  By promoting it.  Nothing turns of young voters like dynasty.  If they can frame it that way it's possibly many potential Hillary voters might stay home or vote for some third party.  

    Republicans, as usual, will fall in line.


    Hmmm, since when are voters turned off by (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:49:26 PM EST
    'dynasty'? We've already had 2 Bushes, 2 Roosevelts, 2 Adamses - that means over 10% of our presidents have been in the family of other presidents.  Could easily have had 2 Clintons and  2 Kennedys as well.

    IMO Jeb's problem is that both his relatives were bad presidents, not that they were his relatives.


    Oh, I didn't say voters (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:59:28 PM EST
    i said young voters.  And I think they are.  For all the reasons you list.  She will need young voters.  It's interesting to watch the chattering class today after this announcement.
    They are absolutely salivating at the prospect of a Clinton/Bush race.  It looks like the media will make it about dynasty.  And IMO that will hurt Hillary more than Jeb.

    She would still win almost certainly.  But I'm already tired of hearing about a dynasty race and it's only been a few hours.


    McClatchy-Marist poll yesterday (none / 0) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:04:04 PM EST
    Clinton 53, Bush 40

    Why would it hurt Hill more than Jeb? (none / 0) (#115)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:10:35 PM EST
    Clinton was a better President than the most recent Bush (for the young voters, that's about all the history you may need . . ) And Bill is way better on the trail than GWB. Hill has a better resume at this point also and there is the gender factor. Do the younger voters even know Jeb outside of FL sand TX? What would his draw be?

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    based mostly on the reaction to the 2008 race by all the 20 something's I was surrounded by at the time working at a game company.  These are smart surprisingly aware and very plugged people.  They hate the idea of dynasty in general.  IMO many young people will still feel that way.  It would hurt Her more than Him because as we know republicans fall in line far more easily than democrats.  Most 20somethings have no clue what the 90s were like.  

    As I said.  She would still win.  But it will not help.  IMO.


    It isn't simply the relatives (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by christinep on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    The Bush Papa and the W Bush have exceedingly bad reps among the younger group (and, Cheney & other associates wrapping their arms in an embrace around torture probably won't help the image with the young.)  

    You might want to revisit your analysis ... particularly if the let's-find-another-candidate is influencing your Clinton-Bush analysis, Capt :)  While has been clear for a long time (like a few years) that a portion of the press would love the potential match-up, I really wonder if Bush' many years away from competitive politics has been minimized in terms of negative positioning.  We'll see.

    Looking at the under-30 vote, I remain a bit apprehensive about a Rand Paul candidacy ... the image of the loner bravado and all that.  He may well trip up in trying to be both for-and-against wars (& foreign entanglement) in the same breath. Jumping back & forth over the fence on personal rights issues could be tricky, too.


    I agree with you about (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:05:55 PM EST
    Rand Paul.
    And I am not looking for another candidate.  How many different ways do I need to say that?

    I think some (none / 0) (#118)
    by CST on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:15:28 PM EST
    not-too-young-but-still-young voters will if anything be nostalgic about the Clinton years.

    For those of us who grew up in the 90s, we remember it almost wistfully as the time when things were good before we got smacked by sept 11th and Bush - followed up with a nice long recession.

    The dynasty thing is never a great thing, but I think it may actually help her a bit with the 25-35 crowd.

    The Clinton years were for a lot of us - the only good years we remember.


    Doesn't really matter if they were (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:07:57 PM EST
    Actually bad presidents.. Doesn't matter if we think they were bad presidents.

    Jebbie is getting quite a bit of support from the serious people and from some Republican voters so evidently they don't care have bad the other Bush presidents were.

    Voters who voted for the known failure G.W. will vote for anyone.


    Be 'interesting' to see a compare (none / 0) (#117)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    and contrast between Jeb and Georgie boy. Seems that might be something that has to be done to woo enough voters into the Bush camp again. He'll still have the automatic voters, but is that enough?

    Will it be enough? (none / 0) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:36:41 PM EST
    I seriously hope not. In a large field of really bad Republican options, Jeb is not the very worse.

    OTOH, the very idea of seeing and hearing from the whole Bush clan for the next two plus years makes me sick to my stomach.

    People being willing to actually vote for another Bush, makes me shudder thinking of the mentality of the voters who would do so.


