Saturday Open Thread: Happy Passover and Easter

Happy Passover everyone.

And for tomorrow,

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Hillary Gets Office Space in Brooklyn | Chaos in Tikrit: Militias and Iraqi Forces Loot and Behead Captives >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Who (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 08:56:59 AM EST
    with Joan Jett and the Blackhearts

    Might be more fun that the Stones IMO

    I'm holding out for a joint appearance (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 10:31:35 PM EST
    of Goldfrapp with the Leningrad Cowboys.

    I'm off to a Seder this evening. (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 02:57:50 PM EST
     It's at the home of a couple who were my late father's good  friends. They continue to invite my family  even though my Dad passed 18 years ago, and I am practically goy as I am non-religious and my mother is Catholic. They have an intimate family Seder on Friday nights and a large communal one on Saturday.

       I go mostly to honor my father's memory and because it is a very nice family, but I do enjoy it and it is an opportunity for my daughter to connect with a large part of her heritage. Evie is also a wonderful cook and makes a great lamb roast, even now past 90. Nowadays there are also Kosher wines a good bit more palatable than Manischewitz, which is good because you are to drink 4 glasses.

      I brush up before I go because I don't understand Hebrew, even though part of the tradition is to explain the significance of everything to the children (in English here).This link is a good summary:



    On this date in 1968 Dr. King (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by caseyOR on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 06:43:01 PM EST
    was assassinated in Memphis. It was forty-seven years ago, and I remember it like it was last week.

    And just two months later Bobby Kennedy was gunned down.

    Three strong and charismatic liberal leaders gunned down in less than five years.

    Phuck Monotheism (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Dadler on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 10:00:26 AM EST
    And thus, phuck Easter, Passover, all of them. Worthless holidays that have, in the larger picture, done nothing but destroy.

    Fight. The. Power.

    Peace and Love to all.

    By the old gods (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 10:40:03 AM EST
    and the new!

    LUV IT...LUV IT! (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 06:25:30 PM EST
    Best comment 2015 :). Newly returned home from introducing Josh to DC.  Halfway through listening to Wolf Hall on audio book, listened on the trip up.  Both oculus and ruffian read the book and both said it was very dense and recommend book so you can look back.  I have resorted to listening back, and that has worked out okay. You can work it but it takes work.  Puts Thomas Moore in a much different light than most modern works on Moore, Wolsey, and Cromwell.  I feel like I desired and willfully missed the obvious for years.

    But Wolf Hall premiers tonight on PBS Masterpiece,  and next Sunday 'Game of Thrones'.


    Series set to record (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 06:36:44 PM EST
    did YOU know Olenna Tryell was Diana Rigg.  I didn't recognize her the first time around.   So nice to see a beautiful face age with dignity and not be hacked up by cosmetic butchers.

    Nope, just put it together now thanks to you (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 06:41:31 PM EST
    You know she's been with you your whole life, you just can't seem to get to the specifics.  

    TMI time (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 06:49:56 PM EST
    i loved the original Avengers.  It was at a very important and formative time in my life.  I wanted to be Mrs Peel.  I don't any more but at that time in my life, for whatever reason, I was sort of obsessed with strong women.  All my art was not of swashbuckling men as you might expect but of swashbuckling women.   Go figure.

    It was a phase.


    Ps (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 06:51:29 PM EST
    i do know she was not the original "sidekick" but she will always be the original to me.  The clothes.  The cool.  I was transfixed.

    And what would you have replaced them with? (1.00 / 2) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 01:40:42 PM EST
    Although I grant you that Roman Peace worked quite well for those who cooperated with them.

    How about an American Peace???


    Peace through superior firepower. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 06:48:51 AM EST
    The secular traditions... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 12:37:59 PM EST
    are cool though...who doesn't like a sh*tload of candy, coloring eggs, egg hunts and assorted Easter games?  Or simple good eating and drinking with family and friends for Passover?

    My Easter has nothing to do with zombies, or for the scientific explanation of waking up out of a two day coma...and everything to do with having a good time with the kiddies.


    Not secular (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 01:13:37 PM EST
    pagan (but also not Ishtar which you often see)

    Most scholars believe that Easter gets its name from Eostre or Ostara, a Germanic pagan goddess. English and German are two of the very few languages that use some variation of the word Easter (or, in German, Ostern) as a name for this holiday. Most other European languages use one form or another of the Latin name for Easter, Pascha, which is derived from the Hebrew Pesach, meaning Passover.

    . . . But at its roots Easter (which is pronounced Ishtar) was all about celebrating fertility and sex.

    Oops (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 01:17:12 PM EST
    Too true... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    there wasn't a pagan holiday that wasn't co-opted by a monotheistic religion.

    But I was referring to the modern-day secular traditions.

    PS...I love pagans, they knew how to party.


    My personal favorite (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    the Maypole

    The symbolic meaning of the maypole stands for the point where the lower (Earth), and the above (heaven) meets into a fellowship of sexual intercourse.
    That's why the the maypole is designed at the top with a triangle and two rings on each side (the form of a male penis).

    The pointing side of the maypole is pointing into the ground. Symbolically signifying the image of a male's private part (penis), planting it's seed (sperm) into the earth.

    Dadler, when you get moody, (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by fishcamp on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 10:36:50 AM EST
    you do it better than anyone...c'mon down and catch a Tarpon, they're everywhere and so large it will replace your blues with excitement, bordering on terror.

    Best cheer-up (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 11:58:05 AM EST
    ever.  Happy Easter, Fish and to all TLers.

    Happy Easter and Happy Passover to all (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by Zorba on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 11:27:12 AM EST
    And also Happy Qingming Festival.
    Of course, for me, it's Palm Sunday.  Eastern Orthodox Christians always have to do things their own way.   ;-)

    "Indiana, where freedom goes to die." (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 02:31:38 AM EST
    We are beginning to see the implosion of our almost 250 year experiment with Democracy as our craven politicians succumb to the reactionary demands of the Christian Right. While the current example of this phenomenon is playing out in Indiana, with the passage of a law legalizing discrimination against its LBGT community, lets not forget that there's another, much larger, group that they've set their sights on for persecution.....women.

    Indiana, like many other Republican States, has been ramping up its misogynist campaign against women. Along with Texas, and several dozen other Red States, their assault against women, and their Constitutional Rights of privacy, and reproductive choice, has been alarmingly successful. Due to their politically driven, obsessive funding cuts many, many clinics serving women have been forced to close. Among those, Planned Parenthood, who were leaders in HIV screening, were especially hard hit. In Indiana, where P.P. had their funding cut in half, it should have come as no surprise that a massive HIV outbreak had occurred, forcing Gov. Pence to declare a public health emergency....LINK

    And, as if the assault against women and the LBGT community weren't enough, the removal of health services for women has led to so many more tragedies. Here's an example of one woman's plight:

    NYT, April 6, 2015

    "A Granger woman was sentenced to 46 years in prison on Monday, March 30. Purvi Patel, 33, was found guilty in February of feticide and neglect of a dependent causing death. She will spend 20 years in prison and an additional 10 years will be suspended. When she is released from prison, she will spend five years on probation. She was also sentenced to six years in prison on the feticide charge, but that will be served concurrently with the 20 year sentence."

    How people, many of them women, can vote for (mostly male) Neanderthals like these in Indiana, who write laws that subjugate women to serf-like status is a mystery to me.

    I posted this in the last thread (2.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 04:36:41 PM EST
    It would be helpful if Congress would pass a law that says gays can marry but that no minister/preacher/priest or any other religious official is required to perform the marriage ceremony.

