Saturday Night Open Thread

Thank you, Comcast! All of a sudden my cable box started showing English captions on Telemundo shows. No more plugging the antenna in every night. And the captions are really good, not like You Tube. I didn't change any settings, all of a sudden a new option appeared besides "on" and "off" where you can choose a secondary language. Maybe it was there all the time, but whatever, I'm so glad. If your box does the same, check out the first week of Senor de los Cielos 3 -- you can watch free on On Demand. It really surpassed my expectations, and they were pretty high. [More...]

Monday night, Unimas will begin re-airing El Cartel -- it is the first really famous Narcodrama, written in prison by Andre Lopez Lopez, and has gotten the best reviews of any of them. Here's his story. Now that I can watch with English captions, I'll finally get to see it.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Bali 9 Duo Get 72 Hour Execution Notice | James Holmes Trial Begins Over Aurora Theater Shootings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    From our "A Fistful of Stupid" file: (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 04:01:03 AM EST
    During a recent interview with President George W. Bush's former press secretary Dana Perino, who now co-stars on a Fox News show with Eric Bolling, Daily Show host Jon Stewart pointedly derided her co-host as a "dumb guy."

    While Perino took halfhearted issue with that description of Bolling, Stewart stood his ground, and for good reason, in my honest opinion. Take a quick listen to the breathtakingly open bigotry that was on display Friday evening when "the dumb guy," subbing for Bill O'Reilly, got together with The Lord's Own Nitwit, the Rev. Franklin Graham:

    Rev. Graham: "[A]s a Christian, I want to emulate Christ, I want to follow Christ, and I want to do good to all men. Islam, the God of Islam wants you to die for him, but the God that I worship, he died for me. [...] But Islam -- the Muslims want to emulate their prophet Mohammed. Mohammed raped, he murdered, he killed and so we're seeing the followers of Islam emulate the prophet Mohammed, and we've got to take a stand, we've got to know what we're dealing with. But it's not just the Muslims in the Middle East. We have to be careful of the Muslims in this country. We need to stop the immigration, we need immigration reform, but to stop the Muslims coming to this country from countries that have active terrorist cells."

    Oy, oy and oy again, because only one oy clearly isn't enough. To paraphrase the late author / entrepreneur Elbert Hubbard, while genius may have its limitations, these two dipschitts are not thus handicapped.


    Congratulations (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:15:04 AM EST
    on your new best friend D.  Bet you never thought you might miss jim.  

    Another (none / 0) (#11)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:23:23 AM EST
    graduate of the Sarah Palin Skool of Rhetoric and Varmit Huntin'.

    LOL! John Birch lives, Cap'n! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:48:44 AM EST
    Though I must say that Jim sounds like grand marshal material for the next San Francisco Pride Parade, compared to this nut.

    no howdy (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 08:35:32 AM EST
    i am not donald's friend.

    i am a political opponent of donald.

    you know, that thingee called freedom comes into play...

    and too bad you don't seem able to debate...just insult.


    And he keeps his perfect record! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 08:37:43 AM EST
    with yet another point missed!

    It's (none / 0) (#21)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 09:14:18 AM EST
    impossible to actually debate someone who refuses to take a consistent, coherent positions and refuses to stipulate to any verifiable, widely accepted scientific or historical facts that do not fit his world view. This  
    thingee called freedom
    is a perfect example of you dropping a strawman nonsequitur argument into virtually ever post you write. You then pat yourself on the back and call the rest of us dumb.

    Insults? You are lucky Jeralyn runs a tight ship or you would be suffering more then this small arms fire that already is pushing your victimhood buttons.


    A break from the trolls - baby Clydedales (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 09:03:29 AM EST
    Learn how a Clydesdale foal enters the world - KSDK.com

    Warm Springs Ranch, Boonville, MO, is a great place to visit. If anyone is in the vicinity, it makes for a great outing. Reservations are needed.

    But....but....but.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Zorba on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    They didn't show a foal actually being born!
    I've never seen a horse give birth, although I've seen plenty of cows giving birth.
    Pretty impressive, considering how big the babies are at birth!
    Years ago when the kids were little and we were visiting the grandparents in St. Louis, they took us to see Grants Farm, which is also very nice.  The kids loved it.

    Lots of little baby Clydesdales though (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    Baby horses beat trolls all the time.

    Grants Farm is great. You can also see full grown Clydesdales at the Anheuser Bush Brewery in St. Louis.

    All are fun but Warm Springs Ranch is really a great place to visit and that is where they keep the babies and the yearlings. It is also a great place to take the family.


    St. Louis (none / 0) (#73)
    by Zorba on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:48:16 PM EST
    apparently still loves their Anheuser-Busch Clydesdales.
    I was wondering what would happen to them after the Belgian company acquired Anheuser-Busch, but apparently they were smart enough to keep the farms and the horses going.

    Well, clearly (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 10:51:01 AM EST
    while it may be boring to some, the tenor of this thread can only be improved by-

    Part V

    The Empire Strikes Back
    April 12th, 2011.  Tuesday

    I will get good news and bad news today. In that order.  I wake up with a well stocked pantry so I can think of other things.   The first order of business is a visit to the unemployment office.  In spite of being told my claim won't be challenged I don't trust them.  Working in the film industry you learn your way around this system and how easily it can go south.   Driving there I call my sister and ask them to start looking for a house for me to rent here expecting to be here, in AR, for a while.  
    The first fortunate thing that happens for me, at the unemployment five,  is that I find out while discussing my case with the random case worker I draw is that he has only been in the job for a few months having previously been employed by and fired by the same employer who just fired me.  Driven by the same person behind my experience, something that person is known for BTW, and for similar stupid political reasons that had nothing to do with performance.  And they blocked his benefits.  He has an axe to grind and promises me he will move heaven and earth to make sure I receive benefits.  He tells me everything I need to do to prepare for a challenge should one come.  Then he reminds me that the congress has passed extended benefits and that should I need them I would be eligible for up to two years of benefits.   Welcome news but at the time I certainly have no plans to be unemployed for two years.  I have never really had a problem in the job market.

    With this behind me I meet some friends from work for lunch and get the bad news.  I'm told that the Emperor and his minions plan to actively try to sabotage my job search.  Something they can effectively do because that 3.5 year job was my only work history in that field.   This plus the fact that I will be 60 in November in a field where the average age is twenty something is a real problem.  I know that I can find a job in the film industry.  I did that for the 15 previous years and have many friends and contacts.  The problem is, I don't want to.  It would mean going back into the contract meat grinder.  Two months here, three there.  God only knowing where "there" might be.   It was the reason I left the field in the first place.  Two years of unemployment is starting to look like a fortunate option.   It would bring me right up to retirement age and effectively be early retirement.  Not a terrible thing.  But with a big problem.  My single most important goal for retirement had long been that I would own the house I was living in.  I had been in a lease to own agreement with the landlord there and had fully expected to stay in that job for two more years or however much longer i needed to feel good about the equity in the house.
    I really loved that house.  That house was my first major stroke of luck in this story.  I found and rented it from Craig's List without having seen it.  The pics looked great and surprisingly did not do it justice.  The biggest surprise was that it was a lakefront property.  Which incredibly was not mentioned in the ad.  It was right on a large gorgeous lake.  My backyard was lakefront. There was a lot of things I hated about being there in that city.  The geography, flatter than a calm ocean, the biggest hill for hundreds of miles in any direction was the freeway exit ramp.  I was never very excited about the job and hated about half the people I worked with.   That house made it all bearable.  I had great neighbors.  Still in touch with them.   I had really wanted to buy that house.

    Having had several drinks for and after lunch I resolve to call the following day to inquire about cashing out my 401k.  Hoping it would give me the money I needed to move and pay a first and last month on a rental house.  If I had enough left over to pay down a couple of the over the limits cards I would have been thrilled.

    The next part is my favorite part of the story.

    I think I may (none / 0) (#158)
    by sj on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    have missed a part or two. Can you give me a clue on where to start my scavenger hunt?

    That was part two (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    the empire strikes back.

    Watch for return of the Jedi.


    Off Topic... (none / 0) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:54:46 PM EST
    ...but isn't part of the social security calculation related to your income at the time you retire ?

    I also sent you an email related to the story above.


    I don't not pretend to understand that (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    or why my stupid %£€¥#ing iPad won't let me link to the SS page explaining it.
    I'm pretty sure I am getting the maximum benefit for someone retiring at 62.
    What I can tell you is I was expecting to get one amount based on those things you get from the social security dept telling you what your benefit is at different ages, if you have not gotten one you will, and I ended up receiving a few hundred bucks a month more than I was expecting.

    Howdy, another reason SS (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by fishcamp on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    sends those notices is they want you to work longer and then die before drawing any benefits.  They're just another business.

    OK (none / 0) (#168)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:08:20 PM EST
    I have gotten those since I got out of college.  I was just curious because I did not know and I have been told, and I want to to say by my dad, that his income at the time of retirement was part of the calculation.  But I am not positive it was him or someone around here who retired.

    I just remember someone telling me it's not good to be unemployed before you get SS.  But apparently that isn't true.

