home

Wednesday Open Thread

I've got a lot of work to do today, so here's an open thread for you. All topics welcome, but remember the commenting rules and keep it clean and civil. And urls must be in html format or they skew the site requiring the deletion of your comment. Thanks.

< JFK, West Virginia, Obama And TX, OH And PA | Rule Are Rules, Except When They Are Not >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#1)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:34:11 AM EST
    will be releasing more head to head polls from individual states later this week.

    Later today actually... (none / 0) (#3)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:39:03 AM EST
    Would you rather win or lose (none / 0) (#59)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:52:36 PM EST
    It puzzles me HRC (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:38:59 AM EST
    is projected to lose WI to Obama.  Why?  Is it the way her campaign has worked/not worked there, or was it a given from the get go?

    There are a lot of (none / 0) (#8)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:55:39 AM EST
    college students and university type liberals in Wisconsin. I think that may have something to do with it.

    Parent
    New HRC ad in WI (none / 0) (#11)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:03:08 AM EST
    Hits Obama on his refusal to debate.

    Parent
    Good! We don't like Chicagoans (none / 0) (#13)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:14:06 AM EST
    dissing us . . . even more than they already do. :-)

    Parent
    No, there really are not -- (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:47:16 PM EST
    as Wisconsin is about average in educational level among the states -- and women, the majority of Wisconsinites, are below the average level of education and thus income, reproductive rights, etc.

    You're describing Madison.  Ask any Wisconsinite, and we'll you it's not like the rest of the state, at all.  And you're describing a Wisconsin of decades ago, before the longest-serving governor ever (remember Republican presidential candidate Tommy Thompson who was the first boyo to bail months ago?) devastated the public university system . . . at the same time that Minnesota invested in its system and took off economically in tech R&D.

    Two decades or so ago, Wisconsin and Minnesota were almost identical in "college students and university type liberals" and in their economies.  Today, most of Wisconsin is in deep trouble -- just not Madison, because it lives off the taxes of the rest of us.

    Parent

    Governor of Puerto Rico... (none / 0) (#4)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:46:27 AM EST
    ...is going to endorse...

    Barack Obama.

    Also, one of Clinton's campaign managers from 1992, who's also a superdelegate, is going to endorse...

    Barack Obama.

    I originally thought PR was in the bag for Clinton, but now I'm not so sure.  At any rate, this will probably eat into her delegate "get"
     from there.

    That is all its going to take (none / 0) (#14)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:17:18 AM EST
    to have every Republican and pro-statehood Democrat to vote for Clinton.  Oh PR politics at it's best.  I wonder

    Parent
    Governor of Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    is a dead man walking politically.

    I personally think he can't deliver. Rossello is the endorsement that can deliver voters.

    Parent

    You not kidding and he'll deliver (none / 0) (#16)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:22:33 AM EST
    Republicans as well.

    Parent
    And I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#17)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:23:30 AM EST
    that even if he had thought of backing Obama he is not going to now.

    Parent
    When may we anticipate an (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    analysis of the Puerto Rico Dem. primary?  

    Parent
    Ask BTD (none / 0) (#41)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:39:37 PM EST
    Maybe he can start a thread on PR politics.

    Parent
    That is exactly who I did ask. (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    I know I'm just pushing the Idea (none / 0) (#45)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    Thanks. I've also (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:14:47 PM EST
    suggested such a post in an e mail, although that was a couple weeks ago.  Who knew Puerto Rico might be so important here?

    Parent
    I guarantee you (none / 0) (#48)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    They didn't in PR till now

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#47)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    because of the lateness of the primaries in Puerto Rico I would hope this has been decided by then.

    Parent
    at least they didn't taser him (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jen M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:50:40 AM EST
    A Tampa Bay man arrested for a traffic violation was dumped out of his wheelchair, searched while he lay on the ground to the general amusement of the other police nearby. He's a quadriplegic, paralyzed from the sternum down.

    The raw footage is far worse.

    Ho Hum. Situation Normal.

     

    New World Order..... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:54:52 AM EST
    Hope everyone is enjoying the collective jackboot to the face of humanity.  Thanks for the warning Mr. Orwell!

    Pray you're not next.

    Parent

    Update.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:52:23 AM EST
    the wheelchair-bound victim of the abuse seems like a saint....peep what he said on one of the talk shows.

    "It's not about one deputy," said Sterner, 32, who flew to New York for the show. He said he wanted more attention paid to the "ridiculous down-pressing of people across the world.

    "It's not about race. It's not about a wheelchair," he said. "It can happen to anybody, anytime."

     LINK

    Down-pressing is right brother...all over the world.

