Tributes and Open Thread

Other than work, the only thing I've thought about today is Glenn Frey's untimely passing. Keith Urban posted this really heartfelt tribute on his Facebook page. Love the piano. It's already been viewed 12 million times. And Bruce Springsteen played a live tribute to him in Chicago. The audience sings along, and check out all the lights in the audience starting around the 3'15" mark.

The comment I see repeated the most, at so many sites, "The Eagles wrote the soundtrack to my life." They certainly wrote mine in the 70's.

RIP, Glenn Frey. I think this is the only time in the 13 year history of TalkLeft I've written two RIP posts for one person. I won't be surprised if I write a third tomorrow, I'm just so, so shocked by his death and feel terrible he suffered so much pain for so many years.[More...]

There are some really nice tributes around, including from JD Souther, Don Felder, Randy Meisner, and as I wrote yesterday, Don Henley and Bob Seger.

Showtime is re-airing the Eagles' 2013 documentary. I watched it at least six times when it was released. I highly recommend it.

Update: The Aspen Daily News has a lot of tributes -- I really like this one by Barney Wyckoff who used to own the Barney Wyckoff Gallery in Aspen. I know I was at one of the three shows he mentions, I just can't remember which one right now.

Update: Glenn Frye and Jimmy Buffett singing Margaritaville at the Aspen High School in 1977 with the "lost cocaine" verse -- around 2'30" minutes, as Hunter Thompson comes in the room and sits down. ("G-d I still feel pain, wish I had some cocaine, but that's been gone since early this morn"). Buffett adlibs and sings"But I know it's all Hunter's fault" -- the audience claps.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome. I won't sully this post with references to Republicans, but you are free to comment on whatever you like.

< ISIS Eulogizes Jihadi John, Says Joined al-Nusra Before ISIS | Rudy Giuliani? Spare Us >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:09:26 AM EST
    Jimmy Kimmel gives Jeb Bush his own Trump-like troupe of dancing girls

    He's pretty good!
    He's OK!
    You voted for his brother anyway!

    He's an option!


    Ted Cruz cannot be allowed to be President. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:13:13 AM EST
    Heard on a newscast this morning from Ted Cruz. "I am Christian first, an American second, ...."

    Not the guy I want with access to nuke codes. I want a President who is an American first, everything else is secondary. A president who embraces his religion over his country is bad, bad news.

    I can see Trump spinning that into (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:19:54 AM EST
    I was born Canadian, but I am Christian first, an American second, ...."

    1) God, 2) family, 3) country (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:35:41 AM EST
    That was always the ordered political trinity I heard from my most devout acquaintances and basketball teammates when I was attending the largest Christian High School in the U.S. in 1984.

    I want somebody who says (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 11:52:18 AM EST
    I'm a human being first.

    Too many people think a REAL American is person who espouses the very things Cruz espouses.

    Ted Nugent is fond of reminding everybody about what an "American" he is for crissakes.


    I just said American. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    I know how those "Real" Americans can be. And Ted Nugent is just a jackass.

    The GOP (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:24:09 PM EST
    is abjectly stupid not to find a way to hide Nugent and shut him up.

    However, I am enjoying his aiding and abetting destruction of the GOP.


    Somebody brought him up (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 02:49:14 PM EST
    again yesterday and I was forced to do a little googling..

    Courtney Love, though probably not the world's most reliable witness, isn't quite masochistic enough to make up that story out of whole cloth about her twelve-year-old self and "Uncle Ted"..

    And you're right, Planet Wingnut is That gd stupid that they still think he's credible enough to be a quest and bolster the conservative case on Hannity.


    I have a guitarist friend that is currently (none / 0) (#92)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:25:48 PM EST
    amusing himself in the comment thread of Nugent's web site. Apparently calling Nugent a chickenhawk a*h** will get the site lackey to insult you in various colorful ways.  Have fun!

    They should try calling him (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:29:26 PM EST
    a singularly sh*tty guitar player--which he is-- and see what responses that gets.

    Clarification: Nugent being the (none / 0) (#94)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    sh*tty player (not your friend).

    Oh I am sure he threw that in t here too! (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    I guess Cruz isn't planning on getting (none / 0) (#95)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:31:36 PM EST
    the GOP Jewish vote.

    Just made appointments (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    For shingles and pneumonia vaccines.

    Good (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Zorba on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:29:19 PM EST
    Very good.  Stay well, Howdy!

    I just made an appointment... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:41:42 PM EST
    for a straight shot of NOLA funk w/ Glen David Andrews & New Orleans Suspects tonight at The Cutting Room.

    I got the fever, and the only cure is some Big Bad Brass.


    FYI... (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:57:33 PM EST
    ... I will be plagiarizing that comment in my real life, that was GD funny.

    Go right ahead... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    I ripped off Christopher Walken, in the infamous "More Cowbell" SNL skit.

    I Don't Remember Walken Needing... (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 02:47:45 PM EST
    ...a straight shot, only cowbell.

    Does sound like (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:50:19 PM EST
    More fun than an injection

    But an injection it was... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 08:13:27 AM EST
    soul medicine in the mainline my man.  Just what the witch doctor ordered...

    The Suspects are stoopid tight, in the great tradition of The Meters or The JB's.  And that Glen David Andrews can work a stuffy crowd into a near frenzy...28 degrees be damned, he took the horn section off the stage, out the club, and onto 32nd Street for an impromptu mini-block party.  New Orleans Swing stops the crosstown traffic.


    I have not seen a live brass section (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 11:59:02 AM EST
    Since I lived in Atkanta and we sometimes went to black churches after the disco,



    Attention, all liberal bloggers and posters: (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    "13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi," Michael Bay's attempt at recent historical revisionism which opened this past week to generally scathing reviews -- as do most all of Michael Bay's movies -- has appropriately tanked at the box office, and Fox News wants you to know that it's all your fault, dammit.

    So, please take the time to give yourselves a pat on the back, even though you likely did nothing more than roll your eyes at the film's trailer when it appeared on TV in the weeks immediately preceding its release. Because nevertheless, in the eyes of the Hugh Hewitt-like wingbats, Cheney-style crackpots and Palinesque divas who inhabit the right-wing's parallel universe, you are indeed a fearsome beast to behold.


    Fox fans are still trying (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:57:38 PM EST
    to figure out why the Transformers aren't fighting ISIS for us..

    Led by General Ted Nugent.


    My kids were into ... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 10:24:12 PM EST
    ... the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers when they were younger. I wonder whatever happened to the Power Rangers? They probably morphed into Wahhabis and joined ISIS.

    It's worth (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:49:27 PM EST
    Googling the video of Bay on Bill OReilly.

    Talk about Double Doosh.


    I resisted the temptation (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:52:07 PM EST
    of a very ripped John Krasinski.

    Actually it was not that hard to resist on a weekend filled with Alan Rickman retrospectives...


    Better investment (none / 0) (#107)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:26:35 PM EST
    of time is "14 Hours," a 1951 film directed by Henry Hathaway, that is a real nail-bitter. A fourteen hour relationship between a distraught suicidal man (Richard Basehart) and a traffic cop (Paul Douglas) who tries to talk him down from the ledge of a tall building.  

    Yeah, but ... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 06:21:20 PM EST
    ... did Hillary Clinton talk Richard Basehart into climbing out on that ledge in the first place because, you know, Benghazi? Yeah, sure, she was all of three years old at the time but, hey, I saw "The Bad Seed" and these things do happen. I bet Michael Bay would likely be interested in tackling its remake.

    Gowdy is is campaigning for Rubio in IA. (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:36:44 PM EST
    To what result?

    3rd (none / 0) (#135)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:51:04 PM EST
    One that's laughable, probably. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 10:19:37 PM EST
    Yes...hilarity ensues (none / 0) (#152)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 06:51:27 AM EST
    I've watched too many old movies; (none / 0) (#150)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 06:19:39 AM EST
    I can picture both actor's faces without googling.