    Good to hear you are getting more than expected and I hope that holds true for others.


    You should google and read (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:11:25 PM EST
    hiw its calculated.  I just did.  It made my head hurt.

    This is what I suspect (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    it may have an impact but it's based on how much you contributed over the years.  If your income was average or a little below it might count for more.  I made quite a lot of money in my life.  For most of my working life my income was far above the average.   I suspect the total amount I contributed over the years probably counted for more.

    It's complicated (none / 0) (#188)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 02:10:06 PM EST
     but in basic terms your benefit is based on your 35 years of highest social security earnings (indexed to reflect earnings stated in today's dollars).

      But, remember, amounts earned above the maximum earnings subject to FICA don't increase your benefit. That amount has risen from $6600 in 1966 (when a 65 year old might have begun working to $117,000 this year) The amount  any given year will contribute to your SS check can't exceed that year's maximum and years of greater income don't offset years of lesser (i.e. if you earned a million dollars one year you just get credit for the max contribution that year the excess can't be applied to years you earned less than the max subject to FICA.

     So a person who earned exactly the SS income subject to FICA for 35 years will get as much as a person with earned income of $1 mill every year a year for 35 years. But a person who earned. But a person who earned 34 mill in one year and below the max every other year (unlikely but possible) would not even receive the maximum benefit.

       Then you choose when to start receiving. Obviously the earlier you choose the less you get. You kind of have to do some actuarial gambling. You get a very  significant amount more at 70 than at 62 like up to 75% more), but then it sucks if you die at 71.



    Sen Sanders on media blackout of TPP (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by CityLife on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 12:04:18 PM EST
    See video: Corporate Media FAILS us (again) on TPP coverage "I find it incomprehensible ..."

    Your (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 02:18:51 PM EST
    mileage on victimhood may vary, but most of us would like to see evidence backed debate with   minimal Kabuki dancing with the rules of logic.

    Yes, thank heavens.... (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by unitron on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:17:48 PM EST
    ...that no one else in politics ever used a TelePrompTer (or similar device manufactured by some other company).

    IMO (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    anyone who watched the presidents performance and didn't laugh at least once has issues that go far beyond politics.

    He was very good.  I think it was the best comedy performance by a president at one one these things ever.

    It was funny.  Now you can pi$$ and moan about him having a little fun with all the turrible things in the world he should be fretting over or solemnly worrying about alone in the Oval Office..

    Or you could laugh.  Because it was funny.

    For myself I was struck by how old he looked.  He joked about it.  I think because even he knows it's so obvious.  He looked unhealthy.  He looked like a man who takes the weight he carries seriously.


    As for me, I would vote for (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 04:01:31 PM EST
    "strawman non sequitur."

    Peter, I'm trembling as I write this, but (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 06:33:18 PM EST
    "strawman non sequitur" is incorrect

    "straw man" non sequitur" is correct. (grammatically)

    Jim wins this one.

    (Or, was there a point other than spelling? Am I missing something?)


    The difference between "straw man" and (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:17:30 PM EST
    "strawman" is not one of grammar, but rather of spelling or of usage.  The question, as I see it, is whether you are referring to a man made of straw (two words, an adjective and a noun), or a single concept in the theory of logical argumentation (a single descriptive noun). Of course, I would probably understand this better, if I only had a brain. (Let me add that I should have suggested non sequitur rather than "non sequitur," since as a matter of usage and typography I like the style of italicizing pure Latin phrases.

    lol, that's fine (none / 0) (#112)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 02:59:30 AM EST
    Hey, if you're going to be wrong in your definition you might as well be wrong in the style of your personal choice. And, pleading insanity won't work ("if I had a brain") cause, well, you know.

    Kidding aside, the old Shooter would have argued the point way longer than necessary, but, since the world of Grammar Groupies is in somewhat of disarray these days, what with social media, texting, et al, taking over these days, precise definitions don't have the definitive respect they've held prior.

    So, g'nite, Leo, I, and this debate are calling it a night.


    Thank (none / 0) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 07:16:34 AM EST
    goodness for spell check or I would really look like a moran. Don't even start on my haphazard punctuation.

    Try explaining that "simple fact" (5.00 / 7) (#84)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 04:28:21 PM EST
    to the Supremes.  I tend to agree with you on this: "[T]he simple fact [is,] that no one gives millions to a politician without an expectation of something in return."  You should explain this point to Chief Justice John G. Roberts and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. The McCutcheon decision invalidating a key part of the federal election campaign funding law is based on the confidently asserted (but baseless) premise that corruption sufficient to justify regulation or restriction exists only if there is a direct quid pro quo, tantamount to a criminal bribe.

    If I had a chance I would (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07:50 AM EST
    love to explain how silly the ruling was.

    But alas, I can hardly keep my comments on TL, much less appear in front of the SC.


    Quite a number of folks have pointed out (none / 0) (#137)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:55:16 AM EST
    the error in the McCutcheon decision, without having been invited to argue before the Court, resulting in repeated arrests.

    Stupid bobble head tricks (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 04:38:54 PM EST
    one of the bobble heads getting oooooo's and ahhhhhhhh's today is CBS Schieffer.  For this-

    During a discussion about marriage equality on Face the Nation, CBS host Bob Schieffer began by noting that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) had determined that Perkins' organization, the Family Research Council, was a "hate group."

    "The Southern Poverty Law Center has branded the Family Research Council an anti-gay hate group," Schieffer explained as if it were a warning to his viewers. "We have been inundated by people who say we should not even let you appear because they, in their view -- quote -- you don't speak for Christians."

    The irony that he, in fact, had him on the show allowing him to spew his hate seems to have somehow been eclipsed by his "stunning" acknowledgment that he was giving a forum to the leader of a hate group.

    I never understood the Scheiffer love.  I've always found him annoying.

    Stupid bobblehead (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 04:52:42 PM EST
    is right but here's yet another example of the GOP being unable to keep the nuts off the air and in the background. I mean if I were a GOP operative Perkins is the last freaking person I would want on any show especially a political one.

    So he gets to spew his garbage and the GOP says nothing and people get the message that the GOP thinks that kind of thing is a-okay.


    And most importantly (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 05:08:31 PM EST
    Scheiffer gets fawned over on liberal blogs near and far for the clearing the mind bendingly low bar of admitting he is giving a forum to the leader of a hate group who by his own admission has caused an "Inundation" of viewer, including Christian viewer, complaints about them continuing to allowing him on the show.

    God help us.


    I frankly (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 06:41:16 PM EST
    did not know that but honestly the bar is so stinking low for most of the pundits it's kind of pathetic that that is the standard.

    I agree (none / 0) (#98)
    by Zorba on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:13:41 PM EST
    And I have been a long-time supporter of the Southern Poverty Law Center.  (In fact, I think I'll send them another check tomorrow.)
    The SPLC has never even pretended to "speak for Christians," and if Schieffer is paying any attention whatsoever to the FRC Christianists who are "inundating" him because of that, then he's more than an idiot for paying attention to them.
    F him.  

    There will be (none / 0) (#135)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:37:34 AM EST
    a tsunami of recycled hate this week---from think of the children to preachers being forced to perform religious ceremonies; and a lot more in-between.  Nothing new to see here, but a lot old to brace ourselves for--with a bracer, best served to the haters.

    Lets see (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 04:42:31 PM EST
    that I must play victim??
    is a classic victim card gambit. Embrace your game play Jim, don't deny it.
    On the other hand this is nonsense:
    And Joe, if you have no religion then it is obvious you haven't studied Christianity
    I have an ability, apparently unavailable to you, to actually read, research and seek the wisdom of experts on every aspect of my worldview.

    The best (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    description I have heard of tea partiers is they love the word freedom, love the symbols of the country like the flag but hate the actual country itself. They truly hate 21st century America. And that is why all the GOP candidates are campaigning to restore the past. Because the only glory this country has was in the past. The current America is an awful place to them: minorities can vote, women are not going to be controlled and on and on.

    et al 2 (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:52:42 PM EST
    Ga, your problem is that you "have heard."

    Let me know when you can claim actual knowledge.

    Donald! No problem my Coast Haole big guy! Maybe we can hangeee ten over this freedom thingee!


    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 06:48:25 AM EST
    Jim it is what your own candidates are saying. So unless you are not listening to your own candidates which apparently you are not there is nothing to discuss.

    You can't expect him (none / 0) (#116)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 08:15:28 AM EST
    to watch something besides Fox News, can you?

    et al again (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 09:45:26 AM EST
    GA and Mordiggian.... The candidates also say things like "balanced budget," "attack ISIS," etc....

    Do you also agree with that??

    I repeat, neither of you have any actual exposure to actual "Tea Parties" so all you can do is repeat what someone else tells you.

    I invite you to attend some meetings. Educate yourself. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.


    Educate ourselves ? (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 09:56:05 AM EST

    Jim you should know better then most that us Clinton/Obama-bots and lib-tards in general are incapable of learning anything. Personally I awaiting my software update from the Clinton camp, which has been delayed while they are personally delivering all our uraniums to the the Ruskies. As the saying goes uraniums before craniums.