    I encountered some of the relatives (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:08:31 PM EST
    today.  My sister has two driveways.  As I pulled into one my doughboy cop nephew shouted at me from the other "HILLARYS TOAST NOW.  JEBS COMIN!!!"

    I wish I was making that up.


    It sure is gonna' be fun for me (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by christinep on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:16:21 PM EST
    ...working for Hillary.  BTW, Capt., you sure have some relatives, as you have pointed out before.

    hahaha. Oh this will be fun (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:30:31 PM EST
    Good points above about young voters. I can see that being the case. I know you are not looking for another candidate and neither am I really, but I would be happier if we had plausible fresher faces.

    45% (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Politalkix on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:44:35 PM EST
    of people will vote on autopilot for the D-candidate and 45% for the R-candidate. How the remaining 10% will vote is the question. A HRC Vs Jeb (if ir comes to that) election will probably record the lowest turnout in a long time!

    "Probably" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:46:47 PM EST
    Yeah - like the 2008 primary.

    Oh, ... wait ....


    The psychopath? (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:27:56 PM EST
    Yeah, he's a perfect Bush voter.

    The automon (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:30:20 PM EST
    voters are about 33%. Then he might get another 10% from people who don't think a woman should be president. Hillary's base is about 12% more than Obama. So I guess you could do the math based on that. I don't see how Jebbie with the GOP brand in the trash along with the Bush name being toxic wins a presidential race but I'm sure he thinks he's entitled to the presidency just like his brother did. Right now he's polling at 40% and he's been out of politics for quite a while over a decade in fact. Who is going to vote for him besides the pin heads and they seem to hate him?

    I think if Jeb Bush wins the (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:38:33 PM EST
    nomination, and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, he may win. Too many voters subscribe to "anybody but Hillary."

    Too many voters subscribe to anybody but Hillary (none / 0) (#182)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:58:49 PM EST
    A theory that currently carries no weight

    Although based on recent polling the opposite may currently be true to some voters..."Anyone but a Bush"


    I hope that holds. (none / 0) (#183)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:08:00 PM EST
    Who would you like (none / 0) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:54:40 PM EST
    to have as the Democratic candidate?

    HRC. Still. (none / 0) (#206)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 11:43:10 PM EST
    The problem (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:22:08 PM EST
    the GOP has is there are not enough of them anymore to win an election.

    And frankly I think the dynasty thing is less of a problem than Obama having turned so many of them off after they were so excited about him.


    Jeb will never be nomninated (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    and I doubt he will actually run.

    The base is tired of the Bush brand.


    How would you know? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 12:43:02 PM EST
    Being an "independent" and "social Liberal", etc.?

    BTW - It looks like someone forgot to tell "the base" they were tired of Bush.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:23:33 PM EST
    but you've got to admit 14.5% isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

    No, it's not (none / 0) (#56)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    It's also very early.  But the vote is split among a large pool of GOP candidates, so 14.5% makes him the leader among all the Republican candidates.  It's a bit early for Jim and his TP friends to be ruling out any candidate - particularly when that candidate leads all the others.

    McClatchy-Marist (none / 0) (#101)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:46:43 PM EST
    also added Romney to their polling. With Romney in the mix it was:

    Romney 19%
    Bush 14%
    Christie 9%
    Huckabee 9%
    Carson 8%


    If "acceptable and electable" (none / 0) (#139)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:34:55 PM EST
    are the likely criteria, given the aspirants, it seems to me that Bush can collate his polling with that of Romney and Christie.  Paul, Carson, Huckabee, Perry, and the assorted  odd-balls  have less collation capabilities in the eyes of the Republican high rollers.

    I talk to way more Repubs and Indies than (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:30:02 PM EST
    you and GA combined. I actually attend city and local government meetings as well as Tea Party meetings.

    The Bush brand is dead with the base.

    You Demos should pray that I am wrong and he gets nominated. Anyone can beat him.


    So who's name is coming up (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    in all these conversations/meetings you attend?

    Among the more mainline Repubs (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    it is Scott Walker. The Libertarian Repubs favor Paul. The hard rocks favor Cruz but admit to liking Walker.

    Why Does The Republican Party Hate Me... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:20:49 PM EST
    ...so GD much, first is was W, a letter I used to be damn proud of, now it's represents the stupidity and shame of an entire nation.

    Now you are telling me the same idiots that voted for W, are hot to vote for a Scott W from Wisconsin.