    But can you really watch too many old movies?


    Did it (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 07:09:23 PM EST
    ever dawn on the right wing of this country that after they've been spouting conspiracy theories for free about Benghazi for years that no one wanted to actually pay money to see some people act out the conspiracy theory? Besides you can see 11 hours of their conspiracy theories for free probably archived at CSPAN.

    It got one puny star... (none / 0) (#128)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:14:09 PM EST
    on Roger Ebert's movie review site, which is kept up by others, and still a very good site. And a dreadful review -
    Simply put, "13 Hours" is a pretty dreadful movie and while watching it, I sat there trying to figure out what kind of audience might actually go for it.

    The moire effect Palin's outfit (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 08:18:05 AM EST
    produced was outdone only by her previously mentioned Chihuahua   screech voice.  The Donald looked like a Stonehenge character.

    A reminder -- on negativity (2.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    I feel it's important .... because there's of course a fair amount of escalation going on..

    ..and everyone I'm sure has their own subjective opinion about what's negative and so on...

    "not beholden to...." is really the first shots fired here and "not beholden to...." is the mantra of a guy who thinks he's not going negative when he repeats "not beholden to..."

    In my opinion, just in one persons opinion, you can say "I think your idea is wrong," that's called disagreement....  but if i was arguing you don't actually own your idea and your idea is only the byproduct of an exchange of monies, I'd feel bad.

    Yes there's a difference between honest disagreement and the direct accusation of your opponent being corrupt.

    And bernie was accusing the Dem party of being corrupt from day one.

    So this is just a reminder.

    Yeah... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:19:07 PM EST
    ... I don't really need a lesson on civility form the clown that called liberals McCarthyists because they didn't agree with you.

    Shots (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    Were fired.

    Interesting numbers thus far (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 07:48:03 AM EST
    on GOP media buys and their current RCP average of the GOP vote

    Bush $58.8 million = 4.8%
    Rubio $32.6 million = 11.6%
    Cruz $4.2 million = 18.8%
    Trump $4 million = 34.8%

    Just (none / 0) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:05:40 AM EST
    guessing, but I imagine the amount of free publicity Trump has received from the news media dwarfs the rest of them.

    Bernie Sanders' plan (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:00:41 AM EST
    to beak up the big banks:

    One of the sharpest and clearest points of contrast between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton regards his desire to "break up" the largest Wall Street banks. According to Sanders, a bank that is too big to fail is too big to exist a theme he offered as the title of his major legislation on the subject.

    But Sanders has gone beyond offering dream legislation to suggest that if he is elected president he will achieve a bank breakup within one year, whether Congress likes it or not. It's a dramatic claim that, if true, would drastically elevate the stakes of a Democratic primary that is mostly being conducted against the backdrop of a likely Republican majority in the House.

    The bad news for Sanders (and the good news for Citigroup) is that it's almost certainly not true. There's considerable expert skepticism that Sanders could accomplish this through executive action alone, and essentially nobody thinks a commitment to do it within one year is credible. The fact that he would make this promise so casually encapsulates the combination of progressive ambition and sloppiness about details that we also saw from his health care plan.

    But even if Sanders can't pull off what he promises, the road he says he'll travel underscores what's likely one of the biggest differences with a theoretical President Clinton: who would get appointed to key financial regulatory posts. A Clinton administration would likely offer continuity with Obama's focus on the stability of the financial system, while a Sanders administration seems likely to feature a considerably tougher approach to enforcement that on its own might lead to a substantial decline in megabanks' economic and political significance.

    And whatever I think about any one corporation (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:53:25 AM EST
    I am not thrilled at the idea that one man thinks he can 'break it up' on his own authority as president.

    Maybe some people get excited about that prospect, but they better think long and hard about what they are advocating.


    I agree (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:00:02 AM EST
    For someone who champions working people, he seems very cavalier about the impact of breaking up banks and dismantling insurance companies.  The corporate executives of those companies will be just fine - but how many secretaries, janitors, facilities crew, analysts, HR, marketing, etc. will be in good shape after their company has just been shuttered by executive fiat?  He never seems to address that....

    Economies of scale (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ragebot on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    is a well excepted economic term.  Related to the big banks it means some functions have a lower cost as size increases.  One example would be IT; if one bank needs one PC for its IT function and it doubles in size it still may only need one guy in IT; while two banks of the same total size would nee two guys, same for janitors, secretaries, and lots of other functions.

    Where the problem arises is when a bigger bank requires new functions.  I am no Bernie fan but have to defend him here.  His reason to break up big banks is so some current functions big banks perform will no longer be needed.  I have my account at a credit union; which is a non profit.  They have lower rates for most things, but admittedly have stricter standards for loans and CCs so not every one can get them; but the losses are lower.

    On the other hand the big banks have very well paid employees who do things like credit default swaps.  This is one of the functions breaking up the big banks like Bernie wants would be eliminated; and I have to say I am all for that.  Same goes for a lot of other gambling operations big banks engage in.

    What concerns me is how the administration and congress seem to make things too complicated when trying to prevent big banks from gambling.  Sure things Dodd-Frank try and do it, and Glass-Segal before.  Problem is these laws are simply too big and complicated so often they don't do what they are suppose to do.

    On the other hand a much simpler plan to limit banks gambling has been proposed.  In simple terms it is "don't gamble with money you don't have".  If banks had to keep more money in reserves instead of gambling on things like CDFs or other risky bets it would not matter how big they were because they could not risk other peoples money.



    Besides which (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:14:30 AM EST
    that idea is exactly what scares people about socialism or communism...government is coming for your businesses.

    If he is running as a Socialist, great,he can make the defense and answer those fears. But he is trying to run as a Democrat.


    I wonder if Teddy Roosevelt heard all (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:35:14 PM EST
    these same arguments against overreach and going too far too fast and costing jobs and destabilizing markets and frightening the American people with his socialistic tendencies.

    I bet he did.


    Maybe that's why he lost (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    To another progressive in 1912 and smoked electorally?

    Woodrow Wilson was certainly many things. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:24:58 PM EST
    But progressive wasn't necessarily one of them. If he ultimately became one, it was because he was compelled by necessity and events, and not due to any personal sentiment on his part. He was rather conservative by nature.

    While Wilson eventually came around to supporting universal suffrage, he entered the presidency opposed to giving women the right to vote.

    He was also generally a bigot, particularly on the issue of immigration. He thought of Italians and Poles as "of the lowest class of human being," and characterized them as "men out of the ranks where there was neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence; and they came in the numbers ... sordid and hapless elements of their population, the men whose standards of life and work are such as American workmen had never dreamed of hitherto." (A. Scott Berg, "Wilson," 2013).

    Wilson certainly disdained overt displays of racism, and once wrote of the 1915 film Birth of a Nation, "I have always felt that this was a very unfortunate production and I wish most sincerely that its production might be avoided, particularly in communities where there are so many colored people."

    But as president of Princeton University, Wilson both supported and kept in place a ban which precluded African Americans from applying for admission. And as U.S. president, he allowed Congress to enact legislation implementing Jim Crow-era segregation in Washington, D.C. establishments.



    "Progressive" (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 02:17:43 PM EST
    puts me in mind of the fact that Edward Bernays, "the father of American public relations" worked in the Wilson administration.

    Maybe, but (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:34:36 PM EST
    While governor, he concentrated on getting election laws change, instituted a worker's compnplan, regulated the utilites, etc.  He ran for president ala Bernie Sanders to not accept contributions from corporations and wanted more smaller donations.  He took on local candudates and defeated candidates supported by party bosses.  He hated monopolies and supported banking reform. And etc.

    So, he was a mixed bag, but progressive for his time.  Just as TR was.


