home

Thursday Open Thread

I'm heading back to Denver today after three days at the Scooter Libby trial. As always, a huge thanks to TChris and Big Tent for posting in my absence and on other topics.

I'll be popping in and out here as I have internet access, but here's a place for you to talk about what's on your mind.

< Who Will Deliver for Fitz? | The War Power: What the Congress Can Do; What The President Can Do >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Goodybe... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:59:43 AM EST
    Molly.

    We'll miss you.

    "Raise Hell." (none / 0) (#40)
    by dutchfox on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:48:45 PM EST
    Former Houstonian here.

    I had a chance to see/hear her many years ago at a Nation mag event in Houston. A few years back she was invited by the ACLU Vermont chapter to Burlington. Can't get enough of Molly, so I went and was thoroughly delighted by her barbs at the elite.

    Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewed her back in 2004.

    See also the Texas Observer.

    Parent

    "twingnuts"??? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:10:33 AM EST
    It was a mispelling, but you know... it kind of works, no? ;-)

    FLASH (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:21:30 AM EST
    "Lite Brite" in Boston scares Fatherland Security into wasting almost a million dollars. Jeebus are we a country in fear, or what?

    "Aqua Teens". They're gonna get you in your sleep!

     "It's almost too easy to be a terrorist these days," said Jennifer Mason, 26. "You stick a box on a corner and you can shut down a city."

    O'Connor said there's nothing wrong with being vigilant, but said she said it was ridiculous to shut down a city "when anyone under the age of 35 knew this was a joke the second they saw it."

    Authorities vowed to hold Turner accountable for what Menino said was "corporate greed," that led to at least $750,000 in police costs.

    Was this orchestrated by (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:30:50 AM EST
    DEPEND® Products?

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:40:56 AM EST
    You said you won't fight now wants to talk about someone being scared.

    I think that needs some explaining.

    Parent

    I can't help myself..... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:03:55 AM EST
    I won't fight and Edger won't fight cuz there is no reason to fight.  When there is a reason to fight...we will fight.

    Sorry if you're a pacifist or something and I'm wrong, edger.

    Our irrational fears that lead to city-wide shutdowns due to adverts deserves ridicule.

    Parent

    Re: pacifist (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    No apologies needed, kdog. No one who's ever attacked me has won in the long run, but I really can't be bothered to go around attacking people just to get them to attack me to prove that I should be attacking them... ummmm.... or however that works...

    I'm getting a little confused with this "twingnut" logic here though, I'll give you that. ;-)

    Parent

    Edger the self-centered. (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:17:10 AM EST
    No one who's ever attacked me has won in the long run,

    Think maybe that is kind of self-centered? Equating national security with your own success?

    Have they flown an airplane into your house?

    Of course since you think that Israel may have caused 9/11, I can understand your lack of logic.

    Parent

    it is exactly the "twingnut"... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:09:02 PM EST
    ... logic exhibited by some "twingnuts" here that has prevented me from posting lately. I got so tired of having to cite and re-cite, and cite again information so solidly established in the public domain that a blind fool who even listened to a radio broadcast would know of it.

    I won't name names (his initials are jimakappj), but the inanity of responding to the same tired old arguments and lies repeated ad nauseam, even when debunked within the SAME thread ten, twenty, or thirty times, is just indicative of a wannabe BS artist trolling for visceral responses-and unfortunately getting them.

    Look at last Tuesday's open thread and tell me I'm wrong. The same old lies, distortions, misstatement of facts and the continual debunking of arguments over and over again, as if humoring a child.

    Disgraceful. Read HERE.

    I'll be around, Edger, sailor, scribe, aw, squeaky, jondee, and others I have met here, but if you go back and examine the Tuesday thread you will see exactly what I mean, and I don't say this to be mean or arrogant, just truthful as to how little some people contribute, IMO, or are able to contribute to this blog with their clearly limited reasoning faculties and purely argumentative writing style which does naught for debate (endlessly repeating the same lies does NOT make them true).

    I'll be around, but people like the one described above will never again be acknowledged or responded to by me. At some point a spade must be called a spade and then utterly ignored.

    Parent

    Hey Bill! (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:16:05 PM EST
    Glad to see you comment again, and I hope you will more often again. I was concerned that you might be having a health crisis, and Sailor even emailed me the other day wondering similarly. Hope all is well...

    Parent
    Thanx for your concern, My favorite dog... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:49:30 PM EST
    ...ever, Mila's Goliath (or G-dog), my ten-year old Boston Terrier, collapsed of a stroke eleven days ago, and, sadly, with no hope of ever recovering, I had to put him to sleep.

    It was very difficult for me. This dog was really something special, and he and I communicated on a level most people will never reach; I will forever miss him. (Every time I would yawn, he would yawn; true inter-species communication!)

    I still, of course, have Bewitching Matilda (she's a 4-year old) and the latest addition to the family, Mila's Xanatos (a baby at eight months), and they have been incredibility attentive to me following G-dog's loss (the very next morning Xanatos brought a tug-toy to awaken me, of his own initiative, and has done so every day since, and he will not let me rest 'til AFTER his new playtime is over. And people say dogs don't really know what is going on with their masters; they've never met a Boston Terrier before!)

    That was why I had not posted in a while, but as I read the open thread of Tuesday it struck me that I just don't have the heart or patience to suffer fools gladly any longer. I know much of this feeling is just a way to aid me in overcoming my grief, but the rest of my motivation was as stated in the comment above. Life is just too short to keep placating or arguing with trolls.

    I will be around. Thanx, Edger.

    Parent

    Take care, Bill. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:32:20 PM EST
    The animals are great. I share my house with a cat who pretty much owns me, instead of her being my cat. I've had many dogs - collie, husky, malamute, but where I live is too small and I'm gone 12 hours a day - not fair for a dog. But Magic communicates quite clearly, vocally and in many other ways, and she's great to have around, especially when she deigns to pay attention to me.

    Funny - animals, even in the wild don't have wars with other for territory..... except chimpanzees and some other kinds of monkeys, apparently.

    Parent

    Hi Bill! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:51:01 PM EST
    Nice to hear from you again!

    Parent
    Thank you, Sailor. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    Bill A - Welcome back (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:20:16 PM EST
    To use your words:

    cite again information so solidly established in the public domain that a blind fool who even listened to a radio broadcast would know of it

    Now, if the information is so widely spread, why is such a bother to provide a link??

    I routinely and regularly provide links. In fact, I have used links to prove your claims wrong. I'm sorry that this upsets you but life gives none of us a free pass.

    On a personal note I am sincerely sorry about the loss of your dog. As someone who has had dogs of all types as far back as I can remember I can truly understand the relationship that develops.

    In fact, the Moslem faith regarding them as unclean is one of the things that bothers me about that faith.

    Parent

    Had a dog? (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:24:04 PM EST
    Gosh for someone that had a dog for so long I find it surprising that scribe's mention of pig ears sent you into a whirl of confusion.

    Parent
    Squeaky (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:54:23 PM EST
    I never had a dog who ate pigs in my car.

    You?

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:14:28 PM EST
    Obtuse as usual.

    Parent
    Squeaky (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:00:04 PM EST
    Obtuse? Do you really think letting a dog eat a pig in your car is usual??

    ;-)

    Parent

    Bill might be (none / 0) (#78)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:26:29 PM EST
    referring to your refusal to retract, or for heaven's sake even qualify, the Sparling snipe hunt that distracted so many posts before people started linking real facts about the guy's checkered recent history.

    A cheerful recognition that you'd been "had" by Sparling and by Fox wouldn't have killed you then, and it still won't.  But for whatever reason you just can't do it.  Goes a long way towards explaining your admiration for Bush, whose version of self-critique is some vague passive reference to the possibility that mistakes might have been made.  

    Parent

    glanton (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:00:17 PM EST
    I provided a link to what the New York Times,aka The Paper of Record reported.

    Now if that was Bill A's complaint.

    I suggest you and Bill A take your complaints to that source.

    And as someone who has written of medical problems derived from being in a battle zone I would think Bill A would have a lot of natural sympathy for someone who has indisputable evidence a lost leg.

    But then one never knows, does one??

    Parent

    Silly Jim (none / 0) (#87)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:11:11 PM EST
    tricks are for kids.

    You know good and well that his lost leg has nothing to do with the linked facts with which people ended the snipe hunt.  

    Either stop talking about it and pretending to be outraged over it, or admit you were had (!!!!), or keep embarrassing yourself.  Up to you.

    Parent

    Glanton (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:03:12 PM EST
    Not silly at all. I would think he would be angry that someone spat on/at or near this guy.

    He could, you know, hold the two opinions that the war is wrong, but support the disabled vet.

    Parent

    Poor Sparling (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:11:08 PM EST
    Everywhere this brave, honest, and agenda-less soul goes, he keeps getting spat on and abused, just for speaking his mind.

    Now, to the unpatriotic America-haters out there it might come across as strange that it keeps happening to Sparling, happening over and over again, but not to anybody else: and it may appear even stranger that nobody ever witnesses it when it happens.  But hey, every time he goes on Fox he's "totally believable," and furthermore, his words miraculously indict everyone against Bush's War.  

    And that's enough for real Patriots.

    Parent

    Paper of Record (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:19:23 PM EST
    Well, hate to break it to you but Sparling has disputed what the NYT article said.

    He claims that he never spat back at the person who spit on the ground near him.

    Hmmmmm, paper of record. Someone is fibbing.

    Parent

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:05:26 PM EST
    Well, since you don't believe the first, why do you believe the second??

    Because that is what your bias is.

    Me? I believe he was spit at/on or near, and that he spit back.

    Heck, I would have tried to hit'em with my crutch.

    Parent

    Really (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:11:19 PM EST
    You would do that wouldn't you. Too bad you were not hired to choreograph the little scene. Sparling is a rebublican operative. I am sure that you can track down the person that gives him his orders and tell them how to better his act.

    Hitting back with crutches...not bad.

    Parent

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#116)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:13:42 PM EST
    You're marvellous

    Parent
    Squeaky - Yes I would. (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:13:35 PM EST
    Yes. If I had only one leg and someone attacked me I would hit back.

    Looks like you would prefer that the disabled vet not defend himself.