    I am going to have to change my name because republicans seems to like voting for the guy they think would drink a beer with them.  Never mind he was a recovering alcoholic, they still think he would enjoy a beer with them and how can voting for a guy like that go bad...

    Wisconsin is the king of beer nation, FoCK.


    Thanx (none / 0) (#66)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:05:31 PM EST
    I wasn't basing my statement ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:39:54 PM EST
    ... on the number of "Repubs" and "Indies" I talk to.  i was basing it on an actual survey, which is much more representative of the Republican base than your Tea Party friends.  FYI - Tea Partiers are a minority in the Republican party.

    I just thought it was funny that a "Independent" and "Social Liberal" was speaking for the Republican base.


    Rick Perry isn't viable anymore? (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:46:59 PM EST
    He has all the traditional, base exciting requirements for the most important job in the country.

    Relatively young, good looking, church going, Southern, kills people, not overly burdened by yankee-liberal-secularist concepts or hifalutin secularist science, good looking, church going, Sothern, kills people..

    Step aside, Thomas Jefferson.


    And don't forget, (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:21:41 PM EST
    Dumber than a stump.   ;-)

    For the Base, "Dumber than a stump," (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 11:18:06 PM EST
    simply means he doesn't fall for all that learn'n and science crap they're teaching in schools today.

    Score another big, "+" for Perry.


    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    picking Ted Cruz or another tea party nut is a sure way to lose an election. Either of those would be a drag on the ticket much like Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin.

    Well, since you proved to know so much (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:47:11 PM EST
    about who can win an election back in Sept/Oct I bow your great knowledge.



    It's not (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    rocket science. The polls showed that both Ryan and Palin both picked to pacify evangelicals and tea partiers were a drag on their respective tickets. And the fact of the matter is Jim the GOP base is getting smaller by the day with it's base dying off. So it's basic math not fuzzy math that conservatives love to use.

    heh... Again (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:36:08 PM EST
    based on your predictions of a few months ago.....it must be rocket science.

    And that dying base just blew away the Demos...

    Of course by  pointing that out I am automatically the nastiest of all nasty.


    You (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:36:17 PM EST
    are proving my point. You think you have a huge mandate for crazy after a mid term election. I seem to recall you saying we were going to have a President Perry. How did that work out for you?

    One word: (none / 0) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 07:00:18 PM EST

    Don't remind Jim that his past track record (none / 0) (#159)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 07:02:14 PM EST
    Consists exclusively of "Demos bad" as a narrative, and that for nasty you need more than mere repetition.

    The first sign that you are getting old (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:01:33 AM EST
    They start playing music from your youth on the oldies radio station.

    Only this time it sounds a bit different.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:38:34 AM EST
    the first sign is when they start using it for car commercials I would say.

    I have a friend with a couple of Grammys (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:48:38 PM EST
    One of them is for writing "After the Love is Gone," a big hit for Earth Wind and Fire in 1981.

    I hear it on the Muzak in the grocery store.


    Another sign of aging: show up (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:41:55 PM EST
    for the six-hour Metropolitan Opera Encore HD of "Die Meistersinger" tonight, only to learn it is on Wed. night.

    Yeah, but on Wednesday night, you'll be ... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:40:57 PM EST
    ... fükengrüven! Six hours though, huh? Jeez, and I thought Springsteen was rockin' at two and a half hours. Oh, you kids! What will you think of next -- all of Beethoven's works in one sitting?

    Well, it's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Enjoy the evening / early morning.



    Youngster (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:09:26 AM EST
    you are really getting old when you favorite band is selected as the Cadillac house band.

    funny unrelated story (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:18:32 AM EST
    My mother is not a huge fan of "that rap stuff".  One day my sister and I had been having a debate about the value of said music, and then at some point we break into some bohemian rhapsody for an unrelated reason - we just like to sing.  My mother says something like "and you defend this cr@p!"  Ok mom.  Guess you never heard of Queen either.

    I wonder if she likes Led Zeppelin.  Probably not.


    If someone had tole me in 1973 (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:23:03 AM EST
    that I would live to see Led Zeppelin being used t sell Cadillacs I would have laughed heartily

    I would not be the least bit surprised (none / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    To see Notorious BIG being used to sell Cadillacs.

    Led Zeppelin is a bit more surprising.


    Or That Robert Plant.... (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:45:28 AM EST
    ...would, literally, rip up a $800 million dollar contact.