    Don't kid yourself, jb. (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:22:40 PM EST
    Woodrow Wilson was hardly the Bernie Sanders of his time, and it's rather silly to equate the two. If anything, he was likely closer in political temperament to the "Blue Dog" Democrats of today.

    he served two terms (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:56:25 PM EST
    Some might say it was worth it.

    Also, it might have been that, or it might have been the push for national women's suffrage.


    I suppose you're opposed to any (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    drastic changes in the Pentagon, intelligence gathering, and various law enforcement community budgets for all the same reasons?

    You would be wrong (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:20:52 PM EST
    But, that's never stopped you before from making ludicrous comments.

    Is a spook's job... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    somehow less valid than a grifter's?  How about a narc's?

    There are some jobs we don't want nor need....the streets always could use sweeping, litter removed from parks, and bartenders....we always need good bartenders!


    Did he make his changes solely via executive (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:28:49 PM EST
    action? There are things I am willing to do that way, such as setting enforcement priorities and standards, closing government facilities, etc.

    But my understanding is Teddy used at least the courts, if not the congress, to break up the trusts.


    Well (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:44:47 PM EST
    you go into an election with the voters you have not the voters you wish you had. So apparently the voters at that time had no problem.

    It's important to remember that ... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:14:47 PM EST
    ... Woodrow Wilson campaigned well to the right of Theodore Roosevelt on a whole host of issues, when they ran against one another in 1912. Well, actually, Wilson was running for president, while TR was running out of pure spite against his own handpicked successor in the White House, GOP incumbent William Howard Taft.

    By 1912, TR was considered something of a radical by Republicans, which precluded his nomination as the GOP candidate. But he retained more than enough political capital throughout the country to thwart Taft's re-election. In a three-way race, Taft finished dead last, well behind Wilson and TR.

    In many respects, TR was an accidental president, coming to office as he did in Sept. 1901 upon William McKinley's assassination. He was chosen by Republicans as McKinley's running mate in the 1900 presidential election because he was a very popular national figure, thanks to his role two years earlier at the Battle of San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War. Most Republicans were so bedazzled by the prospects of a war hero on the ticket that they didn't pay too much heed to TR's reformist record as governor of New York.

    By the end of Roosevelt's presidency in March 1909, GOP leaders and the American corporate class were no longer under any such illusions as to what TR was all about. While he left office as a popular figure nationally, his political standing amongst the GOP elite was actually very low.

    To Wilson's credit, he refused to buck the progressive tide upon attaining office and evolved accordingly to meet the times in which he lived. He ran for re-election in 1916 in the midst of the First World War as an isolationist, promising to uphold U.S. neutrality and not send American boys to fight in Europe. When circumstances proved otherwise in 1917, he rose to the occasion to become a rather remarkable international statesman. It is to the GOP's eternal dishonor that Republican Senate leaders refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which Wilson helped to broker.



    That said, hey, if he's going to do it (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:18:49 AM EST
    can he break up some gun manufacturers and dealers too?

    Didn't think so.


    Doubt it (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:30:42 AM EST
    Since, as he said in Sunday night's debate that gun control "should not be a political issue."

    I heard (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:32:42 AM EST
    that and I kind of went huh? I guess I missed what the meaning is/was.

    I have no problem with a stable financial system; (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 10:25:29 AM EST
    I do have a problem with confusing "stability" with "being held hostage to the financial industry under threat of economic collapse."

    Once upon a time, we used to have a lot of smaller, more community-based banks; the opportunity for those who owned and staffed them at an executive level to greatly increase their earnings led to mergers and acquisitions, which also led to layoffs of overlapping employees. That didn't seem to be nearly the concern then as is being ginned up now.  In fact, it seems to me that creating more banks means more people get jobs, not that all those who used to work for the mega-banks are on the unemployment line.

    I'm pretty sure there's a way to do it that doesn't upend the economy; maybe not in a year, maybe not all at once, but it can be done.

    And maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know that this idea is a casual one, especially since it's been discussed since at least 2008 when things went to hell.


    yes (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 10:37:57 AM EST
    we should not fall into the protect the "job creators" at all cost meme, sounds too much like a Republican line.

    No one (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 10:47:48 AM EST
    (Including me) is spouting "protect the job creators at all costs," but it would be nice for the person who claims to be the champion of working people to address the realistic outcomes of his plans.  I don't think that's Republican at all - I think it's called "asking the obvious and fair question."  But you're partially right - if he can't or won't answer them now in the primary, he surely WILL be asked in a general.  

    Let's think about this for a minute. (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 11:57:52 AM EST
    If tomorrow, Bank of America was broken up and 6 smaller banks were created, who is going to lose his or her job?  The branches aren't going away, are they?  Aren't these new entities going to need executive-level employees working out of the new main office?  

    I think you're making the assumption that making a big entity smaller will mean fewer employees, and that might be true if it was just about down-sizing, and there weren't going to be new entities created.  But it isn't just about making a big bank a small bank, at least as near as I can tell.

    I think more jobs were lost when banks went from local to regional to national to global, and a lot of the jobs lost were good ones.  A small bank still needs a CEO, and a CFO and an HR department, and marketing and PR; when small banks merge or are bought out, those top-level jobs are duplicative, and those people get shown the door.

    Maybe you have a different idea about what would happen, and if so, I'm happy to hear it.


    What I would like to know (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Zorba on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:39:29 PM EST
    is the effects on total job losses (or job creation) when the telephone giant Ma Bell was broken up into a number of "Baby Bells" in 1982.
    I would think that most of the employees rolled over from Ma Bell to one of the Baby Bells.
    I do know, from a consumer standpoint, that our local phone service increased in price, but our long distance service, because of a vast number of choices, went way, way down.  (And we make a lot of long distance calls, with relatives and close friends all over the country, so we came out ahead.)
    If anyone can come up with the numbers regarding jobs lost or not, it would be interesting to see those.

    US West after the (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:01:56 PM EST
    break up employed around 65,000.

    US West became Qwest which became Century Link.

    The Qwest deal, valued at more than $20 billion with the assumption of nearly $12 billion debt, will more than double CenturyLink's landlines to roughly 15 million in 37 states. The combined company will employ 47,500.


    Note the 37 states. US West was in 13 states with a much smaller population base. So the "RIF's" have been devastating and huge.

    Included in the 47,500 is also the remains of other companies. e.g. Pacific Telecom had around 8,000 which was purchased around 2000. Since I retired I haven't kept up with all the mergers but my guess is that the run down was from around 90,000 to the 47,500.


    Of course much of the reduction was the result of technology. Digital and fiber require a lot less maintenance than mechanical and copper cable. US West combined its planning and engineering centers starting in 90's and lots of people took early outs. Others were forced to move and wound up making a lot less with fewer benefits.

    Technology advances do not always help everyone.


    I disagree with your calculations (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:39:43 PM EST
    Breaking the banks up into smaller banks, like your local bank will pretty much eliminate HR and marketing functions, and those would be left to the Bank Manager (and maybe an assistant) to deal with. Even if the banks are broken up into regional chains, those functions will be done with small staffs in regional offices.  Analysis work will likely be purchased from (you guessed it), those larger banks who weren't broken up.  There certainly won't be those types of professionals in every branch.  (There aren't now, either, but the sheer number of people doing those jobs will be severely cut).  

    Breaking up Bank of America with its 200,000+ employees and letting smaller banks enter that space will not result in a 1 to 1 trade on employees, especially because of differences in localities.  Add in all the other big banks and you can see a glut of talent on the street looking for jobs.  The top ten largest US banks employ 1.5 million people - do you honestly think all those people can and will be scooped up by these various smaller banks and if so, do you think it can be done with little to no disruption in their income flow or their lives?

    And let's not forget how many smaller banks went belly up in 2007-2009.  If you don't allow bigger banks to buy up failing banks, then many small communities could be without any access to banking services or credit, and if course, no local people will have jobs.