    It is a serious subject so I will give you a (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 10:14:41 AM EST
    serious answer.

    Ga and Mordiggian both have made claims re the Tea Party.

    Both of them have the opportunity to attend some meetings and see for themselves what is there.

    IOW, educate themselves.

    Yet they do not. Instead they seem content to believe what someone else tells them in this matter. And I opine that also applies to you.

    You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink is an old saying that seems very apt.


    Ok (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    I have never been to a Republican meeting. Must I refrain from further comments about them until I do ?

    Have you ever been to Iraq? Have you ever attended a Supreme court hearing? Congressional hearing? Have you been in the Military? Have you sat in on a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Investment? I am assuming you must have since you freely opine all those issues and we all know that you hold yourself up to the high standards you demand of everyone else.


    Playing (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 10:41:33 AM EST
    by Jim's rules also means that he can't comment on Hillary since he's a man nor can any of the male GOP candidates. So I guess they should nominate Carly and let her wander around in the desert muttering about how demon sheep are going to take over the world.

    Of course we all (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    comment about people and things that we have not personally experienced.

    My point is that credibility comes into play.

    If Peter G comments on a legal matter he has tremendous credibility.

    If you or Ga regurgitate what you have read about the Tea Party you have no credibility. Now if you attended some meetings and reported on what you saw you would have some.

    I have been watching Bill and Hillary since 1992 and that is my foundation.



    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:08:08 PM EST
    you regurgitate more than a mother bird..

    For starters, how many actual environmental and climate scientists have you ever talked to depth in your life?


    You regurgitate Fox News (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:10:35 PM EST
    talking points that I and others have disproved here,.

    Your own tendency to distort evidence remorselessly to make a point demonstrates all we need to know if you purport to be an example of he people who support the Tea Party.


    The Tea Party was mainly (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    a place for Bush Republicans to hide out so they wouldn't be blamed for the Bush.

    A way for the hard-Right to try to salvage some credibility, however paltry, after 2000-2008..

    So they changed the brand name. Changed clothes but didn't take a bath.

    Is there much more to it than that?


    In your mind (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:20:05 PM EST
    you may have done many things. Did you miss this?

    As I was reading your comment FNC had two people on discussing civil unrest.

    One noted that the police needed time to act. The other argued that it was the appearance of a cover up that was the problem and that what was needed was fast action and investigation by an outside agency.

    I mean, Fair and Balanced, eh?

    I have to wonder if you, and the guy on TV, believe that the appearance of a cover up also applies in the Bill and Hillary deal??

    Jim you have recently stated (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:57:57 PM EST
    Ga and Mordiggian both have made claims re the Tea Party.

    Both of them have the opportunity to attend some meetings and see for themselves what is there.

    IOW, educate themselves.

    Yet they do not. Instead they seem content to believe what someone else tells them in this matter. And I opine that also applies to you.

    Of course we all  comment about people and things that we have not personally experienced.

    Can you not see the hypocrisy here ?

     Let's see, we must not have a clue what the TP is all about despite the fact that they proudly and loudly present their agenda in print, on the air-waves, on the internet, colorfully mis-spelled signs, bullhorns and sky-writing. Yet you can look into the souls of people you do not know and determine that their acts of charity are really thinly disguised criminal acts.


    Well, let's see (2.00 / 1) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:30:08 PM EST
    the point is that both of them have had the opportunity to actually observe.

    They haven't availed themselves.

    That would be like me having an opportunity to discuss climate change, to bring Jondee into the picture, with some scientists but not doing so.

    So yes, I find their position indefensible.

    And yes, I don't think corporate folks give money to politicians without an expectation of something in return.


    Ye shall know them by their fruits (none / 0) (#125)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 10:25:53 AM EST

    Another problem is just the double-talk that they use. They claim they're about small government; they're really not. They claim that they don't like Barack Obama cause he's a progressive; have they really looked at his legislative record? He governs as a centrist, regardless of what they believe his beliefs to be. On that, if you look at what happened on George Bush's watch -- I mean, let's be for real: the deficit on George Bush's ... expanded 104 percent ... If you look at Clinton's tenure, it only expanded about 14 percent. If you look at the national debt, how much that expanded on George Bush's watch; if you look at the extent to which discretionary spending in George Bush's first term expanded -- I think it expanded by like 48-49 percent. I mean, come on! We didn't see any Tea Partyers out there at the time. We saw nothing when George Bush was doing all this stuff. George W. Bush got TARP passed. We saw nothing. Now we get Obama in, and now the world is going to sh*t.......



    The thing is that (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:52:59 PM EST
    you have no personal experience. So you can quote an article all you want but the results don't change.

    Just as (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:57:38 PM EST
    you have no personal experience with donors to CGI but you are quite confident in declaring them  guilty of bribery.

    I don't have to wade in a compost heap (none / 0) (#150)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:55:21 PM EST
    to know that those who do so don't smell like a rose afterwards.

    Harris Shooting (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    So the link doesn't indicate exactly how many people lied, but one thing is for sure, the shooter, Robert Bates, most certainly lied in the interview in regards to his reviews and training.

    Sheriff Stanley Glanz announced the resignation of Tim Albin, the undersheriff. A 2009 internal review obtained by NBC News found that Albin had asked employees to modify reviews and training documentation for the volunteer deputy, Robert Bates.

    The same review found that Albin told people who raised concerns about Bates to keep their mouths shut.


    The link in that (none / 0) (#164)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 02:08:46 PM EST
     to the article on the 2009 report is very damning.

      It might he the lesser consideration by a longshot, but the taxpayers of the county are going to pay for a very large judgment. That's about as clear-cut a case of negligent training and supervision as you could have. That it's been known for at least since 2009 and Bates was permitted to continue not only would seem to clearly establish liability for compensatory damages but also a very good case for substantial punitive damages in OK law permits them against government agencies.


    Seems To Me... (none / 0) (#171)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:15:23 PM EST
    ...like faking police training reports would be an excellent reason for their liability insurance company to deny the claim.

    From the story, I could not tell if the person tried to change the records in 2009 or if he did it recently, but related to 2009 training.


    Well often (none / 0) (#175)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:34:18 PM EST
      a government agency will be self-insured and the insurance company just manages claims with premiums essentially  being liability amounts plus administration costs (with profit for the insurer built-in) The "pure" self-insurance model means more that taxpayers pretty much pay for all claims.

       Sometimes the "insurer" will be contracted to pay claims up to a relatively low policy -limit (like 1 million per ocurrrence) and to provide cost of defense but the government agency will be liable for excess amounts of settlement or verdict judgments and the self-insurance entity can sometimes recoup amounts paid for defense.

      In any event the taxpayers will pay  lot for this tragic event one way or another.



    RECON: You have explained well (none / 0) (#181)
    by Palli on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 06:53:51 PM EST
    Since many officers & Police Departments are gaining stature, power and money from excessive use of force at the expense of civilian lives and taxpayer funds, many of us want to incentivize reform & deter blue malfeasance toward citizens in the communities they serve but do not pay taxes toward.

    Would you give some thought to pros/cons & possibilities of how  these financial verdict judgements could be taken from municipal government (Police Department budgets). Another idea suggests deducting from an officer's pension or the entire pension fund for a department.

    BTW, Read the Atlantic's article about the white mismanagement of Ferguson city government. It began long ago but the last 2 years under Mayor Knowles has been textbook financial stupidity.



    Palli, a friendly suggestion (none / 0) (#184)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 07:51:12 AM EST
    You will have to learn how to use the "link" function when referring to an article from another website. Otherwise, Jeralyn will delete your comment due to the reasons she's explained many times here. You will lose the post, and, unless you kept a copy it will be gone, with no one having read it.

    I would not forsee (none / 0) (#185)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 08:53:42 AM EST
      as a practical matter, the costs of settlements or verdicts resulting from police misconduct resulting reduced police budgets.  Even to the extent the police force budget is affected it would likely be in purchasing rather than size of force or salary and benefits. (delaying purchases of new cruisers and expensive equipment)

      Cities will more likely make cuts in other budget areas if necessary, raise taxes and fees or accumulate debt where permitted.

      It would clearly be illegal to raid pension funds if that resulted in reducing or eliminating payment of vested pension benefits earned by service.  Short of a city going into bankruptcy or possibly some other form of receivership pension obligations cannot be shed. An individual police officer (depending on state law and the contractual specifics) who committed a wrongful act in the line of duty might have his eligibility for pension benefits terminated but that would not result in that "future money" being available to pay a plaintiff's judgment. The money would still be in the pension system only to be used to pay pensions of others in the system.

       Even to the extent an individual officer had a personal judgment against him individually for his wrongful conduct in an incident, it can be difficult to impossible to execute and collect on the judgment. That gets into very complex issues relating to ERISA, bankruptcy and state laws that are beyond my area of expertise let alone ability to explain coherently, but as an example, just recall OJ who continued to receive his NFL pension after the Browns and Goldamns obtained judgment against him in the civil case. So long as he avoided converting pension payments into assets that could be executed upon he was able to prevent the plaintiffs from getting compensation.