    CraZy... (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    ...that I have been thinking about he same thing for a couple weeks.  First the, not oldies, but the classic rock station here was playign stuff that I use to listen to in high-school, but it was stuff than came out years earlier.

    But the past month, the started pushing stuff that came out the years I was in high school, not here an there, but full on press, probably half of the songs.  From Bonjovi to Motley Crew to Guns and Roses.  Bonjovi and MC had earlier albums, but GnR first album came out when I was a senior.

    How in the F is GnR classic rock I wondered, "I know, I know", because I am getting old, and rocking new bands that most had never heard of are now considered classic rock.  So the classic rock station mixes songs from when I was in high-school with Pink Floyd, and Led Zeppelin, and Fleetwood Mac.  It's just plain odd, to me they are entirely different genres.

    My very first CD was Bonjovi 'Slippery When Wet'.  Which at the time was in heavy rotation on the pop station.


    my first CD was... (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    New Kids on the Block Christmas Album

    Funky funky Christmas - is the actual name of one of the songs.

    And yes, we still play it every year we're decorating the tree at my parents house.

    I remember going on a work site visit with an undergrad co-op a few years ago, and some Nirvana song came on.  I asked her if she knew Nirvana, and she said "I don't really listen to classic rock".  That was my first hint that I was no longer "with it".


    My first record (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:53:37 AM EST
    was a 45 of White Rabbit

    My first record was ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:12:44 PM EST
    ... "The Chipmunks Sing the Beatles Hits." I had asked for "Rubber Soul."

    You Got to Be Kidding Me... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:26:46 PM EST
    ...my first album was Chipmunks Christmas, which I got for christmas, along with a portable record player in a plastic red case.

    I would imagine my parents view that combination as the worse gift they ever gave us in that me and my brother must have listened to that album 1000 times.

    Years later, I traded a baseball glove for 3 kiss albums, not the band, but they each did their own albums.  Ace Frehley was not included.  Still have them, so technically that was my first, non-kid music that I acquired.  

    Then it was cassettes and the debacle that drove my mom to near insanity, the Columbia Record Club.  Me and my brother each had about numerous accounts and never sent the replies back.  It should have taught us fiscal responsibility, what it taught us is you can get a lot of free sh1t if you don't mind you mom going off from time to time.


    I got my first component stereo (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:33:06 PM EST
      In 1976 with an involuntary, interest free loan from my bank.

       What happened was I used to save my money from my job at a record store and make quarterly withdrawals to pay my car insurance. One time a couple of days after making a withdrawal I asked a teller for my account balance. She told me it was almost  $500, when I knew it was about $450 less than that. When I told her she must have made a mistake she got real snotty with me and told me in no uncertain terms that she didn't make mistakes and I was mistaken. OK, I replied, I'll withdraw all but $5 then. She gave me the money and I went to the store and bought a pretty decent  turntable, amp and speakers. I also started saving my money elsewhere.

       Months later, I get a call and the bank informs me that I was overdrawn.  Well, how can I overdraw a savings account, I asked. I also informed the guy that I had specifically told the teller that I thought she had my balance wrong before I made the withdrawal and that I had relied on her assurance that it was correct, what with her telling me how perfect she was and all. I added, oh, and by the way I'm a minor with no adult co-signer on the account.

       A week or so later I get a letter from lawyer making a demand that I pay or the bank would sue me. I gave him a call and let him know the bank forgot to tell him I was a minor and could not be sued.  Because I'm basically  a nice guy, I explained that I didn't have that kind of money anymore but offered to pay it back with no interest at $5 a week. He was actually pretty cool and said that sounded fair. He sent me an agreement which I signed (which was also unenforceable because I was still a minor) and for almost the next 2 years I paid my $5 a week. Best financing arrangement I've ever had.


    I never kid about the Alvin & the Chipmunks. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:52:34 PM EST
    They were my generation's Barney. And if your parents gave you "Chipmunks Christmas" and a portable record player, then they got what they deserved in return. They're like my younger sister, who thought it would be cute to get her then-three-year-old son a toy fire engine with a real siren.

    I remember that! (none / 0) (#95)
    by CST on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:40:31 PM EST
    I think I got my first 12 Cassettes from them.  And I don't know what if anything we ever paid for that, I can't imagine I had that kind of money and they went bankrupt soon after.  I can't believe it was that easy to sign up for something like that as a 10 year old.