    But that would be a too simple and commonsense thing to do and would probably not satisfy the extremists on either side.

    Yet Mondriggian wants to argue about lawsuits and laws that we don't have information on.

    I tried to explain the position and thinking of many Christians. You seem to ignore that.


    Instead (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 05:02:13 PM EST
    we are working on a law that would force you to marry a man.  We think it would be good for you.  

    No " minister/preacher/priest... (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 05:51:08 PM EST
    ...or any other religious official" presided at my wedding, which cost me $50 and ten minutes of my valuable time at the courthouse.

    Your comment suggests that you believe people would enjoy being married by somebody who openly hates them and performs the ceremony only under the threat of legal penalty.  Because gay rights something something obviously trumps the happy couple having a good time.

    Trust me, your homophobic h8r priest, minister, Scientologist, Wicca, Imam or Shaman is not going to get the call to ruin someone's wedding by spitting the rites into their faces.


    This seem so painfully obvious (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 06:01:06 PM EST
    but thank you.  I suppose it needed to be said.  

    It's hard for me to take this stupid sh!t seriously.  
    Of course, we are planning to celebrate the most happy and important day of or lives by legally forcing some hateful moron preside of the ceremony.

    Actually it sounds like something I might consider.  Probably one of the reasons I live alone.


    the thing (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 06:17:04 PM EST
    is you couldn't force a minister to marry you simply because heterosexual couples can't force a minister to marry them either. Now no one can keep them from getting married at the courthouse or by a justice of the peace or any number of other people who can legally marry people.

    No one (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 06:44:44 PM EST
    except right wing news outlets is talking about this. It's completely ridiculous.  And the reason for it is so obvious.  

    Let's see, how do we whip up the morons?  I KNOW!

    We'll tell their preacher is going to be forced to perform gay marriages.  It stupid beyond words.  But that has become par for the course.


    I have (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 07:00:46 PM EST
    determined that you have to turn off your ability to reason to become a right winger. And that study that talked about how conservatives respond so much to fear? I guess all these so called leaders read that same study and are using it to their advantage.

    Now for the good news (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 07:05:55 PM EST
    its not working any more.  The moral majority has become the poor me persecuted minority.
    No one is buying this bullsh!t except a dwindling fringe like some commenters here.  
    About ten more years should mostly the care of the problem.

    And all that BS really (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 07:27:49 PM EST
    really turns young people off. Even the GOP here admits that it runs young voters off. But they keep doing it, I guess, because at this point keeping the elderly voting for them is going to net them more than the chance to get young voters.

    Maybe, it would make (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 06:54:38 PM EST
    certain Christians heave a sigh of relief, if Congress passed a law that no member of the clergy is authorized to officiate at a marriage-- rather, all civil marriages need to be performed by an official of the state.  No deputization.  This would re-inforce that marriage is a civil compact.  As in many European countries, including traditionally Catholic countries, celebration of  marriage in a Church or other place of worship is secondary to the civil marriage.

    Maybe this would address the misinformed preachers or those preachers who are deliberately stoking the fires with unfounded fear.  But, then it may cut off a good fund-raising bonanza for them.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 07:05:26 PM EST
    in all honesty that is the way it is now. When I got married, I had to have a marriage license issued by the state and then I got married in the church too. And this was in 1986 before anybody had even thought about gay marriage.

    Conservatives cannot separate church and state in their minds. They don't understand the difference between Holy Matriomony which is performed by the church and marriage which can be performed by any one authorized to do so by the laws of whatever state they reside in.

    I went to a wedding that was presided over by a judge. It was a wedding similar to church weddings with the aisle etc but done outside. The interesting thing was that particular judge had presided over the brides' parent's divorce.


    Ask the Denver baker (2.50 / 4) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 08:07:55 PM EST
    what can happen when someone refuses to perform a service.

    Can bakers marry people in Denver? (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 08:28:01 PM EST
    who knew?

    I should ignore your comment (2.00 / 3) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 08:11:55 AM EST
    because I know that you know that the reference to the Denver baker is to remind us that the baker was charged with violating the civil rights of the gay couple because he refused to perform a commercial task.

    Given that ministers are paid to perform wedding ceremonies I see no difference.

    Howdy, you seem to have your own tighty whities in a wad because I have dared to try to explain what many Christians see as a huge problem. And perception in life is everything. And that I don't agree with them and have offered a solution doesn't seem to mean anything to you.

    So, again, a question. Do you oppose a federal law that makes gay marriage legal and says religious leaders, ministers/priests, etc. can refuse to perform a marriage ceremony.

    And if you oppose it, why??


    I don't wear underwear (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 08:49:26 AM EST
    Why do you avoid the question? (2.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 11:33:54 AM EST
    Again, I have written nothing in support of the so called religious liberty laws.

    I have proposed a solution that I would think all gays would support.

    And a solution that should defuse any problems that the specter of a minister being forced to violate his beliefs bring to some.

    Both of these are in line with repeated comments that I support gay rights, including marriage.

    What is your problem?


    Omg (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    the specter of a minister being forced to violate his beliefs

    Could you take your silly self more seriously?

    I'm sorry.  Could you repeat the question.


    Can you grasp the point (2.00 / 4) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 01:38:20 PM EST
    that I writing about the perceptions of OTHERS????

    Evidently saying so three times is not enough for you.

    So, here is the question:


    So, again, a question. Do you oppose a federal law that makes gay marriage legal and says religious leaders, ministers/priests, etc. can refuse to perform a marriage ceremony.

    And if you oppose it, why??

    Speaking as someone who was divorced, ... (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    ... I could not get re-married in my own Roman Catholic Church unless or until I gained an annulment of that first marriage from the bishop.

    So actually, religious clerics have already long enjoyed the right of refusal on the question of officiating personally over a couple's nuptials, given that the U.S. Constitution generally prohibits government interference in ecclesiastical affairs.

    Thus, these recent attempts to ostensibly enshrine that right statutorily -- assuming, of course, that's the actual intent of the law's proponents -- are legally superfluous, not to mention a big waste of both state legislators' time and taxpayers' monies.



    And your point has what to do with gay married? (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 09:42:52 AM EST
    And if gay people can get married at will, why are we having all these debates??

    And since it would be a federal law your local governments would be out of the loop.

    But the real issue, and what I find strange, is that no here seems to be willing to say:

    "Great! Gays have the same rights as everyone else, and although a law should never have been needed, the issue is settled.

    And now all you folks who are trying to use the minister argument, forgetaboutit."

    Why is that Donald??????


    Stop being so hysterical about this. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 12:13:47 PM EST
    There is no need for a federal or state law to that effect for the exact reason I cited above, which is that "the U.S. Constitution generally prohibits government interference in ecclesiastical affairs," per the First Amendment.

    You do remember the First Amendment, don't you, Jim? It's the one which says in part that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of any religion.

    Therefore, given the First Amendment and the multitude of supporting case law, efforts to enact a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" are likely redundant, provided that its proponents' now-clarified rationale for its passage are indeed sincere.

    However, if there is indeed an ulterior motive at work here -- an entirely reasonable suspicion, given the well-documented history of those same proponents -- what you are proposing is likely unconstitutional because it constitutes a backdoor assault on the rights of a recognized and protected class of people, i.e., LGBT folks.

    You therefore can't claim a right under some warped concept of "religious freedom" to wantonly and blatantly discriminate against another person on the basis of that person's innate and immutable characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, gender, disability and in this particular case, sexual orientation.