    Please note that I am not arguing against the theory of breaking up some banks.  What I am saying is that if this is the position Bernie Sanders wants to make a stand on, then he d@mn well better have specifics about how to handle this issue, and the many other issues that will arise by implementing such a policy.  So far, he hasn't gone beyond the soundbite of "Break up the banks!"  It's like his health plan - how is going to deal with all those people that lose their jobs because of his plan?  This is supposed to be his base - they deserve answers.


    Just (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:43:03 PM EST
    saying that there are plenty of progressive ideas that may be considered "job Killers", banning fracking or manufacturing of assault weapons for example.

    If I was running for office and advocating for those positions I would probably downplay or ignore that part of the equation myself, that's just politics and I don't think I would be acting in a "caviler" manner.

    For many reasons, I think much of Bernie's agenda is unworkable, but I am rather reluctant to use the "job killer" argument against them.

    Also as a Hillary supporter I always get upset when she is being attacked for just being a politician, I feel like we should give Bernie a break when we discover that, gasp, he too is one.


    I don't mind him being a politician (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    But when you put yourself out the as the candidate who has the best interests of working people, then you shouldn't put plans out there that will displace hundreds of thousands  (if not millions) of working people without a plan to deal with that issue. It's irresponsible and Senator Sanders is better than that.

    Are you saying (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 08:01:17 PM EST
    that employing people whose purpose and function in his/her current job, which is completely unnecessary/obsolete, should be a mandated goal?

    Its been often been stated that health insurance is a layer of the healthcare delivery system that serves only one function, "rent collecting," by the Power Brokers, from the working class. One of the most obvious, and, common sense reasons for wanting a "single payer" health care system is that, by eliminating the "middle man," and the huge costs involved, the health care customer would get better actual "care" at a much lower cost.  

    So, naturally, eliminating insurance companies from the health care delivery system would entail some, up-front costs......especially for the employees who would lose their jobs. But, is maintaining obsolete, unnecessary positions the right way to go? If so, we should have outlawed the internal combustion engine, or, continued implementing the death penalty in States that have outlawed it because....... "think of the 'plunger-pushing' jobs wiped out."

    Naturally, society should try to be as humane as possible whenever new inventions/techniques, processes supersede existing ones causing job dislocations. But, that's always been the case.

    Frankly, I can't believe we're even having this debate.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 08:07:56 AM EST
    No one can still address the point, proving MY point.

    Yep, I bet breaking up Bank of America is going to magically give those displaced workers new jobs with little to disruption.

    Jeebus, people.  You're liberals.  You're supposed to care about working people, or at least acknowledge that major initiatives could affect those working people and discuss how to mitigate that.  Yes, I'm sure traders in NY or HR analysts in Raleigh or secretaries in Felaware COULD find another job.  Or not - without weeks or months of unemployment, taking a payout  (especially with a glut of people all unemployed at the same time), or having to move? But all you see are the executives, who will be fine regardless.


    Oy (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:08:30 PM EST
    JB... (none / 0) (#162)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 09:59:14 AM EST
    ...I am not making that point at all, my point was in general consolidation leads to fewer jobs and spins offs lead to more.  That was it.

    The notion that economies of scale isn't isn't going to apply to this or that situation is inaccurate.  Nor am I saying there aren't other factors either.

    And as far as you other comment.

    No one is stating that each bank will be separately run, that is just you making stuff up.  But let's say they break one company up into five.  Now you have 5 HR departments, 5 tax departments, 5 legal departments, and on & on.  Or, if the fuction is so specialized, like International Compliance that each group doesn't have one, then it sourced x5.  No matter how you roll it up, if they perform the same services, the more hours will be needed to perform those services the less centralized a company is/companies are.

    This is like week 5 of Econ 101.

    If you want to argue that the cost to the end user will be higher, that would make sense, or since it's a very competitive market, I would argue their bottom lines will shrink before consumers pay more.  It's why they are consolidated to begin with, to increase profits, no other reason.

    The notion that HR function can be better performed at each location is just silly, no large company has decentralized, what I would call, corporate functions.  

    I would argue small banks failed because they could not compete with the large banks because of the scale of economies


    I don't recall that there were big job losses (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 02:57:36 PM EST
    ...when Ma Bell was broken up. And a quick search about it doesn't mention such a situation at all. It mentions spin-offs. Which makes sense to me.

    But it's interesting that the conversation has gone from a dismissive "he could never do it" to "the idea that one man thinks he can 'break it up' on his own authority as president."

    Apparently his bully pulpit is presently under construction as the conversation is already underway.

    The naysaying that is going just raises the profile of the issue. No matter how rabid the conversation gets and how much some people try to shout Bernie down, it all has the effect of furthering the conversation.

    That's a good day's work, IMO.


    It's a Job Creator... (none / 0) (#77)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:19:12 PM EST
    ...one of the main reason for merging is shared services, so splitting would reduce the efficiency.

    I think you misread Anne's comment about jobs.

    Not much of selling point, creating more Bank CEO's, but more jobs there will be.


    Not so sure about job creator (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:39:16 PM EST
    maybe over time as companies restructure and eventually branch out into new areas.  Initially, however there are losses:

    Ma Bell 1982:

    From the breakup of "Ma Bell" in 1984, through 1995, AT&T slashed more than 120,000 jobs. Then, in 1996, the company dumped NCR and spun off manufacturing as Lucent Technologies. AT&T got leaner still by some 5,700 positions while Lucent cut 17,000. Managers, sales executives and, yes, Maggie, were all "disconnected."

    CWA Union Link

    1986 -- Plant consolidations and the expense of cutting 27,400 jobs reduce annual profit by $3.2 billion.

    LA Times Link


    The Ma Bell is Too Intricate to Decipher... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 04:24:19 PM EST
    ...and I don't care enough to see why they laid people off, but it wasn't because they were split into various companies.  

    The other link says what I was saying, consolidation, which is what the banks are currently, consolidated, reduces jobs.

    This is basic math, unless you cut functions, the more individual companies the more jobs, each much staff their own departments rather than having individual ones.  It's why they consolidate/merge, economies of scale, eliminating redundancy and inactivity.  It's also why spin-offs are rare, they loss value, whereas mergers add value.


    That's not what the link says (none / 0) (#102)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:04:49 PM EST
    the plant consolidations occurred after the anti trust case was lost, i.e. after the break up.

    I Didn't Read the Link... (none / 0) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 10:02:29 AM EST
    ...because Economies of Scale is an Econ 101 concept that is one of the foundations of business and not really disputed by anyone, well except for a couple folks in this thread.

    The driver in telecommunications (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:09:20 PM EST
    was very rapid technology advances. It went from mechanical to digital in about 20 years.

    Jobs were lost in the Telcos, but (none / 0) (#151)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 06:34:55 AM EST
    the AT&T legacy, the unix operating system, eventually resulted in millons of new jobs engineering, manufacturing, installing, and maintaining both hardware and software.  In short, the internet.

    I agree that unix spread (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 10:05:37 AM EST
    far and wide but the driver for the 'net was IP and the wide installation of fiber. Without a standard you had nothing and without the ability to carry huge amounts of data long distance at low cost you have nothing.

    And the blockage point was, and is today, "the last mile." Back in the late 90's the installed cost of fiber to the home studied out at around $1100/home passed in suburban/urban environments. The most deployed technology now is DSL copper by landline telco's followed by cable companies over coax/routers. Data over the air is still expensive.


    But if (none / 0) (#121)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 06:45:29 PM EST
    you follow up on the math, the American consumer will have to pay more for banking services (or accept less). More jobs for some higher costs for everybody. Economy of scale is actually the underpinning of socialism when you think about it.

    If you think Ma Bell was intricate, wait to you get a load of the complexities involved the the modern banking system. A little turmoil in the job market is would probably be the least of the worries in a whole galaxy of possible problems.