    I got a bunch of Cranberries, Boys to Men, and TLC.  I think Ace of Base was thrown in there as well.


    Believe it ot Not... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:05:15 PM EST
    Get 12 CDs for the price of 1. After choosing 7 cds, you must buy 1 at regular club price within a year to receive the other 4. Just pay shipping and handling.  LINK

    That GD shipping and handling...


    Ha (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:30:26 PM EST
    "but ..... It IS the Beatles"

    That is so sad (none / 0) (#78)
    by sj on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    The term "tone deaf" doesn't quite do it, does it?

    I would totally own (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:38:52 PM EST
    The Chipmunks Sing the Beatles Hits.

    yeah but... (none / 0) (#93)
    by sj on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    ... instead of Rubber Soul? A kid with an appetite whetted for Rubber Soul is going to be soul crushed with the Chipmunks version.

    Too true. I can't begin to tell you ... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:54:18 PM EST
    ... how it felt to open that present on Christmas Day, knowing full well from its shape that it was an LP -- only to then see The Chipmunks on its cover, rather than my idols.

    I have an older sister who's eight years my senior, and at age 13 she was totally into The Beatles. And I was definitely under her influence, as children sometimes are at that age when their teenaged siblings appear so worldly and wise. So when I first heard The Beatles through her, I knew that they were way cool and I soon became infatuated with them, as well.

    But my mother and grandparents decided that I was too young for The Beatles, thus The Chipmunks album instead -- which I still think was quite silly, because my sister already had the entire Beatles' catalogue and I was listening to them anyway, through her.

    My elder sister has always been heavily into the music scene, and once she saw my own interest in the genre of rock, she took it upon herself to nurture it. She turned me onto David Bowie's "Ziggy Stardust" and Led Zeppelin's "Houses of the Holy" when I was 12.

    Even today, "Dancing Days" remains one of my all-time favorite Zeppelin tunes. How can anyone listen to that song, and not feel the urge to just stand up and be a dancin' fool?



    Mine was Harvest (none / 0) (#26)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    by Neil Young. None of his stuff will  be in a commercial, at least while he's alive.

    Sh*t I didn't feel old... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 11:56:41 AM EST
    till I read this lil' string.  First record I ever bought was an actual record, bought it at Woolworth's on the boulevard, Culture Club "Colour by Numbers" 1983.  Triple dating myself...kids today have never seen a record, or a Woolworth's, or a Boy George. What can I say, I was six! ;)  

    I bugged out when "Achtung Baby" turned 20...that was the cassette I wore the f*ck out in high school.  And thinking albums that came out in 1971 were twenty years old when "Achtung Baby" came out.  


    What really makes you feel old (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:57:43 PM EST
     is hearing people much younger talk about being old.

    My bad.... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:04:45 PM EST
    Old Timer;)

    1st was Kansas, Point of No Return, (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 12:04:13 PM EST
    2nd was Neil Young, Harvest.

    I still have those albums, plus a hundred or so others.


    When Jailhouse Rock (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 12:29:25 PM EST
    came out we were all so glad we didn't have to listen to Frank Sinatra, Doris Day, and Dean Martin any more.  Now there's a Frank Sinatra channel on XM stereo, in my car, and I seem to know most of the words to his songs...embarrassing if anyone is with me.

    I got to know Frank... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:07:27 PM EST
    when I was volunteering at a nursing home in HS...it's all they played.  No Duke, no Glenn Miller...just endless loops of Sinatra.  

    To this day, I can't hear Old Blue Eyes without smelling old people.


    This is me with James Taylor (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 12:53:15 PM EST
    I used to hate James Taylor.  My mom would play it on road trips and it made me want to strangle myself.

    Now it comes on the radio and I can sing every lyric, and I kind of like it...


    JT! A college GF played him non-stop. (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:35:21 PM EST
    I ended up liking his stuff quite a lot. Great "rainy day" music, of which we had many in upstate NY...

    Heh, heh (none / 0) (#124)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    The first album I bought, with my own saved up allowance money, was "Chuck Berry On Stage" in 1963, when I was in high school.
    I'm not so sure my parents were thrilled with that, since they were huge fans of Frank Sinatra, the big bands, etc.
    OTOH, my mom was a really good jitterbug dancer, so it may not have been as strange to them as they pretended, since I don't think that her mom, my grandmother, had been all that fond of the jitterbug.   ;-)

    You may or may not be aware ( I was not) (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:02:13 PM EST
    that the jitterbug style of dancing is becoming very much "a thing" again.  I have a couple of 20ish-30ish FB friends who regularly pummel me with pics of their get togethers.  Black and white oxfords flying.