    Figures;

    Parent

    Attacked you? (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:58:09 PM EST
    Yes. If I had only one leg and someone attacked me I would hit back.
    You mean spit on the ground near you? After you had shouted slurs at them?

    Would that also be staged for public consumption and sponsored by republican operatives?

    Parent

    Kdog, the time is now. (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    If you wait you can't win.

    That is the edge that an enemy fighting a guerilla war has. They know where you are and can plan their attacks based on their schedules, their needs.

    The way you defeat them is to find them and attack them based on your schedule and your needs. That disrupts their planning, their supply line and puts fear into their supporters.

    Sorry you don't understand that.

    Parent

    Damn right I don't..... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:50:12 AM EST
    Add.... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:54:17 AM EST
    Did it ever dawn on you Jim that maybe our enemies want us wasting our money, spilling our blood, and restricting our freedom chasing a ghost?

    Parent
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:06:04 PM EST
    Creating an environment that inspires five new people to become blood enemies against the US for every one person killed by the US.

    Parent
    kdog (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    Did ever occur to you that if we withdraw to the US and let them pick the time and place, we'll be doing a lot of this...

    Except the bombs will be real.

    Parent

    Ummm.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:18:49 PM EST
    if we stopped f*cking with them, they have no reason to attack us.

    Do you really think people around the world are that different than you and me?

    Parent

    Well, I'm not as confused now (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:21:35 AM EST
    And it's good to know their supporters are full of fear.

    Twing.

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    But you won't fight....

    Parent
    LOL.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    You'd think there was a warrant out on a Hell's Angel with a response like that.

    Parent
    Che (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:39:24 AM EST
    And if they hadn't responded you would be blaming Bush.

    Parent
    silly (none / 0) (#38)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    if they hadn't responded you would be blaming Bush.
    Yes, blame bush because someone noticed a lite brite box after 2 weeks and din't panic. How pathetic.

    Actually, I will blame bush, this is exactly the type of hysteria he and his minions purposely created to whip the populace into a frenzy of fear over a non-existent 9/11 connection and non-existent WMDs in order to attack a country that they wanted to attack from day one of his misadministration.

    Parent

    Too bad, though (none / 0) (#6)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:33:17 AM EST
    That this is a response to one screwup instead of a broader statement about how Fox packages its "news."

    I mean, Obama's decision is totally anecdotal, and therefore carries very little intellectual or moral heft: once somebody screws you over like Fox screwed him, after all, its no biggy to freeze them out.  

    It disappoints me that Democrats keep going on the Fox Network.  They're like Charlie Brown with the football,

    almost forgot my famous sig (none / 0) (#7)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    Stray alert, and for God's sake stay with Fox.

    Parent
    Glanton (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:11:16 PM EST
    Famous?

    What's up? Have you become a legend in your own mind?

    ;-)


    Parent

    That's pretty good (none / 0) (#52)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    I gotta admit it.  

    But of course it was the green-blooded Shepard Smith, and not myself, who made the little tag line famous.

    However, in the narrow context of this one blog I have noticed that several posters, including yourself, occasionally appropriate my own semi-regular use of the sign off for their own purposes.  

    Which is a good thing, as there are so very many, many things wrong with the simple, jingoistic fear-mongering statement:

    Stay alert, and stay with Fox

    That it needs to be brought into parodic and critical relief as often as possible.

    Parent

    Pay no mind glanton.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    You are famous for your signature sign-off in the TL universe.

    I chuckle inside everytime I see it.

    Parent

    I enjoy it as well (none / 0) (#58)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    k-dog, and I'm glad to be of service in that way.  I

    We should all laugh at it, but we should also remember the very real dangers emblemized by that line.

    Parent

    There's a cliche I'm fond of...... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:46:29 PM EST
    "Better to laugh than to cry"...

    I'm right with you buddy...."Stay Alert" aka spy on your neighbors.  Should we hold FOX partly responsible for the hysteria up in Boston?

    Speaking off the Boston advert hysteria....I'm damn proud of my city today.  According to the Daily News, 41 of these ads went up in NY and not one citizen called the cops.  There's hope for sanity.

    Parent

    Well done, New York! (none / 0) (#66)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:52:01 PM EST
    Maybe now Ann Coulter will write something about how this is further proof that terrorists feel safe in New York City but are afraid to go to Mississippi or Alabama....

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:38:25 AM EST
    Then I assume you have no problems with Nixon's "enemies list."

    A presidential campaign is not the presidency (none / 0) (#16)
    by roy on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:10:16 AM EST
    And not talking to an enemy is not the same as directing the government to coercively screw over an enemy.

    If you're just a "social liberal" who's strong on "national defense", why was it so easy to predict what side you'd take on this?

    Parent

    Well done, roy (none / 0) (#25)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:26:23 AM EST
    (for a libertarian)

    ;-)

    Parent

    of course ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:26:49 PM EST
    one senator (maybe) not wanting to talk to a news organization that lied about him (a lie which ppj continued to spread on this site, even after he was proven wrong about it) is exactly the same as nixon smearing, having the FBI investigate, burglarizing a rather extensive list of people.

    Yes, faux news being ignored is exactly the same as going after:

    Jack Anderson, columnist, "Washington Merry-Go-Round"
    Jim Bishop, author, columnist, King Features Syndicate
    Thomas Braden, columnist, Los Angeles Times Syndicate
    D.J.R. Bruckner, Los Angeles Times Syndicate
    Marquis Childs, chief Washington correspondent, St. Louis Post Dispatch
    James Deakin, White House correspondent, St. Louis Post Dispatch
    James Doyle, Washington Star
    Richard Dudman, St. Louis Post Dispatch
    William Eaton, Chicago Daily News
    Rowland Evans Jr., syndicated columnist, Publishers Hall
    Saul Friedmann, Knight Newspapers, syndicated columnist
    Clayton Fritchey, syndicated columnist Washington correspondent. Harpers
    George Frazier, Boston Globe
    Pete Hamill, New York Post
    Michael Harrington, author and journal member, executive committee Socialist party
    Sydney Harris, columnist, drama critic and writer of 'Strictly Personal,' syndicated Publishers Hall
    Robert Healy, Boston Globe
    William Hines, Jr., journalist. science education, Chicago Sun Times
    Stanley Karnow, foreign correspondent, Washington Post
    Ted Knap, syndicated columnist, New York Daily News
    Edwin Knoll, Progressive
    Morton Kondracke, Chicago Sun Times
    Joseph Kraft, syndicated columnist, Publishers Hall
    James Laird, Philadelphia Inquirer
    Max Lerner, syndicated columnist, New York Post: author, lecturer, professor (Brandeis University)
    Stanley Levey, Scripps Howard
    Flora Lewis syndicated columnist on economics
    Stuart Loory, Los Angeles Times
    Mary McGrory, syndicated columnist on New Left
    Frank Mankiewicz, syndicated columnist Los Angeles Times
    James Millstone, St. Louis Post Dispatch
    Martin Nolan, Boston Globe
    Ed Guthman, Los Angeles Times
    Thomas O'Neill, Baltimore Sun
    John Pierson, Wall Street Journal
    William Prochnau, Seattle Times
    James Reston, New York Times
    Carl Rowan, syndicated columnist, Publishers Hall
    Warren Unna, Washington Post, NET
    Harriet Van Home, columnist, New York Post
    Milton Viorst, reporter, author, writer
    James Wechsler, New York Post
    Tom Wicker, New York Times
    Gary Wills. syndicated columnist, author of "Nixon-Agonistes"
    New York Times
    Washington Post
    St Louis Post Dispatch
    Jules Duscha, Washingtonian
    Robert Manning, editor, Atlantic
    John Osborne, New Republic
    Richard Rovere, New Yorker
    Robert Sherrill, Nation
    Paul Samuelson, Newsweek
    Julian Goodman, chief executive officer, NBC
    John Macy, Jr,, president, Public Broadcasting Corp, former Civil Service Commission
    Marvin Kalb, CBS
    Daniel Schorr, CBS
    Lem Tucker, NBC
    Sander Vanocur, NBC

    At least to some twisted mind.

    Parent
    I always wanted to be on Nixon's (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:40:11 PM EST
    enemies list. It was considered a badge of honor.

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:09:01 PM EST
    He was probably frightened of you, seeing as how you've whooped everyone who attacked you.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Sailor, don't claim I spread a lie (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:08:08 PM EST
    unless you can prove it.

    And you can't.

    I see that you are edging towards your old "liar liar" motif.

    Parent

    ppj spread a lie (none / 0) (#59)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:37:26 PM EST
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:09:32 AM EST
    What news reports?
    Oh, you mean the one that implies that Obama didn't go Islamic religious trainging when Obama himself admits it?

    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 07:39:30 PM EST
    As to the schooling of Obama, in his very own words:

    In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies
    Yet CNN tries to parse Obamma's own words away by saying"

    This is a public school," Priyono told CNN correspondent John Vause in Jakarta. "We don't focus on religion." Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school, CNN reported.

    So there is ppj repeating a lie when in reality:
    CNN debunks false report about Obama

    Fox & Friends "Apologizes" For Madrassah Slur

    John Moody, a senior vice president at Fox News, said its commentators had erred by citing the Clinton-Obama report. "The hosts violated one of our general rules, which is know what you are talking about," Mr. Moody said. "They reported information from a publication whose accuracy we didn't know."


    Parent
    But of course ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    ... ppj would pick one minor point to complain about to try to distract from the fact that he was so totally blown out of the water when his 'enemies list' comparison was proven totally false.

    Parent
    Sailor, Thank you for proving my point (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:38:14 PM EST
    that you are returning to your past actions of declaraing everything you disagree with as a "lie," "liars, etc.

    1. My comment noted that Obama attended religious training, as he writes in his book.

    That is a fact.

    2. The school offical said that religious training was offerred.

    That's a fact.

    Both of the above are in my comment as anyone can see. I made no mention of Wahhabism or make any claims about extremism.

    My opinion was that I thought CNN was trying to parse what the school offical had said by not including what Obama had written.

    After all, as you provided to me for my use. As Moody said, "The hosts (writers) violated one of our general rules, which is know what you are talking about," Mr. Moody said."

    I again offer you the very sound advice so oten spoke by Sgt. Joe Friday. "Just the facts, mam."

    I will put your name on my "edger" list.