    How the heck are you supposed to parse out trillions of dollars of assets fairly or even sensibly? What's a big bank anyway? How are we going to deal with international mega banks? How are you going to deal with the shadow banking system, which is probably more imminent danger to the economy?


    If you think (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 07:50:34 PM EST
    Bernie's plan to break up the banks will be a job creator, then you should have a good explanation as to why he isn't selling it that way.

    No, no, your logic is all twisted up. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:31:47 PM EST
    The reason Sanders isn't "selling" the breaking up of the banks as a jobs creation program is because that's not the goal.

    I'd like to think that you already know that - if you don't, it has to be because you don't want to know.

    Here's an excellent article from naked capitalism that offers some insight and enlightenment about Sanders' thinking, as well as Clinton strategy.  Like a lot of writing at NC, it's very wonky, but stay with it - it's good.

    The breakup of the banks is about

    less concentrated economic and political power (smaller, more varied firms would often wind up on different sides of pending regulatory issues)
    , not job creation.

    And here's another article well worth a read.


    I think you are confused (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 08:58:47 AM EST
    I never believed, nor did I ever say, that Sanders is touting his plans to job to be "job creators".  My point was that, Sanders is proposing to completely overhaul not one, but multiple industries, and he needs to address (with some detail) what the fallout could be from that, including job losses, and how he would deal with that.  So far, that hasn't been addressed.

    It's easy to say, "Break up the banks!"  Great - then what?

    I appreciate the links. They are interesting, but don't really address my point.


    True (none / 0) (#158)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 09:16:25 AM EST
    dat, there is probably nobody here(with the exception of the usual suspects) would not be happy dancing on the grave of the "great vampire squid" but there has to be a better plan then "just hold still, while I rip that sucker off your face".

    No (none / 0) (#80)
    by sj on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:32:04 PM EST
    I didn't misread Anne's comment. I agreed with it in essence and apparently expressed myself poorly.

    So thanks, I guess, for pointing that out :)


    As the Clinton/Obama b.s. "stability"... (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:41:14 AM EST
    ...is dysfunctionally enabling gross and treasonous financial criminality, I'll take the get tough for real approach.

    You might want to read (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:48:17 AM EST
    The rest of the article.  Sanders' plan isn't really "for real". It's a pipe dream.

    Yes, even though I made my points (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    about the parts of such action I disagree with...I really don't think he would do any such thing if he were elected. I think it is 75% rhetoric, and when he sat down behind that desk and realized the responsibilities of the office, he would take things a lot more slowly then he talks about now.

    Like what he wants to do or not (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    and I agree that WS is out of control...

    if he is elected president he will achieve a bank breakup within one year, whether Congress likes it or not.

    Those are the words of a dictator and if he beats Hillary will make a wonderful TV ad...


    I Am Positive... (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:57:08 PM EST
    ...Teddy Roosevelt said and did way worse.  I only mention the Trust Buster because there are Presidents who have done what Sanders wants to do.

    It's been done in the past and done well, there is a blueprint for breaking up companies so large they do more damage than good.  These aren't monopolies, but the same methodology can be used, which is legislation and the courts, not these ridiculous executive orders.  Which would not be necessary if Congress stopped acting like children and voting on the same BS 60+ times instead of acting on issues that need acting on.

    That being said, I don't especially like any of the candidates /office holders making the these fantasy proclamations, from curing cancer, to eliminating ISIS, to banning muslims, to building the great wall of Mexico.

    Can we just have the political class stop trying to one up each other with annoying fantasy.


    Jacskson Browne performing Take it Easy (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:50:07 AM EST
    for Glenn Frey this past Tuesday. The video is fuzzy for the first minute or so, then fine.

    You Tube

    He has said he did not perform this song live for a while because people just thought he was doing an Eagles cover, not knowing that he and Glenn wrote the song together. (not very knowledgeable fans there, I might add)  But he added it back in the recent tour to honor Glenn.

    If you listen on the Eagles, Jackson Browne, and Dan Fogelberg's early albums, they all sang backing vocals on each other's songs.

    I miss Dan Fogelberg too - another great talent who left us way too soon.

    Love the Springsteen video (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:29:22 AM EST
    I know, that goes without saying for me, but it really is moving.

    Jackson Browne and Steve Earle and band (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:42:30 AM EST
    perfroming Takie it Easy (You Tube link) This one was recorded in December, when they knew Glenn was so sick. Shortly after that, Browne cancelled a series of concerts due to illness. I can't help but wonder if it was related to Frey's illness.

    Putin Accused (none / 0) (#22)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 11:11:50 AM EST
    Link  The case against Lugovoi and Kovtun seems good, perhaps proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  Just more likely than not against Putin and Patrushev.  Some people are likening Putin's method of getting rid of enemies to Obama's wack a mole drone strikes.  For me, there is a difference.

    I'm glad you see a difference (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 11:22:08 AM EST
    Countdown to someone else here not seeing a difference....

    Sadly this will add to Putins appeal.  Probably.


    Try some logic rather than just making (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:19:13 PM EST
    things up.

    Agreeing that something needs change while saying that a President can't play dictator isn't being a stooge.

    Of course if you can't figure that out then you just want more of Obama.

    "Dictator" : the conservative (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:48:14 PM EST
    scare-mongering choice of words gives you away.

    How does a dysfunctional system of that scale get put back on a sustainable course without some radical and creative readjustment that can only come through government intervention?


    What do you call a ruler (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:11:04 PM EST
    who rules by decree??

    I call the ruler a dictator.

    You may call him Dear Leader.


    This is Why No One Takes You Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 10:28:34 AM EST
    Name the last President who didn't use an executive order.  
    Hint, it's one person.

    For the record,  Washington had 8, Lincoln 48, Grant 217, TR 1081, Wilson 1803, FDR 3721, Truman 907, Reagan 381, GB 166, Clinton 364, GWB 291, Obama 228, and the only President to not have an Executive Order was William Harrison who held office for ~30 days.

    The top two, per year, are Hoover and FDR at 242 and 307 respectively.

    Right, are we a dictatorship or a democracy, according to you we are dictatorship.  We are not.

    I don't like them either, but using them doesn't mean we aren't a democracy, the person making them is after-all, elected.  And if there is one thing you can take away from the above link, Executive Orders are bipartisan, unless you watch Fox News.


    What did you call GWB? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:18:14 PM EST
    I like how president and "ruler" (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    are interchangable for Jim..

    The guy who wants our ruler to impose mandatory universal military service -- with dire consequences, no doubt, for non-cooperation.


    You are making things up (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:32:28 PM EST
    you know that I have never said that I want the president to impose mandatory universal military service.

    So you know I will point that out and you will be shown up for claiming such nonsense.

    What I can't figure out is why you keep doing it.


    Oh , so you meant the (none / 0) (#113)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:39:40 PM EST
    universal military service would be on a strictly voluntary basis..

    How would that work exactly?


    Executive order (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:46:52 PM EST
    Uh, you know the President would push (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:27:27 PM EST
    for a bill and some Congress critter would have his staff write one and they'd then do the committee thingeee and then they'd vote on it and if it passed the President would sign it and....wow

    Democracy. It's what we're supposed to have.


    And the ones he issued (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:29:54 PM EST
    that were unconstitutional are????

    Why do I think (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:20:35 PM EST
    Its ok for you to run around calling people stooges but it's not ok for anyone else to do that.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:51:23 PM EST
    Because you like me?

    I dont really know you (none / 0) (#43)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 12:55:26 PM EST
    I was just thinking out loud.

    I feel like if I called you a stooge, there'd be hell to pay.  Seems weird to me.


    You really don't know jondee (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:07:47 PM EST
    And you really don't know kdog. But that doesn't seem to stop you from trying to pick a fight with them.

    Anyone who has been here for any length of time knows exactly how those two "fights" would play out. So do us all a favor and get to know the commenters before filling up the post with post after post of nonsense.