    Is it the sheer number of polysyllabic words many of us use in our responses which confuse you? Or don't you even bother to actually read and comprehend our comments before racing to hit the "Reply" button so you can pound away at the keyboard like some self-righteous old queen?

    Regardless, this is my final word on this subject, because as much as I enjoy whacking a hapless piñata, you do tend to get quite tedious and repetitive in your attempts at rejoinder.

    Suffice to say that the fate of the country does not revolve around you and your right-wing nonsense. And I suspect that you'll ultimately become a much happier person, once you and your fire-breathing brethren finally become cognizant of that fact and cease insisting otherwise.



    Thanks for avoiding (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 12:51:58 PM EST
    I think Occam's Razor applies.

    Who, when , and where (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 03:31:11 PM EST
    Is anyone advocating that religious ministers must perform marriages of same-sex couples in the first place.

    Occams' razor, indeed.


    Not that you care about such things (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 12:30:31 PM EST
    as solving problems and bringing the country together, but the issue is that many Christians fear that their ministers be forced.

    My solution allows gays to marry and Christians to be assured.

    Yet you seem to be unable to agree with that.


    I guess you are against gay marriage and want to force minister to perform the occasional ceremony.



    Just because people are afraid of something (none / 0) (#144)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    Doesn't mean they have anything to be afraid of in the first place.

    This issue has been addressed time and time again, which suggests to me that some of these Christians are being herded by their leaders into getting stirred up about it.  

    You also don't mention the organizations like Focus on the Family and NOM, which continue to spout this myth of Christian ministers being forced to preside over SSM as a way of persuading people to oppose gay marriage in the first place.

    If a subset of Christians were afraid of vampirism running rampan, would your solution to assuage the Christians be to pass a law mandating people wear garlands of garlic after sunset? After all, these Christians are sincere in their belief, and according to you, that's a worthy basis on which to pass a law.


    3. A collision with religious liberty is unavoidable.

    Same-sex marriage, like gay rights protections generally, brushes up against objections from people who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds. What if a Salvation Army bookkeeper seeks health benefits for her wife? What if a student at a Baptist college demands married-student housing for his husband? Must religious-affiliated institutions choose between their principles and their nonprofit tax status? It's a real problem. The myth is that it's an unmanageable one.

    We know this because we have already dealt with it, in the context of abortion. Congress and the states have provided religious-liberty exemptions that let Catholic hospitals, for example, avoid performing the procedure. Many of the same kinds of exemptions can and should be offered in the context of same-sex marriage. Working out the precise balance between gay rights and religious liberty will take some time and effort, but, in the vast majority of cases, accommodations can be offered at acceptable cost to both sides.

    Not the issue at all (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 04:41:51 PM EST
    Not even close.

    Why not just admit the obvious: that many of your fellow (pseudo) Christians aren't anything remotely like "social liberals" and don't believe gays should be allowed to marry at all.


    et al (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:37:46 AM EST
    You may try and ignore my point and question but you can't hide.

    You can accuse me of things I haven't written and don't believe but you have no proof.

    So my point remains.

    Irrespective of any position or any actions of anyone else for any reason..... I have proposed that.

    Congress pass and the President, who ran against gay marriage but has now changed his mind and good for him, should sign this into law.

    Gays have the right to marry.

    No minister/preacher/priest/Imam or any other religious figure can be sued or have any legal action taking against them for refusing to participate in any religious ceremony they object to.

    Now, you car argue what you want but your refusal to agree to that proves that all you want to do is disagree and attack.

    Or else you are actually against gay marriage.


    Find me one person (none / 0) (#149)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:43:37 AM EST
    Who can explain how, despite the 1st Amendment, ministers will be forced to perform SSM under the present statues now on the books in various parts of the country.

    Keep shilling for the fearful and misinformed, or answer the question, you can't do both.


    The issue is very simple so it is too complex (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 09:34:50 PM EST
    for your mind.

    It is the perception of many Christians....

    My suggestion removes the fears and lubricates the wheels of society.

    But you don't want to do that.

    You just want to argue.

    I'm done. Who you are is now fully exposed.


    "Many Christians" ... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:14:24 AM EST
    ... perceive many things that don't even approach reality.

    The educate the ignorant.  If they refuse to address reality, you ignore them.


    Ignoring reality (none / 0) (#155)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 07:31:47 AM EST
    is one of the thing Jim does the best around here.

    First (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:17:48 AM EST
    congratulations on outlasting him.  You are a better man that I.
    .  I'm not even going there it's to early.
    Third this is real progress.  He has gone from insisting this is true to admitting it's the perception of some dumbasses who need lubrication.

    All in all.  Well done.


    et al1 (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:50:00 AM EST
    You three aren't dumb.

    You understand the point regarding perception very well.

    Why you resist supporting something that, if enacted, would aid gays, soothe opponents and yes, Howdy, lubricate the situation and reduce friction, is beyond me.

    Not really.

    You are just haters who want to hate so you always have to have opponents.

    I am glad I am able to serve.


    The homophobes wouldn't be satisfied (none / 0) (#158)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:00:45 AM EST
    and you still have yet to demonstrate why the historic deference to religious freedom and the protection of the 1st Amendment  would suddenly no longer apply to ministers of any religion who don't perform SSM as part of their sacraments or ceremonies.

    Glad to clear that up for you.


    Heh (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 09:11:22 AM EST
    that is your reasonable balanced response.

    Im more than happy to give it to them dry.


    et al 2 (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:55:29 PM EST
    I see that neither of you want to find a solution.

    No problem. No surprises.

    Thanks for playing.


    Yes, since we don't believe it (none / 0) (#161)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 08:01:16 PM EST
    will be a problem, we see no need for a pseudo-solution for a bunch of Christians whose perceptions are being manipulated by the homophobes and remain mired in their Ignorance instead of thinking for themselves.

    Glad to clear that up for you.


    You don't believe it will be a problem??? (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 11:52:32 PM EST
    Good grief.

    It already is a problem.

    Start paying attention to.....wait. You can't because you aren't.


    For the third time (none / 0) (#163)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 11, 2015 at 01:14:50 AM EST
    where in this country will any Christian ministers be forced to preside over SSM, now or in the near future?

    You are too credulous, and ignorant of the history of religious liberty that you claim to treasure about this country.

    Go peddle your papers elsewhere, Jim.  


    Perception (none / 0) (#151)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 11:00:16 PM EST
    Is subject to specious reasoning:

    Homer: Not a bear in sight.  The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.

    Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.

    Homer: Thank you, dear.

    Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

    Homer: Oh, how does it work?

    Lisa: It doesn't work.

    Homer: Uh-huh.

    Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.

    Homer: Uh-huh.

    Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
            [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]

    Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
            [Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

    And, no, I don't think that the fears of a few rabid homophobic Christians and their grifter leaders are to be catered to in a free society.


    My comment says nothing of the kind (2.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 07:52:44 PM EST
    Perhaps you didn't read it:

    It would be helpful if Congress would pass a law that says gays can marry but that no minister/preacher/priest or any other religious official is required to perform the marriage ceremony.

    But that would be a too simple and commonsense thing to do and would probably not satisfy the extremists on either side.

    And I may trust you but millions will not.

    I have proposed a simple workable solution.


    You don't (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 06:14:41 PM EST
    understand the difference between Holy Matrimony and marriage. And this religious freedom law actually would cause more problems and the idiocy about the church being forced to marry somebody is completely crackpot. Are you aware that ministers, priests and other religious officials decline to marry heterosexual couples every day of the week? This is stictly about the courthouse marriages or civil marriages NOT HOLY MATRIMONY. There are a lot of people out there who are considered legally married but are not considered to be a party to holy matrimony. Geez.