    Parent

    Roy (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    Maybe you should quit channeling.

    I merely noted that I find the Left hypocritical for  not complaining the same way they complained about Nixon.

    And Obama Hussien needs access to Fox more that Fox needs him.

    Parent

    Jim for goodness sakes (none / 0) (#57)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:29:12 PM EST
    First of all only an intellectual peon, not to mention a moral void, would not only equate the two but then stand by that equation.

    Surely you can do better than that.

    And then roy's "social liberal" comment pretty much sums up the difficulties of taking you seriously.

    And Obama Hussien needs access to Fox more that Fox needs him.

    If that is true then why are the Fox "reporters" the ones moaning about it?  Moreover, Fox viewers aren't going to vote for him or other Democrats anyway, so what exactly do any of them get out of playing into the network's bizzaro stereotypes?

    Anyway, while the Fox "reporters" moan, the Senator, meanwhile, without personally assisting their "coverage" of him in any way, is doing quite well.

    Also your spin on his name is predicatble and thorouhgly disgusting, whatever you think of his politics.  Wonder if you are capable of understanding that?

    Parent

    Glanton (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:51:01 PM EST
    If you think that the "Senator" with no experience and no real national exposure and name recognition among the great unwashed doesn't need the 21 million viewers Fox has then you know nothing about politcs.

    BTW - I must have been on a wine and cheese break (Us ROF's do have some perks.) because I missed exactly what Fox said that got Obama Hussien into such high anger. If my memory serves me right, it was about Obama Hussien supposedly attending a Moslem school while in Indonesia supposedly ran by one of the more virulent strains of the Moslem faith.

    Since our intrepid defenders of all things Deomcratic and Left did not provide a link providing details of this sin, I did a quick Google and posted a comment about what I found.

    First, Obama Husien in his book admitted to attending a Moslem ran school and attending religious training. (Gasp!!!!)

    Secondly, using a CNN source (please don't tell my buddies Sean and Bill) I quoted that the guy now running the school said that religious training was available for those who wanted it.

    Gosh.

    That seemed fairly straightforward to me, and everyone seemed to be happy.

    Alas, on this thread I now learn that, according to Sailor, I am spreading lies. Since I have quoted Obama Hussien's own words and the words of the school's new headmaster (?) I must assume Sailor thinks they are lying. Why he thinks this I do not know.

    Oh well, life goes on. But if Obama Hussien let's Fox News get under his skin....well since he's running against Hillary... all I can say is that he aint seen nothing yet.

    On a more serious note, I would hope that anyone elected in '08 won't loose their temper so easily...

    God, Coulter should leave the country...

    Parent

    It must suck (none / 0) (#85)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:57:41 PM EST
    to have the kind of mentality that buys into doing that with his name.  Puts you squarely in company with LGF, Dittoheads, Hannity lovers.  I really feel sorry for you.

    (To paraphrase a great song,

    What Senator Obama needs now
    Is another Fox interview
    Like I need a hole in my head.)

    Parent

    C'mon glanton (none / 0) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:13:43 PM EST
    It must suck (none / 0) (#85)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:57:41 PM EST

    to have the kind of mentality that buys into doing that with his name [ie., write Obaba Hussein]. Puts you squarely in company with LGF, Dittoheads, Hannity lovers.  I really feel sorry for you.

    Yet just two days ago you wrote:

    by glanton on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 02:39:53 PM EST [...] and more declarations that we are a Christian nation and must honor Herr Dobson's interpretation of said religion, down the legislative pike.  

    You do the same stupid thing.

    Parent

    Not the same (none / 0) (#93)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:25:00 PM EST
    I insulted Dobson by adding the titular "Herr,"  and for that matter am totally prepared to back up why I used the hyperbolic moniker.  

    (Hint: the insult has nothing to do with Dobson's name and everything to do with who and what he is)  

    So as soon as all these cretins can provide even an iota of a reason for why they are doing this with Obama's name, then we can talk.  It has nothing to do with anything the man stands for, sarc, and everything to do with, simply, using his name to exploit bigotry.

    Parent

    g-man (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:43:50 PM EST
    So the reasons you mess with someone's name are OK, but the reasons someone else does it are not.

    Why not just stand above the fray and not do it yourself - because if you do it, and then slam someone else for doing the same thing, you look kinda silly.

    fwiw, I don't support ppj's snarky use of "Obama Hussein" either.

    Parent

    Sarcasmo (none / 0) (#107)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:02:51 PM EST
    my friend, I really can't believe you think it's even comparable.  Surreal.

    What I did has nothing to do whatever with Dobson's name, and you know it.  Look, if you think it was a cheap shot using the titular "Herr," then fine.  I stand by the hyperbolic insult because of what he advocates.  But in any case I'm not trying to insult him by drawing attention to something as irrelevant as his accidental name.  

    Sheesh.

    Barak Hussein Obama cannot help his name.  It is not his fault that the middle name, for example, carries such terrible connotations because, among other things, of the whole Saddam thang.  Using the name to marginalize him even more vapid than an ad hominem attack, because it doesn't even, after all, speak "to the man."  It is naked bigotry pure and simple.  


    Parent

    g-man (none / 0) (#129)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    Your reasons to mess with someone's name are ok, but ppj's reasons to mess with someone's name aren't - in fact you slam him for doing very much the same thing you did.

    You may split hairs until the cows come home, but it looks silly, imo.

    I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

    Peace.

    Parent

    It's like you're in the Twighlight Zone (none / 0) (#136)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:58:08 PM EST
    Asserting that two different things are the same doesn't make them so, and this particular comparison makes about as much sense as arguing that Obama not talking to Fox reporters is the same as Nixon's enemy list.

    Saying "Herr Dobson" in your mind is the same as attacking someone because of what their name happens to be.  Definitely the most tortured logic I've seen on here in a while, not counting Jim of course.  

    Parent

    "It's like you're in the (none / 0) (#140)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:22:02 PM EST
    Twighlight Zone"

    I feel the same way.

    Messing with people's names, for whatever reason, is a childish game many play here on TL. That is my point.

    However...that would seem to be a point w/o relevance as I just read through all your comments instead of skimming them, and discovered that Hussein is Obama's middle name.

    I guess I should spend more time watching O'Reilly so as to keep up with you and ppj.

    My apologies. Doh!

    Jeez, 2nd time today.

    First I don't read Kos so I don't know what the new, 25 day-old meaning of "bedwetter" is, and I don't watch Fox so I don't know Obama's middle name is "Hussein."

    I think I'd better go home now.

    Parent

    sarc (none / 0) (#142)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:33:51 PM EST
    I'm glad we were able to hash this out.

    Unfortunately, I think that the fact that his name is actually Barak Hussein Obama is going to be enough to do him in with this electorate. Which should make any thinking person sad in this the year 2007, regardless of their position with regard to his politics.

    Not only Fox, but also talk radio and much of the blogosphere makes hay with his name all the time, rhyming ith wich Osama bin Laden, conflating him with Saddam, etc.  Not hard to get Americans on board with such a project, sadly.

    Parent

    Glanton... a kittle slow today??? (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:42:47 PM EST
    I hate to explain it... but...

    If the fact that someone using his middle name will be a problem, he is in a heap of trouble...

    That was, is and will be my point.

    Like Kennedy, he has some explaining to do about his religios background.

    And avoiding it will just make matters worse.

    Parent

    You know what you're doing with his name (none / 0) (#103)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    You and your fellow dittoheads.  And you think it's reasonable, maybe even "fun" to do it.  That's why I feel sorry for you.

    Parent
    Glanton (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:52:27 AM EST
    Nope. That's not true. I was trying to make a sarcastic point. BION.

    And it will get worse. Much worse. What the Right doesn't do, Hillary's team will.

    She, and those around her, are in it to win. And they are tough, smart and very focused.

    Maybe we elected the wrong person in '92.

    Parent

    It's Amazing (none / 0) (#169)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:12:55 AM EST
    How the Clintons are responsible for everything isn't it.  They even cause you post bigotry!  Is there no end to their influence?

    Parent
    Ain't it funny ... (none / 0) (#177)
    by Sailor on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:54:30 PM EST
    ... how we quote the wrongwingers lying about and smearing clinton and obama at the same time and the screech that eminates from their frothing supporters is 'HRC is tough and focused.'

    Those sound like good qualities in a president to me. Much better than an alcoholic and drug abuser who can't lies about WMDs and 9/11 AQ connections to attack a country that had neither.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    So you don't believe that Hillary Clinton won't blast away at Obama?

    Hey, everyone deserves their opinion.

    Hope you don't mind if I giggle a bit.

    Parent

    ppj giving political advice ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:13:01 PM EST
    ... is like bush campaigning for you.

    Parent
    Hypocrisy (none / 0) (#81)
    by roy on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:44:31 PM EST
    Are you claiming that the two acts are similar?

    Or are you claiming that Leftists are obligated to complain about one act the same way they complained about a very different act?

    Parent

    Roy (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:45:28 PM EST
    My point was that the Left complained about Nixon's act, but not about Obama's.

    Both expose a mentality that shouldn't be in a President.

    Just as I shudder as I watch the Left make excuses for the terrorists and Jew haters, I also shudder when they do things like this.

    Parent

    quit lying jim (none / 0) (#118)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:14:08 PM EST
    obama doesn't have an enemies list.

    quit lying after all your arguments have been proved wrong.

    No muslim religious school and no enelies list.

    quit lying.

    Parent

    Your argument distilled (none / 0) (#125)
    by roy on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:27:24 PM EST
    You're basically saying "I don't like it".

    Hell, Jim, if you could say that without throwing all this Nixon, Jew-hater, terrorist chaff, we'd be on the same side.

    Obama's reaction struck me as immature.  Shades of "take my ball and go home".  It also makes me doubt the sincerity of his famous collegial attitude.

    Bad journalism is a reality.  If he won't deal with it directly now, why should we expect him to deal with it well as President?

    Parent

    Obama and enemies list. (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:01:11 AM EST
    Roy - We, I hope, can agree on this item, but we will continue to disagree on the other.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:40:17 AM EST
    At least SOMEONE is being held accountable for corporate greed in this country. I feel so much safer now. Is this what I get for 50% of my tax dollars?