    As you can see (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:28:20 PM EST
    Km,if you don't agree with the politics and/or philosophy of commentators like Scott and Jondee, and many others, you will be attacked and called much worse than a "stooge."

    The fact that I am a social liberal and have posted time and again that I support gay rights, including marriage, minority rights in general, women's rights, fixing of our  drug laws, a single payer health care system, LWOP vs capital punishment....does nothing for them because I am also very strong on national defense, oppose open borders on immigration and consider Obama a fraud and an utter failure...and also believe that all lives matter... well, they can't stand disagreement of any sort.

    For example I happen to believe that Israel has the right to attack sites that the Palestinians have launched rockets from and then "defended" the sites by placing women and children there. To me the blame is on the Palestinians.

    OTOH Scott says that makes me a cold hearted baby killer. So be it.

    I am glad to be of service to them. I find letting them display to the world what they are very enjoyable and educational.


    he also likes long walks on the beach (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:33:24 PM EST
    candle-lit dinners and water-boarding.

    But he won't waterboard on the first date. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 03:24:04 AM EST
    He insists upon first getting to know you better and only then, you have to tell him something he doesn't want to hear.

    He supports all these wunderful (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:45:30 PM EST
    Things.  And he supports republicans to get them done watches FOX NEWS and constantly links to the most extreme right wing web sites to support his silly nonsense.  

    When you figure out how that works you will let the rest of us know won't ya.


    Obama's great (none / 0) (#117)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:57:45 PM EST
    Actually. True fact.

    For the Record... (none / 0) (#159)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 09:40:47 AM EST
    ...I did not state you were a cold hearted baby killer.  I did write that you condone the killing of children, which you have done numerous times.

    Also you provide no service anyone wants, and there is no doubt you are happy to troll, but be clear, no one appreciates it, just the opposite.

    Lastly, as far as name calling, you can dish it out with the best of them.  I do it, not going to lie, but to read the above you think you were TL's jesus, put up on a cross to bear our sins.  You are to the right of Fox News, and a disciple of it.  There is literally nothing on Fox News you find to be untrue.

    You think we found the WDM's in Iraq, the Earth is heating, torture ain't so bad, and GWB was a fine president.


    Okie Dokie (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 11:09:48 AM EST
    Glad to read that you don't think I am a cold hearted baby killer. I think you are a misinformed backer of Palestine/Hamas/Hezbollah; who are killing people in Israel and who use babies for shields.

    Justify that.

    I really don't comment to satisfy anyone much less you. At one time we had some really great debates over policy, now not so much. Your inability to defend your various positions speaks volumes.

    And the NYTimes said we found WMD's in Iraq. Saddam's No 2 man in the airforce said they were sent to Syria at the last moment and the UN's main man said that coincides with a huge increase in truck traffic shown on satellite photos. Probably just shipments of melons, nuts and poison gas.

    And I'll take the word of a noble laureate over a college professor who won't release his source data for review.

    I think things like this have something to do with that.

    And I have never said GW Bush was a fine president. In fact I have noted his short comings on a variety of issues. However he is much better (squared) as compared to Obama. Of course that is a very low standard.

    As for water boarding I give you comment number 121. And this makes it even plainer.

    And even some philosophy over keeping your brother and other such stuff.


    I Will Consider the Point... (none / 0) (#168)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 11:35:18 AM EST

    From Wednesday:

    2015, Earth's Hottest Year by a Wide Margin

    WASHINGTON -- Last year wasn't just the Earth's hottest on record. It left a century of high temperature marks in the dust.

    The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and NASA announced Wednesday (Jan. 20) that 2015 was by far the hottest year in 136 years of record keeping. For the most part, scientists at the agencies and elsewhere blamed human-caused global warming, with a boost from El Nino.

    I know, Big Oil scientists know more than NASA & NOAA. you don't have to keep posting the same links, I get it, the Earth is cooling and 95% of the scientist are buying into the liberal myth about GW.

    Although 2015 is now the hottest on record, it was the fourth time in 11 years that Earth broke annual marks for high temperature. "It's getting to the point where breaking record is the norm," Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said. "It's almost unusual when we're not breaking a record."

    In December, the globe was 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal, beating the old record set in 2014 by more than a half a degree, the weather agency calculated. Earth has broken monthly heat records 34 times since 2000. The last time a global cold month record was set was December 1916, and the coldest year on record was 1911, according to the weather agency.

    One month since Earth broke the heat month record, 99 years since it broke a cold month record.  The only logical conclusion is the Earth is cooling, you got me Jim.


    Once more (none / 0) (#169)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 11:44:41 AM EST
    with feeling
    All lies and jests
     Still a man hears what he wants to hear
     And disregards the rest

    True as far as it goes (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    That's why I quote a Noble Laureate and Professor Emeritus neither of who will have anything positive happen to them for their position.

    As has been said

    Follow the money.

    And if you want to consider some alternate theories, consider the one linked to below. It makes interesting reading; especially since CO2 has been shown to lag warming rather than lead...Which would have to if it was the cause.

    To put it simply, periods of low cosmic rays (such as during periods of high solar activity such as during the 20th century) will see fewer lower clouds and a higher temperature, periods of high cosmic rays (such as during periods of low solar activity) will see more low clouds and therefore a drop in temperature.



    You display a lack of research (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 12:51:55 PM EST
    to get to that conclusion...

    Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but has been embarrassing for an administration determined to push through costly environmental regulations


    That is like you measuring the temperature of your computer screen and ignoring the temperature of the air over by the window.

    And then they altered their own measurements.

    And along with the Nobel Laureate I will take the word of this professor emeritus:

    ... my former pride at being an APS Fellow ...has been turned into shame, and I am forced....to offer you my resignation from the Society.

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.... I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    .... Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.


    As for the money...

    Global warming spending is estimated to cost $22.2 billion this year, and $21.4 billion next year.

    Now that's some serious dough.


    True Jim... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 02:28:33 PM EST
    ...I trust the folks at NOAA & NASA so I don't have to pretend to understand something I was not trained/educated to understand.

    But by all means, tell us professor how 95% of scientist are wrong, including the folks that landed us on the moon and put rovers on Mars.

    I like to laugh on Fridays.


    Measurements from Japan, the United Kingdom and the University of California at Berkeley also show 2015 is the warmest on record. Satellite measurements, which scientists say don't measure where we live and have a larger margin of error, calculate that last year was only the third hottest since 1979.

    From the link you didn't read.


    I take it that if I post baiting, (none / 0) (#175)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    trolling, band-width devouring and previously-discredited conservative propaganda about the environment, I'm in the clear?

    It's not okay (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 06:49:44 PM EST
    and I just deleted his comment. Watch it, Jondee, you know better and I'm not going spend hours in comments playing cop. I'm going to delete comments that break the rules and put people in timeout. Fair warning.

    i'm jaded from that other site (none / 0) (#146)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 12:59:55 AM EST
    it sometimes does feel like the Bernie fan is entitled to another level of anger compared to the Clinton fan.

    cause if you believe and think the way they do, why you'd be angry too. and decorum is just part of the establishment.


    Those (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 06:07:46 AM EST
    supporters are misogynists. They are awful.

    Don't Forget the McCarthism... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    ...of pointing out that HRC took money from WS.

    One other thing (none / 0) (#52)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:31:10 PM EST
    I had no idea there was a 200 comment limit on threads here so looks like the only right thing to do is just not respond to people in a way that creates a long back and forth dialog essentially becoming a contest for who can get the last word in.... That's where the comment spikes happen.

    Just to say I won't be replying to anyone replying to this.... Just let others have the last word.

    But I thought this thing I found yesterday is really funny...

    Unfortunately I found it in a thing that proabably is unfair to bring up (although I'm sure republicans will bring it up) cause the thing itself really isn't that funny its actually kinda creepy, and I do understand the author of this thing has disavowed it because of the entire creepiness of the thing...

