Thursday Open Thread

Looks like I'll be busy at jails and in court the rest of the week.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Send Good Thoughts to Jimmy Carter | AP Story Demonstrates Weak Claims Against Hillary On E-mails >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    MLB Beat... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 11:23:30 AM EST
    The pitching clinic continues in Flushing...

    Monday Night, Jon Niese 7 Innings 6 Hits 2 Runs in 4-2 win.

    Tuesday Night, Matt Harvey 8 Innings 4 Hits 0 Runs in 4-0 win.

    Last Night, Jacob deGrom 7 Innings 2 Hits 0 Runs in 2-0 win.

    The NL East lead stands at 3.5 games going into today's action.  '69 we had black cat mojo, '15 it's the yellow parakeet.  

    Joyous times in Flushing!

    Life is pretty good at Wrigley Field, too. (none / 0) (#34)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 12:37:43 PM EST
    All I asked of the Cubs this season was to win more games than they lost. I am getting that and more. My boys are looking good for a wildcard slot in the play-offs.

    Theo and Jed have done what they said they would do when they came to the Cubs. They have taken the time, painful time, to build the club from the ground up. They invested in the farm system. They nurtured young talent. They snagged Joe Maddon. And now, with our plethora of excellent rookies, their efforts are starting to payoff.

    Now, we are talking about the Cubs. So, they could blow the whole season to smithereens by this time next month. Still, wary though I am, I feel good right now about this team.


    Mets, Cubs... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 02:47:07 PM EST
    Trump atop the polls, should we be worried about the end of days?

    It's a good thing we're in the driver's seat for the division because the Cubbies and Bucs will be tough to catch for the wild cards.

    The 4 game sweep of the Rockies is in the books, Mets win another 12-3.  Thor goes 7 with 4 hits and 3 runs, that's an off day for Mets starting pitchers;) Los Mets en fuego!


    Yes! While I was sleeping they got in the (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:04:57 PM EST
    wild card hunt. Wariness is to be advised, but a little bit a hope is in order as well!

    Mr Robot (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:12:11 PM EST
    is getting really interesting

    Coincidentally I just watched the first (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:28:46 PM EST
    episode. Liked it a lot - I have to buy episodes 2-4 on Amazon, then I have the rest of them recorded on TiVo. Got started recording them late, unfortunately.

    Guess I know what I will be doing this weekend!


    Connecticut abolishes the death penalty (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 11:51:59 AM EST
    The Legislature had repealed it a couple of years ago, but only prospectively. This morning the state Supreme Court held that, in that light, capital punishment would violate the state constitution for the dozen or so individuals now on death row for murders commitment prior to the repeal.

    proofreading, never enough (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 12:02:06 PM EST
    For "commitment" I meant to type "committed," of course.

    Rowan County (Kentucky) clerk, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 01:23:57 PM EST
    Kim Davis, continues to refuse issuing a marriage license to a couple who are residents of Rowan County.  Yesterday, US District Judge David L. Bunning, ruled that Ms. Davis must perform the duties of the office she took an oath to perform.

    Ms. Davis, the four times married, defender of traditional marriage is being advised by attorneys from the Christian law firm Liberty Counsel to keep on refusing, until the Appellate Court hears her case.

    Judge Bunning, in his opinion wrote, "...Davis likely violated the US Constitution's ban on government establishing a religion by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expense of others."

    In response to Davis, the judge noted that " Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs.  She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible studies, and minister to female inmates at Rowan County jail.  She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do.   However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."

    The plaintiffs found the continued defiance of Ms. Davis to be cruel.   Judge Bunning is the son of former Senator Jim Bunning (R. KY), and was appointed by President George W. Bush.

    Interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 01:46:41 PM EST
    ...I just read about it and was wondering if she had married more than once.  Too bad some idiot didn't decide their religious beliefs didn't allow them to sign the additional 3 licenses.

    The article mentioned:

    Attorneys for the couples said they were considering asking the judge to hold Kim Davis in contempt, which could bring a hefty fine or the threat of jail time.

    This is bad:

    Davis wasn't at her office Thursday, but deputy clerk Nathan Davis said the office was advised by its attorneys with the Christian law firm Liberty Counsel to continue refusing same-sex couples as it appeals.

    So even in her absence, they are being advised to not issue certs. dven if they don't have an issue with it.  While not a lawyer, that seems like bad advise to me.

    It also mentioned this which has nothing to do with anything other than I find it odd:

    Davis, elected last November as a Democrat, took over the office from her mother, Jean Bailey, who served as county clerk for 37 years, according to the Morehead News. Davis worked under her mother as a deputy clerk for 26 years. Deputy clerk Nathan Davis refused to say if he is related to Kim Davis.

    And this, it doesn't sound like the city is some hillbilly haven:

    James Yates and William Smith Jr, a couple for nearly a decade, were the second pair turned away Thursday. They also were turned away a month ago.

    They described a disconnect between the clerk's office and their experience in the community of Morehead, a college town they say has long been open and accepting. They held hands as they walked into the clerk's office, and gay rights activists shouted "Good luck!" from the street, holding signs reading "clerk not clergy" and "obey the law."

    And in the comments area:

    Lol. I live in this town. Everyone hates this woman. She is a joke.

    Someone also published her work email in the comments section.


    The lawyers also seem to indicate that they want this issue decided by the SCOTUS, which has already decided, no ?  What is their end game here, just being giant pains in the @ss ?


    The cause. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 02:21:18 PM EST
    Firmly held belief trumps (no pun intended).   Some stories indicate that Nathan is Ms.Davis's son.   The four marriages are not a relevant fact for the law suit, but it is a fact--and some might say a sign of hypocrisy, especially if some of those marriages ended in divorce.

    Liberty Counsel is a 501-C nonprofit that takes on these cases, often pro bono.  No indication of what the arrangement is for Davis. It is a curious case on which to take a stand--her job, as clerk, is ministerial-- to certify that the information on the form is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under law.

    Davis requested a stay of the US District Judge's ruling pending appeal, but, Judge Bunning has not yet granted it.   If no stay, she is subject to fines and/or jail. As an elected official she cannot be fired for not doing her duty, maybe, fired by the voters next time around.   Jail, in my view, should be avoided. Probably the cause celebre Liberty Counsel seeks.  And, she would probably draw her paycheck while in the cooler.


    Same Link (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 02:39:43 PM EST
    Davis argued that issuing a same-sex marriage license that contains her signature is the same as her approving the marriage, which she said violates her Christian beliefs.

    That seem like quite a stretch, she basically arguing herself into quasi-approver so that she can deny it because of beliefs ?


    Her belief about the signficance of her signature (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 05:33:42 PM EST
    is just a legal error, not a protected "religious" principle. If some trooper issues her a ticket, and there is a place to sign that acknowledges her receipt of the ticket and awareness of the time and place where she can go to pay or contest it, she could not refuse to sign on the grounds that she "believes" that by signing she would be approving of the ticket being issued, even if her religion leads her to believe that speed limits cannot apply to people on their way to church.
       Her lawyers are very much mistaken if they have advised her that she does not have to obey a court order until and unless it is upheld on appeal. The law in federal court -- even as to orders you correctly believe violate your rights -- is exactly the opposite.

    In CA, if a person refuses to sign (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:32:28 PM EST
    a traffic citation is subject to arrest and being booked.

    The signature is a promise to appear (none / 0) (#103)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:46:32 PM EST
    And not an admission of guilt.

    Don't know what that has to do with a clerk's signature in KY for a marriage certificate


    I re-read my comment. Nothing (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 11:44:56 PM EST
    in there about signing=admission of guilt.

    Ah, but this is T. L. (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 12:48:28 AM EST
    where our commenters are way too smart to fall for what you "wrote," since they know what you really "meant."

    Nice try, Oc. Deal with it.


    Whatever (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 01:09:52 AM EST
    Oh, don't take it so seriously, Mordi. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 01:32:10 AM EST
    But, I'll tell you what really is serious, your dated terminology.

    You want to be kicked out of the "kool-kid's club?"

    Even I know the proper term is, "Wev."


    Wurd (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 06:27:05 AM EST
    The Point Mord is... (none / 0) (#154)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:13:01 AM EST
    ...that a signature doesn't equal approval, which is what the clerk above is claiming, that her signature on a marriage certificate is akin to her approving it.

    Davis argued that issuing a same-sex marriage license that contains her signature is the same as her approving the marriage, which she said violates her Christian beliefs.

    Thank you, ScottW, for not missing my point (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:19:30 AM EST
    Sorry if my analogy was not clear to all; I thought it was helpful in exposing the fallacy in the clerk's argument.

    Rather stretchy analogy (none / 0) (#159)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:25:16 AM EST
    IMHO, the clerk is certifying a statement of fact, not making a promise for the future, as with signing a traffic citation in California.

    Get This Police Chief a Gold Star (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    Gloucester, MA is 30 mins north of Boston.

    Gloucester is taking a novel approach to the war on drugs, making the police station a first stop for addicts on the road to recovery.

    Under a policy launched in June, heroin and opioid addicts who voluntarily turn themselves in at the station are fast-tracked into treatment services through a team of police officers, volunteers and trained clinicians.

    They aren't charged with a crime, and much of their treatment cost is covered through public and private insurance, grants by service providers and by police using money seized from drug dealers.

    They can even hand over drugs and drug paraphernalia to police, no questions asked.

    This is revolutionary, and I hope it not only works, but that other departments see the value in of treatment vs. lock-up.

    "It's the next logical step in the so-called war on drugs," says Gloucester Police Chief Leonard Campanello, a former narcotics officer who launched the effort. "We need to change the conversation."


    Gloucester's efforts have not gone unnoticed.

    A local nonprofit has been founded to support the program and export its ideas to other communities, some of which are already starting to come up with their own Gloucester-inspired efforts.