    I would not blame Bush (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:44:05 AM EST
    He is not mentally capable of such a difficult task as a Lite Brite. He should stick to the "Etch-a-Sketch", or "Hooks and Ladders".

    Nor are his adoring followers (none / 0) (#13)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:46:07 AM EST
    You know he's gay, don't you Jim. You don't know where it's been. You're looking for love in all the wrong places.

    Che (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:22:35 AM EST
    He's gay?

    So, what's your point? As a person who believes in gay rights I find your comment troubling in that it appears to claim that his actions are based on his sexual orientation.

    You're disgusting.

    Parent

    Thanks to the (none / 0) (#18)
    by Patrick on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:12:03 AM EST
    SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

    It's now even more difficult for law enforcement agencies to investigate their own.  Of course this case centers around a public defender, which should interest some of you, it also effects compelling testimony from Police Offcers.  Before this decision an agency could terminate, for insubordination, a peace officer who refused to answer questions during an administrative investigation where there was a potential for criminal charges.  Now they have to be offered immunity.  Nice eh?

    Combined with provisions of the POBAR, which is a double edged piece of legislation that effects how peace officer investigations are done, I think it will be even harder to remove cops who need to to go.  

    Who's got an opinion on the comment rating system? (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:13:40 AM EST
    Does it seem beneficial to anybody?  Harmful?

    Just curious.  I thought comment ratings would be a nice benefit of the move to scoop, because like a lot of free marketeers I have an irrational fascination with token economies.  Now I'm not sure it does anything useful at all.

    Roy (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    I have never rated anyone.

    I do not like the nested format because I think it is somewhat like Instant Messaging, leading to a lot of snappy replies made for points only.

    Parent

    Me neither.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:52:16 AM EST
    I've never rated a comment...I'd rather just reply and say "good point" or something.

    Seems kinda pointless to me.

    Parent

    I read a critique (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:32:07 AM EST
    of it somewhere a couple of weeks ago, roy. I'll try to dig it up again tonight maybe, if I can find it again. The gist of it was that it and the mojo system weren't too well liked on other scoop sites, and that in most cases ratings were either "1" basically meaning "don't like the comment or the commenter", or or "5" meaning the reverse, and that the developers were kicking around different ideas.

    Parent
    I'd rate it a "0" (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:02:04 PM EST
    Jim (none / 0) (#30)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 11:56:54 AM EST
    Just messing with you. You love the guy so much.
    I'm glad you are not homophobic.

    Che (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    I would think that the person who wants to "mess" with someone about people's sexual orientation has some "homiphobic" tendancies they need to address.

    Parent
    Why the Left changed their stripes. (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:03:15 PM EST
    As someone who came from the liberal Democratic world who long ago recognized that the "new" Left is about power only, I found the following intersting. He makes some powerful points.

    I supposed their furious indifference was reasonable. They had many good arguments that I would have agreed with in other circumstances. I assumed that once the war was over they would back Iraqis trying to build a democracy, while continuing to pursue Bush and Blair to their graves for what they had done. I waited for a majority of the liberal left to off er qualified support for a new Iraq, and I kept on waiting, because it never happened - not just in Britain, but also in the United States, in Europe, in India, in South America, in South Africa ... in every part of the world where there was a recognisable liberal left. They didn't think again when thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered by 'insurgents' from the Baath party, which wanted to re-establish the dictatorship, and from al-Qaeda, which wanted a godly global empire to repress the rights of democrats, the independent-minded, women and homosexuals. They didn't think again when Iraqis defi ed the death threats and went to vote on new constitutions and governments. Eventually, I grew tired of waiting for a change that was never going to come and resolved to find out what had happened to a left whose benevolence I had taken for granted.

    I didn't have to wait. I knew what was coming, After losing the election and allowing Bush to have a successful invasion there was no way the Left was going to let him have an easy and successful ending to the war.

    So the enemy of their enemy became, if not their friend, someone to apologize for. They even accept the assistance of those whose anti-Jew statements should make us all shudder.

    what a troller (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:03:00 PM EST
    from the 'mission accomplished' of May 2003 to Nov 2007 bush had his chance ... and failed miserably at every thing except corruption, torture, murder, rape etc.

    And it was alllll the 'lefts' fault.

    Here's your cookie, now go back under the bridge.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:24:03 PM EST
    So, you can't refute the comment.

    We knew that. You didn't have to prove it.

    Parent

    Did you hear a buzzing noise, Sailor? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:25:24 PM EST
    Actually (none / 0) (#62)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    I heard a flushing sound, the sound of desperation when ppj and his fellow 29 percenters try desperately to stay afloat in the bowl of lies that bush pushed the handle on.

    Parent
    Come on Sailor (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:58:54 PM EST
    The links, sailor! The Links!

    Parent
    liars don't get links (none / 0) (#119)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:17:17 PM EST
    They are such (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:09:41 PM EST
    cute little things, though. Aren't they? ;-)

    Parent
    Good One (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    The Irony Is That If Franken Gets Elected...

    there'll be one less joker in the Senate.

    by tristero



    Bush Lying again? (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    What a surprise.


    News breaking out of the Congressional Budget Office: While the president has been saying the 'surge' will be 21,500 troops. Actually it will be between 35,000 and 48,000. More momentarily.

    TPM

    The Massacre at An Najaf (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    is turning out to be exactly that. A massacre. Of nearly 300 children, women, and men., and probably one of the worst, if not the worst, events since the Iraq invasion.

    It is also turning out to be a massacre of the Bush Administration and the Iraqi Government's credibility, and of any remaining doubt of the lies and propaganda spewed by both.

    All the spinning in the world of this is only going to cause the spinners to fly apart from the centrifugal force. Watch out for flying bullsh*t.

    The corporate media cover-up of the Najaf massacre
    By Mike Whitney

    Online Journal Contributing Writer
    Feb 1, 2007, 00:52

    There is no filter between the military and the media; it's a direct channel. In fact, all of the traditional obstacles have been meticulously swept away so the fairy tales that originate in the Pentagon end up on America's front pages, TV screens and airwaves with as little interference as possible.

    In the present case, we were told that "hundreds of gunmen from a `messianic cult' (Soldiers of Heaven) planned to disguise themselves as pilgrims and kill clerics on the holiest day of the Shiite calendar." We are expected to believe that they put their wives and children in the line of fire so they could conceal their real intention to lay siege to the city.

    How many men would willingly drag their families into battle?

    According to the Associated Press: "Their aim was to kill as many leading clerics as possible, including the main ayatollahs, which would include Iraq's main spiritual leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. . . . Najaf government officials indicated that the militants included both Shiite and Sunni extremists, as well as foreign fighters."

    Horsesh*t.

    What we know now is that there were no foreign fighters (or al Qaida, as was originally stated), nor were there any Sunni militants. It was a group of Shiites who were rivals of the Shiite-led government (the SCIRI and Da'wa parties which represent Muqtada al Sadr and Abdel Aziz al-Hakim).

    So what really happened?
    ...
    Hoorah! More innocent people butchered!

    Say what you will about the corporate media; they still haven't lost their appetite for carnage.

    Neither has the decider-in-chief who, when asked about the attack, answered, "My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something."

    What the Iraqis "showed" Bush was how easy it is to dupe the US military into carrying out their genocidal reprisals against rival groups. Just as the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias are "laying low" while the US military ethnically cleanses Sunni neighborhoods throughout Baghdad, so too, the Shiite-led Iraqi government is now using American firepower to eliminate their potential Shiite enemies.

    Apparently, Bush is as happy with this new arrangement as the Shiite warlords who now run the country.



    Rashamon (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    The story is about as clear as Rashomon.been a remake of Rashamon the WH version would be edited out. Pure propaganda 101.

    Parent
    Rashomon (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    Ooops sorry about the jumble. If this was a remake of Rashomon the WH version would be edited out as it is pure self-serving propaganda.

    Parent
    Bush Comment on Najaf Farcical (none / 0) (#173)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:55:18 AM EST
    Juan Cole, Feb 02/07
    Hawatimah Tribe of Diwaniyah involved in Mahdist Uprising?
    Attempts are being made to knock down all kinds of stories about the Najaf uprising. Bush expressed happiness that the Iraqi Army (actually the Badr Corps fundamentalist Shiite militia) acquitted itself well against the rebels. But in fact, the Iraqi security forces were surrounded, cut off and nearly destroyed by heavily armed cultists--and had urgently to call in US troops, tanks and close air support.

    Bush told National Public Radio on Monday, "My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something."

    So does the US military not tell Bush when their Iraqi allies get into deep trouble fighting a few hundred cultists and they have to go bail them out? Or was Bush briefed on the situation and he came out and told a bald faced lie to the public about what had happened?

    Either thing at a time the country is at war is truly horrifying.



    Parent
    Edger - Wrong (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:49:29 PM EST
    I note that you leave out a news link.

    As for "massacre," what happened?

    American helicopters then arrived and dropped leaflets saying: "To the terrorists, surrender before we bomb the area." The tribesmen went on firing and a US helicopter was hit and crashed killing two crewmen.

    So all that the tribesmen, if that's what they were, had to do was quit firing. They chose not to.

    That was a very bad decision. But it was their decision.

    Parent

    The lack (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    of an "easy, successful, ending to this war" is the Lefts fault. Is that what you're claiming, Jim? The motives, strategy, and execution were so flawless and morally pure, that it could only have gone awry through the lefts emboldening of the enemy. LOL.  

    Is this the post-Vietnam, reponsibility dodge/hissy fit all over again? I think it is.


    Time to take a hint from Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:22:25 PM EST
    and apply it to dodgers and hissy fitters.

    Parent
    Edgere - Calls people liars (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:57:32 PM EST
    Well, you're the one who throws fits and call people liars.

    And then won't apologize when proven wrong.

    Want me to provide a link to it, again?

    Tell me Edger, how can you claim to have any type of respectable position when you do such things?

    Parent

    Jondee - Can't you read?? (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    I am just noting that I find it remarkable that the Left has not supported the Iraqi people. Instead, as the article points out, it has chosen to make, if not allies, at least excuses, with those who attack the ordinary Iraqi citizen so as to terrify them into not resisting a take over by the terrorists.

    And they have also accepted into their group people who stridently anti-Jewish and extremely paranoid.