    But in this thing there is the following sentence:

    "The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday -- and go to Church, or maybe to their 'revolutionary' political meeting."

    .. And yes i did a spit take ... I just think its funny that the guy who wrote that sentence all those years ago is, right now, as I write this, giving a speech at a, yep, '"revolutionary" political meeting and millions of Americans are getting dressed up every day these days to go to their, you guessed it,  ..... "revolutionary" .... political meeting.  In both parties.

    Suffice to say the guy who wrote that sentence (if you could extricate and isolate that sentence and behold that sentence all by itself) I think I could really support that guy, seems a guy who has both wit and intelligence.  

    "revolutionary" indeed.

    Zorba (none / 0) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    I am moving this over from another thread.

    You are going to seriously laugh, but it never occurred to me that I could get the vaccine this late in life.  I will speak with my doctor, thanks.

    I knew it would not be good to get them, but that is me, but the idea of giving it to a pregnant women is not good, I did not know that, which I think Anne mentioned, thanks.

    Speaking of, now there is the Zika Virus, which is not good for pregnant women either and it's transmitted by mosquitoes. It's in S America, but they think it could make it to the gulf coast.

    The good news, WHO declares West Africa Ebola-free.

    This date marks the first time since the start of the epidemic two years ago that all three of the hardest-hit countries -- Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone -- have reported zero cases for at least 42 days. Sierra Leone was declared free of Ebola transmission on November 7 and Guinea on December 29.

    Republicans are going to hold a press conference declaring they significantly over-reacted.  Just kidding.

    Yes, you should definitely speak (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:32:56 PM EST
    to your doctor.  Certain vaccines may be contra-indicated, depending upon your medical condition.
    I did have one student, years ago in my special education classroom, whose mother had chickenpox while pregnant with him.  (For that matter, I was a special ed teacher long enough ago that I had a couple of students whose mothers had rubella during pregnancy.)
    Those of us in the field, because of what we saw on a day to day basis, were always amazed that the vast majority of kids were born without handicaps, given all that could go wrong in pregnancy.
    Mr. Zorba has been following the Zika Virus news.  Not a good thing at all.
    And it is good news about Ebola.  It doesn't mean that Ebola has been eradicated, by any means, but at least it's not spreading the way it was.

    Zika virus (none / 0) (#153)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 07:12:17 AM EST
    is the suspect in two cases in Miami.  It was reported on the local ABC news.

    Latest I saw was (none / 0) (#165)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    Three people in Florida, but all had been to South America recently.

    Something (none / 0) (#63)
    by CST on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 02:08:48 PM EST
    For everyone rooting for the Broncos this weekend.


    GO BRONCOS (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 07:16:08 AM EST
    What Makes the Onion... (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 02:25:03 PM EST
    ...so funny is that the stories are almost believable.  If I had a blog, I would copy that word for word just to see who would run with it.

    The Pats looked good last week, like fantastically good, it made me sad.


    It's nice to have Edelman back (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 02:45:12 PM EST
    among others.

    That being said, everyone here is super over-confident.  And I'm just sitting here with the knowledge that the Brady and co. have never won a playoff game in Denver.  And it's not like they lose a lot of playoff games, or they don't play in Denver often.  It's one of those "trap" places for them.  Ugh, I really wanted the Steelers to win.

    And as "terrible" as the Broncos are supposedly - they still managed to make it to the AFC championship game - at home.

    Not feeling confident at all.


    Nothing terrible.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 02:50:37 PM EST
    about that new Orange Crush defense!

    It's all about your O-Line, if they play like they did last week you'll be allright...if Brady gets knocked around, I like the Broncos.

    And then I pray to the football gods the Panthers or Cardinals get their first Super Bowl trophy...I'm Manninged out, and well beyond Bradyed out.  Gimme some new blood.


    Brady-rules seem to apply to (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:05:38 PM EST
    with the Pats O-Line..

    Like if Tom gets sacked too often, it might endanger national security or something..

    I predict Demarcus Ware will be in danger of losing it with the refs before halftime.


    I'm sure the refs in Denver (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:14:40 PM EST
    Will be rigging the game for Tom Brady.

    Maybe they just realize he's too pretty, and it would be a crime to mess any of that up.


    If a certain team wins (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:22:05 PM EST
    the refs get to be honored quests at an Eyes Wide Shut party at an undisclosed location in the Hamptons hosted by Giselle and Bob Kraft dressed as the Roman god Bacchus. ;-)

    It (none / 0) (#79)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:30:09 PM EST
    sounds better to me to have Gisele dressed as Venus, but given the state of officiating in the NFL they probably wouldn't know the difference.

    Methinks it will be Panthers (none / 0) (#83)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:37:42 PM EST
    all the way. And I'm with you, new blood. But anyone but NE will make me happy.

    Well Given Mannings... (none / 0) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    ...playoff record, you need not worry.

    There defense is no joke, but when you watch, they don't look good, but end up with the W's.

    I will be cheering for the Broncos, I am tired of the Pats already.  Speaking of, have you seen Ted II, Brady is in it and that scene is ridiculously funny.  I did not know in Boston, a 519 is cop code for when someone is trying to steal Tom Brady's sperm.  I guess he's got good genes.


    I saw it (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:18:21 PM EST
    Meh.  Not my favorite Seth MacFarlane movie.

    My favorite part was when they make fun of Arizona State for not being a "real school" - mostly because I was watching it with someone from Arizona.

    He does have good genes.


    I Was OK... (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    ...but the Brady scene and the one where all the stuff spills on him was another.

    The first one I thought was just about the funniest movie, eva.

    I didn't get the Arizona State references, I was thinking MacFarlane must have an ex that went there or something.  'Pregnant on a houseboat', what does that even mean ?


    I saw it a while ago (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:42:53 PM EST
    Don't remember the houseboat line.

    I can't speak for Seth, but he is an arrogant Bostonian, like no one else I know ;)

    As a general rule, talking $hit about universities in places like Arizona is a northeast-elitist pasttime.

    For me, it was mostly just funny because of who I was with, as it gave me an opportunity to make fun of them.


    No, its pretty universal. (none / 0) (#87)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 03:51:56 PM EST
    ASU especially has a reputation for admitting anyone as long as they have a pulse.    

    "Ted II" was crude, lewd and rude. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 06:11:18 PM EST
    And it made me laugh practically nonstop anyway, even though the frontal lobes of my brain were begging my cerebral cortex to please stop because it was insulting my intelligence. As far as bad taste and sophomoric humor go in movies, the "Ted" movies get four stars and two thumbs up from me. They're obviously not for anyone who's overly sensitive and / or easily offended but, hey, if you like your laughs fast, cheap and raunchy, Seth MacFarlane certainly delivers the goods -- especially if you're stoned.

    In some ways, this year's Broncos ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 05:53:12 PM EST
    ... remind me of the 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes, a perpetually unspectacular team which made themselves so easy for many people to dismiss that season, thanks to a succession of narrow escapes against the nondescript likes of Cincinnati and Big Ten bottom feeders Northwestern, Purdue and Illinois. Yet somehow, they stumbled their way to an undefeated season and a national championship.

    This year's Broncos remind me (none / 0) (#119)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 06:11:21 PM EST
    more of a washed up quarterback that is a pick 6 away from losing 62-7 similar to the Dolphins with Dan Marino on January 15, 2000.

    Or to less of an extreme, a horribly thrown late-game pass leading to a pick and losing the game like Brett Favre on January 24,2010 in the NFC Title Game.

    Then again, the Broncos defense may be strong enough to hoist an over the hill washed up Manning into one more Super Bowl before retirement.


    Ouch (none / 0) (#124)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 06:52:17 PM EST
    you had to bring up that memory.

    Belichek might make a good (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 02:37:37 PM EST
    Bond villian if he had a little more charisma, or any whatsoever..