    It's been a busy three days for Gloucester's program when The Associated Press drops in for a visit one Friday in July.

    The young woman, whose name the AP is withholding because she alleges sexual abuse as well as domestic violence by her boyfriend, is the last of six addicts who have come through the station doors in a roughly 30-hour span.

    "I know this isn't the life I want to live," says the Massachusetts native and a college graduate. "I just didn't know how to get out."

    The woman says she landed at the police station after spending three days living on the street and shooting heroin. She eventually called a relative, who had heard about the Gloucester program and drove her to the police station.

    Building trust with addicts is just a piece of the puzzle, Campanello says.

    It doesn't stop there:

    His department is working with pharmacies to provide discounted naloxone, an overdose-reversal drug, and pushing federal authorities to designate some of the money seized from drug dealers for treatment programs, as Gloucester does.

    It's so refreshing to see a police department concerned with actually protecting it's citizens, all of them.

    maybe 30 min as the crow flies (none / 0) (#191)
    by CST on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:05:31 PM EST
    But closer to an hour in real life.  Longer if traffic is bad, and traffic is often bad.  I only mention that because they are a bit more isolated from the city than the immediate suburbs and have a more localized economy and political climate.

    It's the home of the movie the Perfect Storm, and used to be one of the main fishing hubs in the country, although overfishing has taken it's toll.  I love gloucester though, it still definitely has that NE fishing-town vibe, and that's still a major part of the economy up there.

    They have been getting a ton of positive local press for this.  I hope it starts spreading throughout the rest of the state (and country) soon.  I think what's most impressive about this is that it came from within the police department.  They were able to recognize the problem, recognize that they weren't able to solve it using traditional means, and decided to become a major part of the solution.


    You Know... (none / 0) (#194)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:40:02 PM EST
    ...your state has really been good lately in regards to the human race.  Like really good.

    As far as the distance, like I have any idea, just repeating what I read.  The 6 months I lived there in 1992 it seemed to me like if you drove for 30 mins in any direction you were in another state.  It blew my mind that in a 10 hour drive from Virginia, we were able to hit like 12 states, and NYC.

    You have mentioned, and I have been reading that the area is really getting hit hard with heroin, and I read that lady's story above and it's just so disheartening, and then to see law enforcement do something to help, rather than hurt, is pretty commendable.


    The moderate Republican of 2016 (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:41:17 AM EST

    It is a mess!

    Here's what winning the Super Bowl looks like (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    And the comments (none / 0) (#184)
    by sj on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    ::whew:: Misogyny lives.

    This looks pretty cool, (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:16:38 PM EST
    and just really pretty.. sea glass carousel.

    As a mostly (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Nemi on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 07:27:05 AM EST
    'reader only' - I hate the term 'lurker'; sounds too much like 'Peeping Tom' - I totally agree on the scrolling. (sj at #181)

    You scroll and scroll and spot check and then scroll some more.

    And even while spot checking, I'm still anxious that I might have missed a sensible comment along the way.

    Not good. :(

    OMG (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:58:40 AM EST

    Who knew Irving Pitlor was Rick Springfield?

    Just watching a bit about the new Meryl movie and they mentioned he was on True Detective.  I thought, wait, who was he in TD?

    I saw that after the 3rd episode (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:51:52 AM EST
    And was freaked out too :)

    And about the Trumpster and his Liberal speak, yes, I think the things he has said probably work in his favor right now.  Don't you think if Donald Trump gave all those we are surrounded by healthcare they'd be blissfully happy with it? I think the real problem they have with ACA is that it came from the hand of a Democrat. I think Conservatives contemplate single payer as much as Libs do, but any solution is unacceptable if it is a solution delivered up by a Democrat.

    And instinctively, the Republican base knows they have no chance of getting decent healthcare or coverage if they make less than 50,000 with anyone else on the stage with the Donald.  That crazy combover is their only possible hope if they can't bring themselves to vote for anything but an R.


    After all his raving about China (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:56:31 AM EST
    it would be quite the cosmic joke if he was a Manchurian Candidate wouldn't it.

    ... longtime band mate (who also happens to have a huge crush on her) in "Ricki and The Flash." We saw it last weekend and it's actually a pretty good movie, certainly a lot better than I initially thought it would be based on its trailers.

    Was thinking about seeing it tomorrow...seemed (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:06:54 PM EST
    like a good pick for a Friday afternoon off work.

    Yeah, I h ad heard Rick Springfield was in TD someplace, and forgot about it, lost in all the other oddities of that show...then I heard he was the plastic surgeon...holy hell!!!


    From the Daily Mail (none / 0) (#5)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:41:37 AM EST
    Federal government investigation launched into death of unarmed teen who was shot dead by police in South Carolina while on a first date

    The family's attorney Eric Bland told The Washington Post:

    'The shots were so close in proximity to each other that it would be physically impossible unless the car was stopped and the officer came up very close to an open window.'

    He also commented on the lack of outcry following his death, suggesting recent police-related shootings have received more press coverage.

    'It's sad, but I think the reason is, unfortunately, the media and our government officials have treated the death of an unarmed white teenager differently than they would have if this were a death of an unarmed black teen.

    'The hypocrisy that has been shown toward this is really disconcerting.'

    A white kid gets a federal investigation! (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:54:18 AM EST

    And I guess you weren't paying attention because it was hard for black kids who were killed to get a decent investigation at all in many locations around the country.


    So, it only counts when a white person (none / 0) (#7)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:53:47 AM EST
    gets shot by the cops?

    I look foward to your posts defending the officer whilst tarnishing the reputation of the teen he killed.


    That's right (none / 0) (#46)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 03:27:11 PM EST
    A Black kid with no criminal history would have been slandered up and down as a "Thug" who attacked his killer.  The person who killed him is nominated for a medal for his courage.

    The white kid gets a federal investigation.

    Thanks for noticing what Black people have always known, that there are two standards of police violence.  Do you have any suggestions for getting equal justice for the Black kid?

    Other than voting for Democrats, that is.


    Repack (none / 0) (#68)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:26:52 PM EST
    The white kid gets a federal investigation.

    Michael Brown got a federal investigation and he was black -- or did you forget that?

    Of course, a federal investigation doesn't mean much since the DOJ got it wrong in Ferguson and so far wrong that even the St Louis Prosecutor distanced his report from theirs.

    The Feds' focus in all of these is not justice for the deceased but to use the investigation to get their bureaucratic foot in the door.


    So . . . (none / 0) (#11)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:46:42 AM EST
    How do I vote for Megyn Kelly for Pres?

    I think we need a candidate with blood pouring out . . .

    You can (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    but you have to write her in.  In crayon.

    sounds like (none / 0) (#23)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 11:33:46 AM EST
    this is up my alley . . .

    Well, well, well (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:07:50 AM EST
    Jeb Bush offered inaccurate version of Iraqi war history.

    Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, in his Tuesday speech that was billed as a major foreign policy address, provided a distorted version of the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq and an incorrect account of the origins of the Islamic State.

    Bush vowed that if elected he would expand U.S. military intervention in the Middle East significantly. His version of events, however, seemed intended to absolve his brother, President George W. Bush, of blame in destabilizing the region while trying to pin the region's current bloodshed on President Barack Obama and his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, the current Democratic presidential frontrunner.

    The former Florida governor asserted that the Islamic State's takeover of large swaths of Iraq in 2014 was a direct consequence of the "fatal error" of Obama's decision to withdraw U.S. forces from the country in 2011 after the eight-year U.S. military occupation. He claimed the withdrawal squandered the "success, brilliant, heroic and costly," of the 2007 U.S. troop surge. He said Clinton "stood by as the hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away."

    Bush's account of the withdrawal as a "case of blind haste" omitted the fact that it was his brother who'd set the withdrawal date of Dec. 31, 2011, in an agreement that he signed with the Iraqi government in 2008.

    He also neglected to note that the Iraqi government strongly opposed the continued presence of U.S. forces.

    "The last American soldier will leave Iraq" as agreed, then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki said in a Dec. 2010 interview with the Wall Street Journal. "This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alternation. It is sealed."

    I get so tired of people (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:31:34 PM EST
    incorrectly stating that the US had to leave Iraq and couldn't have worked out an agreement to keep troops in Iraq. Virtually everyone who was involved at the time, or least the ones I've seen quoted, have said or indicated that the US could have kept troops in Iraq, if they (Obama) had wanted to keep troops there and the administration had put the requisite effort into doing that. Please don't quote some current junior White House staffer who wasn't there at the time. Sorry, but most of what Bush just said is pretty much accurate. He's going overboard in blaming Hillary (but that's just because she's running now), but Obama deserves most of what Bush is giving him. Don't know why some people just can't admit that the older Bush can't be blamed for this mistake; it was Obama's mistake.

    The Iraqi's (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:55:32 PM EST
    were not going to give our troops immunity is one of the biggest problems I understand about staying. So if you wanted to leave troops over there who would be massively prosecuted for war crimes by the Iraqi's then have at it.

    Ga6, don't be silly. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 12:52:25 AM EST
    Virtually everyone who was there at the time and close to the action has said that the US and Obama could have negotiated an agreement. It is truly astounding that supposedly smart people, like I assume you are, refuse to look at the reality of the situation and read and listen to what the majors players said at the time or have said in more recent times.

    The US went back into Iraq last year with no SOF agreement and no immunity. The last time I looked, the US still didn't have such an agreement.  Why don't you Google and check around and report back to us if the US has an SOF agreement and immunity now. The US may, I don't know, but why don't you figure it out and tell us.


    Since none of us are clairvoyant, (none / 0) (#127)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 01:21:38 AM EST
    we don't truly know what Obama's thinking was. Maybe the SOF agreement was a convenient pretext, and, he saw an opening to get the He(ll) out of there; Maybe his advisors told him the agreement was totally untenable, leaving him no choice but to pull out.