    Parent

    Nick Cohen Tripe again (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    ...as the article points out...
    Stop parading your neocon heros as members of the left. Nick Cohen is a big Chalabi supporter and Muslim hater. He is about as far left as Michael Leeden who he is obviously modeling himself after.

    He is a right wing radical who claims that the left is now the ultra right wing. Horse Pucky.

    Parent

    Squaky (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:48:42 PM EST
    Well, whatever he is...

    You still can't answer the questions, can you?

    ;-)

    Parent

    I heard comment on NPR that (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    Obama made a couple days ago at the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (comment comes at around 4 hours,18 minutes or so of the videocast) regarding global warming.

    Anyway, Obabma's comment was "[global warming will cause] drought, famine, storms and floods to take over our planet."

    Since "bedwetter" seems to be a term several commenters around here like to use regarding some other's concerns about other dangers (I think regarding national defense, mainly), should not Obabma be similarly derided as a bedwetter?

    SUO (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:46:59 PM EST
    No, because he is sincere....

    ;-)

    Parent

    Sh*t... (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:44:36 PM EST
    ...my misspelling of Obama's name was truly an innocent mistake, no pettyness intended.

    Sure it was (none / 0) (#91)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:21:15 PM EST
    Srac... sorry I mean Sarc. ;-)

    Anyway, to your point. I don't know about "take over our planet" but each of those things is already happening to progressively greater and greater degrees, more and more often all over the planet. So Obama is making a truthful statement.

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:24:04 PM EST
    You really can't see the point?

    I read your comment and replied (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    while I was in the midst of a conference call. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

    Parent
    Ok got you (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:27:42 PM EST
    I don't think there is any equivalence between what Obama said and wot fearmongering, no.

    Parent
    However (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:34:52 PM EST
    There IS equivalence in another sense . Both problems can be solved by stopping doing the things that are causing the problems. And either or both problems may be the end of us if we keep doing the things that are causing them.

    Parent
    Bedwetters (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:53:32 PM EST
    Lets see here. Following the money... This Administration has amassed most, if not all, of its power by frightening Americans about the terror threat.

    Turns out that most, if not all the administration's claims regarding terror threats have been shown to be untrue.

    A basic tenet of the neocon philosophy, derived from Strauss, is that in order to maintain control over the population an elite group of leaders must lie and instill fear in the population at large.  

    Looks like the plan of creating a nation of bedwetters worked for a while but the nation has caught on to the WH lies. Mostly they are not working any more.

    On the other hand global warming has been proven to exist, even the president has admitted as such.

    There is little debate amongst scientists, save for those hired by big oil, that global warming is a problem that must be solved. Most people are still driving SUV's as this administration has told the public not to worry.

    Not too much bedwetting going on. If you are still confused you may want to look at how the current usage of bedwetter came into being. Being concerned about something that can be turned around is a far cry from bedwetting. Bedwetters believe that terrorists are going to take over America and force them to practice Sharia law.

    Terrorists and freedom fighters will always exist. The WOT is not something that can ever be won. In otherwords the whole premise of bedwetting is that is is a self perpetuating never ending problem much like the WOD.

    Stanching or slowing down global warming is not a never ending problem. Scientists do not work that way. Usually they, as opposed to politicians, are interested in solving problems not perpetuating them.

     

    Nice post, Squeaky. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:02:29 PM EST
    Very well put.

    And Kos' post was almost as good as yours. He'll be something someday. ;-)

    Parent

    These cops... (none / 0) (#110)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:07:45 PM EST
    are sick.

    "Well," Spencer said, "that will be something you can take care of when we get done with you."


    No sh*t (none / 0) (#117)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    Now in the eyes of our local right-to-lifer wingnuts, this is... what's that word again? Ummmm... oh, yeah...

    Murder?

    Parent

    I don't know if.. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Patrick on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:50:55 PM EST
    They are sick, but they have lots of problems now.  I can't see any real defense of their actions other than lots of times people pretend to be ill or in need of hospitalization to avoid incarceration.   Doesn't look like they made the right call.  I don't know if that caused the miscarriage or not, so I imagine that's the question.  Still neither side is blameless.  

    Parent
    What would you expect (none / 0) (#135)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:54:45 PM EST
    will be the result of the "internal investigation" their department is apparently conducting, Patrick?

    Honest question. I don't think all internal affairs depts are there to just whitewash.

    What would most police depatrments do?

    Parent

    Hard to say (none / 0) (#141)
    by Patrick on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:26:33 PM EST
    depends on their policy and procedures, and I can't speak intelligently on Kansas City, since I'm sure there are wide differences.  

    If it were to happen here, the IA would focus on whether they had a reasonable excuse not to obtain medical assistance.   Quite frankly, in my jurisdiction, the jail naver would have accepted her without prior medical clearance, but that could be a difference between KC and Ca.  Back to the reasonable excuse..... barring a valid reason, and based on what appears to be deliberate indifference(Reading into the comments they were alledged to have made), if there is a nexus to that and the loss of the child, the department is paying big money.  If there is a preponderance that the indiference is not the proximal cause of the miscarriage, then I'd submit they will be quite a bit better off.  Either way, a suspension or termination if they have priors would probably be in order.  I'd have a hard time agreeing with a murder charge as someone up thread claimed.  


    Parent

    Thanks for that, Patrick (none / 0) (#143)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:38:30 PM EST
    The woman who lost her anticipated child might not have a hard time a hard time agreeing with a murder charge or some other criminal charge though, I would think...

    I'd like to see a womans reaction here in the comments to this story, myself.

    Parent

    Indeed she may (none / 0) (#146)
    by Patrick on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 06:14:03 PM EST
    not agree.  It all boils down to what caused the miscarriage and based on her statements that she was bleeding at the time, it's likely that it may have been unavoidable.  I'm not a doctor (Obviously), but I do have some experience with miscarriages as a father.  They are a lot more common that most people think, or at least than I thought until I went through the experience with my wife.  If the miscarriage was unavoidable, then there is no real culpability for the death on part of the officers, or you'd have a hard time proving it beyond a reasonable doubt in court if it ever got that far.  They would still have to answer for any policy violations, but that is administrative in nature.  

    Now, if there's medical evidence that proves their actions were the proximal cause of the miscarriage, then there's a stronger likelihood of some type of prosecution.  Whether or not murder is sustainable charge depends on how the laws in that state are written.  In California I think it's be unlikely to rise to that level, whether or not an involved party agrees with me, doesn't change what it is.  

    In the end, this is just like most cases reported in the press.  Not enough facts to make an informed decision.  Just enough to put one party under the microscope and get a lot of people speculating on what might be.  

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#134)
    by Patrick on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:53:00 PM EST
    if this happened in California they'd now have a quite a shield thanks to the California 6th which I posted on above.  

    Parent
    Terms (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:12:05 PM EST
    I love it when people who say they won't fight use terms like, "bedwetters."

    Yep. Makes me wonder.

    Bedwetters (none / 0) (#120)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:17:23 PM EST
    "how the current usage of bedwetter came into being"
    Their fear and cowardice is exposed when they patently refuse to put on some combat boots and head to the theater of war to fight their boogeymen.


    edger (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:24:49 PM EST
    No.

    The argument that someone must join the military is so old it has chin whiskers.

    Now tell me how you can talk about the military since you have never served.

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#121)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:17:49 PM EST
    Some people talk of their concerns about terrorism, and others of their concerns of "drought, famine, storms and floods taking over our planet."

    The first is a bedwetter, in your view, and the second is not.

    I don't expect you to see the inconsistency, but it's there for those who can.

    No, it's not (none / 0) (#122)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    Bedwetters want other people to go fight their boogeymen in their self created wot, while they hide and cry and and push a wall of children out to die for them.

    Usually people concerned and trying to do something about global climate change start with themselves and do the things they can do on an individual level, that if multiplied by enough people, will eliminate the causes of global climate change. One of those things they do is educate, or try to educate, others about the problem and how to solve it.

    Parent

    edger writes (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:26:25 PM EST
    Usually people concerned

    That's why all those "stars" drive SUV's and fly in private jets, eh?

    LOL ;-)

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#127)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:39:10 PM EST
    Whu? Your link never mentions the term "bedwetter."

    I have always taken your use of it to mean someone who's exhibiting an over-reaction to a threat or something like that.

    If there is some very new, very narrow definition of the term that you are using, fair enough, however you should be aware that this new definition is not widely known and those who aren't up on Kos's 1/5/7 post (if there is a mention of the term in there somewhere, I certainly couldn't find it) will have no reason not to think you are using anything but its "usual" meaning.

    Parent

    The title of Kos' post Sarc (none / 0) (#132)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:51:35 PM EST
    "Bedwetters"

    Parent
    Who looks at titles? (none / 0) (#137)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:03:11 PM EST
    ;-)

    Doh! I read everything but it. Fair enough.

    Its hard to communicate when otherwise fairly commonly understood terms have unusual meanings for some of the participants but not others.

    That said, I accept there is no equivalency w/regard to Kos's new usage.


    Parent

    I thought you would, Sarc. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:08:52 PM EST
    It's really not new though - it's pretty much what I  and I think also Squeaky who wrote about it above, and most people, mean by it...

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#145)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:54:27 PM EST
    you and squeaky ought to get on over to Wikipedia and create an entry, as it has no entry for bedwetter yet.

    You guys can be the authors!...or something...however that thing works...

    Parent

    edger and squeaky (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:16:37 AM EST
    What this is.... is the standard trick of taking a word and assigning it to a group that you want to attack. So we now have "bedwetters" assigned as a code word to be used against anyone who brings the issue of terrorism into the political discussion.

    Of course this is despicable, and wouldn't be tolerated by the Left if it was the Right doing it about any other group.

    In short, the use of the word demonstrates that the user is hypocritical.

    But noting that the user is a hypocrite will not stop the practice. Indeed the user will just preen and bask in the glow of the warm approval of his peers, content because they no longer need to think for themselves. Say the buzz word and enjoy the appaluase.

    But the use of the word will not stop the discussion. Terrorism by the radical moslems is a well documented fact, and how that is to be addressed is a valid political discussion.

    It is a pity that some on the Left now wants to run and hide in a thicket of words with double meanings rather than by a give and take using words that all can understand.