    No, in fact, (4.20 / 5) (#34)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 07:38:55 PM EST
    Jimakappj doesn't understand a whole heck of a lot of things.
    As far as I am concerned, "marriage" should not have anything to do with any religion.
    Get the government out of anything that is called "marriage."
    If two people want to legally hook up, let us have civil unions, where you can go to a justice of the peace or whatever official, and then, if you want to go have some religious ceremony, go to a church, temple, synagogue, or a clearing in the woods, and have your religious ritual.

    Ga, one more time (2.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 08:02:23 PM EST
    I have written nothing in support of any religious freedom law or made any claims.

    Why do you make things up????

    And what is your problem with this?

    It would be helpful if Congress would pass a law that says gays can marry but that no minister/preacher/priest or any other religious official is required to perform the marriage ceremony.

    But that would be a too simple and commonsense thing to do and would probably not satisfy the extremists on either side.

    Jim (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 04:31:29 AM EST
    you really don't understand what is going on? And why do you want the government to get in the church's business? More Sharia from Jim it seems like.

    You don't need a law for that because there are already rules in place unless you think those cheesy redneck wedding chapels need some sort of legal protection which I'm guessing you do since they're the only ones that would be engaging in commerce.


    Ga, throw some water on (2.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 08:21:54 AM EST
    your straw man because the US government is already in the "church's business." I note that, among other things, Obamacare demanding that Catholic institutions provide contraception.

    And exactly what are those laws in place that protect ministers from being sued, as the Denver baker was, for refusing to engage in commerce with a gay couple?

    And your description of ministers as "cheesy redneck wedding chapels" is inaccurate and incomplete. But it is what I expect of you.

    All ministers expect to and are paid for their work.


    You are (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 12:05:31 PM EST
    confusing commerce with the church. The hospitals are not run by the Catholic Church. The hospitals are run by Catholic Charities who btw gets a large chunk of their funding from the government about 60% the last time I looked.

    Again you're confusing a baker who engages in COMMERCE with a minister who DOES NOT ENGAGE IN COMMERCE.

    You are just altogehter confused about everything.


    I've never heard of ministers (none / 0) (#74)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    charging or getting paid directly for a ceremony, usually there is a free-will offering payment to the minister and/or "usual donation' to the church, but there usually isn't an explicit 'quid pro quo' AFAIK.



    The use of the church's facilities... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by unitron on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 12:42:45 AM EST
    ...may very well already have an established price tag, and I expect that the service of the minister is the same.

    When I was doing sound for our church there was an amount, established by the church, which was to be paid directly to whoever ran the sound board for it by whoever was paying for the wedding, even though the same group of people allowed to do that work were not church employees and did not get paid at all for running the board during worship services or other actual official church functions (like the monthly business meetings, Vacation Bible School productions, et cetera).

    And they charged "for the use of the hall" for weddings, awarding of Eagle Scout rank ceremonies, et cetera.


    Then you've never been to Vegas (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 09:50:36 AM EST
    and have missed the lawsuit in Boise.

    If someone is usually paid either by a "usual" known or unknown amount then is that commerce??

    I would say it is because the laborer is doing something with the expectation of being paid.

    Who pays the minister? In some cases the best man. In others the father of the bride.

    I'm sure the minister doesn't care who.


    The lawsuit in Boise (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 10:40:21 AM EST
    is not directed towards religious ministers who marry people, so your example is irrelevant.

    And those chapels in Las Vegas(and, yes, I've been there, 😀) are a different proposition from the usual minister and church combination I was talking about. Even then, the offering to the minister isn't a set price, but a suggested amount, as I stated.  When's the last time you've been in one of those chapels, Jim?  

    Ministers usually get paid from church funds with a paycheck, and they have to report any offerings or fees they have as an income, but religious workers are exempt from minimum wage regulations, don't have to pay into SS or Medicare,  and many other parts of the labor code covering their secular counterparts don't apply to them.

    I suggest you do a little more research before blathering about what people know or don't know or where they have or haven't been in the future, as only ignorant blowhards engage in that sort of thing.


    Well, being unable to read your mind (2.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    I can't know what you mean.

    But I can spot a qualifier a mile away.

    "I want to be clear that absent a change in the city's anti-discrimination ordinance or other applicable state or federal law, the city will not prosecute

    Note the highlighted words.

    You have no idea as to what would be ruled a commercial transaction. And neither do I.

    But what I do know is that the perception by many many many Christians is that they and/or their religious leaders will be forced.

    And, instead of agreeing with a law that would lay their fears to rest and promote peace and good will and help gays and harm no one.....

    You oppose it.

    I ask, why??


    wow ... "Many, many"? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 03:45:15 PM EST
    Is that supposed to sound like more than just "many"?  Well, at least you're adding qualifiers, now.

    To claim that a possible future change (none / 0) (#130)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 03:46:26 PM EST
    Is a threat, and that religious ceremonies will be ruled as business transactions, is absurd, on the face of it.

    A Lutheran church, for examlpe, may discriminate and hire only Lutheran ministers for said church, even if there are other qualified Methodist, Congregationist, etc, ministers of different denominations.

    As I stated earlier, you need to educate yourself on the topic instead of taking offense when your blathering is opposed with the facts in a given issue.

    As for reading my mind, perhaps you could stop assuming facts not yet in evidence, as to the inexperience of other commentators here.  That you made a wrong guess isn't my fault, however you may fret and fume about your failed guess.


    I have stated what the problem is (2.00 / 1) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    and provided a solution.

    Why do you oppose such a simple and positive solution?


    Just because a bunch of homophobic (none / 0) (#147)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:34:00 AM EST
    Christians believe in it doesn't mean it wil be a problem.

    The Holy Gospel According to Jim. LOL! (4.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 11:17:38 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ: "I tried to explain the position and thinking of many Christians."

    The problem here is quite simple, actually. You and your fellow Christianistas repeatedly conflate a state-issued marriage license with the rite of marriage as a holy sacrament. Thus, by virtue of your own stubborn arrogance,  spiritually pompous folks such as yourselves have managed to cheapen the inherent value of both.

    Further, while our U.S. Constitution guarantees your right to both speak publicly for yourselves and keep your own spiritual counsel on such matters, it neither confers upon you the moral authority to define the Christian faith on behalf of others, nor grants you the legal standing to impose your version of The True and Only Way upon everyone else by statutory means.



    Donald, you're making things up. Again. (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 08:30:58 AM EST
    But we can read and see that. So I will just ask, again, what I asked Howdy.

    Howdy, you seem to have your own tighty whities in a wad because I have dared to try to explain what many Christians see as a huge problem. And perception in life is everything. And that I don't agree with them and have offered a solution doesn't seem to mean anything to you.

    So, again, a question. Do you oppose a federal law that makes gay marriage legal and says religious leaders, ministers/priests, etc. can refuse to perform a marriage ceremony.

    And if you oppose it, why??

    And telling someone they don't have to do something seems like a strange way to:

    to impose your version of The True and Only Way upon everyone else by statutory means.

    Your concept of religious faith ... (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    ... is certainly on par with your knowledge of history and law, and actually enhances our own understanding as to why your fellow wingbats in Kansas would pass a law prohibiting welfare recipients from expending their benefits on Caribbean cruises and psychics.

    Huh??? (2.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 10:08:13 AM EST
    And your proof that I condone "your fellow wingbats in Kansas would pass a law...." is what?