    Either way, the final outcome was always going to be determined by the Iraqi government, and their willingness (or lack, thereof) to quit their sectarian bickering, and pull together to cooperate in a unified manner in facing up to their deadly enemies. The failure to face Iraq's real problem (centuries' old religious hatred & division) made the question of America's, necessarily limited, potential, involvement, moot.


    Yes we do know Obama's mind (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 06:42:05 AM EST
    From his own mouth.

    That's not true," Obama interjected. "Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?" Romney asked as an argument ensued. "No," Obama said. "What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East."

    And you don't think 10K troops (none / 0) (#141)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 06:52:04 AM EST
    would've been another 10K targets for ISIS to attack, because why?

    If the troops had been in place (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:16:36 AM EST
    ISIS would not have been allowed to develop as they did.

    Now, would there have been some attacks?? Yes. But they would have been limited.

    Look, if you want to say that Bush shouldn't have invaded and that when he did he used the wrong strategy and that he should have never went into the "nation building" business, just say so. That's a valid position.

    But to say that he was wrong on all the other and right on the SOFA, which Obama used as his excuse to keep a political promise, and then try and claim Bush birthed ISIS...well, the facts don't support that.


    Really, 10K would've made a difference? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:21:49 AM EST
    But you continue to rant and rave.  

    No, it was not a mistake (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 01:54:19 AM EST
    We should never have invaded in the first place.

    And, Iraq was and always has been a fake country that was bound to fly apart at the seams, sooner or later.

    Why you do not recognize this is beyond me..


    I get so tired (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:19:35 AM EST
    of your refusal to recognize that Iraq is merely dissolving into its more natural constituent parts.

    Again, Green, you pooh-poohed my assertion that Iran would never let ISIL take Baghdad.  Guess what?   ISIL has not taken Baghdad and Iran's militia is fighting against ISIL.

    No more Neocon warmongering fantasies.


    Memo to Jebya: It was Dubya's Surge (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 07:53:03 AM EST
    that created ISIL, not Hillary (and not Obama.)

    - Juan Cole, August 12, 2015

    One of the arguments Mr. Bush made was that while his [idiot] brother, George W. Bush, didn't get everything right, he did have a brilliant moment with the 2007 troop escalation or "surge," which put the world right. Then that horrible Obama crew, including Mrs. Cinton, came along and screwed things up by withdrawing from Iraq in 2011.

    First of all, saying that W. didn't get everything right in Iraq is like saying that Custer didn't get everything right at the Little Bighorn. Bush's Iraq misadventure was the biggest foreign policy screw-up in American history.

    Second, Jeb Bush's narrative about the "surge" is mythical history unconnected to reality.

    Don't confuse him with the facts (none / 0) (#152)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 08:03:50 AM EST
    It will only make him angrier and less civil.

    There is also (none / 0) (#172)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:46:31 AM EST
    this guy who obviously knows nothing
    U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno said on Wednesday that Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush was wrong to blame the Obama administration for the current instability in Iraq.

    Ahead of his official retirement on Friday, Odierno, the former highest-ranking officer in Iraq and one of the architects of the 2007 troop surge there, sought to set the record straight.

    "I remind everybody that us leaving at the end of 2011 was negotiated in 2008 by the Bush administration. That was always the plan, we had promised them that we would respect their sovereignty,"

    There you go, blaming Bush for (none / 0) (#173)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:04:03 AM EST
    a problem Obama created because "that's the Chicago Way."

    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:23:08 AM EST
    it makes sense that he would say this for a number of reasons. First of all he said his main reason for running was to restore his family name. Not doing such a good job of that one already. Secondly look at his advisers? The people who are a virtual fraternity of failure on Iraq who can't admit what a disaster they made of everything and thirdly, the brain dead cultists who feed on the corpse of talk radio and Fox news have been fed this lie about Iraq for years and to change track on that would make heads explode.

    And you again ignore that (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:32:34 AM EST
    whatever Bush said or did, it was Obama who pulled the troops out. And Obama's actions were in direct opposition to his military advisers telling him to keep the military there.

    Actions have consequences. Obama opened the door for ISIS.

    Fom Obama's own lips:


    "That's not true," Obama interjected. "Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?" Romney asked as an argument ensued. "No," Obama said. "What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East."

    Washington Post


    ... the little matter of an existing status of forces agreement between the United States and Iraq, which was negotiated and signed by the Bush administration and obligated our country to complete the withdrawal of all American ground troops by 2011. In other words, the Iraqi government that we installed no longer appreciated our presence, and wanted us gone.

    Why you insist upon not acknowledging that fact in these discussions, I really don't know, because it serves only to render your subsequent statements on the subject completely disingenuous and often false.

    This is why you really have no standing in these matters, because your inherent inability to be honest with both yourself and others here repeatedly undercuts your own credibility.

    So, as I said yesterday, I'm hereby copying and pasting my last sentence from Comment No. 180 in the Tuesday Night Open Thread, which says:

    "Because once again, you (a) are trafficking in misinformation; (b) don't know what you're talking about; and (c) are simply parroting the empty rhetoric of the professionally outraged GOP provocateur class."

    And from now on, every time I catch you deliberately misstating and distorting facts in these threads for your own warped purposes, you're going to get this boiler plate response or slight variations thereof, depending upon the subject matter.

    I'm not going to argue with you any more, so it'll save a lot of time on my part and quite frankly, a boiler plate dismissal is really all your drive-by blog-clogging deserves.

    Anyone else wants to join me, please be my guest.



    Not exactly (none / 0) (#57)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    Well, not exactly

    In clear and unequivocal terms, former Defense Secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta confirms precisely what conservative critics, lawmakers, former officials, tactical experts and military officials have said about Iraq: President Obama was advised to keep a stay-behind force and warned  about the consequences if he did not. He preferred to keep his campaign pledge to get all the troops out. The White House therefore allowed negotiations to falter for a status of forces agreement and bragged it had gotten all the troops out. Iraq has now collapsed.


    If we had kept forces there (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 01:58:43 AM EST
    then they would be in combat right now....Just more U.S. casualties.....

    Iraq was destined to devolve into three separate countries.   The Brits just drew up Iraq on the map after WW I.....Why we have invested so much blood and treasure trying to keep that country artificially together remains a mystery....


    Actions do have consequences (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by CST on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 12:30:51 PM EST
    How many more American people are you willing to destroy to hold onto Iraq?

    I'm sorry for your friends who died in the cold war.  Please stop trying to kill mine too.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 03:44:47 PM EST
    "War hath no fury like a noncombatant."
    - Charles Edward Montague, English journalist (1869-1927)

    The fact is that it was agreed (none / 0) (#19)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    to by the previous Administration.

    Are you naturally this dense, or do you have to (none / 0) (#27)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    work at it?  

    The date for US withdrawal was negotiated by the Bush administration, and it was set for a time when Bush knew he would not be in office.  Whoever was the president would have been bound by that agreement, whether it was Barack Obama, Mitt Romney or Kermit the Freakin' Frog.

    Is your antipathy for Obama so all-consuming that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this basic fact?

    Rhetorical question; we all know the answer.


    Obama and We (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 12:08:19 PM EST
    don't have to exhibit good faith and honor any treaties or agreements because we're more powerful than any other country.

    Just to save Jim the trouble.


    Conditions had to be negotiated (none / 0) (#59)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 05:26:09 PM EST
    Leon Panetta, Robert Gates, and Michele Flournoy all pushed the President to negotiate the conditions of the agreement, and all stated that the President s political team felt it was better politically for the President to remove all the troops, despite all the warnings as to what would eventually happen.
    The Presidents team did not negotiate in good faith , if they pushed the Iraqis, a force of 10k troops could have safely been left behind.

    Why do you think that would (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:02:05 AM EST
    make a difference?

    Having over 100,000 troops did not make a difference until the Sunni Chieftains had had enough of Al Qaeda....Not those Chieftains want nothing to do with a Shia government in Baghdad.....

    Let Iraq split itself into the three natural countries it really is.0


    Difference (2.00 / 1) (#136)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 06:03:40 AM EST
    Because they were neophytes at this thing called Democracy, and needed someone to hold their hands for longer than 10 years. Because their army was never established, and needed the courage and wisdom and tactics that our 10k troops would have supplied. Iran would not be the dominant player they are now, ISIS would never have taken swaths of Iraq. They needed more time. We are still in Korea, Germany. Obama just wanted out, despite all the policy people strongly stating we not bug out.   They all predicted the disaster that Iraq has now become

    Cool story, bro. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 06:28:19 AM EST
    I really, really wonder (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by sj on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:22:04 AM EST
    What kind of sick pleasure it gives them, the whack-a-doodles that just come here to troll and blog clog. I just really don't understand it.

    Maybe you can shed some light on that.


    I frankly (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:42:14 AM EST
    ignore those conversations most of the time. It's been around and around a ton of times and nothing changes their minds. It's like trying to converse with a moonie on religion.

    So do I (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by sj on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:50:24 AM EST
    I frankly (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:42:14 AM MDT  

    ignore those conversations most of the time.

    But what does that have to do with anything? They still claim too much of the sites resources. You scroll and scroll and spot check and then scroll some more.

    It is the biggest single downside to this site which is supposedly monitored.

    Wev. I am still baffled by the sick pleasure that must be involved in trolling. Since none of our more long-standing denizens have elucidated, I wondered if a new one would...


    Mostly (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 12:14:20 PM EST
    it seems to be trying out the new talking points faxed directly from GOP central command. This isn't the only blog they do it on.

    It is an organized (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 12:37:55 PM EST

    Save some of that criticism (none / 0) (#61)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 05:50:48 PM EST
    ...for the people who wrecked the place to begin with.

    Mr. Obama opposed the war.  If he can't "fix" the damage made by others to your satisfaction, it is still not his fault.