    Parent

    Today's sign of the apocolypse..... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:59:59 AM EST
    Knuckleheaded couple sues neighbor over second hand smoke.  Link

    Unbelievable.  You're raising a child in Manhattan folks...second hand smoke should be the least of your worries for your child.  Besides, are they oblivious to the car/truck/bus exhaust surrounding them?

    The victim of this erroneous lawsuit says...

    "My apartment is my castle ..."

    Damn right lady...defend your castle from the wanna-be tyrants next door.

    Not surprised... (none / 0) (#19)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:33:28 AM EST
    ...this is the next step of the anti's.  No more smoking in your home.  After that, it will be no more smoking in your car.  

    I have to wonder what the target will be when they get smoking outlawed in its entirety.  Overweight people?  Back to alcohol?  All of the above?

    Parent

    All of the above.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:38:12 AM EST
    these wanna-be tyrants among us know no bounds.

    I'd add sex and gambling to the list as well...there are still places in this country where you get locked up for selling french ticklers or running a card game.

    Parent

    How on earth... (none / 0) (#22)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    ...could I forget about sex and gambling?!?  Geez, were is my mind today!

    Parent
    It's a long list.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM EST
    don't be so hard on yourself:)

    My general rule is if it feels good, somebody will be along momentarily to tell you how horrible it is, and why you should be stopped by threat of violence.

    Parent

    What is this? (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:36:19 PM EST
    Are you trying to write about something besides the Demo primaries?

    BTW - Did  you read the post on our hobby? I was looking forward to your thoughts.

    Parent

    I did..... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:06:52 AM EST
    just didn't have a chance to comment....caught it as I was running out the door.

    Good stuff in there...keep it up!

    Parent

    Depends how they ask.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    If my neighbor came over in a huff making demands I'd tell 'em to take that flying leap.  If they came over with lawsuit papers I might use even more colorful language.

    If they came over like good neighbors, said the smoke bothers them and asked if there was anyway to minimize it, I'd do my best to accomodate their request, like a good neighbor.

    ...Besides, this case involves people living in an apartment building.  It goes without saying that moving into an apartment building runs the risk of odors/second hand cig smoke/what have you.  If you ask me these morons need a single family home in the outer boroughs to achieve their desired quality of life...they will not find it in an apt. in Manhattan no matter how many lawsuits they file or neighbors they try to intimidate.  


    Parent

    got some marshmellows? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jen M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    You'd be a bad neighbor.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    if you didn't try to accomodate them in such an instance, and you'd be the a*hole.  But you would be within your rights.  If your neighbor would accept nothing less than the removal of the stove, they'd be the a*hole and not within their rights.

    Remember what we're talking about here...not a smokestack off a wood burning stove, but some freakin' cigarettes.  As a smoker, I am happy to accomodate people bothered by smoke when indoors when asked politely by going somewhere else or putting out my butt.  Outdoors in public places, I'm inclined to tell people to take a hike, depending on the situation.

    I've lived in apartment buildings...if I was asked to stop smoking while inside my apartment I'd be less than pleased.  Like the lady says...my home is my castle.

    Parent

    Don't know why.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:58:07 PM EST
    a portion is bold....Sorry.

    Parent
    It goes to expectations (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:31:20 PM EST
    If you have purchased a house in the 'burbs then I would say you have a reasonable expectation that next door neighbor wouldn't be doing the things you describe.

    If you rent an apartment, then you do not have a reasonable expectation to not be exposed to the various smells and fumes that are typical in an apartment building.

    Parent

    I would hope.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:27:57 AM EST
    my neighbors would be kind enough not to mix open flames and pure oxygen....kind and smart enough:)

    But you're right...I don't believe I have the right to go into that persons house and put their butt out or take away their oxygen tank...that's tyranny to me.  I'd rather live in a dangerous world than a tyrannical one....I can stand a little danger, I can't stand a drop of tyranny.  I realize I'm a little extreme....

    Parent

    Perhaps..... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:11:15 AM EST
    I'm more inclined to think we've got a couple anti-smoking zealots on our hands....I've met plenty to know the type.

    I wouldn't be burning all that crap, for your own health and your neighbors.  No natural untreated wood around?  Or tobacco leaves:)?

    Parent

    Interesting take from (none / 0) (#12)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:04:40 AM EST
    Dick Morris

    I know he hates the Clintons but it's still interesting.

    Rasmussen Poll - 46-41 Obama (none / 0) (#18)
    by Bear2000 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:31:37 AM EST
    Obama just shot ahead of Hillary in the latest 3-day Rasmussen tracking poll - a really huge jump. 46-41.