    Donald, I worry about you. I have written nothing in support of these religious rights laws, which I see as just another attempt at blocking gay rights, yet you, GA, Howdy and others, keep making off subject very personal attacks while continuing to not answer my very simple question.

    Do you oppose a federal law that makes gay marriage legal and says religious leaders, ministers/priests, etc. can refuse to perform a marriage ceremony.

    And if you oppose it, why??

    You know, if this was a commercial negotiation, and I have been involved in many, I would be forced to conclude that you are not dealing in good faith but rather have some other agenda.

    In this case I would say that since you so vehemently disagree with my positions on foreign policy that you feel you must attack me on what I would think should be very agreeable positions on social issues.

    And that's a shame.


    Rolling Stone finally retracts it's UVA rape story (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by McBain on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 08:11:26 PM EST

    The author apologized to her readers, her colleagues and to real victims of sexual assault but I don't see where she apologized to the fraternity who was accused of the gang rape?

    Apparently Rolling Stone won't discipline anyone involved with the story.

    The only good thing about all of this was the false accuser never actually accused a real person.  

    Pessimism. (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 08:01:11 AM EST
    I am reading about the Iran "deal"...
    and specifically about the possibility of it being torpedoed by Congress.

    What made me pessimistic is reading that both Jerrold Nadler and Charles "Chuck" Schumer are spouting off about their doubts...

    And those are the "liberal" democrats.
    How the party has sunk.

    The possibility of this agreement between Iran and the US filled me with optimism. Naively, perhaps. But there it is.

    And if it is sunk by a cabal of rabid furious mad Republicans - with the support of tepid "liberal" democrats, it will fill me with much pessimism.

    And I can't tell how this is going.

    Obama - who was touted for his rhetorical prowess combined with a star-quality - has seemed to me to be a most unpersuasive spokesperson for anything since he took office.

    But I sincerely hope he can emerge from the fog and fight hard and articulately and relentlessly for this deal.

    My friend (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 08:34:19 AM EST
    your cup of pessimism already runneth over.

    Take heart.  I also have hopes for this deal.  It was sort of wonderful to see the reaction of the Iranians.  I love all the selfies with the president speaking on TV.   The coverage of this has shown them as more human than any time I can remember.  Suddenly they are not just targets or collateral damage but people with hopes and dreams.

    No one thought Obama would get this far.  No one thought he would do a lot of things.  

    I think he will find a way to make this happen.


    I hope (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 08:45:22 AM EST
    you are right and hopefully he will twist arms to get it done. He has not twisted enough arms in the last six years.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 10:06:21 AM EST
    If Nobel had a war prize, they would have to mint them in mass, and run the endowment dry just this year.  Peace is a much harder row to hoe what with vipers at every turn.   President Obama will win, on this, over the most rabid of war mongers.  And, he has plenty of Tommy Cotton's desperate for war--with which to contend.

     America has a strong diplomatic hand with which to fight and with greater potential for success than bombs-away and see what happens.   An Obama peace in Iran will, certainly, outdistance the Bush war in Iraq as a means of stabilizing the middle-east.  


    I'm glad you agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 10:35:26 AM EST
    my confidence is not 100%.  But we are definitely talking about legacy.  If he can do it IMO he will.  

    For me, it is (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 11:48:33 AM EST
    a 95 percent certainty.   Which is a high level of confidence  I realize.    We usually hear that we must have military action, but that will not solve anything other than bring the parties to the table--a political solution will be the real answer. But, here, sanctions brought Iran to the table.  The timing is now ripe for a political solution.

    Among vectors that play into my confidence level is quality of the double tracks for the negotiations--political and scientific. Dr. Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy (professor of physics at MIT and a top US nuclear scientist) and the Iranian minister of nuclear energy treated critical issues as scientific matters.  While science is not popular in Republican fever nests, my confidence goes up when we base such agreements on it. The comprehensive  discussions were obviously arduous in that the scientific and political needed to not only articulate, but also, accommodate  shared concerns and overcome mutual distrust.

    Some Israeli commentators acknowledged that the deal looked better than expected noting that even if the agreement delays Iran from producing a nuclear weapon by ten-years, it is far longer than what they would expect by bombing. President Obama should now permit Netanyahu to add his concerns to, and within, the framework. And, hopefully, Bibi will constructively and realistically participate.

    Working against the agreement was not only a failure by Bibi, but also, may have provided inverse support to its completion.  Netanyahu's new demand for nuclear negotiations is that it must include a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel's right to exist. Certainly that right to exist is fundamental, but a good agreement will, in effect, help to serve that purpose.  Language of assurances within this nuclear agreement would be difficult to verify in any case.

    The opposition from Netanyahu and the Republicans are intertwined.  However, the Republicans did themselves little good with the Senate 47's letter to the Ayatollahs and with Boehner's reach around.  Most Americans are weary of war, generally, and of the continuing military quagmire in the Middle-east.

    The case for peace should be easier to make than another case for war. Tom Cotton and his dizzy cohorts seem to have spent too much time in those nuclear centrifuges.  President Obama has the better case to make and more receptive world audience.


    Have you consider that (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 09:10:36 AM EST
    Iran has never dealt honestly...

    ...and what the effect of them getting nukes will be??


    Honesty isn't an issue (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 09:34:57 AM EST
    because the inspections will demonstrate whether they are being truthful about their nuclear program or not.

    One would think that even you would understand this elementary point, unless you have no idea what is contained in the actual agreement in the first place.


    There is no actual agreement (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 04:39:14 PM EST
    There is some vague "framework."

    And if you believe anything Iran says there is a bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you for $100.

    Just send the payment to my PayPal account.


    What don't you understand (none / 0) (#47)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 05:48:02 AM EST
    about the concept of intrusive inspections?

    That's what his proctologist said. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 01:45:54 PM EST

    Yes. I am grateful (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 09:05:17 AM EST
    to have a doctor who could diagnose my BPE and prescribe a drug that let's me live it without surgery and the problems that brings.

    May you be so lucky.

    In the meantime you might concentrate on what I write rather than manufacturing someone you can heap your hatred on.


    Manufacturing hatred (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 03:32:27 PM EST
    By pointing out your lack of logic in your posts.



    Your own cup of honesty ... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 03:31:11 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ: "Have you consider that Iran has never dealt honestly ... and what the effect of them getting nukes will be??"

    ... doesn't exactly runneth over, Jim, especially when you show at these threads armed only with the latest AM squawk radio / Fox News hysteria du jour.

    Iran's theocratic government exists today because for the better part of three decades -- after we had overthrown the country's democratically elected government in 1953 on behalf of Anglo-American petroleum interests, and installed Reza Pahlavi as an absolute monarch -- we pointedly ignored the increasingly desperate plight of the Iranian people, who suffered grievously at the hands of their own Shah.

    Instead, we treated Iran as little more than a geopolitical pawn in our decades-long chess match with the late Soviet Union, with little due regard for its potentially adverse consequences. Iran as a country long predates our own national existence, and given the sordid history and tangled nature of Iranian-American relations, suffice to say that we've given them every reason to not trust us, rather than vice versa.

    What precious little you know about any of this has been further distorted by those Cold War-era Coke bottle lenses through which you and the rest of the good people at Wingbat Central Command still insist upon viewing everything.

    Your obvious ignorance of the subject matter, coupled with your twin penchants for trafficking in GOP political points and ignoring inconvenient facts and truths which don't align neatly with your party's myopic and two-dimensional storyline, does not provide us a compelling basis for engaging you in rational discussion about this issue.