    Joe Conason (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 04:32:39 PM EST
    On CGI the NYTimes and more

    Joe Conason: Why Reporters Ignore the Real Story of the Clinton Foundation

    The mere prospect of Hillary Rodham Clinton running for president again is evidently provoking outrage among old adversaries -- from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to Maureen Dowd -- whose appetite for bogus "Clinton scandals" will never be sated.
    Now the Times is suggesting that the Clinton Foundation, a charitable organization responsible for saving and improving millions of lives every year, has been financially mismanaged and misused for personal enrichment, among other problems. Those accusations have been amplified not only by the Clintons' traditional enemies on the Republican right, who mortally fear a Hillary 2016 electoral juggernaut, but in a rather deranged column by Dowd, as well.
    Worse than the reliance on backstairs gossip, however, were the factual errors featured in the Times story, particularly concerning the Clinton Foundation's finances. As President Clinton himself noted in an open letter posted on the foundation website, the article incorrectly described the foundation's financial condition and history -- because the reporters didn't understand how nonprofits are required to report their cash flows on IRS documents.

    In his letter, which will interest anyone who wants to understand what he has been doing for the past decade, the former president explained: "When someone makes a multiyear commitment to the foundation, we have to report it all in the year it was made. In 2005 and 2006 as a result of multiyear commitments, the foundation reported a surplus of $102.8 million though we collected nowhere near that. In later years, as the money came in to cover our budgets, we were required to report the spending but not the cash inflow. Also, if someone makes a commitment that he or she later has to withdraw, we are required to report that as a loss, though we never had the money in the first place and didn't need it to meet our budget."

     But if Dowd and her Times colleagues were honestly interested in what the Clinton Foundation does with its funds, including the millions raised annually by President Clinton himself, all they would have to do is get off their butts and go look at its projects, which can be found all over the world. (Disclosure: This topic interests me so much that I recently visited Clinton Foundation projects in Africa with the former president and his daughter, Chelsea.)
    That they never bother to do so, because reporting those stories would ruin their preferred narrative, tells but everything we need to know -- not about the Clintons, of course, but about themselves.

    But the really interesting part is when it was written

    By Joe Conason | Published on 08.22.2013 3:47 p.m.

    I have (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 06:11:06 PM EST
    to say I have changed my thinking on some of this. I am starting to think that someone on the campaign has gone through everything and is now doing a "dump". I don't know how long it is going to last but everything is going to be dumped and so then it will be "old news".

    ... about the Clintons aren't looking for explanations, nor are they interested in understanding how 501(c)3 nonprofits are required to operate under the law. They just want to squawk and b!tch about the Clintons, and will seize upon any original or manufactured excuse to do so.

    And while media dilettantes like our Miss MoDo at the New York Times gleefully demonize a foundation that really does a lot of good work on behalf of at-risk peoples and communities around the world, their original font of misinformation here, Peter Schwiezer, uses over 50% of his own nonprofit's revenues to line his own pockets with a six-figure income, as well as those of other management / staff.



    Mordiggian (1.50 / 2) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 11:45:40 AM EST
    You and Howdy, among others, seem incapable of grasping what I keep telling you.

    I don't care what you think/write about me. I am who I am and I am perfectly comfortable in my skin.

    But I reserve the right to respond to snarks in a like manner.

    As for math, when you understand that a starting figure of 10 trillion subtracted from a current figure of 17 trillion shows a 7 trillion increase let me know.

    "If you can't take he heat (none / 0) (#46)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    stay out of the kitchen."

    Baltimore!! (1.00 / 5) (#6)
    by NycNate on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 05:48:48 AM EST
    Domestically, no other topic should take precedent over this. Rioting. Looting. Very tense racial fighting.

    The mayor and police chief need to go. They allowed these people to destroy property, block traffic, take down US flag.

    If Ferguson/Baltimore represent the new America, then I have some things to really think about. This type of unrest in a minority run city is disconcerting. I'm in the next major minority run city. If this is the best Rawlings-Blake and a black police chief could do, then it doesn't lend much confidence for the next major city run by a minority.

    Your poorly discussed prejudice (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Palli on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:03:36 AM EST
    avoid the obvious: the unrest, as you call it, in Baltimore, Ferguson and else where, is fermented precisely because the majority is not accepting the need to change or embracing the processes that will bring real change.

    The Constitution was written many, many years ago- wouldn't it be a good Idea  to fulfill it?

    Speaking of rioting and looting, will you observing the 94th anniversary of the heinous white riot that destroyed the thriving community of Greenwood in Oklahoma come June?    


    NycNate: "If Ferguson/Baltimore represent the new America, then I have some things to really think about. This type of unrest in a minority run city is disconcerting. I'm in the next major minority run city. If this is the best Rawlings-Blake and a black police chief could do, then it doesn't lend much confidence for the next major city run by a minority."

    ... Newsmax, Fox News and AM talk radio. Honestly, if that's where you like to hang out and get your information, such as it is, that's entirely your business. Personally, I prefer my news sober, rather than hyperbolic.

    But while I obviously can't speak for any of the others here, I would ask that you please not emulate those aforementioned sources by engaging in noxious race-baiting, as you just did above. Otherwise, this particular white guy might figure you for yet another bigoted, ignorant white-wing troll who doesn't know his own arse from his elbow, and I'll start treating you accordingly.

    This is 2015, not 1915. The day of white male privilege is now in its twilight and as far as I'm concerned, once its sun has set, good riddance. In my opinion, I believe that social diversity is healthy and that minority participation in civic affairs -- which includes their candidacies for public office -- is both good and necessary. Further, and regardless of whether or not you approve, they're here to stay.

    So, I'd suggest that you start living in the present, deal with it like a rational adult and above all, grow a pair emotionally. Don't let your irrational fears about race fill your heart with dust. Life's really too short for such nonsense. And the next time you traffic in that sort of foolishness here, it's very likely that I won't be nearly so polite about it.



    Re FNC and Baltimore (1.50 / 2) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 08:52:28 AM EST
    As I was reading your comment FNC had two people on discussing civil unrest.

    One noted that the police needed time to act. The other argued that it was the appearance of a cover up that was the problem and that what was needed was fast action and investigation by an outside agency.

    I mean, Fair and Balanced, eh?

    I have to wonder if you, and the guy on TV, believe that the appearance of a cover up also applies in the Bill and Hillary deal??


    People should not be allowed to loot and... (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by NycNate on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 09:03:03 AM EST
    cause disorder. My friends were at the Orioles game. Can you imagine a city descending into lawlessness in the course of a baseball game?  My friends had nothing to do with any of this. And to be held hostage in a stadium and then threatened be on the very threatening racial taunts is ridiculous.

    If the mayor can't keep it safe and/or the residents don't want nonresident whites coming to their city, that's fine. They should be honest and let people know beforehand. The people at that stadium deserved better than what took place last night.


    Your friends were not held hostage; (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    they were asked to remain in the stadium out of an abundance of caution.  The message to remain came before the game was over, and before it went into extra innings.  It is my understanding that by the time the game was actually over, people were allowed to leave.

    I can't even imagine how outraged you would have been had precautions not been taken, but people like you seem to be able to find outrage and make accusations no matter what happens.

    The mayor and the police did keep it safe for thousands of people. Looting was minor, as was property damage: I've seen worse when college kids riot after a big game - not that any of it's right, but you're making this out to be like the city was burning last night - and that's not the case.  Not even close.


    They wanted to leave; but couldnt (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by NycNate on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 01:55:57 PM EST
    Why?  Because of threats to their safety. Some people leave the game early to avoid traffic, family obligations, etc.   Last night, no one was allowed to leave. That is a FACT!  

    And so is this!



    Oh, stuff it, Nate... (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 02:26:30 PM EST
    No one who would have left early would have avoided traffic; the light rail had been shut down and so had numerous intersections.  Chances are your friends would not have been able to make their way out of the area due to road and public transportation issues.  

    Do you find fault with the decision to make sure the area was secure before thousands more people poured out of the stadium?  The restriction actually was lifted before the game ended, or were you not aware of that?

    Have you checked out today's game? Seems like ticket holders are so fearful and have so little confidence in the mayor and police commissioner that thousands are sitting in the stadium cheering as the O's batter the Red Sox.  In other words, a gorgeous day.

    Please go peddle your histrionics somewhere else; they are completely unwarranted and unjustified.


    Why was light rail shut down. (none / 0) (#64)
    by NycNate on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:16:16 PM EST
    What caused the light rail to be shut down?

    Just asking questions? (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 04:09:48 PM EST
    The logistics of trying to keep (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 04:19:26 PM EST
    more people from coming into the city and keeping crowds under control, and preparing for the thousands soon to be exiting the stadium is what caused numerous intersections in the city to be closed, and for several routes into the city to also be closed. And for the light rail to also close.

    What you have to understand is that the protest was essentially over.  There were a lot of people in the street - many of them had been part of the peaceful protest.  One of the so-called leaders tried to whip people up again and "shake it up."