    Please do not make it worse (2.00 / 1) (#77)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:35:04 PM EST
    No one denies or withholds criticism of the original decision, but life is continually moving forward.
    An original mistake was made, but any decision made afterwards gets reviewed on its own merit.

    Professional policy people gave strongly felt advice , to prevent Iraq from falling into total disarray. The policy people, working for Obama, all have said the Presidents political team decided it was politically better to complete a "campaign promise" than to take the advice of Panetta , Gates and Defense analysts.
    Iran's influence in Iraq, the rise of ISIS, the disintegration of the Iraqi army, all are consequences of that decision


    Perhaps, but if he/Obama (any president) (none / 0) (#79)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:47:54 PM EST
    makes mistakes and blunders during his time and makes the situation worse, then those are his problems and he owns them. It is absolutely clear to many people, including some Dems who were there at the time, that Obama goofed up a number of things. Even Hillary has stated that about Syria.

    Nobody (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:09:25 PM EST
    ever explained what that 10k troops was supposed to do. We had to surge up to 160K just to keep Iraq from full blown sectarian civil war I just don't see a small force making much of a difference militarily.

    Joe, at the time of withdrawl, (none / 0) (#78)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:44:37 PM EST
    things were relatively stable in Iraq,  the war was close to being won, Al Qaeda had been largely defeated (of their 42 top leaders, all but 8 or so had been killed or captured), and there was not a raging civil war. The Surge had worked. The US troop level had come down considerably well before the US left. Minimal troops were controlling the situation, and the US was still watching and communicating with Malaki.

    Note the word "stable" below.

    "Iraq's not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people."

    "Barack Obama marked an end to a war he once described as "dumb" by declaring the conflict in Iraq a success...."

    "The president told an audience of soldiers at Fort Bragg that the final pullout from Iraq after nearly nine years of war is a "historic" moment and that the country they leave behind is "an extraordinary achievement".



    I am so hot for this (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:15:32 AM EST
    As hot as I am for this? (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:31:37 PM EST
    Me too (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:38:44 PM EST
    you know the buzz is that if there is no season 4 of Hannibal there will be a movie with the same characters.   IMO that would be almost (almost) as good.

    It's been odd seeing Richard Armitage normal sized since I have been watching the Hobbit movies with him as pint sized Thorin Oakenshield.


    I need to see those Hobbit movies (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:47:34 PM EST
    I heard my new heartthrob Aidan Turner is in them.  If he is even a tenth as hot as a hobbit as he is as Poldark, I will be happy.

    You won't be disappointed (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:02:46 PM EST
    he makes a very hot dwarf.  And he has an excellent romance/subplot with an elf.

    Not sure if you know the books so I will say no more.

    On the whole, honestly, all three movies are not great.   They are great for an effects nerd but as movies they are all too long.  Some of the extra crap works some doesn't.

    Still, as a spectacle, worth the time.


    I haven 't seen any of the Hobbit movies. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 08:03:22 AM EST
    The ending of the last LOTR was so overblown and long.  It seemed like an extra two or three weeks tacked on - not in movie time - in audience squirming in my seat time.  Was Jackson paid by the minute?

    The decision to turn the Hobbit (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:18:55 AM EST
    into three bloated movies could only have been a financial one.  To milk the series for every box office dollar possible.

    Which is upsetting for a lot of reasons.   I loved the first 3.  I even have the loooong extended directors cut box set.   And they work.  Then he lost his mind and sold his sole.  One sad part is that for any fan of the books the real payoff for the whole thing is meeting Smaug.  And he's great.  I don't  think he could have been more brilliantly imagined or visualized.  But his appearance at the end of the 2nd movie is after sitting through the worst of the three movies and then you have to wait to see the whole Smaug story.

    He went from great success of faithfully making the Rings books to hijacking the Hobbit story, adding a bunch of new characters and generally pi$$ing everyone off.

    Still. Lots of great effects and some very good performances.


    Repack, you asked for a link (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:22:12 AM EST
    in the Tuesday thread. Here it is:

    Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve


    Re the Shadeballs, I wonder why they are black. Black absorbs heat better than white thus raising the reservoir's water temperature increasing moisture loss and white should be available and cost the same.

    Disturbingly (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:37:51 AM EST
    i asked the same question about the color

    Gentlemen, there is this thing called Google (none / 0) (#20)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:54:22 AM EST
    From the Daily Mail :

    They balls work by floating on the surface and blocking the sun rays to prevent the water from evaporating. By doing this, they also prevent the chemical reaction that creates the carcinogenic compound bromate.

    Ok (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 11:36:16 AM EST
    white would do that more effectively?

    It's (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 11:40:23 AM EST
    From What I understand... (none / 0) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 11:58:34 AM EST
    ...black is the only color that is opaque at whatever thickness the balls are.  I would imagine white could do the same, but they would have to make it thicker to make them opaque.

    It's a reasonable question since it backwards to what most of us know about light absorption and color.


    Asked and answered on Chris Hayes (none / 0) (#39)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    The black pigment (lampblack) is used to protect the plastic from breaking down in sunlight.  It increases the life span of the balls by something like 10X.

    If only I had (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 03:18:12 PM EST
    an attention span

    From "the Wizard of Oz"! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:26:26 PM EST
    FWIW (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 11:23:53 AM EST
    The aim of the black balls is three-fold, to slow evaporation, preserve water quality and prevent wildlife from contaminating the water.

    The balls work by deflecting UV rays and preventing harmful chemical reactions between chlorine -- used as a disinfectant in water -- and bromide, which occurs naturally in the ground. In sunlight, both compounds can react to form a carcinogen known as bromate.

    Other colors would allow the UV rays to reach the water.

    DWP says this is perfectly safe. The 4-inch-diameter balls are made from high-density polyethylene, which is the same material you would find in a one-gallon milk jug. This plastic is approved to come into contact with drinking water.

    The balls do not emit any chemicals, according to the DWP. They should last 10 years. At some point, they will lose their structural integrity and could split at the seams.


    et al (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:15:46 PM EST
    Mordiggian - You always restate the obvious as if that means anything. Bush made a mistake. Obama could have corrected it. He chose not to based on pure politics. Think of it like this.

    In the bank robbery Bush drove the get away car. But Obama robbed  the bank.

    Anne, no they would not have been bound to anything. That's the advantage of being the biggest and toughest dude around.

    Jondee, thank you. We are also not required to cut our throats or to surrender to Iran yet Obama has agreed for us to do so.

    Trevor, and thank you. But, as you can see, facts and logic do not matter when you are dealing with the Lefties.

    Repack - He took an imperfect peace and birthed ISIS.

    Green26,  Obama never makes mistakes.

    Donald, nope, just noting that Obama could have persuaded Iraqi government..... IF had wanted to. He didn't want to. That is a fact that is not in dispute and cannot be changed. BTW - Declaring that, having lost, you are going to take your ball and go is risible. Are you also stomping your feet and holding your breath???  Lol

    CST - How many more will be required?? Thousands more that would not have been required if Obama hadn't birthed ISIS with his politically motivated pull out.

    Donald again:  

    "Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accept the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay-and claims a halo for his dishonesty."

    GA, the Iraqi's had no choice. But then Obama wanted to leave. See my comment and his own words.


    I do not give (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:05:51 AM EST
    two figs about Iraq.   That was always a neocon fantasy.

    The majority Shia froze out the Sunnis.....that is the problem....So, the Sunnis just took control of their portion of the fake country that is Iraq.

    So friggin' what?


    My View (none / 0) (#166)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:56:02 AM EST
    Let's get entirely out and stay out.  If one of the state's who actually has skin in the game wants some air cover or advise, no problem, but not until we see a clearly defined plan.

    This business of 'We have to stop them' is not a plan, nor is it a reason to get involved.

    Other than that, we wipe out hands clean of the debacle GWB & the neocons created with their fantasies of dropping democracy seeds in the ME.

    Right now there is a surplus of oil, we don't need to be involved for cheap gas, we have it, and when Iran puts their oil on the market, it will be cheap, cheap, cheap.

    There is literally no reason for us to be in the ME beyond the neocon fantasy of being the world's police.  We can't and we shouldn't.


    Talk about living in the present (none / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 03:36:05 PM EST
    Right now there is a surplus of oil

    Whatever the reason was that we went the deal is that we went.

    The situation was under control until Obama, against advice from his own NON political people left.

    The rest is history.


    Thanks again for telling me what I meant (none / 0) (#102)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:44:16 PM EST

    Interesting how you turn to crime to explain yourself,

    Explain how we would stay there without violating the SOFA agreement.  Explain how that makes for respecting democracy by staying there against the will of the Iraqi people.

    And quit using that quote to call Donald a coward, he has more guts than you do when it comes to facing up to the facts of the last 15 years.


    Mordiggian, it is obvious to everyone who is not (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:51:52 PM EST
    an Obamanot....

    Obama would have just picked up the phone and said....

    "Look, I know you an Bush cut this deal but we now believe that Iraq is not ready to defend itself either internally or externally. Therefore we aren't gonna be leaving for a while.

    Now, I'll have my people meet with your people and figure out what to say, who blame, etc."

    That is if he had wanted to do the right thing.

    And if Donald wants to not hear facts quoted he shouldn't quote facts re pacifism.

    Of course I am sure he is pleased to have you rush to his defense... him being so incapable of writing and all....;-)


    Complete speculation (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:08:17 AM EST
    That is not the problem in Iraq...

    Trying to reconcile the Sunni and the Shia is the biggest problem, especially since they are proxies for Saudi Arabia and Iran....

    Let Iraq dissolve....


    Works for me, but..... (2.00 / 1) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 06:53:43 AM EST
    The acid has run off the table and onto the rest of the world and isn't going to stop by itself.

    Well, I'm not an Obamabot, (none / 0) (#119)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:30:35 PM EST
    despite your delusions to the contrary, and whatmyou're proposing is the Green Lantern theory of the Presidency, that the President with enough will and plain talk, can acomplied anything the nation needs him to do.  