    Rather, I find it particularly ironic that those who would denounce President Obama's peacemaking efforts with Iran, are generally the same folks whose own dubious legacy includes the Iran-Contra scandal.



    Donald you are welcome to defend Iran (2.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 04:33:36 PM EST
    but remember you are known by the company you keep.

    And remember they lied to the inspectors in the past.

    Blunt speaking I regard your position naive to the max.

    But time will tell. I just pray that not to many will die.


    You tighty-righties offer no solution ... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 10:28:41 PM EST
    ... except another invasion and more war. What in the world gives you the impression that an invasion and occupation of Iran, which is over three times Iraq's size, would go any better than the fiasco in Baghdad? Jeez, Jim, talk about naiveté!

    The fiasco in Bagdad (2.67 / 3) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 07:54:38 AM EST
    was working until your hero, against the advice of his own military, cut and ran. And don't play the Bush card because Obama wasn't elected to do what Bush had done.

    Or have you forgot "Hope and Change!"

    You choose to believe that Iran will not lie, cheat and build a nuke. That is in direct contrast to its history.

    If you are wrong, and I believe you are, Iran will hold the world hostage and our choice will be a war with a nuclear Iran or doing what we are told to do.

    Remember, MAD worked because the Soviets were rational enough to not want to be destroyed. The religious nut cakes in Iran aren't concerned with that.

    And to further enhance your memory, the Shah, for all his faults, was our ally. He didn't seize our embassy and he opposed radical islamists.

    It was your hero, Carter, who made sure he was overthrown and midwifed modern radical islamist terrorism.


    This is exactly why people laugh at you, Jim. (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    You have no idea what you're talking about, and you think you can just bluster and intimidate your way through the conversation, like some grade school bully trying to relieve his classmates of their lunch money.

    Because clearly, the war in Iraq WASN'T working, and all your hyperbolic revisionist wanking to the contrary doesn't make it otherwise, any more than a certain particular manufactured photo-op from May 2003 meant that we won the war with our seizure of Baghdad.

    For people who were so hellbent to invade Iraq upon taking office in January 2001, it was rather astonishing -- not to mention terribly disconcerting -- to subsequently learn through congressional inquiries that Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Co. never gave much (if any) thought about what was to follow, once Saddam Hussein and the secular Baathist government were toppled from power and long-suppressed and -simmering ethnic and religious tensions amongst the Iraqi populace were released into the vacuum.

    As I noted above, you obviously neither know about nor understand the history of the Middle East, nor do you convey any indication that you'd ever care to do so.

    And so, the deeper the hole you dig with your hilariously nonsensical juvenile taunts and AM squawk radio-worthy rants about Presidents Obama and Carter, et al., the more you simply underscore your own eternal xenophobia by highlighting your blissful ignorance about such matters.

    Aloha, my little vitriolic piñata.


    Was Iraq working?? (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 09:22:10 AM EST
    Well it had a government and relative calm and no external threat such as ISIS.

    Leaving negated all of that and made the thousands of dead and wounded a waste.  

    Thanks Donald, and all you other Bush haters. You weren't anti war at all. Why do I say that?? Because you dropped the opposition to the war in Afghanistan as soon as it became Obama's war. If Obama had done the right thing you would be supporting him.

    BTW - Showing pictures that I haven't made any comment on proves only how wildly you act. It is what you do best.

    And it is rather amusing to see when you can not refute anything you immediately decide that your opponent is uneducated, doesn't know history, etc. So thanks for the grins and proof that you know your arguments are just claims with no basis in reality.

    See you later my little Leftie friend. Next time bring something at least halfway accurate.


    George W. Bush (4.67 / 3) (#62)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 01:19:17 PM EST
    ...negotiated the Status of Forces agreement requiring us to leave Iraq on a specific date, a treaty which Mr. Obama honored even though he had nothing to do with the negotiation that produced it.

    I have been posting here for years, and I'm sure I have made my positions clear.

    Why do you think Mr. Bush is my "hero?"  

    Funny that you suggest above that Iran is not to be trusted to live up to its agreements.  Do you believe the Mr Obama should honor Mr. Bush's Status of Forces agreement with Iraq, or is "honoring agreements" a requirement only for Iran?


    And Obama did not have to (2.00 / 2) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 01:34:36 PM EST
    comply. You forget that he was elected on Hope and Change.

    And actually, my comment was for Donald.


    Are you saying (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 03:37:30 PM EST
    ...that international agreements are all canceled when a new president is elected?  That would certainly represent a new low in American honor, but you seem to be in favor of it.

    Would you agree that reducing unemployment by 50% and home foreclosures by 80% while increasing the value of the stock market by 100% is a reflection of "hope and change?"  Or do you prefer the economy in place when Mr. Bush left office?


    Yes, he did have to (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 09:14:04 PM EST
    ... honor it.  It's a legally binding agreement, despite the fact that you think we should have violated international law and destroyed our country's credibility by ignoring it.

    "Iran has never dealt honestly.." (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 09:30:17 PM EST
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, has anyone?  Have we?

    Yeah, yeah (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 07:56:36 AM EST
    we are just so evileeeee.

    Why we just had a baker in Denver refuse to bake a cake for the hanging of a gay couple who wanted to marry....

    Uh, wait.....


    5 for "evileeeee," Jim (none / 0) (#89)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 01:55:12 AM EST
    cracks me up every time!

    You're so cute (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 09:20:28 AM EST
    On the way home we had NPR on and they were doing Ted Talks on topics of ethics and honesty.  It's a disturbing truth that everybody lies...Iran, the US, everybody.  I like being close enough to perhaps grab a clue when I'm being blatantly lied to though Jim...don't you?  And having a few things to negotiate finer details with?  I'd like some of that too please :).  And even Jim when speaking to his mother lied to her one out of every five sharings, because we all do :)

    I confuse MT (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 09:24:09 AM EST
    I haven't the slightest what you are writing about.

    But I would note that it is less than helpful to judge the actions of others by your own.


    Bahahahahahaha! (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 09:32:51 AM EST
    Just something I don't get about wingers and the isolation stuff.  They point at others and screech about failings that
    we all fail at.  You really can't be trusted either Jim.  It's sort of part of being a human being, this failing to be 100% trustworthy.  Mutually shared interests though has the ability to inspire change and safer environments.

    If your standard for negotiating with anyone is whether or not they have lied to you, you have nobody in the world able to meet that standard, human beings lie...all of them :)  Even you


    Careful, you're gonna choke (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 10:24:46 AM EST
    But now that I understand, what you are saying is that we must trust proven liars because everyone has lied.

    Okie Dokie.

    I would say that it depends on the issue.

    A guy telling some lady friend her hair looks great when it doesn't is one thing.

    Accepting liars as truthful about their intent to control the world is something else. In this case, stupid.


    Or you (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 10:38:28 AM EST
    saying you are a "progressive"

    Howdy, please quit making things up (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 05:37:47 PM EST
    I have never said I was a "progressive."

    I have said that I am a Social Liberal. That means that I am for gay rights, including marriage, other minority rights, a woman's right to choose, LWOP, drug laws reforms, single payer insurance modeled on Medicare.

    Now, you threatened to "investigate" me by searching the achieves.

    Please do.


    Should we check your archives (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 05:57:31 PM EST
    ... on your blog for all your postings on those subjects.  You know ... the ones you don't really care about or drive your votes?



    Those issues he mentions (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 05:02:22 AM EST
    Are never important enough that he would vote for a Democrat in support of any one of them.

    So, what we have here is an oxymoron, a Social Liberal who has voted for Republicans for the last 4 or so decades.