    After the protesters crossed Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, they stopped for a moment of silence outside Maryland Shock Trauma Center, where Gray fell into a coma before dying. As drivers honked, a bullhorn-carrying leader, Malik Shabazz, president of Black Lawyers for Justice, told the crowd to hold the intersection.

    They then headed to Oriole Park, where Shabazz said, "Let's shake it up."

    Protesters began running toward the stadium, kicking parked cars. Shabazz tried to stop them.

    One stomped across the top of a police cruiser, and another stood atop it.

    But the brief flare-up was an anomaly during an otherwise peaceful march.

    Whether it was cars trying to make their way through streets congested with foot traffic or the light rail trying to do the same thing, it was safer for all concerned to limit traffic.

    There was no actual problem with the light rail, with anyone riding it, or anything happening on it.

    I guess you haven't spent much time thinking about these kinds of logistics in your zeal to cast aspersions on city officials, but that's no great surprise.

    Tell me, what did your friends find once they left the stadium?  Chaos?  Rioting?  Looting?  Were they accosted by anyone?  Seems like you would have made mention of that if that had been their experience.


    You have no idea what you are (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 09:39:34 AM EST
    talking about.

    This began and was conducted as a peaceful protest that city police and the mayor and other officials made clear they fully supported the right of the people to hold, that was marred at the end by a very small group of people.

    Both the mayor and the police commissioner have been open, have been working with the family of Freddie Gray and those representing the family, have been conducting an investigation, have immediately and openly admitted the breaches of protocol and continue to work to get all the information.  The police commissioner has indicated that they have learned additional information that cannot be made public because it could jeopardize the prosecution of those responsible for what happened to Freddie.

    You have heard nothing negative or accusatory from Gray's family with respect to the work the mayor and police commissioner have been doing to get to the bottom of what happened to Freddie; did you not see Freddie's twin sister at the microphone with the mayor?  

    I am not an apologist for the police, for the mayor or those involved in Gray's arrest.  What I am is someone who lives here, who is privy to local news, local reporting, who is familiar with the areas involved.  What I am is someone who knows nothing bad happened all day as this protest was going on, who knows that thousands of people traveled into the city for a baseball game.

    This was not major, full-scale rioting and unrest; it was never out of control.  

    Again, you don't know what you are talking about, what the mayor and police commissioner have and are doing, so you really should just STFU.

    I really can't get over the idiocy and ignorance of your comment.


    You say that you may (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 10:38:28 AM EST
    "have some things to really think about."  Somehow, I get the clear impression from your comments that your reference to "these people" is a marker for a kind of "ism" that has no place in our land.  IMO, your remarks barely mask something more than your or anyone else's right to differ. If that is the case--as trumpeted by the color code of the comment's last sentence--then I would say (as we would say in my family when someone stomps feet and says he/she is taking the marbles and going home): "Don't let the door hit your rear-end on the way out." (Enjoy your new land.)

    I Would Suggest... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 02:59:40 PM EST
    ...that you take it up with the police, the response you find so disagreeable is a direct response to the police snapping the spinal cord of a black man in their custody.

    Get the police to start acting like human beings and there won't be any protests to whine about.  Blaming people who are fed up with that BS is pretty ridiculous to say the least.


    ... to those who are ridiculous at heart themselves. As my older sister once rightly warned me about such people, their beliefs don't even have to make any sense for their resultant fears to still be very real to them.

    What I find amazing is how some otherwise very bright people, such as my tea partyin' uncle, manage to fall into that particular category. They're obviously not even close to a majority, by any stretch of the imagination, but there are certainly enough of them to make things both lively and interesting.

    Whether the issue at hand is civil rights, ethnicity and race, or defense and national security, they assume a defensive posture and retreat quickly toward those comfort zones which are their own preconceived notions of the way things ought to be. And in that regard, the GOP has become quite adept at getting such people to chase and swallow the same ol' right-wing lures hook, line and sinker over and again, no matter how many times those lures have been proved fraudulent.

    It's a personal phenomenon similar to the one that's invoked by some people when it comes to the subject of Israel / Palestine. They are so emotionally invested in their own propaganda that they simply shut it down intercranially, hearing only what they want to hear and disregarding completely anything else which doesn't fit neatly into their preferred narrative.

    Ultimately, it generally proves fruitless to argue with such people because in their own mind, while sometimes you might merely be mistaken and they're probably correct, the rest of the time they're absolutely right and you couldn't possibly be any more wrong. (And while I'm currently talking about people on the right side of the spectrum, this behavior is by no means exclusive to them.)

    Personally, given Jeralyn's obvious exasperation with the recent and increasingly caustic back-and-forth in these threads, I'm going to do my very best to avoid further engagement with them, and I'll let her deal with their nonsense as she sees fit.



    Nate NYC (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:08:02 AM EST
    Do not bring your race-baiting here. All your comments seem designed for that purpose. I'll refrain from reading into them, but I can assure you that another comment like this one will result in you being banned.

    What an Orioles exec has to (none / 0) (#160)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:44:30 PM EST
    The President (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:07:17 PM EST
    was very funny.

    Obama made some political points (none / 0) (#2)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:13:41 PM EST
    too.....I liked the references to climate change.

    I am a fan of Cecily Strong....I had no problem with her biting humor....  


    The only police force in the country (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:18:47 PM EST
    that will get in trouble if a black man gets shot.

    The bucket list was brilliant.


    Haitian Money Pit (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:41:42 AM EST
    this recent, and currently airing, episode of VICE will make you want to throw things at the TV.

    Lanny Davis (none / 0) (#23)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 10:19:44 AM EST
    drew the short straw this morning:

    Not Just `Smoke and Mirrors'

    "A skeptical Chris Wallace quizzed him on numerous points, including a $2.3 million donation to the Clinton Foundation by a Russian company that then was cleared by Hillary Clinton's State Department to purchase a Canadian uranium firm, giving it a giant stake in the world's uranium market -- a donation that was not reported."

    Lanny did not do well defending the Clintons in this matter -- but then again he doesn't have much to work with

    Wallace (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 10:55:54 AM EST
    apparently did not do his homework if he was asking about the Uranium unless Wallace thinks that Hillary was in control of the 7 agencies that had to approve the deal along with the State of Utah. Of course Fox viewers are never going to use reason to try to figure all this out. Let the conspiracy theories roll on!!!

    the 7 (2.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    unless Wallace thinks that Hillary was in control of the 7 agencies that had to approve the deal along with the State of Utah

    Lanny pointed that out but Wallace then retorted that the uranium deal required the approval of all 7 agencies. If any 1 of those 7 agencies objected then the deal was off.

    And Hillary was in charge of 1 of those 7 and it  voted yes.

    Lanny sheepishly consented to that fact.


    So (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 11:55:41 AM EST
    now the goal posts are moving. LOL. You're EVEN admitting that she didn't control the deal.

    One vote would not have mattered when they had to go through 7 more people.

    You guys are freaking hysterical.


    Perhaps you didn't understand when (2.67 / 3) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 12:16:48 PM EST
    you wrote:

    now the goal posts are moving. LOL. You're EVEN admitting that she didn't control the deal

    She had 1 vote and any 1 vote would have stopped the deal.

    So yes. YES INDEED. She had control.


    Oh, (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 12:21:12 PM EST
    good lord. If she had voted yes and one of the other agencies had voted no I'm guessing you STILL would be saying she had control.

    You know the GOP is now trying to put the genie back in the bottle trying to call off the dogs.

    The idiot who wrote the book even admits he has no proof.

    You guys are aiming for a complete wipeout at the polls. You have no positive agenda for the country. All you have is crazy conspiracy theories.


    Yes, you are guessing (2.50 / 4) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 12:26:18 PM EST
    As for proof, no one is trying to put the "genie back in the bottle" except in your mind.

    What we have here is a clear case of influence selling and buying.

    It is as old as time and in this case as clear as can be.


    Oh, (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 12:32:58 PM EST
    my you're hysterical. Only in the fevered minds of wacko conspiracy theorists like yourself is there any there there.

    Heck, Hillary is even laughing at you guys and using your nutty conspiracy theories to fundraise off of.

    I mean even if the moron who wrote the book says there's no proof then when you continue down this path you look really wacko.

    But the GOP embraces wacko. They are letting their full freak flag fly on top of the clown train pulling about 20 jokers. The jokes just write themselves. LOL


    Here (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 12:24:23 PM EST
    you go:


    The GOP is a laughingstock.


    Game, Set, and Match. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 02:22:04 PM EST
    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 02:40:09 PM EST
    M, normal rules would say game over, but of course we are playing by the Clinton's rules. This dead horse has plenty of legs left.  In any case, when the corpse really starts to stink Cokies's law will take effect.

    Well (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 02:45:20 PM EST
    the good news is Hillary does not care about Cokie's Law and is going to push back from this stuff.

    And unless they're like Jim who'll believe anything and talking to low hanging fruit for the GOP is kind of a waste of time anyway you should point out to them that they are incorrect.

    The GOP operates on the theory that if you repeat a lie 5 times people will believe it. As you can see here that works very well on the GOP base. The rest of the country not so much. Even Frank Luntz admits as much.