    Since we are doing (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:34:47 PM EST
    oldies but goodies:

    James Cagney and Bob Hope at a Friar's Club Meeting back when actors were real performers. Bob Hope was 52 and James Cagney was 56. For the young folks, here is something you probably have never seen before and, unfortunately, may never see again.

    For us older folks, this is the best of the best, and we had it for many years!
    This is a side of these two entertainers you hardly ever saw but it shows you their enormous talent.

    Bob Hope, the best of the comedians, and Jimmy Cagney ... mostly cast as the bad-guy gangster in the movies.
    Video link

    LOL! (none / 0) (#135)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:21:15 PM EST
    No, I wasn't aware.
    Everything old is new again.    ;-)

    I got a million of um (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:32:04 PM EST
    Just for you (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:56:07 PM EST
    Jitterbug St. Louis style

    Be sure to watch video all the way through.

    It all depends (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 12:32:46 PM EST
    To me classic rock is "See You Later Alligator."

    Bobby Charles! (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:19:12 PM EST
    Great songwriter.

    Really? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 01:53:38 PM EST
    As always, you haven't the slightest clue who I talk to, Jim.  And as always, a complete lack of information or facts doesn't prevent you from just making $hit up.

    While this poll is early, you're making the claim that Bush is dead now - not 2 years from now.  More importantly, any national poll of Republicans is more representative of who Republicans favor than whatever BS you and a few of your TP friends are talking about.

    Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but most Republicans are not Tea Partiers.  :)

    Your snarkiness aside... (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 04:22:28 PM EST
    I haven't claimed anything except what I have personally observed and discussed with people at Tea Party meetings and city and county government meetings.

    Certainly not scientific but just as accurate as a poll as to who will be nominated some 19 months away.

    Of course Demos seem to be desperate to tell Repubs who to run... Perhaps the wonderful results the Demos got in the mid terms have them worried that this time the base will fuss and fume and then come together over a Walker or maybe even a second run by Romney.

    Over Jeb? No. So you better get him nominated because either Cherokee Warren or Saint Hillary or both in deep trouble against the rest.


    Why the bold? (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 09:59:15 PM EST
    Id going to city and county government meetings supposed to sound impressive?

    That's funny.

    And if you think that your own, anecdotal experiences in Tea Party land are as "just as accurate" as a poll, well ...

    ... that's hilarious.

    BTW -

    I haven't claimed anything except what I have personally observed and discussed with people at Tea Party meetings and city and county government meetings.

    Uh, yes, you did, Jim


    I talk to way more Repubs and Indies than you and GA combined...

     But like I said, you don't talk to actual people.

    Hate to break it to you, Jim, but I attend municipal and state meetings regularly as part of my job, including many voters and administration officials who are Republicans.  Not so much the Tea Partiers - although there are some of those.  Mostly they're just for entertainment - makes an evening meeting go faster when you can have a laugh at their expense, and they're always good for a few chuckles.  Plus, as a minority they're not really the base of the Republican Party.


    Ascension (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    anyone happen to see the first part of this SiFi miniseries?  Not surprised if you did not, (cough)Sharknado(cough).

    I DVRed and didn't expect much but I was pleasantly surprised.  It is very interesting and quite well done.  Nothing is what it seems so I can't say much without spoilers.   The story is of an interstellar ship secretly launched from earth in the sixties.  That is based on a real NASA project called Orion.  Very interesting if you are into a Google.  But that setup allows for some interesting story.  On earth where its existence is being investigated by an heir if it's master mind and on the ship itself.  Locked in the sixties.  Interracial romance banned and a Titanic style upper and lower deck.

    For some not quite mindless escapism you could do a lot worse.  I'm sure the first chapter will be repeated next Monday.  I'm looking forward to it because after sucking me in the surprise ending if part one was excellent.

    Actually if anyone cares (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:47:08 PM EST
    part two is tonight.  The finale tomorrow.

    Al (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:42:05 PM EST
    You know (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:01:54 PM EST
    I just think that a lot of people while they like Warren and what she says just don't want another round of a less than one term senator.