    Comment deleted using the (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 06:54:30 PM EST
    word "p*rn without an asterisk and providing a link to who knows what. Those kind of words trigger the software censors at law firms and other businesses leading to TalkLeft being blocked. Do not use the term here without an asterisk, and I can't see any reason to comment on any kind of p*rn here -- unless you are discussing the draconian sentencing guidelines for such conduct, it has nothing to do with this site, and I prefer you not bring a discussion of it here.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#129)
    by ragebot on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:21:27 PM EST
    the comment was about an article at the Forbes web site titled "Why Getting Off To Anime P*rn Is Shorthand For Supporting Donald Trump" and the link was to the Forbes web site, not the place most folks go for you know what.

    This blurb is the start of the article with asterisks added by me.

    "On Tuesday evening, GOP consultant Rick Wilson made Twitter waves with his claim that Donald Trump supporters are mostly "single men who m*st*rb*t* to anime.""

    My take was that not only was this a little bit funny but also an indication of how far some establishment Republicans will go to dis Trump.  While at times I have bashed some commenters here for their dissing Trump with seemingly false complaints I have to say I have not seen any TL commenters go as far as Wilson did.

    A quick google search will turn up a link to the Forbes article, something I will not post in hopes of getting back in Jerlyn's good graces.

    Just hope no one asks about my graduating summa SOMETHING laude.


    Big news (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:22:55 PM EST
    apparently tomorrow coming as the elite in the GOP are going to take it to Trump in the NYT talking about how he's the worst thing to happen to the GOP since the John Birch Society of the 1950's. I seriously doubt this is going to work however I guess they have to give it a try.

    Also going on about whoever wins IA will be the GOP nominee and they fear it will be Trump. Of course, the alternative Cruz they hate as much.

    The plan if there is one (none / 0) (#131)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:35:51 PM EST
    looked to me as if they wanted to take out Cruz first, then move on to challenging Trump as the establishment field is whittled down and they have someone to coalesce behind.

    The theory bring, Cruz is the more mentally astute of the two and less likely to self-destruct so they have to kill the animal while it's young.

    The better theory is that the establishment has no plan. They assumed Bush and his money would clear the field and he'd cakewalk to the nomination.


    I think (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:41:43 PM EST
    they had no plan and are making up as they're going along at this point and hope like heck something works. So far nothing they have done has done anything and as a matter of fact seems to have hurt the candidates they have been pushing.

    Rubio is cancelling ad buys (none / 0) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    in both Iowa and NH. He's hoping to live another day. His sugar daddy Norman Braman may have turned the faucet down to a trickle.

    Well with (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:26:55 PM EST
    Kasich polling 2nd in NH he might be the new "thing" where all the money is going.

    Watching (none / 0) (#134)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:50:59 PM EST
    a video of Sarah Palin endorsing Trumpypie.

    I know that he set this up, but he looks as if he'd rather be anywhere else.

    It makes me think that he might have had enough and wants out.

    He does (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:27:43 PM EST
    look like he can't stand her in that video for sure.

    However the only way he is getting out is by losing primaries.


    I guess (none / 0) (#148)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 05:39:19 AM EST
    I don't think he's used to just standing someplace, listening to someone harangue for twenty minutes - having to force a smile every three seconds.

    She rattles off her greatest hits, like, "You betcha"... And he has to nod in approval...


    Trump wants out? (none / 0) (#136)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 08:57:43 PM EST
    Are you kidding? That idea which was floating around was put to rest months ago.

    That's (none / 0) (#138)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 09:10:15 PM EST
    wonderful news.

    Her Hearts Not In It... (none / 0) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 09:54:23 AM EST

    I mean she couldn't be bothered to come up with some new catch phrases,  'Drill Baby Drill' doesn't really have the appeal when oil is below $30 and the the red states are hurting from the surplus of 'Drill Baby Drill'.

    I never liked her, but I got it, she had passion even if if it was misdirected.  Now she just looks like she is there out of party obligation.

    I also didn't get the feeling that even her and Trump's idiotic supports think Obama is at fault for her son hitting his girlfriend and then showing up at Palin's door with an assault rifle.


    Party obligation? (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    I don't think so...looks more like trolling for dollars to me, keeping herself on someone's payroll.



    That's been my assumption as well (none / 0) (#178)
    by shoephone on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 01:49:10 PM EST
    With $arah Palin, it'$ alway$ about the dollar$.

    I Will Buy That... (none / 0) (#181)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 02:43:15 PM EST
    ...but my point stands, she's doesn't seem like her hearts in it.

    Pretty sure (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    He rented her mouth.   Not her "heart".

    If Palin was truthful (none / 0) (#171)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    she would have said her son was drunk and stupid. Of course honesty has never been her forte.

    If Sarah did go the drunk and stupid route, I would be the first to congratulate her on her improved awareness.


    If he DOES suffer from PTSD (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    then shame on her for using him to score political points.  Why not use her time, money, and influence to get him help?

    Why are you bringing up (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    Before This Week... (none / 0) (#180)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    ...I didn't even know she had a son beyond Trig.

    Dummy, she brought it up and I commented on it.

    Take it up with Palin if you don't like her kids being used as political pawns.  But your counter, Clinton's son-in-law's dad was, once again, spot on Jim.

    Your solution to perceived wrongs is to the very wrong you are whining about.  That is hilarious.


    Well.. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 02:48:58 PM EST
    the always-backward-looking tea partiers miss the good old days in the 1830s before we had all this hifalutin science and folks used to get drunk at state dinners and go after each other with Bowie knives.

    Thats the appeal of the Palins in a nutshell.


    jondee, (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 08:48:03 PM EST
    You remember, I'm quite sure, that the one-time, pathologically P.C. crowd here would have lambasted, skewered, and, probably cremated, anyone who was so misogynistic as to use the descriptive term, "screech," in describing a female's sound while giving a speech. "Dog whistle!" "Dog whistle!" (Lost in the shuffle, of course, was the simple fact that the errant term perfectly described the sound/sense the author was trying to convey.)

    Anyway, jondee, ( dragging out this insufferably long post) I just wanted to say, having caught Palin's introduction while channel surfing the other day, that there is no word in the English (or, any other) language that, so perfectly emits the precise sense/tone/description befitting Palin's voice & image than SCREECH. I'm sorry, it is a cognitively impossible act to: A. Inadvertently, catch Palin's image on TV..., B. Hear the sound emanating from her mouth, and....., C. Not have the term, "SCREECH," instantly come alive in your mind.

    There, I said it, but, I'm ashamed it took me this long to mingle a perfectly descriptive word with an, apparently, legally impermissible gender enjoinder.

    That's all, thank you.  


    In nature those sounds Palin (none / 0) (#187)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 02:14:33 PM EST
    makes are only permissible if you're getting ready to regurigitate food into the mouths of your babies..

    And even then it's an unwritten rule that one must be in tree at least fifty feet off the ground or high up on a cliff face when you do it.

    ..The winter is forbidden til' December..and exits March the second on the dot....And there's a legal limit to the snow here.. in Camelot..


    I Thought They Just Shot... (none / 0) (#183)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 22, 2016 at 04:03:23 PM EST
    ...at each other with muskets.

    Ohhh man, Pay Preview idea of the century, a Trump/Cruz duel, live on TV, with assault rifles with yuge magazines.

    The undercard, a Carson/Rubio knife fight in Palin's backyard and just like wrestling, you never know who might jump in to help...  or who might be packin' a jesus hammer.

    It would have it all, republican bravado, death, guns, the Palins, jesus, and dirty tricks.


    The video of Jon Stewart (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 10:41:03 PM EST
    on the Daily Show going beserk when Trump and Palin showed up in New York at an Albanian pizza joint in 2011 and Trump ate pizza with a knife and fork is hysterical. One of Stewart's best.