    I (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:05:52 PM EST
    Wish I shared your optimism. I have faith in Hillary's ability to fight, Lord knows she has the experience and she has unmatched political toughness. However I have no faith in the media. She will be forced to wear this no matter how much these allegations are proved to be pure bunk.                                                                                    

    Oh definitely (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:23:41 PM EST
    the media is going to continue. It's all they know.

    I was stunned watching (none / 0) (#30)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 11:43:25 AM EST
    George Stephanopolous this morning.

    Mark Halperin and the other of Bloomberg News guy said that the only Democrats defending the Clintons on this are those on the Clinton payroll.

    Then they panned over to Donna Brazille as she began defending them. She looked down the whole time.

    The Clinton Campaign was invited on ALL the Sunday shows this morning and they refused ALL the invitations.

    According (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 12:08:33 PM EST
    to the transcript Halperin never said that about democrats defending Hillary.

    Do you really think you can come here and continue to lie?


    Wait a minute... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:30:35 AM EST
    are we really going to be taking Mark Halperin seriously this campaign season?

    I will lower my expectations of the discourse accordingly.


    Haha (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 12:03:15 PM EST
    this is from the transcript on ABC

    although ABC found no evidence that Hillary Clinton took action based on these contributions.

    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 11:57:14 AM EST
    first off all the money wasn't given directly to her but if you believe that nobody gives money with out strings attached then I guess you have a problem with so many candidates being funded by only one person?

    Or do you not have a problem with one person funding candidates because they support your wacko agenda for the country?

    Try (none / 0) (#43)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 12:33:17 PM EST
    reading the teachings of Jesus for a start,  as  you seem unable to  wrap your mind around the idea of charity.

    There is zero evidence that cash flowed directly to the Clintons, there is zero evidence that Hillary used any kind of leverage or advocated for the deal in any way. Yet you can "simply" declare her guilty of selling the country out.

    Methinks your repeated use of the word simple and simply is very telling. It must be nice to have such a simple world view, it obviously helps you make it through the day.

    In Jim's (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 12:35:35 PM EST
    mind you are guilty until proven innocent and no one deserves their day in court unless it's a tea party freak and they deserve special treatment.

    In Jim's (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 12:44:47 PM EST
     mind charity does not exist. I got a question for you Jim, how much do I have to donate to the Gates Foundation to get my Windows-Elite upgrade?

    In Jim's world (none / 0) (#47)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    the less evidence there is for wrong-doing by the Clintons demonstrates how good they are at covering up their tracks.

    I (none / 0) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 01:30:18 PM EST
    do not understand why he fights them, they appear to have some powerful secret powers in his mind. Does he not realize that the is setting himself to be first in line at the re-education camps ? Come over to our side Jim, submit to the inevitable, they are just too powerful to oppose. Rumor has it that Chelsea's powers are even stronger, we must prepare ourselves for the rule of the House of Clinton for decades if not centuries. Better then the house of Bush I suppose.

    No but (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 01:47:52 PM EST
    you're the one that brought up being on a payroll so I guess you must be on the GOP's payroll. Whatever they're paying you apparently it's too much though since when confronted with facts you have a meltdown.

    Ga (none / 0) (#66)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:21:30 PM EST
    Thanks for answering the question.

    You prove that Mark Halperin is not completely accurate.

    Not every Democrat defending the Clintons is on their payroll.

    Some are just too stupid to get on that payroll and just defend them for free.

    BTW -- since you claim to have the transcript of the  George Stephanopolous show from this morning, please post the link to it, particularly the Round Table discussion with Mark Halperin, et al.


    Since you are the one spewing BS (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:08:52 PM EST
    why don't YOU find the transcript. (you have heard of google, right?) And perhaps make it a practice to do before you comment on a show. It seems like you may have been hearing some of what you wanted to hear vs what was actually said.

    I'm done (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:36:02 PM EST
    talking to people who are too lazy to do their homework. People who to go conspiracy sites and then come back here and repeat what they read never even checking the original source.

    Putting (none / 0) (#69)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:34:14 PM EST
    any kind of faith in the talking heads on the electric tv machine, especially the Sunday morning variety, has proven to reduce your political IQ by at least double digits. I prefer to leave it to the pro's, please be careful out there.

    If we allow this discussion, (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by NYShooter on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:46:08 PM EST
    meaning the whole subject of accepting donations and speaking fees from donors while Hillary was SOS, which did create an "uncomfortable"   appearance" that a quid pro quo situation was a "potential" result, if this is not responded to properly, then Hillary will lose this "fight of a thousand cuts."

    Fortunately, Ms. Clinton, and her team, it seems, have now come to that same conclusion, and are beginning to respond correctly, and intelligently. While I don't have a specific link to refer to at this moment, I did watch/hear a news program this morning that stated this very fact.

    Experts will tell you that the first thing one does when one finds him/herself in this type of situation is to:

    A. Respond to it straight on.
    B. Admit to errors made.
    C. Apologize sincerely.
    D. Lay out plans to fix situation for the future.
    E. Emphasize that, while operational mistakes  
       were made, no quid pro quo situation actually
    F. No ethical, or financial, transactions
       occurred benefitting the Clintons as a result
       of accepting donations, or at the behest of
       the donors.

    In this news program, Hillary stated that she has formed a sizeable team of experts to audit all the transactions made, and to "fix" any, and all, errors made. These would include errors of a procedural variety, and errors of omission, such as taxes. She said that they would completely refile tax returns for approximately a half dozen years, and pay whatever is indicated.

    It sounded like a very good start. She appeared sincere in her apology, and in explaining the reasons for the "screw-ups" (my word.) She did not attack those attacking her, and seemed to invite whatever scrutiny is to come. She emphasized that, whatever questions, or doubts come up, she will cooperate fully in reconciling the issue. But, most of all, she, emphatically stated that, however thorough and complicated the coming ordeal will be, they will find absolutely no wrong doing in her behavior, nor any illegal enrichment whatsoever regarding the claims and charges we hear bandied about daily.          


    pro's (none / 0) (#71)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:41:10 PM EST
    I prefer to leave it to the pro's

    and what pro's would those be???


    Charles P. Pierce... (none / 0) (#130)
    by unitron on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    yep (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:23:40 AM EST
     he is my go to guy ,but he always skips over the mundane, trivial and banal BS and only goes after the truly outrageous. Too much stupid not enough time I guess.

    LOL, I've been reading Charlie (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:27:18 AM EST
    for more years than I care to remember, and rather than mellowing with age, he just gets better, and sharper, with each passing year.

    Could anyone else come up with this?

    "...allowing Gingrich to pontificate about the evils of corrupt influences in our politics......is like getting a lecture on sanitation from the e. coli virus."


    Which is why you're also (none / 0) (#62)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 02:54:35 PM EST
    so concerned about the Koch Brothers and their effect on American politics...............

    When the Koch Brothers (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:50:13 PM EST
    facilitate selling 51% of our uranium to Russia let me know.

    Their father started out (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:58:29 PM EST
    By dealing with the Soviets, so in that case it would be a family tradition.  😃

    So did Gore's dad (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 09:46:57 AM EST
    and your point is?

    No, that was the founder (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 10:30:02 AM EST
    Of Occidental Petroleum. Gore senior never dealt with the Soviets in the 30s like the Koch Brother's father did.

    Do try to keep up.


    Then try Soros (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    Oooh (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    There's a real boogeyman.  How dare he survive both Nazi and Communist regimes and not end up a respectable business man like Rupert Murdoch?

    Question (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    i have really wondered about this.
    Why do we care what people who get their information, by their own comments we know, from FOX nooz and George and Kookie and the rest of the ridiculous Sunday bobble head crowd, think?  Seriously.
    I really don't get it.  The people who seem to take their every pathetic utterance as dangerous subversive propaganda that must be met with endless pointless reasoned arguments are, as far as I can tell, otherwise reasonably intelligent people?
    Why do we not understand that substantively engaging them is not only a complete waste of time but elevates their drivel by allowing them to imagine they are being taken seriously and to go on and on and on and on etc.
    This is not concern trolling.  It's not that I really care.  In truth it can be quite entertaining.

    I just don't get it.

    You are correct (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:51:02 PM EST
    You cannot use reason with silly ninnies and people too lazy to look up the facts for themselves.

    I do understand the urge (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:56:58 PM EST
    i suggest
    A.). Giving them a 2 (or the dreaded 1)
    B.) snark

    Then moving in with your life.  
    My mama used to say 'if you wrestle with a pig you get dirty and the pig has fun'


    I like (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 04:01:54 PM EST
    your mama!

    That's a good one, but (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Zorba on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 06:28:47 PM EST
    My ancestors would have said, "Don't wrestle with the pig.  Get out your spear or sword and kill the pig.  And then roast  him and eat him."
    Just sayin'.      ;-)

    Good question, howdy ... OTOH (none / 0) (#89)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 05:24:53 PM EST
    There are days in recent years where the contrived manipulation by the Press/Media/Mainstream & beyond is so obvious--on issues & people within politics and apart from politics--that I want to throw things, yell at any unfortunate acquaintance who might be within earshot, and argue until my face becomes as bloviated as a number of the yammering pundits.  On those days, my husband reminds me about the counterproductive nature of my almost obsessive concern about why-why-why is the press whatever misdeed that structure appears to be doing.