    For me (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by CST on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:07:33 PM EST
    that's less of an issue than the fact that she's 100% focused on one Domestic issue and she doesn't seem interested in branching out.

    I think that can make her very effective in the senate at advancing her cause.  It's more of a problem for a president.

    When she was running I tried to get a sense of her stance on other issues and was pretty much rebuffed with the impression that she wasn't going to focus on those issues as senator.  I decided I was okay with that because her single issue is important enough and needs a champion.  But I don't think it's quite enough to be president.

    That being said, I assume she does actually have opinions on other things, and if a Dem were to lose this round she hasn't written off running in 2020 the way she has 2016.  But she does appear to be vehemently against running in 2016, and I'm ok with that.


    Yes (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:12:52 PM EST
    to everything you said.  As I have said.  It's about the movement.   It's about putting power and juice behind a person who IS focused intently on domestic issues.   That said, I think a lot of people might be ready for a candidate who is as concerned about what's happening in this country as they are about what's happening in someplace most people couldn't find on a map.

    well, IMO (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    it's not just about domestic vs. foreign.  There are other important domestic issues like immigration and marriage reform, criminal justice reform, the environment, etc...

    Then there is of course our foreign policy.

    To be clear I was trying to get a sense of her stance on civil liberties and couldn't really get an answer.

    Now she has made some vocal noise to suggest she's on the right side of these issues when they come up, but she has shown no interest in actively advancing them.  Again, as senator, that's fine.  As president, you need to be focused on more than one thing.


    If she can build a coalition of what I would (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:29:58 PM EST
    call "real" Democrats in the Senate, then that is where I want her to focus her energy.

    What is at the heart of what she's fighting for on the economic front is fairness and justice for the average - and maybe less-than-economically-average - person; these are elements that run through an awful lot of domestic issues, so if she can empower her fellow Democrats to push from that direction, there could be more progress made, and more empowerment passed along to the masses, than would ever be possible if she were to undertake a run for the WH.


    That's what (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:36:04 PM EST
    I think so too Anne. And senators can serve a lot longer than a president.

    She almost certainly (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:40:34 PM EST
    will not undertake a run for the Whitehouse.  And every signature on that petition will strengthen her ability to do exactly what you, and I for that matter, want.

    I would agree completely (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:29:13 PM EST
    if that one issue was not IMO and in that of many, concentration of wealth, income inequality, money running politics was not the single biggest issue facing this country.
    I personally think it a heluva lot bigger threat that ISIS.
    I'm not interested in rehashing this yet again.   But the millions of very smart people who are throwing energy into this are not misguided.  They disagree with you.
    As I have said, again and again and again, I do not think she will be president.  It's not rocket science to know that to be president you have to really want it.  She can guide the debate.  She's can do it from out side the race.  And the millions of people urging her to run for president will empower her to do it even more.  
    So, and this isn't really directed at you, but I wish people could make an attempt to see that this really is not, for most people, about making her president against her will.  It's about empowerment.  

    I think (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    that is what she is doing: trying to shape the rhetoric and I actually think she might be successful on that account.

    Do you think that if she did run and get rolled over by Hillary that it would help or hurt? I'm thinking right now it probably would not help that message much but coming from someone who is not running it might be more powerful.


    actually (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:46:30 PM EST
    I think the bigger issue is that she wouldn't get rolled and it could turn into a knock-down drag-out fight again.  I think the concept that she shouldn't run b/c she'll get creamed is off - there is broader support for that message than the media would like us to think.

    In a way I think it would be beneficial to have that fight in the Dem party in a meaningful way where voters can act.  But she can also do it from the senate, which is what appears to be happening.


    EXACTLY (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:49:21 PM EST
    and the movement will help her do that

    Well (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:20:03 PM EST
    Warren would be starting behind the 8 ball in a lot of areas. People already know Hillary and yes, there are people that like her message but I'm not sure it would be far reaching enough to or she would have enough time to not get rolled.

    The problem for me is that for Hillary, (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 07:39:55 PM EST
    it seems more and more like a message, and less like something she really believes in; you just can't take that much money from Wall Street and the big banks and expect someone to take up the cause of the little guy.  Those people are all about putting more space between themselves and the great unwashed, not giving millions to someone who's going to do the opposite.