    Parent

    I love it (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:35:05 PM EST
    when people who wont fight hide out in champagne units and Naval Aviation and then talk about other people who "wont fight".

    And (none / 0) (#130)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:48:26 PM EST
    they're cute too. But I guess they keep tugging because they're afraid that we might get fed up and... stop feeding them?

    ;-)

    Parent

    Jondee (none / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:33:06 PM EST
    Your ignorance is so astounding that I truly understand why you display it.

    But really, it is nothing to be proud of.

    I've already linked to a cockpit shot of a modern jet fighter, so you know you couldn't handle it, yet  you keep mouthing off.

    Gesh.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    "He has a little explaining to do about his religious background."

    To who; you and the Klan?

    Jondee (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:30:55 PM EST
    What the race card again?? I am shocked, yes shocked.

    Look oh dumb one. This is politics. You are probably too young to remember, but Kennedy was being attacked because he was catholic.

    He stepped forward, said he was an american first, and the issue disappeared.

    Obama will need to do the same.

    I rather suspect he knows that.

    That you don't is not a surprise.

    Parent

    Wha.... (none / 0) (#150)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:36:02 PM EST
    ppj has clearly lost his mind.

    Parent
    We're having a statue made (none / 0) (#156)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:02:16 AM EST
    to commemorate the event. So he doesn't forget that he never used it anyway.

    Parent
    Btw (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:52:34 PM EST
    The suck-up-to-the-host "jew hater" b.s is pretty thin gruel coming from a guy who on the other thread was promulgating the Gibsonesqe "the Jews crucified Christ" myth. With friends like you pokerputz, they dont need enemies.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:27:57 PM EST
    What a dummy you are. The point was that Jew haters use that as an excuse. So why try to distort??

    Parent
    Playing the A.S card (none / 0) (#139)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:20:15 PM EST
    big time today. Im betting the closest pp's been to actual Jews was a late night showing of Fiddler.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:39:57 PM EST
    And you know Jews and that is the reason you don't like them?

    Tell us some more reasons you don't like Jews...

    Parent

    I love (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 05:44:52 PM EST
    "he has a little explaining to do" from the guy that said Kerry was the one who made military service an issue. What a snake.

    Quick cash from AEI (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:04:03 PM EST

    The oil lobby is so desperate to push back on the new climate change report [out tomorrow] that they have been offering to pay global warming skeptics to speak out:

    Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

    Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded [1.6mil) thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

    think progress

    A few of the more notorious AEI members:

    John R. Bolton
    Lynne V. Cheney
    David Frum
    Newt Gingrich
    Irving Kristol
    Michael A. Ledeen
    Richard Perle
    John Yoo

    BTW- Leeden has just announced that he was never for the Iraq war (liar), although he is, and always has been for attacking Iran.

    Sailor (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:05:48 PM EST
    Sailor - Your verbal nonsense is truly beyond belief.

    If you can read, which I am truly beginning to believe that you can not, you will note that I bever said he attended a religious moslem school.

    I quoted Obama who himself wrote that that he attended religious training.

    I quoted the schools manager (?) that said religious training was available for those who wanted it.

    Your attacks have become out of control, I urge you to seek help.

    pp (none / 0) (#160)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:55:09 AM EST
    Bottom line. According to every poll, only 20 to 30% of your "Christ killers" buy your some-of-my-best-friends b.s.

    But you go ahead and keep trying to tell Jews who's really looking out for their interests; they need someone to explain it to them.

    Jondee - Why is this? (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:01:29 AM EST
    Actually my comments and questions point out the remarkable joining together of Jew haters and some on the Left.

    Let me remind you that the calls for women's rights in the Moslem world by various Left wing women's groups have largely disappeared.

    Why is this?

    Parent

    Congrats (none / 0) (#161)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:59:10 AM EST
    pokerputz, with this Obama nonsense you've put the chisel to the bottom of the sewer and managed to achieve a new low. What a class act.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:49:01 AM EST
    "pokerputz?" How intelligent of you. What a remarkable demonstration of your vocabulary.

    If you will bother to read my original comment about Obama's school you will see that I did not support the Fox charge. What I did was note, very simply, that Obama had written himself that he attended religious traing while in the school. I also said that the current school master (?) (quoted from CNN) had said that moslem religious training was available for those who wanted to attend it.

    There is nothing untoward in that, and I stand 100% behind it.

    As to the matter of Obama's "enemies" list I asked the Left, that since Nixon's enemies list was deemed bad, why wasn't Obama's? I would think that no one would want a President who adopted such a juvenile position in regards to the press. It leans very definitely towards suppression of the press, and suppression of free speech. I hope that Obama re-considers his position and disavows it.

    As to his name, I made a bad decision in trying to use sarcasm in pointing out that the Right, and Hillary's minions, will use that against him. You may note that to make it even more obvious I put his middle name fist and his first name last.
    You may beat me severely for this tactical mistake.

    What you may not do is make light of my sincere comments about some of his problems. One is his name, and how the Right and Hillary will use that against him. My comment re Kennedy was historically correct. He stepped forward and said he was an American first and the bigots slinked back into the dark. Obama needs to do the same thing, and I bet this generation of bigots will also slink away.

    Parent

    Jondee (none / 0) (#170)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:21:14 AM EST
    Heh. I doubt very much that this generation of bigots will ever slink away. They'll shamelessly keep oozing back to slink and slither in plain sight, fooling themselves into thinking they aren't transparent.

    They're cute though, in a pitiful sort of way. ;-) They get so desperate when they aren't fed. Almost makes one feel sorry for them.... almost.

    Parent

    With friends like you.. (none / 0) (#162)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:08:07 AM EST
    Saying its true the Jews killed Christ and anti-semites use that as an excuse is like saying its true black men like to rape white women and racists use that as an excuse.

    Jondee - Thanks for the laugh. (none / 0) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:22:12 AM EST
    It is a fact that Jews crucified Christ. It is also true that for centuries that it has been preached that for this they were scattered to the winds.

    Moderates normally ignore this, as they should.

    This is a staple item of many Jew haters. It gives them "God's" approval for doing what they do.

    Your attempt to inject black-white racism into this is utter nonsense, and your comparsion is laughable.
    But, since you see everything through the lens of race, I understand your desire.

    Have you ever thought about looking into a mirror??


    Parent

    ppj in the echo chamber (none / 0) (#172)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    It is a fact that Jews crucified Christ.
    Hahahahah

    Got proof, as you like to say?

    You may be an old fart, but you are not that old to know that false fact.

    Do you also believe the fact that jews practiced blood rituals using the blood of christian babies?

    Not to mention that the 'jews killed Christ' story has been totally debunked as anti-semitic propaganda promulgated by people who had political motivation to foment hatred against the jews. Not too different from now, except the flavor du jour is Moslem hatred. You should be able to relate to that.

    Your dishonest attempts to smear Obama are on the level of a sixth grader. A set up that is not as clever as you imagine.  We know what you said. At the very least it is dishonest trolling.

    And pokerputz is a funny distortion of your moniker, unlike the stupid distortions of others monikers that you regularly come up with.

    Parent

    Squeaky attempts another smear. (none / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    You and Jondee have a way of trying to turn everything possible into an attack, making it almost impossible to have a discussion with you.

    That you do this to smear is of no surprise, because you have already written:

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    Now that we have established your credentials, I note that I was making a comment about the Jew haters from the right joining the jew haters from the left. But you knew and undetstood that.

    As for Obama, my comment is there and plain to see. I stand behind it because it is true.

    Parent

    Bullseye (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    ppj's banner again proof that he has been outed for BS remarks.

    Parent
    "Lense of race" (none / 0) (#164)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:34:59 AM EST
    from the faker that jumped up and down all yesterday about "Jew haters" in an attempt to convince the other 70 % that he and Mel dont mind that they killed Jesus.

    Btw, Just to reiterate, Palestine was under strict Roman Law and crucifixtion was a strictly Roman method of execution. But dont let actual historic facts get in your way.

    Jondee - Nonsense (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:57:56 AM EST
    What nonsense you write.

    By condemnung Jew haters I am a Jew hater??

    You are one sick puppy.

    Before the crucifixion Christ was put on trial before Herod and Pilate, who were large leaders in that time. They found no reason to crucify Jesus. But the crowd kept shouting "crucify". Finally Pilate washed his hands and said "I wash my hands of this mans blood." He then released Barabbas who was a murderer in exchange for Jesus' crucifixion and the crowd cheered.


    Parent
    I didnt say you're (none / 0) (#171)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:53:49 AM EST
    a J.H, Im just saying what everyone knows; that you're irretrievably, terminally F.O.S.

    I repeat, tell it to the 70 %; about how you, Mel and Bush know whats good for them.

    But... (none / 0) (#174)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:08:55 PM EST
    anyone who wants to believe that the Biblical account, whch varies significantly in detail from chapter to chapter, is the most reliable account of what occurred in Palestine 2,000 years ago, is free to do so; they're also free to believe that Homer is the most reliable source for the history of Greek tribal incursions in Asia Minor 3,000 years ago (Trojan WMD's!); that La Morte D'Arthur is the best account of what occurred in Britain during the Dark Ages, etc Btw, All this goes a long way towards explaining why some people believe that Iraq was a threat to the U.S and that Bush really, really wanted to fight in Vietnam. People love stories.

    Jondee - Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:49:45 PM EST
    Since the subject is Christians who use the Bible's description of what happened as a reason to hate the Jews, I would say the Bible's description would be the one of interest.

    Parent
    And who (none / 0) (#175)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:12:45 PM EST
    SPECIFICALLY, does Obama "owe an explanation to".

    Jondee (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    Catch a clue. The point is that the right will blast away at his background, as will Hillary, although her's will be very discrete and covered.

    The way to defuse that and make it a useless effort is for him to just step forward, as Kennedy did, and say it is BS.

    If you want to put it into an "owe" context, he owes it to himself and his supporters to do the best possible thing for success.

    "enemies lists" and ignoring attacks is not the way to get it done.

    There now. Feel better? Hmmmmmmm??? ;-)

    Parent

    justification? (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    What an obvious way to evade responsibility for your hit job on Obama. Paraphrased you state:

    Since Hillary will smear Obama my smear is OK.

    typical.