    Of course the issues regard (2.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    national security.

    Come back when you want to defend the country and we can talk.

    A study in confusion:

    A supposed Liberal who won't accept support on issues like gay rights, women's right to choose, LWOP, single payer health care, drug law reform....
    who instead attacks the Social Liberal to the extent that he deserves to be called "Shadow 2."

    It is so nice to be loved.


    You just proved my point (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Apr 07, 2015 at 01:31:40 PM EST
    You believe any Democratic candidate is untrustworthy on national defense, so you're just a Neocon, perhaps to the right of Panetta, but a Neocon, none the less.

    Thanks for allowing your true colors to shine thru despite your denials, Jim.


    No, you just made something up. (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 08:26:00 AM EST
    And you prove again that is how you debate.

    I believe what the candidates have said and done.

    Carter's and Clinton's actions speak for themselves but they are nowhere near as bad for security as Obama's.

    So, are you going to tell me that Hillary or your Indian Maiden will clean up the mess of 8 years of Obama willful destruction of our defense capabilities??


    Talk about dense, why do I even try? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 11:01:19 AM EST
    Everyone is a proven liar.  You negotiate with liars all day everyday.  And who accepted liars as truthful?  Does the concept of negotiating with anyone just terrify you so much that your ability to reason beyond the mouth of the cave shorts completely out?

    Good grief, MT (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 12:46:46 PM EST
    I just agreed with you that everyone lies.

    Now you want to shout blather and hurl insults because I point out Iran's track record.


    What's next?? I also must carry their's and Obama's water?


    Again, it doesn't matter about their (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 03:34:53 PM EST
    track record, as there will be INTRUSIVE INSPECTIONS which will depend not at all on the claims/statements/promises the Iranians may or may not make.

    Glad to clear that up for you.


    Well, the IAEA inspectors (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 05:45:39 PM EST
    will just be blocked and by the time the discussions are over it won't matter.

    The leopard doesn't change its spots.

    And you couldn't clear up anything.

    In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors criticized Iran after an IAEA report concluded that before 2003 Iran likely had undertaken research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability.[13] The IAEA report details allegations that Iran conducted studies related to nuclear weapons design, including detonator development, the multiple-point initiation of high explosives, and experiments involving nuclear payload integration into a missile delivery vehicle.[14



    Personally (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 06:00:47 PM EST
    I am all for IKEA inspectors.  I love IKEA.

    Jim would get even more paranoid (none / 0) (#137)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 07:42:40 PM EST
    Because of those balsa wood airplanes that Saddam was going to target us with.

    just a hypothesis . . . (none / 0) (#83)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 10:17:09 PM EST
    . . . but the more i read about & watch & hear news of this "deal to make a deal," the more likely it seems to me that "breakout" has already occurred

    if that's true, then so might the following be true:

  • the focus of the talks, such as they are, would have shifted to faster & more complete lifting of sanctions, a shift marked by more & more concessions on the part of the US, in exchange for Iran's cooperation (including Iran's participation in "intrusive-inspection theater") with the Obama administration's efforts to (1) manage public perceptions for domestic consumption in the US during what remains of the president's time in office & (2) forestall an all-out nuclear arms race among Sunni factions in the Middle East (especially Saudi Arabia, of course)
  • Congress's involvement in the situation would have become literally moot (as many have been insisting anyway), since Congress would now, by definition, have no role to play in blocking a nuclear Iran from going nuclear
  • if Iran has in fact moved from being a nuclear-threshold state to becoming a nuclear power, i certainly don't blame President Obama for that development - indeed, for me he becomes rather a classic tragic figure - but it's easy to imagine how the GOP, in an election year, would relish proclaiming that "breakout" occurred on a Democrat's watch, & specifically under this president

    if Iran has gone nuclear, the good news is that the weapons have not been publicly rattled, & that Iran has been willing to play along with the charade of a "deal" - that would tend to validate the administration's hopes for Iran's readiness to normalize its relations with the West, if much more on Iran's own terms than on any proposed by the US & its allies

    again, just a hypothesis


    Is there any actual evidence ... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 10:33:14 PM EST
    ... to support this "hypothesis"?  Or is it just sheer speculation?

    any hypothesis (none / 0) (#85)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 11:00:12 PM EST
    should have its basis in some kind of evidence, as you suggest - otherwise, it's just a preconceived notion looking for selective facts to be cherry picked - that said, however, any real hypothesis will, by definition, be speculative

    i find evidence in how the administration moved from vowing, in 2012, that Iran would never get a nuclear weapon to hoping, in 2015, that Iran's "breakout" time could be extended to a mere 12 months (already on 8 April 2014, John Kerry was testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Iran was 2 months from breakout)

    & there's lots more, but start with that


    Regarding your hypothesis, (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 11:12:23 PM EST
    You're obviously quoting, or, referencing some unnamed sources; could you provide some links?

    i wasn't referencing or quoting anything (none / 0) (#88)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 01:51:29 AM EST
    my hypothesis is based purely on my own reading & observations, as i said

    nevertheless, here is a link to Kerry's testimony of a year ago before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

    Iran can produce fissile material for an atomic weapon in two months, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday told a Senate hearing in which he faced tough questions from lawmakers about negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

    "I think it's public knowledge today that we're operating with a time period for a so-called breakout of about two months. That's been in the public domain," Kerry testified at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

    "So six months to 12 months is--I'm not saying that's what we'd settle for, but even that is significantly more," Kerry said in response to a question about whether a "breakout" window of up to a year was the negotiators' goal.

    here is Obama during the presidential debate of 16 October 2012:

    "As long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon," Mr. Obama said.

    & here is a link to an Obama-friendly article in The Atlantic listing 20 different occasions between 2008 & 2012 when Obama argued "against containment [of Iran's nuclear program] and for disruption, by force, if necessary" & said, in various ways, that he would "never take military options off the table" (including so-called surgical strikes, not just & not necessarily a military invasion)

    does it seem now as if any military options are on the table at all? if not, why would that be, given the hazy "deal to make a deal" as against the unequivocal tone of earlier statements?

    & this is not even to mention the concessions on the number of centrifuges Iran would be allowed to keep, the eleventh-hour concessions on how much of (rather than whether) Iran's enriched uranium would be shipped out of the country, etc., apart from the fact that, as Obama said in December 2013, the Iranians "don't need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful nuclear program" & "certainly don't need a heavy-water reactor at Arak in order to have a peaceful nuclear program."

    Occam'r razor, imo


    Uhhh, no (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 06:47:15 AM EST
    It does not mean that military options are off the table.

    That was easy.


    fine (none / 0) (#96)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 08:26:20 AM EST
    clearly you are beyond the point where evidence can have any effect on you

    And clearly (3.67 / 3) (#112)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 12:26:07 PM EST
    ... you are at the point where you have no evidence, so you make your accusations in the form of a question and get upset when someone answers your "question".  No, ending into an agreement (if it comes to that) does not mean that military options are of the table.  To the contrary, they've been very clear that one of the primary purposes to stretching the breakout timeframe is to allow sufficient time to detect any noncompliance and to respond to it.  They must certainly haven't ruled out a military response, which is why you're forced to phrase your claim as a "question" since, as usual, you have no evidence to back it up.

    lol (none / 0) (#152)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 01:48:38 AM EST
    i note with amusement the deletion of my original (& very brief) response to your comment #112

    my expunged characterization of your "debating" style was sincere, not to mention quite apt

    but expunction is TL's prerogative, so let's see if a paraphrase will do

    when it comes to the rhetorical ploys that any number of people here have learned to expect from you--habitual distortion of others' words; malicious ad hominem attacks; willful deployment of straw men, red herrings, & other treasures from a child's garden of logical fallacies; shrillness & intellectual vulgarity--you never disappoint

    you're simply the best


    Thanks - I am (none / 0) (#154)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 06:17:24 AM EST
    Not your silly mischaracterizations and hypocritical claims of ad hominems, but at providing actual facts and evidence to back up my claims ... unlike you.