    Now, if you want to discuss the matter like an adult, I"m all ears, but your continuous assumptions and slagging of people who according to your lights, don't understand, are Obamabots, are somehow lacking if they didn't do military service like you, is getting to be old and stale.

    Continue to fuminate, Jim, but your attempt to find fault with Obsma betrays your 'criticism' as nothing more than the ravings of someone who has watched too much Fox News, which, to quote Shakespeare, is too much "sound and fury" with little else to recommend it.


    After your nasties over the past week (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 06:52:00 AM EST
    you want to talk like an adult?? Really? When did that start?? But okay, I'll play.

    The facts are plan and are documented.

    He was advised by his own NON POLITICAL people to not leave.

    Obama did not want to. See my quote in his own words.

    Now, could he have worked a deal??

    He didn't want to stay and he didn't try.

    Just as he didn't try for a single payer health care plan.

    You know, at best, Obama is just another Chicago politician taking care of his people and to hell with the rest of the country.


    Oh, come down off of your high horse Jim. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 07:10:44 AM EST
    It isn't nasty to imply cowardice of others?

    But, hey, all Obama had to do was say the magic words, And the Iraqis would've given in, or we could've just gone there despite their desire to see us gone, and gotten re-struck in a quagmire there, unwanted by all sides.

    That's all you've got, and repeating it doesn't make it any truer the 10th time around than it was before.

    you know, JEB is just another neocon from the Bush family taking care of his people, and to hell with the rest of us.

    That happens to be grounded in reality, unlike your Aunt Pitty-Patty act you do here all the time about what Obama should've done.

    I'll ask Jeralyn to send you a fainting couch, if you like.


    If you had been paying attention (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:25:36 AM EST
    you would know I haven't been defending Jeb or W.

    What I am saying is that Obama should have and could have corrected Bush's mistake.

    Let me ask you a question.

    Say that one of the tellers at your bank make a mistake and credit you with a $10,000 deposit instead of the $1000 deposit you actually made.

    You tell your significant other, your brother and your minister and ask what you should do. They all say tell the bank of the error and have it correct the teller's mistake.

    Instead you withdraw it.

    1. Is that ethical?

    2. When the bank discovers the error and your actions and comes after you....who created the legal action against you?

    You're echoing JEB! (none / 0) (#161)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:28:14 AM EST
    Jim, and I do pay attention, that's part of your problem here.

    Your refusal to answer the question..... (none / 0) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:38:11 AM EST
    ......answers the question.



    Your inabilty (none / 0) (#165)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:43:33 AM EST
    to ask one that makes sense, might have something to do with that, Jim.

    I'm finally getting around to binge (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 12:14:27 PM EST
    watching Breaking Bad. I've got two seasons left and Jesse's unconquerable, stubborn stupidity in the face of all available evidence is really starting to wear on me.  

    What really frustrated me about BB... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 12:46:24 PM EST
    ...was the entirely unexplored, and kind of cowardly so on the part of the writers, contrast and direct conflict between Walt's relationship with his own son and with Jesse. I kept waiting for an incredible series of episodes when Walt would face that he is father to both, and abusive to both, I wanted his son to say "You love that Jesse loser more than me!" A great scene where he was with BOTH his son and Jesse. Something that worked that obvious angle more acutely.

    Why did you need it to be played out explicitly? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:12:29 PM EST
     Walt did face that in himself - I liked it fine the way it was portrayed.

    Just a missed opportunity to me (none / 0) (#196)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:49:52 PM EST
    And I personally didn't think Walt played it out at all, in his head or anywhere else, I just thought the true richness and sadness of that conflict was never explored nearly enough. Just my opinion. Peace out.

    Oh, you are in for a treat (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 12:53:22 PM EST
    I just came across a new series produced by the BBC, The Honourable Woman, starring the comely Maggie Gyllenhaal.

    Kinda like Le Carre from what I can tell.  It is showing on the Sundance Channel today in  a marathon of all 8 episodes....Gylenhaal garnered such and such awards for her performance....good to see she is not confined to playing doormats...


    It just keeps getting better (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:11:13 PM EST
    right up to the most amazing and excellent series finale evah.

    does Jesse ever get any smarter yo? (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:10:41 PM EST
    That's a spoiler question (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:12:35 PM EST
    I think.

    PFK, vol. 8/12/15 (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 12:43:38 PM EST
    starts a thought, stops a wiring breath
    every spark changes the playbook

    assigned a stomach with bootstraps
    pulling at heartstrings puts on new shoes

    our reactors run with hourly patches
    minute to minute if clocking warts

    when thirst propositions an owner
    never a spigot out back of the dunes

    hurled a sledgehammer into the powder
    & it disappeared in a dry white cloud

    changes without the mythology
    are like memories without the soundtrack

    Learn three chords (none / 0) (#47)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 03:30:44 PM EST
    ...to accompany yourself and you will be the next Bob Dylan or Tom Petty.

    Thank you and if only, my friend, of only... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    ...I was decent on the fiddle the couple of times I tried to learn to play a few times as a younger man. But generally I have the musical ability of a misfiring Winnebago engine.

    Benjamin Carson, (none / 0) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 03:35:42 PM EST
    is busy explaining his fetal issue research in light of his Planned Parenthood stance and previous fetal issue statements.  His work conducted in the 1990s and published in 1992 describes research using tissue from aborted fetus.

    Carson, a Tea Party darling, has catapulted to number 2 in the Iowa CNN poll released yesterday (Trump 22%, Carson 17%). And,  he is Number 1, tied with Huckabee at 17%;on the issue of Abortion;  And on the criterion, "best represents values of Republicans like you," Carson is top banana, at Number 1. (14%).

    Doubt if this matter of Carson's previous aborted fetal tissue research record will made a difference with those Iowans.  He has evolved and ---he is just what the doctor ordered.

    It will (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 04:13:42 PM EST
    be interesting to see if this information has any affect on GOP primary voters. However, my question is who dumped the oppo research? Jeb? Walker?

    GD ISIS (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 04:01:47 PM EST
    A group calling itself the Islamic State hacking division has published the details of 1,400 mostly US military and government personnel, urging supporters to attack those listed.

    The spreadsheet, published online on Wednesday, exposes names, email addresses, phone numbers and passwords. Those listed include members of the marine corps, Nasa, the state department, air force and FBI.

    Supporters of Isis on Twitter seized on the breach, posting personal details of soldiers and government staffers and encouraging lone wolves to "act and kill".

    Hopefully we can believe our government:

    "This is the second or third time they've claimed that and the first two times I'll tell you, whatever lists they got were not taken by any cyber attack," the army chief of staff, Gen Ray Odierno, said on Wednesday.

    "This is no different than the other two," he said, referring to earlier so-called hacks by Isis supporters in January and May.

    "But I take it seriously because it's clear what they're trying to do ... even though I believe they have not been successful with their plan," he said.


    It isn't that difficult to find names and then (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 05:09:56 PM EST
    Addresses and emails.  Stars and Stripes, the Army Flier, all sorts of base and post publications you can access online have soldier names, rank, and photos. You just google from there.  They'll phish for you too.  They've phished my Facebook, tried to " friend" me because you can't see anything otherwise.  You just turn it over to the FBI, the post notifies them.

    It is just a fact that soldiers and their families are going to have to be more cautious.


    That Sucks (none / 0) (#167)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:57:20 AM EST
    Lots of things suck :) (none / 0) (#188)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 12:45:16 PM EST
    I always expected it though because my husband predicted years ago that it would eventually happen.  Happens in any war. They collect Intel.

    Given all the back and forth ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 04:05:49 PM EST
    ... we've recently had on the subject of police shootings of unarmed citizens and residents, some here might find it worthy of note that California Gov. Jerry Brown has just signed into law the following two measures:

    • SB 227, which prohibits prosecutors from convening a grand jury in those cases involving alleged excessive or deadly force by law enforcement officers; and

    • SB 411, which formally affirms the right of individuals to record the actions of law enforcement officers if the officers are a public place, or if the persons making the recordings have a right to be in that place.


    Should that be "secret" grand jury (none / 0) (#112)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:10:54 PM EST
    for SB 227?

    Probably. (none / 0) (#185)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 12:10:52 PM EST
    As I understand it, the premise for the measure is to prevent what happened in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, and instead go the route of a preliminary hearing.

    More Police Are Killed in States With More Guns (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 04:29:43 PM EST
    Their findings: The No. 1 cause of on-the-job death for police is motor vehicle accidents. But gun deaths came second, they reported in the American Journal of Public Health.

    "We were not surprised to find that firearm ownership is associated with homicide rates," Swedler told NBC news.

    "The big surprise finding to me was the differences in homicide rates among officers in states with the lowest gun ownership compared to states with highest gun ownership," he added.

    "Officers are three times more likely to be murdered on the job in high gun ownership states in comparison with low gun ownership states. That was the big wow for me."  

    This is very surprising to me:

    Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Mississippi and Montana were the states with the highest rates of both gun ownership and for law enforcement killings. Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island had the lowest per-capita rate for both.

    "Hypothetically, officers might be put at increased risk if they are more frequently encountering violent criminals, but our data doesn't find that to be the case," he said. "We find that officers are at an increased risk for being killed the more frequently they encounter guns in public settings."


    Really???? (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:30:07 PM EST
    "We find that officers are at an increased risk for being killed the more frequently they encounter guns in public settings."

    Talk about stating the obvious.

    But the real nutso comment is:

    "Hypothetically, officers might be put at increased risk if they are more frequently encountering violent criminals

    So the claim is that NON violent NON criminals who own guns kill police???

    As Gump said: "Stupid is as stupid does."

    You couldn't make this stuff up.


    No, the claim is (none / 0) (#105)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:48:18 PM EST
    That officers might be at risk with violent criminals with guns than without.

    Do try to keep up.