    True, all my ranting and conjecture about how the boys/girls of the press must surely settle on a theme for the coming week as they sip cocktails at parties or trade gossip on DC barstools will not change a thing (other than my blood pressure.) So then, I periodically decide to cancel our Denver Post subscription or cancel the online NYTimes, etc. ... and, husband gives the look of waiting out my spate of anger.  

    Big sigh, tho, because we are kind of ensnared with the press.  A long time ago, it was said that it is foolish to get into an argument with an outfit that "buys ink by the barrel."  That is the pragmatic problem: The media own the front page and the blaring headlines and the shaping of the news; and, in that sense, the media can and does, generally, set the terms for dispersing "news" and shaping views/attitudes via the manner of presentation.  That makes it rather necessary not to cede the public platform without open response, debate, restatement, and corrective pushback.  Trans: Good communicators and persuasive spokespeople in challenging a corporate press view is paramount.

    Even with all that ... I'm very optimistic about the upcoming general election cycle.  The optimism comes from the always-demonstrated ability of Hillary Clinton to withstand trumped up snits and "scandals" and to be strengthened in the process.  Based upon how the dynamics seem to be moving--e.g., breathless reporting of a misstep or more by Clinton, followed by news media escalation without more, followed by a bit of fact-checking showing media exaggeration, followed by media acknowledging no real or actual wrongdoing or violation <note: we might be at this phase today>, followed by opposition stories at various levels that eventually overreach or overplay, public grows tired of pile-on and circular stories while Clinton supporters rally all the more, and Clinton forges a path through smoke blown by a news-media as it becomes clear that "there is no there there."  Based upon patterns, nothing suggests that this latest media push will end differently than it always does where a Clinton is involved.


    Ha, yes (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 05:42:53 PM EST
    allow me an OTOH

    The truth is the only people in this country more despised than politicians is the press.  Can anyone say they have not earned it?
    I would need to be convinced the change enough minds to matter.  People we all know pick over what they say like a starving man in a landfill looking for some small tidbit to justify their outrage.  They will find it.  And if they don't FOX or Brietbart or Workd Nut Daily will make something up for them.

    The "nooze", particularly network nooze has been losing interest for decades.  Now with all the outlets for information "Cokies Law" is about a consequential as Capt Howdys Law.

    IMO they scream their nonsense ever louder and closer to the edge for the same reason commenters on blogs do.   To get attention.  They are going the way of the Dodo.  And the thing they always hated most about the Clinton's is that they know how to go around them.  They learned it early and they learned it well.


    Here is my take (none / 0) (#162)
    by sj on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    I don't think cr@p should be allowed to stand uncontested. The target audience of the correction isn't really the spewer -- it's anyone else who might be reading, especially new readers with no site history. The spewer needs to be declared and acknowledged a spewer, and the spew needs to acknowledged as spew.

    IMO the site would have a lot less of the ping-ponging if J didn't have a level of discomfort about actually correctly declaring a troll to be trolling. Even long time trolls.

    Or maybe that should be "especially" long time trolls. But it's her site, so refutation it is.


    C'mon Jim (none / 0) (#70)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    A whole 15% of what is contributed to the Clinton foundations actually makes its way to charity.

    That's pretty good, right???

    Only 85% is paid out for salaries, and plane rides, and administration, and lawyers, and defenders of the cause, and computer programming assistance, and getting media people to lie for you, and oh yeh paying an accountant to redo your last 10 years of taxes and find a place for that $2.5 million that slipped notice.

    That's pretty good too, right???

    I have (none / 0) (#72)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:46:37 PM EST
    no religion, However I can fully understand Jesus's message regarding charity and tolerance, universal messages that have seemed to pass you by.

    I'll try again (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46:33 AM EST
    and no, His messages haven't passed me by. Jesus's messages re charity are that they are a personal thing. He did say render unto Caesar but He didn't say contribute money to reduce your taxes and He didn't say that government should replace the individual although I would guess that He has no problem with people being helped by government.
    And He didn't say that doing good will give you a pass for doing bad.

    As for tolerance, His message was to love the sinner but he clearly defined that sin would be punished if not stopped, confessed and forgiveness asked for.


    The Sermon on the Mount (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:26:35 AM EST
    exemplifies the love, concern, and outreach to the many others gathered to hear and learn from him ... as no one went hungry, either spiritually or physically.

    In fact, examples of Jesus physically tending to others and nurturing others are so numerous--and so instructive of how we are to behave--that it is difficult to know where to begin.  The oft-cited passages in Matthew known as the Beatitudes illustrate Jesus' teaching on the blessings that flow from individual characteristics (such as mercy.) And, you may recall this pronouncement: "But, Master, when did I see you hungry (thirsty, naked, in prison) and do these things for You? <Jesus replied> In so much as you did these things (feed, clothe, give comfort) to the least of my people, so you did them for me." (Paraphrasing/summarizing)  

    In the matter of spiritual and corporal obligations, the Scriptures are replete with examples of and instruction to care for others.  Although you are correct in observing that Jesus did not condemn nor preach against those who were wealthy, Jesus clearly described how difficult it is for a rich man to enter Heaven (e.g., easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle.) He used parables to point to how easy and wrong it is for the wealthy to slip into a callous indifference or disregard for those suffering, starving nearby us ... Read about the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.  

    Yes, the demonstration of the coin--the separation of Church & State--does not say that money is wrong.  It is what the individual does with the money that counts ... to what purpose, to what aid of others.  The use of fortune to build only your own place/estate is cautioned against via parable as one who stores up everything for self-satisfaction only to lose all as his life is asked of him that night. We never know about self-fortune and self-loss ... what we do know is Jesus direct admonition at the Last Supper to do as He did when he washed the feet of others.  We do know that He set an example which He asked all to follow in our own behavior.


    And don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:05:19 PM EST
    21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

    Jesus Christ, speaking to the rich young man who wanted to know what he could do to have eternal life.



    I think we are more or less in agreement (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:37:52 PM EST
    but I didn't say that the "render unto" statement means money is wrong or right. He just said:

    And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

    But He also didn't say it was okay to give money to a third party so they could aid those they want to aid giving that said aid might enable bad actions.

    Which is clearly what taxes to government and contributions to charities do.

    We can speculate that He would approve but it is just speculation.


    He also did (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:43:31 PM EST
    not say, thou shalt not take an AK-47 and mow down school kids. We can speculate that he would disapprove but of course it's just speculation.

    Yes we can (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    Oh, honestly, Jim! (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:28:20 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ: "But [Jesus} also didn't say it was okay to give money to a third party so they could aid those they want to aid giving that said aid might enable bad actions. Which is clearly what taxes to government and contributions to charities do."

    If you're going to go so far as to cite the Gospels, then please don't take portions of that scripture out of context for your own purposes.

    Rather, in that particular passage, Matthew 22-15-22, the Pharisees were clearly attempting to trip up Jesus of Nazareth up for their own purposes, so that they could accuse him of a crime in order to curry favor with the Romans.

    "Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, 'Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" (Matthew 22:15-17).

    By quizzing Jesus as such, the Pharisees were confident that that he would respond by saying no, don't pay your taxes, and thus incriminate himself on a charge of sedition against Rome.

    "But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, 'Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.'" (Matthew 22:18-19.)

    But Jesus saw through their ruse. He inquired of them as to whose image was engraved on that coin, while already knowing full well their reply, which was that it was Caesar's image.

    And so, by answering as he did, "Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21), Jesus was effectively telling the Pharisees and their lackeys that the Jews should obey the law and pay their taxes as Rome required, but they should also not conflate secular law with God's spiritual authority.

    Jesus's sagacity and deftness in avoiding their trap is why the Pharisees and their followers were marveled.



    Your ability to state (none / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 10:49:28 AM EST
    the obvious and what I have NOT said is astounding.

    Your rather pompous explanation is rather standard and one in which I have heard numerous times in Bible School as well as sermons by preachers.

    My point was what Jesus did not say.

    But [Jesus} also didn't say it was okay to give money to a third party so they could aid those they want to aid giving that said aid might enable bad actions. Which is clearly what taxes to government and contributions to charities do." (emphasis added)

    Of course in your haste you must have also missed this point made earlier.

    He didn't say that government should replace the individual although I would guess that He has no problem with people being helped by government.(emphasis added)

    And He didn't say that doing good will give you a pass for doing bad.

    We can, of course, speculate. As a Catholic I am sure you speculate that Jesus said that Peter was to be the founder of the Catholic Church. I don't agree but I also don't care. Salvation is a personal thing and the final judge is God. In that someone's speculation doesn't bruise my "nose" I try to ignore them.

    What many are doing with the Bill and Hillary foundation scandal are trying to excuse the bad by pointing out the good the foundation may have done. I think that argument unsupportable.