    It's message, not mission.  A sales pitch.  Sadly, they're pretty much all like that.


    well (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 08:02:21 PM EST
    unfortunately that is the system we are in now. I'm sure even Warren would be taking money from Wall Street if she ran for President. The key is to get them to do something for you. Hopefully we're not going to have a repeat of 2008 where everybody just excuses whatever the nominee is doing but even Hillary realized back then you can't do everything for Wall Street because they're aren't enough of them. She does support a constitutional amendment to get rid of Citizen's United. I don't know if it would pass all the states it would need to pass though. She also supported a HOLC for distressed homeowners which would have completely bypassed all the problems that Obama has created in the housing industry and the banks.

    So are predictions based on (none / 0) (#156)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 06:58:45 PM EST
    The sampling of a small group of any sort, two years out from the elections.

    The CIA refused to let the the (none / 0) (#162)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 07:20:43 PM EST
    interviews take place, and the Republicans don't want the complete report published, but you blame those evilllllll
    Demoin the Senate.

    BTW, as in the case of Lindsay Graham, aren't you now responsible for substantiating this charge, or does that only work one way?

    Witness 40 (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 07:33:05 PM EST
    the smoking gun---"Witness 40": Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson
    TSG probe unmasks grand jury witness who spun fabricated tale

    I admit I have not been following the Brown discussions closely lately but this seems like a big deal-

    It is quite long and pretty amazing

    We'll probably never know (none / 0) (#196)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:26:13 PM EST
    but if she's as crazy as it sounds, I doubt the grand jury took her seriously. Would you take anyone seriously who said...

    "McElroy, again under oath, explained to grand jurors that she was something of an amateur urban anthropologist. Every couple of weeks, McElroy testified, she likes to "go into all the African-American neighborhoods."


    She sure does sound like a kook to me. (none / 0) (#197)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:34:29 PM EST
    Was her testimony to the GJ accepted at face value?

    Witness 40 (none / 0) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:38:42 PM EST
    Was the source of the "charge".  

    There is one witness who backed up Wilson's claim, and that witness also wrote the following in his or her journal on the day of the shooting.

    "Well I'm gonna take my random drive to Florissant. Need to understand the Black race better so I stop calling Blacks N!ggers and Start calling them People."

    Face Value (none / 0) (#207)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Dec 17, 2014 at 06:09:08 AM EST
    Her testimony was certainly accepted at face value by those writing pieces about the report.

    Note that she is called "Witness 40" and yet she wasn't even there to "witness" anything. The Grand Jury was also not instructed to strike her testimony and it was left in the report.

    And then when Team Wilson pundits cite the number of "witnesses" who saw a struggle for a gun at the truck, who didn't see a shot from behind, who didn't see hands up, but who saw him charge the officer, they most certainly are including her testimony in their statistics.

    And who's to say how many GJ members felt sorry for her and chose to believe some of what she says  anyway.

    And then there is Witness 10 --


    this thread is closing (none / 0) (#201)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:53:56 PM EST
    Sniping comments calling other commenters liars and reprinting overly large portions of documents published elsewhere will be deleted as I have time to read the thread.

    Seriously, cut the insults. And quote a paragraph or two, with a link to the rest, and make your point. It's too much too scroll through and bandwidth isn't free.

    Sorry, but as I pointed out before (none / 0) (#213)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Dec 17, 2014 at 07:40:23 AM EST
    Israeli fire was being directed at or hit refugee centers designated by the UN that killed women and children with no Hamas militants around them at all, no Hamas weapons.  Even the Israelis knew that your explaination wouldn't fly in these cases.

    Israel said it had dropped leaflets and sent recorded phone messages to residents Tuesday, urging them to evacuate. But many of those sheltering at the school said they did not receive the warnings, and in any case had nowhere to go.

    Najwa abu Oda, 46, said shells destroyed her house in the northern town of Beit Hanoun, a focus of Israel's campaign to dismantle rocket installations and destroy the cross-border tunnels.

    She said she had hoped her family would be safe at a nearby U.N. school. But the facility was hit by a series of explosions last week, killing at least 16 people sheltered there. So they moved south, to the school in Jabaliya, she said.

    Her 16-year-old son and a son-in-law were sleeping in the courtyard when shells crashed into the school early Wednesday, she said. Both were rushed to a hospital with shrapnel wounds.

    Hours later, the rest of the family remained huddled at the edge of the courtyard, as journalists and dazed survivors surveyed the damage. They had no plans to leave, Abu Oda said.

    Keep defending child-killers, James, you show us what you really value when you do so.