    It says what it says (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:00:59 PM EST
    "Officers are three times more likely to be murdered on the job in high gun ownership states in comparison with low gun ownership states. That was the big wow for me." ....

    "Hypothetically, officers might be put at increased risk if they are more frequently encountering violent criminals, but our data doesn't find that to be the case," he said. "We find that officers are at an increased risk for being killed the more frequently they encounter guns in public settings."

    That clearly says that they aren't being put at increased risk from criminals...yet risk is increased when the encounter guns in public. Now since violent criminals are not the cause then the only group left is the non criminal public.

    That is pure BS PC blather babble.


    The more frequently they encounter (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:03:49 PM EST
    guns in public settings.

    What part of that don't you understand?


    Thank you for making my point (2.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 07:14:47 AM EST
    The claim is that non criminal citizens have more guns and shoot more police.

    Criminals do not take gun classes, have a background check, get finger printed, pay a fee and get a concealed carry license.

    What the article actually proves is that states with more gun crime by criminals causes non criminals to buy and REGISTER their weapons.

    BTW - Do you remember telling me that correlation is not causation??? Do you not understand that correlation is the only proof re MMGW.



    No, the point is that (none / 0) (#147)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 07:26:53 AM EST
    It's more dangerous for cops to be around people with guns.  Why you have to come up with bizzare, twisted rationalization so to get around this obvious fact I'll leave to the specialists opinion abnormal psychology, if any, around here.

    Keep fulminating, Jim.


    No, it is not more dangerous to be around (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:32:10 AM EST
    people with guns.

    It is more dangerous to be around criminal people with guns.

    Must I always remind you that the parsing game has been known about for a long long time?

    There's glory for you!'
    'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
    'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
    'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'
    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--that's all.' Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carrol

    Sure it is (none / 0) (#164)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:42:30 AM EST
    Heck, having a gun in the household increases the danger to those around it.

    Study after study seems to point to a similar conclusion: More guns mean more unnatural death.

    A new survey in the Annals of Internal Medicine narrows down some of the causal relationship between guns and death by finding conclusively that having a gun in your home makes you more likely to successfully attempt suicide. The authors of the survey also found with a lesser degree of certainty that people with guns in their home are more likely to be the victims of a homicide.


    Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in an editorial on the survey that the evidence is "overwhelming" on the increased risk of successful suicide if there's a gun in the home. Hemenway also points to the increased risk of violence against women in particular.

    "Bringing a gun into the home substantially increases the risk for suicide for all family members and the risk for women being murdered in the home," Hemenway wrote. "Evidence not included in their review also indicates that a gun in the home increases the risk for homicide victimization for others in society. This increased risk may be due to someone in the family shooting others (for example, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting) or the gun being stolen and used by criminals. Obtaining a firearm not only endangers those living in the home but also imposes substantial costs on the community."

    Hemenway's conclusion is backed up by several recent studies, including those showing that the U.S. has the both highest gun death rate and highest gun ownership rate in the Western world, as well as another that showed that the states with the strictest gun ownership laws have the lowest rate of gun deaths.


    Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.(Ed)

    You do seem to be commenting from the other side of the Looking-Glass today...................


    Jesus F Christ... (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:01:23 AM EST
    ...do you two have to ruin every single thread here.  It's pathetic.  Some say get a room, I say get your own GD blog and leave us the F alone.

    Perhaps a room was too much to ask (5.00 / 5) (#170)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:18:15 AM EST
    I could ask Jeralyn for a dedicated thread, "TL's Own He Shall Not be Named Open Thread" similar to those for He Who Shall Not be Named of Florida fame. That way everyone that wants to discuss silly and crazy with a 10 year Pensacola Naval Air Station busboy can easily find an outlet.

    I'll go you one step further, (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:26:34 AM EST
    Seriously, I think we should have several dedicated, permanent, ongoing, threads reserved for subjects, that, while appropriate, and interesting to some commenters here, sometimes seem out-of-place when the main topic is something else. For example, if the topic being discussed is very serious, such as the Ferguson and/or, Baltimore flare-ups, and a majority of people are deep into debating this subject, interjecting a sentence about the "final episode" of some popular TV miniseries just seems out of place, and doesn't do either subject justice.

    Now, whenever I've mentioned something like this in the past, you just know I was beaten half to death with, "get your own blog!" "It's an open thread," "who appointed you Blog Monitor," and, naturally, Censorship!" But, that's just missing the point altogether.

    TV shows and movies ARE extremely interesting for a lot of people, and, of course, they should be fully discussed and talked about. But, discussing "Trayvon Martin," and, "last night's  episode of Hannibal," mixed together, diminishes both discussions.

    Am I wrong?


    IMO... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:57:44 AM EST
    Movie talk doesn't take away from anything, same with cooking, or gardening.  Jim and his siamese ruin every discussion they post in.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#177)
    by sj on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:39:42 AM EST
    I think you are kind of wrong, Shooter. When the thread does have a dedicated topic, the discussion may veer off a bit, but whole new topics are not typically introduced.

    Discussions of TV series mixed in with that of the Baltimore "flare-ups" is the very definition of an Open Thread. So I'm good with that, even though I do kind of like your idea of having a TV/movie dedicated thread.

    To be frank, if not for the blog-clogging I would also like the 200 comment limit just fine. I think that limit is because of the "older technology" but it still works for me because it keeps things manageable somehow.

    But wouldn't it be nice to be able to drag and drop those annoying back-and-forths into a completely different space? Preferably the bit bucket.


    LOl, "kind of wrong" isn't quite (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:52:54 PM EST
    "totally wrong." Sort of reminds me of Miracle Max in The Princess Bride. You remember? "Almost dead" isn't as bad as totally dead, which means, almost alive, or something like that.

    Anyway, what I'm trying to say (quite poorly, I would add) is that we've got a good thing going at TL, but with a limit of 200 posts it's quite easy to mess it up. My problem is that, in trying to think of ways to improve it, it comes across as me dictating something, or another. And, that's just not true. We all agree that a couple of commenters can screw things up very easily for everyone else. But, with any attempt to offer some useful criticism, its met with a whole bunch of phony, moral indignation, and thus, nothing gets changed, except the complaining continues.

    Look, I'm down with commenting once or twice every couple of weeks. Not that anyone misses my contributions here but I can't be the only one who watches two people (and, they vary from time to time) hog 50% of the commenting maximums, saying exactly the same things over and over and over again. Since any suggestion I've made is usually met with instant, knee jerk negativity, and, of course, no alternate suggestions, I tried something different.

    I said, instead of any kind of "rules," can't we just try to instill some simple manners into our posts? You know, you wouldn't say 90% of the things said in a blog if you were face to face with another poster. And, guess what? The come-back to that suggestion was along the lines of, " So, who are you, "Morality Marty?" It's just a trait of un-monitored blog commenting sections; Being as big an azzhole as one can be seems to be a pre-requisite.

    I understand what you're saying about what constitutes an "open thread." Yet, with 200 potential comments, and commenters, taking the concept to its farthest extremes you'd have the freedom to start 200 different topics. Now, that's an exaggeration, but, you get what I'm saying. And, if we don't want rules, and suggesting some simple social manners and respect is met with ridicule, you end up with what we've got now: Jim & Mordi replaying their schtick, ad nauseum, for 60-80 posts. And, add to that 40-50 automatic post-scripts by Ga6th telling us again and again how stupid the "Rubes" are, and you end up with what nobody is happy with.

    I don't care if 100% of my ideas are rejected. But, at least, some commenters should offer suggestions of their own, and, not just reject, reject, reject.

    Anyway, thanks for putting up with this rant. It's pretty hard to express exactly what you're trying to say in this format. And, if, like some anti-social types here, you want to simply knock down what someone else is trying to express, well, this is the perfect medium to do it. Maybe some people like the stand-up comic routines, the one-liner put-downs, snark-balls, zingers, and, one word comments. Maybe my assumption that a blog site hosted by educated attorneys would be a stimulating, enlightening experience. I'm leaving the country for a while, hopefully I'll chill out, and learn to love Animal House food fights.

    Then again, maybe I was wrong, and they're right.

    Maybe, maybe, maybe.


    I'll go another step (none / 0) (#180)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    no more annoying, bandwidth devouring cut and paste articles posted on ANY threads that anyone here could just as easily link to..


    If you want to post a quotation from William Butler Yeats or Lord Buckley in a discussion thread that's a horse of a different color. We can all use a little inspiration or moment of levity on occasion..

    But, no one wants to read any more long excerpts from pseudo-scientific articles written by out-of-work, born-again plumbing supply salesmen who've definitively disproven the existence of manmade greenhouse gases.




    ty, as the kids say. (none / 0) (#169)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:05:48 AM EST
    88 years later, Nan Britton is proved right. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 05:06:56 PM EST
    In 1927, four years after the death of President Warren Harding, she had caused a huge public uproar with the publication of her book "The President's Daughter," when she first went public with her claim that her daughter Elizabeth Ann Blaesing (1919-2005) was the man's love child.

    According to Ms. Britton in her book, contrary to her paramour's assurances that their daughter would always be provided for, there were no such provisions in his will for her care after his passing.

    But when she approached Harding's family after his death and told them about Elizabeth, they told her to get lost, hence her decision to write the book and make money to support their daughter that way. For years afterward, Britton and her daughter were ridiculed, belittled and ostracized.

    But recent DNA testing now provides conclusive evidence that Harding was indeed Elizabeth's biological father, belying longstanding counterclaims by Harding's family that this could not possibly be, because he had supposedly been rendered sterile by a case of the mumps.

    Warren Harding may have been a mediocre president, but he sure had a way with women. Evidence of his womanizing ways had been suppressed posthumously by his widow and family for decades.

    Only recently have historians begun to recount the man's rather prolific love life, aided and abetted by a few less-uptight Harding family members. In fact, it was Harding's grandnephew who arranged for DNA testing in this instance, because he believed Ms. Britton's claims and sought to prove them correct once and for all.