    Parent

    squeaky (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:53:10 PM EST
    You continue to be unable to understand that the messenger is not the message.

    That concept does require a small amount of logic. Perhaps that is why you keep missing it.

    I bet you do get excited when the newspaper writes something nice about Bush.

    Parent

    Messenger or Spinmeister? (none / 0) (#189)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:31:26 PM EST
    Nice try to squirm out of your smear. To be so faux about it too by hiding under Hillary's skirt is utterly transparent. Don't blame the messenger? Sorry the cliche doesn't fit in this case because you are not just a innocent messenger. On a daily basis you deliver the latest steaming horse pucky from the wingnut echo-chamber. Fancy yourself an innocent messenger? Ha, I call BS. You fancy yourself as a political operative that specializes in disseminating right wing propaganda.

    Obama got some explaining to do? How disingenuous of you. Obama has responded and you have seen his response posted at TL. But reality never stopped you did it.

    The report has already been completely debunked by CNN, but Obama isn't letting up. The Senator's office has just emailed out a blistering memo targeting Fox that says the following:
    If Doocy or the staff at Fox and Friends had taken [time] to check their facts, or simply made a call to his office, they would have learned that Senator Obama was not educated in a Madrassa, was not raised as a Muslim, and was not raised by his father - an atheist Obama met once in his life before he died.
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/01/post_15.php

    Parent
    It's also worth noting (none / 0) (#191)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 05:31:43 PM EST
    Taht while Hillary Clinton will certainly be aggressive in pursuing the nomination, we'll hardly see her stooping to using a candidates name as a weapon against him.  That would be beneath her, as most decent people.

    Parent
    Make that (none / 0) (#192)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 05:52:06 PM EST
    all decent people

    Parent
    Glanton (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:12:09 PM EST
    Okay.... I give up with my ill-fated attempt to bring some reason to this.

    I'll close by noting that if I were Obama I'd read some Shakesphere.

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,

    Parent

    another slur? (none / 0) (#198)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:23:34 PM EST
    Don't think that Obama has had a proper education now?
    EDUCATION
    Harvard Law School, J.D. 1991, Magna Cum Laude.
    President, Harvard Law Review
    Executive Board, Black Law Students' Association
    Columbia University, Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, 1983
    link

    Maybe it is you that needs some brushing up.

    Parent

    Why are you so defenesive?? (none / 0) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:59:05 PM EST
    I have not made a single comment about the quality of his education.

    Not one. Not any. Zero. Nadad.

    And you know that.

    I have merely noted what he himself has said, and what the headmaster of the school said. Moslem religious training was available, and he had two years of it.

    Why are you so defensive?

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#203)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:38:39 PM EST
    I have merely noted what he himself has said, and what the headmaster of the school said. Moslem religious training was available, and he had two years of it.

    Still spinning? Defensive? No, just responding to your lies and innuendo.

    He went to the school for two years. He did not study Moslem religious training there, he is not a moslem and never was. Nice try to keep yellow journalism afloat.

    And even if he was a moslem, so what? How unamerican of you. Your bigotry never seems to stop.

    Parent

    Squaky - Prove it wrong or leave it alone. (none / 0) (#204)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:38:56 PM EST
    You seem incapable of believeing what he wrote.
    He wrote that he attended two years of Moslem religious training. The headmaster said it was available.

    If you can not accept that, prove the statement wrong.

    You also can't quite grasp the fact that I have made no value judgement about this fact. For some reason you seem to be fascinated with it more so than I.

    In short you make claims I haven't made, then say he isn't a moslem, which is also something that I have never said, and then attack me by saying what if he is? Heck, I don't know. Since you brought the subject up, maybe you can answer it.

    In short squeaky, you live up to the code you have said you live by.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.



    Parent
    Squeaky - Pay attention (none / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:53:33 PM EST
    So, you are now channeling??

    Sorry the cliche doesn't fit in this case because you are not just a innocent messenger. On a daily basis you deliver the latest steaming horse pucky from the wingnut echo-chamber.

    You might consider that Obama has brought the subject of NHC into play, an issue I have noted time and again that I have a keen interest in, so I have had some interest in him.

    Us social liberals believe that there are things that the government must do besides surrendering to a bunch of terrorist who specialize in killing anyone who disagrees with them. That includes their Moslem brothers and sisters. Especially their sisters.

    BTW Squeaky.. Have you ever noticed how suppressed sexuality seems to always be associated with violence??? Ever think about all those females being made to cover up???

    As to the Senator's denial, I simply ask:
    Was the quotation from his book wrong? If so, please provide details.

    Was the quotation from the Headmaster to CNN wrong? CNN  interview link

    These two sources say that he went to a school that had religious training in the Moslem faith.

    That he now issues a press release that is accurate, but incomplete, speaks ill of him.

    That's the purpose of primaries. It shows the person.

    So far Obama is not meeting expectations. Parsing and incomplete facts no longer work.

    Parent

    ppj spreads innuendo (none / 0) (#202)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:14:48 PM EST
    ppj says muslims hate. ppj says Obama said he went to a Muslim school. (age 6-8) Therefore the smear by innuendo is that Obama is a muslim and he hates.

    The context of this lovely story is not Obama's quote that he went to a muslim school even if the school itself characterizes themselves differently, the context is a right wing hit job full of lies saying that he went to a terrorist training school, his father is muslim and that                                      Hillary Clinton broke the story.

    So for you to harp on an irrelevant quote in the context of the Moonie smearjob is disgusting and typical of your spin.

    BTW- this is how the school describes itself:

    "It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school."
    CNN

    So ppj what is your point? or are you just trying to keep a discredited wingnut hit job spinning?

    Parent

    Squeaky - Facts don't matter to you. (none / 0) (#205)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:55:52 PM EST
    You must be allergic to facts. You also like to smear, and then leave things out. Let us review.

    I have never said Obama is a Moslem.  

    I have quoted him saying:

    In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies

    I also quoted what the headmaster/CNN said.

    This is a public school," Priyono told CNN correspondent John Vause in Jakarta. "We don't focus on religion." Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school, CNN reported

    Are they wrong? If so, prove them.

    In the meantime, please keep attacking me. I will just keep providing the facts, again proving that facts don't matter to you because, as you said:

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.



    Parent
    Messenger or Spinmeister (none / 0) (#199)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:44:01 PM EST
    Nice try to squirm out of your smear. To be so faux about it too by hiding under Hillary's skirt is utterly transparent. Don't blame the messenger? Sorry the cliche doesn't fit in this case because you are not just a innocent messenger. On a daily basis you deliver the latest steaming horse pucky from the wingnut echo-chamber. Fancy yourself an innocent messenger? Ha, I call BS. You fancy yourself as a political operative that specializes in disseminating right wing propaganda.

    Obama got some explaining to do? How disingenuous of you. Obama has responded and you have seen his response posted at TL. But reality never stopped you did it.

    The report has already been completely debunked by CNN, but Obama isn't letting up. The Senator's office has just emailed out a blistering memo targeting Fox that says the following:
    If Doocy or the staff at Fox and Friends had taken [time] to check their facts, or simply made a call to his office, they would have learned that Senator Obama was not educated in a Madrassa, was not raised as a Muslim, and was not raised by his father - an atheist Obama met once in his life before he died.
    TPM

    Parent
    Squeaky smears again (none / 0) (#206)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:47:35 AM EST
    Good morning squeaky. I see I missed one...

    First a question. Why do you keep talking about the Fox report? I have never defended it. Are you trying to associate me with it? Well, that would be a smear. But then you told us about how you smear.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    Why indeed....

    As for explaining, I repeat that it is my advice/opinion that Obama should take Kennedy's strategy, go in front of the press and debunk this issue. If he doesn't the Right won't let it go away, and his supporters will be fighting it time after time.

    And incomplete press releases won't do the job.

    Parent

    If Obama (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 09:46:23 AM EST
    simply said, "the punditry and social liberals who want so very much to make viable 'issues' out of this stuff represent the Lowest Common Denominator, the dregs, the bottommost slough of our society, and will drag down with them any of us who take them seriously"----

    Or something to that effect, I'd be totally on board with it.  You know why?  Because he'd be speaking true.

    Parent

    Glanton (none / 0) (#212)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    If we had some ham we'd have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs.

    Parent
    He he (none / 0) (#214)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:10:45 PM EST
    Yes that's really funny.  

    Even funnier, though, is that the Lowest Common Denominator remains the Lowest Common Denominator even if Obama doesn't name it.

    Yes that's right, Jim, to paraphrase you:

    If you had some decency then you'd have some honor and decency if you had some honor.

     

    Parent

    Ta Ta Glanton! (none / 0) (#215)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 04:41:28 PM EST
    And if "ifs and buts were candy and nuts," you'd have a merry christmas.

    Thanks for demonstrating that even when my comment is in basic agreement, it is rejected because it is not in total agreement.

    Standard "don't get off the reservation" fare.

    How do you stand it?

    Parent

    Your comment (none / 0) (#216)
    by glanton on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    was most decidedly notin "basic agreement" with me or anyone who knows that these attacks on Obama represent the Lowest Common Denominator.

    The only reservation you have left is the one composed of people who condemn bigotry.  If you were ever there in the first place, that is.  

     

    Parent

    Good night., (none / 0) (#217)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 07:52:55 PM EST
    You know, since you can't seem to grasp that I never attacked Obama over the school issue, I really have nothing to add.  Here is the origial comment.
    Let me know if you see an error.

    Edger - Wrong again (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 07:47:32 PM EST

    On Iraq, what we have is a "he said - she said." Somehow I tend to believe our side over an LA Times reporter and a Brit who obviously has a dog in the fight. i.e. If true, he hasn't been doing his job.

    As to the schooling of Obama, in his very own words: (n his book Dreams Of My Father (p.142)

    "In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies"

    This is echoed in your linked WP article by Howard Kurtz.

    "This is a public school," Priyono told CNN correspondent John Vause in Jakarta. "We don't focus on religion." Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school, CNN reported."

    Uh, given that it is in a, basically, a Moslem country and given the words of Obama himself, do you think CNN/WP was accurate, or was it doing a white wash?

    Me? I think they were using the best Glidden Easy Glide and Full Cover they could find.