    But I guess when you have nothing to work with ...


    apologies (none / 0) (#90)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 02:07:43 AM EST
    for accidentally linking in my comment #88 to the CNS site - was typing that comment up in a rush & thought i had linked to CBS

    that doesn't change the quote, of course, which is accurate, but do take care to avoid the sump of vile wingnut comments below the article


    "Start" with that? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 06:44:50 AM EST
    I think I'll end with that, if that's all the evidence you have.  A campaign promise that Iran won't get weapons while he's POTUS versus an agreement that pushes their breakout timeframe (not the same thing) is no evidence at all.

    But linking to CNS was funny.


    Since it looks like they won't have a weapon by (none / 0) (#95)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 06:52:32 AM EST
    January of 2017, it would appear to me that he kept his campaign promise.

    CNS?  That's about as reliable a news source as a World Nut Daily.


    So Obama is magically holding it back (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 12:49:53 PM EST
    As long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon," Mr. Obama said.

    And it will appear when President elect Walker takes office?? ;-)

    Maybe if we sacrificed a virgin we can delay it.


    If Iran doesn't get a nuke until (none / 0) (#123)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 01:56:39 PM EST
    we have a President elect Walker, makes me think the world will be a much safer place for the long haul . . . ;-)

    Well, I was gonna say Cruz (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 03:32:19 PM EST
    but I didn't wanna stir the mud....too much.


    And I wonder if we would hear a pop, or some other noise as the nuke appears as President Whoever says,
    "So help me God..."


    Yeah, Cruz will make growling noises (none / 0) (#131)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    To win the Presidency in 2016.

    Chuck Schumer (none / 0) (#8)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 10:07:35 AM EST
     is Jewish, a long time and staunch supporter of Israel and he represents New York.

      Beyond that, he's really been more of a pragmatic moderate than a doctrinaire liberal.

      Beyond that still, he is a Senator with no realistic aspiration to the Presidency, and it is not surprising he would be, at the least, cautious about any action which would serve to enhance the power of the executive branch vis à vis the legislative branch.

      Finally, is there any reason, other than blind loyalty to a President who has not exactly distinguished himself in foreign policy, not to have "doubts?"

      Is it even arguable that Obama's desire for a  deal with Iran is motivated more by current events on the ground to its immediate west  than an objective appraisal of its longer-term ramifications?

    Not exactly sure of your point (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 10:33:46 AM EST
    personally I trust Chuck about as far as I could toss him.  Among other things IMO he is a wholly owned property of Wall Street.  

    I was responding primarily (none / 0) (#11)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 11:13:14 AM EST
     to the top comment labeling him a liberal Democrat.

      The remainder was simply pondering why anyone should be criticized for having doubts about the wisdom of this approach and the suggestion it should be blindly accepted.

      No deal is ever "perfect" for either side because "perfection" for one  would be essentially "unconditional surrender" by the other.

      Given that reality there is always room for legitimate and important critique of the relative value of the consideration exchanged to reach an agreement. Implying that anyone, let alone leaders of the legislative branch, should stifle any communications concerning  legitimate concerns smacks of advocating an imperial presidency. Further implying that members of the President's party should put partisan political concerns above principled belief is even more troublesome.

      Forcing any President to respond to critiques and defend his approach by showing specifically why he believes that on balance the downside of a particular agreement is outweighed by the positive gains should be considered essential in a functioning representative government. That would be difficult if it became acceptable for other leaders to be branded disloyal or traitors or some other perjorative for merely stating downsides exist.



    As I read this (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 11:25:27 AM EST
    i am listening to the odious and craven Bill Richardson whining about his not being "included".  As if there was any reason on earth why he should be.

    I have not seen a single reasonable person say it should be blindly accepted.


    Bill Who? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 11:29:19 AM EST
    When did he crawl back out from the rocks?

    Well (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 02:00:36 PM EST
    I guess he expected it from his behavior back in 2008.

    Happy Saturday (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 03:09:25 PM EST
    Final: Wisconsin 71, Kentucky 64. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 04, 2015 at 10:20:10 PM EST
    So much for chasing history. Congratulations to the Badgers, who hung tough with the (formerly) unbeaten Wildcats, and willed their way to victory in the last three minutes of the game. They will play Duke Monday night for the national championship.

    All or Nothing At All (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 03:52:02 PM EST
    the two part HBO documentary on Sinatra that starts tonight looks like it might be really good.

    There are two important and illustrative quotes in the opening half of HBO's documentary miniseries Sinatra: All Or Nothing At All. The first is a statement of purpose, an explanation for the deep, documentary dive that director Alex Gibney (fresh off the scathing Scientology exposé Going Clear) takes into the life and work of Francis Albert Sinatra: "We don't know what he thought about his own life, because he never wrote it down in a book." All Or Nothing At All is here in place of that autobiography, posthumously piecing together the story of a pop-culture legend through newspaper clippings and still photography, moving pictures and interview audio.

    The other quote addresses the myth of Sinatra, the outsized public persona that similarly accounts for the weight of All Or Nothing At All. Addressing the rumor that Sinatra booked his comeback role in From Here To Eternity through mob intimidation--a rumor later fictionalized in the opening sequence of The Godfather--the film bristles: "The Godfather thing is a wonderful story, but it doesn't have to be true as documentary." Plenty of similar stories piled up around the entertainer in the period depicted in the film--from Sinatra's birth in Hoboken to his first "retirement" concert in Los Angeles--and Sinatra: All Or Nothing At All seemingly addresses every last one of them. Its eyes are trained on the truth, but its ears are open for a good story.

    Today's great, non-Beltwaycentric read: (none / 0) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    The New York Times | April 5, 2015
    California Drought Tests History of Endless Growth - "For more than a century, California has been the state where people flocked for a better life -- 164,000 square miles of mountains, farmland and coastline, shimmering with ambition and dreams, money and beauty. It was the cutting-edge symbol of possibility: Hollywood, Silicon Valley, aerospace, agriculture and vineyards. But now a punishing drought -- and the unprecedented measures the state announced last week to compel people to reduce water consumption -- is forcing a reconsideration of whether the aspiration of untrammeled growth that has for so long been this state's driving engine has run against the limits of nature."

    Enjoy the day, everyone. We're flying out tonight to our soon-to-be new hometown of Hilo, and will actually be staying in our house for the very first time. I'm working on the Big Island over the next week, both in Hilo and upcountry in Waimea, and we've also got to oversee our continued renovations and buy some FF&E (furnishings, fixtures and equipment). We'll be returning to Honolulu next Sunday.

    This week, Hilo is also hosting its annual Merrie Monarch Festival, a gathering of hula halau and native social organizations from across the islands and the west coast. It's grown over the decades to become the most culturally significant event in the Native Hawaiian community. Not only is the festival a good time, I've also found it to be a pretty good place to meet potential clients.


    Watching the GoT season 3 marathon (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 05, 2015 at 05:53:41 PM EST
    and I only just realized that Olenna Tyrell is Dianna Rigg.  How could I miss that I love her.

    jon Stewart on (none / 0) (#106)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 06, 2015 at 10:21:24 AM EST