    My mother came across (none / 0) (#58)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 05:20:56 PM EST
    her book, The President's Daughter back in the 70s, and I found it an interesting read.

    It was touted by, of all people, H. L. Mencken.


    I found this extraordinary video (none / 0) (#56)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 05:13:23 PM EST
    Just to show how far RWNJ talking points have drifted in 50 years, while governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the law legalizing abortion.

    He also signed into law the Mulford Act, which outlawed "open carry" of firearms.  The author of that bill was Assemblyman Donald Mulford.  Here is a video of Mr. Mulford explaining why America needs tougher gun laws.  He cites the "well-regulated militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as part of his argument.

    The gun laws proposed by Mr. Mulford are far stricter than any currently proposed by the most loony-left, anti-gun, liberal gun grabber.  Much of the argument boils down to the terrifying notion that Black people were purchasing guns.  

    He laments that some of "those people" had come to the airport to pick up Betty Shabazz, widow of Malcolm X, that they did so while armed, and there was nothing the authorities could do about it because there was no law against it.

    What are the betting odds. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:00:16 PM EST
    What are the odds on Hillary come 2017 being in the big house versus the White House?

    Longer than (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:12:37 PM EST
    ...the odds that you will be struck by lightning while sleeping in your bed.

    At a trillion to one, it's worth betting a penny.  Take the bet, but please play responsibly.  Don't wager more than you can afford to lose.


    I don't envision Hillary Clinton in (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:36:18 PM EST
    the Michigan stadium in 2017 b

    Well Played (none / 0) (#92)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:12:20 PM EST
    zero (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:13:12 PM EST
    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:23:54 PM EST
    Republicans have been saying this for 25 years. Don't you ever get new talking points?

    All you're proving that is the GOP is completely clueless and unable to process facts.


    I would say they are about the same (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:24:07 PM EST
    If not he can always join Megyn Kelly (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    Oh, man (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:34:28 PM EST
    That is so lame. It's so lame it made me laugh at Rand Paul.

    Awsum (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:51:12 PM EST
    Rand's campaign is a total mess, and as a matter of fact, I didn't know he had anybody left in his campaign to make commercials who are not currently under indictment!

    Much to your dismay (none / 0) (#71)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:40:53 PM EST
    She is strongly favored to be living in the White House at all wagering sites.

    Sooner (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 06:50:54 PM EST
    or later it is going to dawn on them that there is nothing there. But then again, they still think there was something to Whitewater despite three investigations that came up with nothing.

    Hillary is still the favorite (none / 0) (#108)
    by ragebot on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:01:53 PM EST
    but just as she is slipping in the polls she is also slipping as the favorite.  I am still standing by my prediction a couple of days ago that she will not get the nomination.  Most likely she will drop out.  Clearly she has made new critics in the intelligence community for her cavalier attitude towards intel.  They seem to view things in the light that Hillary knew or should have known there was sensitive intel on her server and acted accordingly.

    Time to break out the pop corn and watch what happens.


    You would get great odds on that bet (none / 0) (#115)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:19:53 PM EST
    My bet would be that she wins the Presidency, which at the short price available isn't worth the bet.

    As for the current odds, she's even money or odds on everywhere to win against the entire field.


    Hill is the fav at even money now (none / 0) (#122)
    by ragebot on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 11:26:51 PM EST
    but in April she was 1/4, quite a drop.  Like I posted she has lost ground in the polls and with the bookies.  Not a good trend.

    You should (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:22:38 PM EST
    realize that the IG is a NSA guy who wants to classify everything. I find it interesting that people who were screaming about transparency the other day are now all of a sudden embracing the NSA and their secrecy.

    Please call us, Abdul, ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 07:56:30 PM EST
    ... when you finally return to planet Earth.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#86)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:00:14 PM EST
    Al Gore is exploring an entry into the race

    "Hillary only used her personal account for unclassified email. No information in her emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them," campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said in a statement to supporters Wednesday.

    But a State Department official told Fox News that the intelligence community inspector general, who raised the most recent concerns about Clinton's emails, made clear that at least one of those messages contained information that only could have come from the intelligence community.

    "If so, they would have had to come in with all the appropriate classification markings," the official said.


    Not (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:07:10 PM EST
    necessarily that they would have come in with the markings if the intelligence community didn't consider them classified when they sent them. Not everything that comes from the intelligence community is classified and Fox very often gets things wrong.

    And the Tennessean is also reporting that Al Gore has said no, he is not getting into the race. You really need to start getting better sources for your information because it seems to be mostly wrong.


    No (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:10:26 PM EST
    hes not


    Former Vice President Al Gore is not exploring another run for president, said a Gore spokeswoman and two sources close to Gore.

    Actually (none / 0) (#135)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 05:55:06 AM EST
    He is

    Of course he is (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 08:18:06 AM EST
    and Obama created ISIS.  And there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

    Good Lord! (none / 0) (#85)
    by Politalkix on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 08:47:29 PM EST
    Undisclosed Podcast (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:21:33 PM EST
    Even if you are no longer interested in the Adnan Sayed case explored in Serial, the latest episode of Rabia Chaudry's podcast Undisclosed, entitled 'Charm City' is an excellent rundown of several cases of wrongful convictions in Baltimore based on police manufactured evidence. I think it is fascinating to hear the details of how exactly this happens.

    And it also made me thank the deities once again for Jeralyn and her fellow defense attorneys who battle this stuff day after day. Truly doing the work of the angels.

    I had the same Jeralynish (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 09:26:45 PM EST
    feeling watching the HBO doc The Newburgh Sting about the railroading and entrapment of four guys for terrorism.



    Just the facts, Mam (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:05:14 PM EST
    After years of holding herself above the law, telling lie after lie, and months of flat-out obstruction, HIllary Clinton has finally produced to the FBI her server and three thumb drives. Apparently, the server has been professionally wiped clean of any useable information, and the thumb drives contain only what she selectively culled. Myriad criminal offenses apply to this conduct.

    Anyone with knowledge of government workings has known from inception that Hillary's communications necessarily would contain classified and national security related information. Thanks to the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, it is now beyond dispute that she had ultra-Top Secret information and more that should never have left the State Department.

    Equal to Ms. Clinton's outrageous misconduct is that of the entire federal law enforcement community. It has long chosen to be deliberately blind to these flagrant infractions of laws designed to protect national security--laws for which other people, even reporters, have endured atrocious investigations, prosecutions, and some served years in prison for comparatively minor infractions. During the same years that Hillary was communicating about national security and world affairs off the grid, the Department of Justice has had no qualms threatening news reporters and prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act.

    It's high time for a special prosecutor to be named to conduct a full investigation into Ms. Clinton's likely commission of multiple felonies, including a conspiracy with Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and possibly others, to violate multiple laws.


    The entire federal law enforcement community (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 11:08:36 PM EST
    and the liberal media are once again  all in on the conspiracy to keep the shocking truth about Hillary from the American public..

    This is like Benghazi, the recently squelched report on the outrageous actions of Planned Parenthood, and the climate science hoax..


    et al (none / 0) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 07:19:11 AM EST
    I love watching you folks run in circles whenever the sins of your mother hen are mentioned.

    The question is....when will Obama decide she is a liability and cut her loose???


    She doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 07:23:39 AM EST
    work for Obama anymore silly.

    No, what makes me laugh is the GOP and their silly conspiracy theories and Clinton Rules. The entire Bush Administration sets up a secret server (Hillary's wasn't secret btw) and that server is under subpoena in a criminal investigation and they destroy the server. Hillary hands hers in. But of course Hillary did something wrong in your minds while George W. was pure and holy.

    Jim, this is why the GOP has become a national laughingstock. Conspiracy theories are all they have these days. So if it's all you have then it's all you have and you go with it. ROTFLMAO.


    You folks just crank out (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    one John Birch Society conspiracy theory after another..

    The entire federal law enforcement community..lol

    This level of acute paranoia is why many don't want you folks to have any guns at all. And I tend to agree.

    Seriously, you're the last people on the planet, next to ISIS, who should be armed.


    When you can say eactly what law or laws (none / 0) (#148)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 07:31:31 AM EST
    was or were broken by Hillary receiving information in her e-mail that wasn't labelled classified at the time she received it, that would be a good start.

    Sorry to burst your bubble for you Jim.

    Better luck next time.


    Jim (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 07:34:15 AM EST
    hasn't gotten the memo of what to say yet. Now he's supposed to be talking about Huma and Michele Bachmann's wacko conspiracy theories.

    This op-ed brings new meaning to the (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 03:10:12 PM EST
    words "overwrought" and "florid."  It even reads as breathless, which doesn't lend much in the way of credibility.

    Would be interested in PeterG's insight on Ms. Powell, but I have to say that her invoking Fox News and NewsMax is pretty enlightening.

    ::rolling eyes::


    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:12:14 PM EST
    Of course. I knew when nothing was found this was going to be the next thing the GOP was going to say. Since there's nothing there must be SOMETHING.

    All of a sudden now you're talking about police tactics but it was fine to shoot unarmed African Americans.

    Republicans make me laugh.

    So now they are trying to gin up yet another wasteful fishing expedition.

    Glad you've conceded the presidential election already Jim.


    It (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:16:33 PM EST
    gets even better. It's from Donald Trump's son in law's paper. ROTFLMAO.

    Come on. It's Jim. (none / 0) (#117)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:23:48 PM EST
    I know. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:29:56 PM EST
    He's hysterical.

    This reminds me of the ending (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38:20 PM EST
    of Raiders of the Last Ark:

    "She's committed myriad offenses."

    "What are they, specifically?"

    "MYRIAD ............offenses."