    Parent
    Glanton (none / 0) (#218)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:31:04 PM EST
    He is back to his old innuendo tricks and now is reduced to quoting himself out of context.

    Here is the full context.

    Parent

    Dishonest (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:33:06 AM EST
    You don't have to mention Fox, as that is the context of this discussion. To make believe that it isn't is typical of your dishonesty.

    Obama did answer to Fox's smear. I have posted the link twice. For you to ignore his statement and relentlessly continue to demand that he 'explain' is also typical of your dishonesty.

    Your behavior regarding Obama is very similar to what the Nazi's did to anyone suspected of having jewish blood, or jewish religious training or jewish sympathies. This time round it is Muslim instead of Jew. Not surprising that your smear technique is straight from Rove/Goebbels. Rove is your hero.

    Which brings up another one of your utterly dishonest tactics, namely repeating ad nauseam out of context distortions to 'prove' something that is in fact a lie.

    Whenever I out your BS you you repeat an out of context sentence I wrote about Rove. In context the quote has an entirely different meaning than what you have implied. Are we surprised?

    I repeated a rumor that Rove's grandfather was a Nazi. My point was that it made perfect sense because Rove resurrected Goebells' propaganda techniques and turned them into his trademark. The particular technique Rove is famous for is the smear or character assassination where he makes up lies about his political enemies and dissemenates them through the MSM, namely Fox and the Moonie press.

    In your dishonest smear you leave out the object of my sentence: Rove. Had you an honest bone in your body the quote would read:

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I [be held to a different standard when making allegations about Rove].

    Your implication is that in all cases I would  smear anyone without proof. This is a total lie and distortion of what I clearly meant, which is obvious to all TL regulars.

    Dishonest arguments are what you are known for here. Repeating over and over the same tripe doesn't make it true, even if Rove and Goebels have convinced you otherwise. The gig is up Herr propaganda minister akappj. Give it a rest.

    Parent

    Well said, Squeaky (none / 0) (#210)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:42:29 AM EST
    His "gig" has been up for a long time. And he's the only one who hasn't noticed, or more likely has noticed but wilfully refuses to acknowledge.

    Parent
    Squeaky (none / 0) (#213)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    You seem to have a great deal of difficulty dealing with facts.

    My comments were factual. There is no denying that. They were not damaging to Obama, unless you consider him saying he had religious training, and the Headmaster saying it was available, damaging.

    Since you continue your attacks, I now believe you think they are. I do not.

    I answered your excuse regarding the Rove comment in another thread. I'll do it again.

    What you have said is that it is okay for you to not have to use facts IF, you now claim, you are refuting Rove.

    First, two wrongs do not make a right.

    And as soon as you start making exceptions to that very simple fact, you have lost the bedrock for any ethical behavior.

    Bluntly speaking your defense makes the statement worse. I would advise you not to try and use it.

    Your many attacks against me proves my point.

    Parent

    Weak, (none / 0) (#219)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:05:03 PM EST
    Very weak.

    Parent
    Yeah, Jondee (none / 0) (#184)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    The right will spew all over the place. Some will even do it while pretending to be social liberals offering friendly sincere advice, while somehow convincing themselves that people won't notice that they are obvious and utterly inept liars, especially to themselves, who are the only people dumb enough to fall for their infantile efforts. It's no wonder they were so easily suckered by George.

    They're cute though. ;-)

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#188)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:54:24 PM EST
    Nice picture. Is the ankle biter you or squeaky?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#211)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    The jeans look like some of mine. But all jeans look pretty much the same, so they could be Squeaky's, or anyone else's. How's that for a kick in the teeth.

    Parent
    a repeating historical pattern (none / 0) (#182)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    Once again our long history of training terrorist comes back to bite us in the a$$.

    Here's a question: if it turns out the culprits behind the Karbala raid were not Iranian-trained but US-trained, should we attack ourselves?  This just out from Fox of all places: "Several Iraqis have been detained for questioning in the ongoing investigation of at least two senior Iraqi generals suspected of involvement in an insurgent attack that killed five American soldiers on Jan. 20, U.S. officials told FOX News on Thursday."

    TPM

    squeaky (none / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:02:04 PM EST
    Who trained them? Who cares? I again note that we provided weapons to help OBL fight the Soviets.
    That he turned on us is a matter of his morals, not our help.

    Same o same o here.

    Parent

    My point exactly (none / 0) (#195)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:03:24 PM EST
    That is (none / 0) (#196)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:09:15 PM EST
    We still haven't learned that it is not wise to train one group to kill another. Repetition of history rather that lessons learnt.

    Who cares, you ask? Well for starters the loved ones of the people killed.

    Not you or Bush though, as our troops are cannon fodder as far as you are concerned.

    Parent

    Please lose the (none / 0) (#185)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:31:41 PM EST
    name calling and personal attacks or I'll close the thread.

    "Dosnt matter" (none / 0) (#186)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:33:46 PM EST
    To you and the bigots actual history dosnt matter.I think we've already established that.

    Jondee - Reasoned response? (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 05:57:50 PM EST
    Why do you make such a comment? The subject under discussion was the belief by most Christians that Jesus was crucified by the Jews, or perhaps better stated, that they demanded that the Romans do it.

    (Surely you aren't parsing the fact that the Roman soldiers were the ones who actually did it.)

    This belief is central to some Christians justifying their hatred of Jews.

    Since this is a "belief" whether or not it is historically accurate doesn't matter in the framework of my comments. What it is, is the "reason" for their actions, although I would argue that the actual reasons are more deep seated.

    I think that your real problem is that you recognize that my comments regarding the almost unexplainable relationship that we see between the Left, who for years were staunch defenders of the Jews, and the excuses made by the Left for the actions of the terrorists, and the toleration of Jew haters who were previously 101% of the far, far right, and always associated with racism against Blacks and other minorities.

    See David Duke for an example of the Far Right.

    I am hopeful that you can give me a more reasoned response than what I have seen.

    Parent

    Via Rawstory (none / 0) (#190)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 05:06:29 PM EST
    NYT reports that the Pentagon has been fixing the numbers to downplay Iraq casualty counts.....

    The New York Times reported today that the Pentagon has altered how nonfatal casualties are tallied on its website, thus resulting in lower casualty totals.

    Link



    Misplaced Priorities (none / 0) (#208)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 09:50:37 AM EST
    As a race of beings we certainly have some serious issues..... inside us. One of which is that we are incredibly willing to allow ourselves to be spun. Another is our unbelievable willingness to sit back and just take it, over and over and over, even when we know it is being done.

    If we are willing to treat ourselves and our families this way, what kind of response should we expect from the rest of the world when America pre-emptively invades and kills them to bring them the wonders of western civilization?

    Link



    I don't know (none / 0) (#220)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 04:47:33 PM EST
    what kind of credence to give to a story like this out of Iran, but considering the subject it's worth keeping an eye on. There is very little out on the web about it.

    Iran introduces new AIDS treatment

    TEHRAN, Feb. 3 (MNA) -- Health Minister Kamran Baqeri Lankarani announced here on Saturday that Iran's scientists have produced a herbal medicine that helps control the HIV/AIDS virus.

    The drug improves the immunity system against the HIV/AIDS virus and can be used besides other anti-retroviral drugs, Baqeri Lankarani said at a ceremony held to introduce the AIDS control medicine and appreciate the medical achievements by Iranian researchers.

    The herbal drug called IMOD, is the result of five years of research and has been tested on 200 patients. It boosts the human body's immunity system in a 90-day treatment course and a 2-year follow up.

    "Deficiency of the body's immune system reflects a decrease in CD4 cells that lead to appearance of AIDS symptoms," he said, adding that the new drug controls the multiplication of HIV virus and thus helps increasing the CD4 cells.

    The herbs used in production of IMOD are completely Iranian native plants, he noted.

    Iran is the only country in the region that provides free HIV drugs to the patients, Baqeri Lankarani said.



    But (none / 0) (#221)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 05:21:34 PM EST
    I thought the Iranian cure for HIV/AIDS virus was to hang anyone who has contracted the disease, or rather anyone who contracted being gay. But it may just be that Iran is only slightly behind the US timeline in prosecuting homosexuality and advancing gay rights. Iranina GLBTs seem optimistic.

    The GLBT situation in Iran has changed over the past 26 years. The regime does not systematically persecute gays anymore, there are still some gay websites, there are some parks and cinemas where everyone knows that these places are  meeting places for gays, furthermore it is legal in Iran that transsexual applies for sex change and it is fully accepted by the government. There are some medias which sometimes (not often) write about such issues. Having said that, the Islamic law, according to which gays punishment is death is still in force but it is thought not much followed by the regime nowadays.
    link

    Parent
    But, but, but... (none / 0) (#222)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 05:29:43 PM EST
    It has to be some kind of leftist moonbat deviant emboldening urban legend. They don't exist. But just in case we need to kill anyone who even looks at us a little strangely. To prove to the moderate elements in Iran that they can count on us.

    Parent
    A decent home for $20 a month (none / 0) (#223)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 06:55:06 AM EST
    Picture here......... Article here
    Yes, it is not a misprint: $20 a month to own a house. The City Council of Marinaleda, a small town on the Spanish province of Seville gives away the land to anyone who needs a house, together with a grant, and in exchange requires that the new owner help work on its construction or pay for someone to do so. Marinaleda's mayor explains the miracle.
    ...
    While most Spaniards are wondering if apartments could be made of gold ingot instead of bricks, as the average price of a second-hand house is $282,000 - equal to nine years' salary - and politicians try to fight the problem by adopting measures as polemic as temporary expropriation of any empty apartment in order to rent it out - such a Bill will soon be approved in Catalonia, in Marinaleda it only costs $20 a month to buy a house. This is not a misprint: exactly 15.52 European Euros including the 50 cents charged by the bank to leave the receipt.

    That is to say that the monthly payment of those attached cottages the mayor shows us - 880 square feet distributed in two floors with three rooms, living room, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and a small terrace plus 980 square feet of courtyard - costs the same price as two movie tickets with its corresponding serving of popcorn, as a one hour singing lesson or a one-way bus trip from Madrid to Salamanca. The same house, but with a courtyard half the size in Villaverde, the cheapest neighbourhood in Madrid, would cost $557,000 and would take a monthly mortgage of about $2,688 lasting 30 years.