    I also note that many, NYshooter articulated this in another comment, that Hillary should get out in front of the situation and appoint a panel of "experts" to investigate.

    That this same position is not acceptable to many of the same when it comes to police actions doesn't seem to raise the double standard flag.


    So (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:41:23 AM EST
    Jesus's messages re charity are that they are a personal thing.
     yet you get to judge the persons donating to the CGI as  committing acts of bribery rather then acts of charity.

    The question is, (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    what were their motives?

    And as I noted, you don't get forgiveness for your bad acts by doing good.


    You have (4.00 / 1) (#142)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:35:22 PM EST
     answered the question
    what were their motives?
    multiple times, to your own satisfaction of course. By your own
    preponderance of guilt
    declarations you have unequivocally declared your judgement on people you have never met.

    Of course you do good because (none / 0) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    it is the right thing to do.

    My point is that there is no "sin account" where 1 good deed wipes out 1 bad deed.

    Joe, we have all rendered judgement on people we have never met. And yes, I see guilt based on a large number of things.


    Who ever posited anything (none / 0) (#157)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:29:17 PM EST
    like a "sin account"?

    That sounds like an idea one of your conservative televangelists came up with.


    No, it is an idea (2.00 / 1) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:12:46 PM EST
    posited by people who think they can buy there way in.

    You do good because (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:32:41 PM EST
    it's just the right thing to do.

    Not because you're motivated by some 19th century conservative-libertarian notion of "self interest" (either corporeal or spiritual, which motivates the thinking of those obsessed with being forgiven and going the Heaven..


    The Comedians (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 06:14:53 PM EST
    seriously, watch this show.
    It took a while.  I kept wondering when it was going to get funny.  I wonder if that was not sort of written in considering the premise of the show which is struggling to make a comedy show.
    Anyway, the funny arrived this week.  With them both getting nominated for the same kids choice award, planning to attend the ceremony together, getting REALLY stoned before the show and then getting lost in a supermarket looking for snacks and missing the show.
    I just watched this weeks episode and laughed out loud a lot.  And I'm not even that stoned.

    "Liar?" (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 10:38:13 PM EST
    This is not my site, but if it were, I would not cotton to a conservative coming here and ratcheting up the rhetoric like this.

    I guess it is clear the Republican campaign will consist almost exclusively of asserting so-called Hillary scandals.  That means Republicans do not believe they can win on the issues.  Where is the mantra about tax-and-spend Liberals?  That was an oldy and a goody.

    Winning by scandal has not worked for the Republicans.....Arguably Jimmy Carter only won because of Watergate.....And, I understand how the Republicans have Watergate Envy.   But the election of Jimmy only temporarily postponed the Reagan Revolution.  

    Ideas actually matter.

    Liar??? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 11:39:10 PM EST
    So then, MKS, did Mark Halperin say this or not this morning on the ABC Round Table about the current Clinton scandal:

    "Here's why you know this is serious, because almost any Democrat who's not on Clintons' payroll will tell reporters and others privately that these are serious issues ..."

    I have no idea, (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:23:28 AM EST
    and I do not see any link to a transcript.

    I do know Halperin has been trying to kiss the as* of the Right for years....  


    And, just my opinion (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:27:20 AM EST
    it escapes me what you add here.....

    If I want to watch Fox news, I can always tune them in...


    That comment was deleted (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 02:41:47 AM EST
    no name calling here.
    I'm cleaning the thread of insults.

    For the Obama and Clinton bashers here: You will likely be happier at another site. You must limit your comments to four a thread (see our comment rules) and if you mis-state your opinion as fact, it will be deleted. This site won't be used to spread your propaganda.

    All views are welcome here, it is how they are expressed that results in banning. You may not call people morons, liars or similar names. If you can't take a minute to think before you write and express yourself civilly, you will be banned.


    I don't disparage (none / 0) (#117)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 08:45:29 AM EST
    anyone getting enjoyment out of that Press dinner at which Obama was the knock-out entertainment.

    But for me, it is an alternate universe.

    I can't even imagine attending if I were to have been invited. I would look for some reason that I would have to be elsewhere.

    There is the issue, for me, of the press schmoozing and oozing around the people in government about whom they are supposed to be objective and, imo, at arms length at all times. For me it is a conflict of interest - akin to contractors covorting with government officials from whom they wish to get money.

    On top of that, this event takes place during times of great stress for many if not most Americans. And on top of that, we had just endured the loss of two innocents in a botched drone raid.

    So, when I see the President become, sorry for the harsh words, the Court Jester, it just seems so abominably clueless.

    But for many, this is a pleasurable event to behold. It reinforces the amour that they feel for this witty leader of the free world. So be it.

    But for me, it maketh the skin crawl a bit.

    I do (none / 0) (#118)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 09:14:10 AM EST
    not begrudge them their one night of silliness. What really makes my skin crawl is that silliness seems to infect the news cycle 24/7. Modern day journalism has become a very sick joke.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:37:10 PM EST
    im I was the Wambulance driver it would be hard to decide which emergency to respond to first.  Yours or the WashingtonExaminers-

    Depending on your perspective, President Obama's performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner Saturday night was either funny or filled with rage. Or perhaps it was funny about being filled with rage. Either way, there's no doubt that Obama, by incorporating comedian Keegan-Michael Key into his act, went public with the anger -- specifically, the black anger -- that has become part of the general conversation about Obama's time in office.
    Of course, it was all comedy -- don't the critics understand it's just a joke? -- but Obama gave his imprimatur to the Luther interpretation of the Obama presidency. Criticism directed at Obama about seemingly non-racial issues, from Ebola to the BP oil spill to climate change, is more severe for Obama than it would be for a white president because it is rooted in racial animus. That animus showed its face in more obvious ways in the birther and Obama-is-a-Muslim memes, but it's always there. Now, in his second term, Obama is finally free to air his resentments.

    It would be a very close call.  It would probably come down to which set of pearls were being clutched more firmly.

    And btw
    It did seem a tiny bit like you were disparaging us.  Around the edges.


    I don't have a problem with the concept (none / 0) (#159)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:40:51 PM EST
    However, this event used to be the one night where politicians and the media could "let down their hair" and it was all supposed to be off the record.  Now it's all about celebrities and corporatw sponsorships.  They don't call it "Nerd Prom" for nothing.

    I saw some highlights, and truly the best line of the night happened when Cecily Strong made the journalists take an oath not to discuss Hillary Clinton's appearance because "that's not journalism." A hearty shaming now and then is always good.

    The other highlights I saw were mostly mildly amusing - but nothing that made me laugh out loud.


    Peter Schweitzer (none / 0) (#119)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 09:41:38 AM EST
    Credit were its due (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 05:16:37 PM EST
    its true this was about as close to a real interview of this person you are likely to see on TeeVee.
    Here's a couple of reasons it's sad.
    First, the interviewer.  It has allowed every right wing website and cable channel on earth to say 'the only people saying this is a former, and to them current, Clinton employee'.   Fair or not.
    Second, he proceded from that passable interview to a pearl clutching circle j@rk that ranged from pathetic concern trolling to absolute batsh!t.  
    IMpersonalO, of all the TV tripe This Week is the bottom of the freakin barrel.

    Will Rand be happy? (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 06:18:57 PM EST
    this is interesting-

    Ron Paul Stars In Oath Keepers Militia Film By Anti-Semitic Filmmaker

    Former Republican congressman and onetime presidential candidate Ron Paul is starring in a new film about the threat of martial law in America which includes calls to join the extremist Oath Keepers militia. Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers supporter Elias Alias, firebrand preacher Chuck Baldwin, radical Arizona sheriff Richard Mack and far-right gun activist Larry Pratt are also featured in the James Jaeger film "Midnight Ride."

    Paul, the father of Kentucky senator and current presidential candidate Rand Paul, previously appeared in Jaeger's films Fiat Empire, Original Intent, Spoiler and Molon Labe. As we've previously reported, Jaeger's group has a long history of publishing tirades against Jews (and their alleged involvement in child murder) and 9/11 truther theories.

    Jaeger believes Israel was involved in the 9/11 attacks and he recently compared the state of Israel to ISIS: "Is it thus any surprise that when Zionists call for a Jewish state (ISRAEL) and Arab-Muslims call for an Islamic State (ISIS aka ISIL) there is going to be massive and endless conflict?"

    One article he links to on his site, "Are Jews Conspiring to Take Over the World?," says that while it may be a fraudulent document, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion "accurately describe much of what is happening in our world today."

    Alias hailed Jaeger's latest film as "a very classy showcase for the Oath Keepers [sic] mission, to the promotion of our `Ten Orders We Will Not Obey,'" a reference to the militia group's conspiracy-theory-laden manifesto about disarmament, nullification and concentration camps. He added that "Oath Keepers is helping James Jaeger fund the production of this important film, and the film will feature Oath Keepers in many ways."

    `Ten Orders Team-Creepy Will Not Obey' (none / 0) (#189)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 08:54:26 PM EST
    1> Even when ordered by the Illegal Immigrant Presidential Clone, I will not remove my head from its comfortable cognitive blind, completely up my a$$.