    Basebrawl Friday (none / 0) (#190)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    Marco Rubio pining for (none / 0) (#192)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:26:01 PM EST
    a 1967 Chevrolet.   In reaction to the US marines raising the American flag over the newly reopened Embassy in Cuba- after 54 years; and an address by Secretary Kerry, the first Secretary of State to visit Cuba since 1945, Rubio vowed to abolish diplomatic relations with Cuba if elected and restore Cuba to the terrorist list.  

    Yesterday's man, however, has company: Jeb! Cruz and Lindsey. But, it is early in the day, he will surely be joined by all the Trumpettes,  Trump may have read the Pew poll which reports that 75 percent of Americans (and a majority of Republicans)  support re-establishing relationships with Cuba, so I expect him to be the outlier.

    Yes (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    haha. I can the Donald talking about Cuban cigars and how awesome it is going to be to have trade with Cuba. He probably sees a real money making opportunity in that one.

    He'll put a smile on his face and the rest of the GOP will look like sour faced fundamentalists.


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#195)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:49:50 PM EST
    We could create a logo for the tres amigos:


    or just



    To Put in Perspective... (none / 0) (#199)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 03:16:32 PM EST
    ...the last U.S. secretary of state to visit Cuba was Edward Stettinius on March 9, 1945, while WWII was still being fought.

    The final battles of the European Theatre of World War II as well as the German surrender to the Western Allies and the Soviet Union took place in late April and early May 1945. LINK

    The surrender of the Empire of Japan was announced by Imperial Japan on August 15 and formally signed on September 2, 1945, bringing the hostilities of World War II to a close.  LINK

    Grow up children, if we can befriend the instigators of WWII, we can most certainly befriend our neighbor who poses zero threat.


    Erick Erickson, meet your base (none / 0) (#201)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 04:31:38 PM EST
    The circus continues. Who the heck did he think reads Red State? The Dalai Lama?

    Rachel tonight is doing (none / 0) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 07:11:54 PM EST
     special show tonight featuring old video of all the republican candidates.  Yesterday was the democrats.  I caught a bit of it.   It was pretty funny.  Considering the republican field, Trump, Bushes, Paul's "et al", the breadth and depth of crazy old video supply seems pretty mind bending.

    Should be good.

    Breaking the SOFA would've caused more (none / 0) (#205)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 08:04:58 AM EST
    problems than it would've solved, Jim.

    It was easy for the non-political advisers to say keep the troops in, because they wouldn't have had to deal with the consequences, as Obams would've had to if he left them in.

     Let's face it Jim, nobody wants American troops in Iraq now, and that's one of the reasons people voted for him in 2008 instead of Bomb Iran John McCain, they were sick of it, just as folks around here are sick of your chicken hawk ways.

    Let's be very clear about something (none / 0) (#206)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 09:03:29 AM EST
    thereare two different "concerns" being voiced in this thread..  One is about chattering and blog clogging which is tedious but so what.  It's not our job.
    The other is a continuing droning whine about something else entirely.  Content.
    So do me a favor, read this-

    Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

    Got that?  Because if there is any part of "all topics welcome". Anyone is not understanding I will try to help.

    What it means is, if you would like to start a subthread filled with fretful rambling concern troll comments bemoaning those inconsiderate people who insist on polluting your perfect world with comments on subjects that are of no concern to you - but you inexplicably feel compelled to read - while at the same time remaining blissfully and rather hilariously unaware that no one is interested in your fretting about comments you are not interested in, go for it.
    Because THATS what all topics welcome means.
    Hope this helps.
    I would appreciate you not rating this comment so it stays at the bottom of the thread.

    You're conflating again (none / 0) (#207)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 10:52:56 AM EST
    Mordiggian, but thank you for making my point.

    It was easy for the non-political advisers to say keep the troops in, because they wouldn't have had to deal with the consequences, as Obams would've had to if he left them in.

    His military and intelligence folks gave him the facts... Stay or bad things will happen. But he wanted to please his base so he cut and ran. And bad things have and are happening.

    And here I keep hearing that Prez's are elected to lead.

    Study some history. Go back to France not acting promptly when Hitler entered the Rhineland. Go back to Chamberlain trying to negotiate with Hitler for "Peace in our time."  

    How'd that work out?

    Try and understand that the goal of radical islamists is to establish a world wide Caliphate. You may think that foolish but look at how many people they have killed so far...and Iran will have a ICBM deliverable nuke in a few years. Read what bin Ladin said. And don't be confused over this Sunni Shia conflict. Whoever wins will turn and fight the West.

    When fighting is necessary it is best to do so as quickly and hard as possible. Obama, for whatever reason, doesn't want to win. His strategy is making us the dope in the radical's "rope a dope" strategy. They have studied Vietnam and are executing perfectly.

    Now, I am done with this discussion. You want to protect Obama's legacy. I want to protect the country.

    "I want to protect the country" (none / 0) (#208)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 11:52:25 AM EST
    By posting lies on a blog from the comfort of my LazyBoy.


    9/11 (none / 0) (#209)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 11:52:50 AM EST
    That was some protecting the country.

    Destabilizing the entire ME by invading Iraq.

    What's the neocon encore? Most sane individuals would rather not find out.

    Jim I have read some history (none / 0) (#210)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 12:09:29 PM EST
    and apparently your Fox News version of events isn't very accurate:

    If you're saying, "Sure, he was popular until he sold out to f*cking Hitler!" you're wrong. After he made the deal in Munich his popularity shot up to 68 percent--20 points higher than what Barack Obama gets right now in the USA. Above all else, the people did not want to get into another freaking war.

    That's one thing some historians are trying remind everyone about Chamberlain these days. Making the deal with Hitler looks bad now, because we know how the movie ends. Not so easy at the time, when Chamberlain was at the head of a country whose military was in no shape to fight, and the only ones who had offered to stand with him if he threw down against the Nazis were the freaking French. There were no good options on the table.

    So instead, he came back home from making the deal with Hitler having bought a period of peace that he spent rapidly building the military that would eventually be strong enough to repel the Nazis. And by the way, the main reason they were able to mobilize so quickly was because of an earlier national program to modernize the nation's factories. A program put in place by... Neville Chamberlain.

    The debate rages among historians (and will probably rage in the comments) but the guy probably deserves better than to have his name thrown around as the political equivalent of "p*ssy."

    Gesh, Mordiggian (none / 0) (#211)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    You sure can repeat and repeat the same point.

    Everyone understands that people do not want a war.

    The issue is, how do we stay out of a really big one.

    If France had reacted with strength Hitler had advised his military to pull back.

    If England had said no, we won't agree with you, Hitler wouldn't have immediately attacked England. And England would have had the same amount of time to prepare. As to your link, vulgar words do not add cachet or insure accuracy. And worse, it avoids the point.

    Strong resistance sends the bully a message. Givining in

    Gesh, Mordiggian (none / 0) (#212)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    You sure can repeat and repeat the same point.

    Everyone understands that people do not want a war.

    The issue is, how do we stay out of a really big one.

    If France had reacted with strength Hitler had advised his military to pull back.

    If England had said no, we won't agree with you, Hitler wouldn't have immediately attacked England. And England would have had the same amount of time to prepare. As to your link, vulgar words do not add cachet or insure accuracy. And worse, it avoids the point.

    Strong resistance sends the bully a message. Giving in encourages them.

    And Chamberlain made even more mistakes. While he poured money into the airforce and navy, he shorted the army.

    Under the "limited liability" doctrine, the Army suffered massive cuts while the Navy, and above all the RAF experienced a massive expansion.

    Obama is doing the same....except he is gutting the entire military.

    Gershwin, Jim (none / 0) (#213)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 01:29:08 PM EST
    As the article points out, the people didn't want wrt, and France was the only ally they had at at point in time,and there were other occasions earlier, like when the Rheinland was re- militarized that Hitler said the same thing about the French
    getting him to back down if they had responded differently, so I guess you can also blame French for not responding much earlier as well.

    After all, blame is important to you in winning your arguments here, and to deprive you of that would make you very poor indeed,

    And, again, Hitler was the leader of a technically respectable nation that had much more in the way of  resources than oil sold on the black market and disaffected Islamacists around the world that are the main strengths of ISIS.

    Your fear of an ISIS infection spreading over the Middle East is irrational, and at has lead you to another specimen of an  irrational chain of specious logic that you've again entertained us with today.

    As for your last snipe about Obama gutting the Military, where do you want him to send American troops to fight and die again?

    Strong countries don't have to fight (none / 0) (#214)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    I am not so short sighted that I think ISIS is the only radical islamist group. Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood come immediately to mind. Here in the US CAIR is an un-indicted co conspirator in an Hamas funding case. And rapidly growing so-called "lone wolves" actions abound... And then we have Iran. A country proven to be the largest state supported terrorism. Not to forget their vow to nuke Israel and death to America.

    You should also note that it was around a year between the time Chamberlain proclaimed peace in our time and the war started.

    But all of this is trivial. The point is that Chamberlain tried to negotiate, surrendered and was attacked.

    Obama has tried to negotiate, and like Chamberlain, surrendered.

    We can expect to be attacked.

    When has Iran vowed to Nuke Israel? (none / 0) (#215)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    As for the rest of your conspiracy theory, you don't bother to keep track of which players are Shia and which ones are Sunni, so your analysis is worth nothing, as usual.

    How could have missed this?? (none / 0) (#217)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 08:09:45 AM EST



    And I have lots more.

    And did you also miss this??


    Read what bin Ladin said. And don't be confused over this Sunni Shia conflict. Whoever wins will turn and fight the West.

    You are like a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

    That's a cynic, according to Oscar Wilde (none / 0) (#218)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 08:15:11 AM EST
    But even he would be left speechless at your attempt to replicate the Faux Noise wingnut message machine, Jim.

    Where do you want to sent American troops to kill and be killed, Jim?  If you can't answer that question, perhaps it would be cynical to say that's because you know only 25% of the public sgrees with you.