    If you don't think national numbers matter, you're nuts.  The pretty much sustained Hillary.  With Obama getting real Ws in primaries, raising tons of cash, winning in delegates and popular vote (with Florida and Michigan), this is just one more sign that the end is near.

    I'm guessing he's at heads above 50 after February 19 in the national polls, and vs. McCain.

    Polls (none / 0) (#29)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:04:19 PM EST
    Hey, that's great.  Though, I'm curious: why do polls matter only when Obama is "leading"?

    There was a poll two days ago that showed the exact opposite, and no one was cheering about that from the Obama camp.

    (and the numbers you cite look very familiar, so I wonder if it's the mixed up poll you got it from, where they lied about who was leading and it got picked up all over the country)

    Parent

    Individual polls don't matter (none / 0) (#33)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:31:16 PM EST
    but lots of polls do. After adding Rasmussen Obama and Hillary are tied for the first time in the RealClear Average.  

    Parent
    thanks! (none / 0) (#39)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:11:39 PM EST
    I was wondering where that goal post had moved to.  Touchdown, Obama.

    Parent
    Hillary was leading... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Bear2000 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    ...in the national polls because of brand recognition.

    And, silly, it's important because this is the first time Obama is leading by a substantial margin - by any margin - in this long-running and fairly well respected poll.  That's NEWS.  Hillary has been leading in the national polls all along.  That's NOT news.

    If you don't think this represents something ominous for the Clinton campaign, that's fine.  But it is more newsworthy than another poll that shows Hillary ahead nationally. Sheesh.

    Parent

    on the View this morning (none / 0) (#21)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:41:14 AM EST
    Hulk Hogan just said that initially he had publically endorsed Barack Obama, but had now changed his mind and is leaning toward John McCain...Hmmmmm...

    Hulk says... (none / 0) (#25)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:53:27 AM EST
    "To all my little Hulkamaniacs, say your prayers, take your vitamins and you will never go wrong."


    Parent
    if you steal (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jen M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:56:15 AM EST
    the vitamins along with the other drugs and pray to satan are you still ok?

    Parent
    The Hulkster.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:58:09 AM EST
    should moderate a debate...or does anybody know Mean Gene Okerlund's number?

    The political process has basically become the old WWF, may as well go all the way.

    Parent

    I have some questions please (none / 0) (#24)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:49:47 AM EST
    I know Obama is a very charismatic competitor in this race between him and Hilary and I respect him for that, however, I personally see some inconsistency in the Obama rhetoric.  I noted them below but I am not 100 percent if what I heard is correct.  Please tell me if what I heard is accurate or not.    

    Obama complains that Hilary used wrong judgment in voting for the Iraq resolution, however, somewhere I heard that Obama before becoming a U.S. Senator said words to the effect, " I wasn't there to vote on the resolution  and to tell you the truth had I been there I don't know which way I would have voted"  True or False?  If you have the exact quote please post it.  If he stands on the fact that he has always opposed the Iraq War resolution from the get go does this allege quote not smack in the face of hypocrisy and moreover could not this quote also be construed as bad judgment on his part for not knowing how he would have voted had he been there as compared to his strong never wavering campaign stance that he always opposed the resolution to go to war initially making him a better judge of important issues?

    A large part of Obama's rhetoric is looking forward to change and not looking back to the old politics and political machinery of the past, implying the Clintons represents this past.  Somewhere I heard he made a remark about the length of time that McCain has spent in Washington, I believe he said words to the effect, "He has been there for fifteen years", implying that, Mcain embodied the past just like the Clintons.  Did Obama ever say any such words on how long Mcain has been in office?  Yes or No.?  If he did what was the exact quote please?   If he did say this then does it not follow that this is somewhat hypocritical that he would accept the endorsement of Caroline Kennedy, whose father was a congressman then senator for a combined period of 14 years before he ran for the presidency and also isn't it hypocritical taking Teddy Kennedy's endorsement who has been there forever and who is so much a part of the past political machinery.  How in the world does he square accepting these endorsements with the McCain quote and the implication of that quote if there was such a quote, along with rhetoric that he represents a new order on how business will be conducted in Washington under an Obama administration while implicating only the Clintons and McCain as representatives of the political past?

    Finally, Obama says he does not take donations from federal registered lobbyist.  Somewhere I heard that many of his donations come from the law firms that represent these federal registered lobbyists and he has admitted to accepting these donations.   True or False?  If true what is the authoritative source please?  Moreover, what if those that have endorse him have accepted donations from federal registered lobbyist, does not the acceptance of these endorsements also smack in the face of hypocrisy? Just like you return camping money that has been tainted you also refuse endorsers that do not live up to your beliefs and campaign rhetoric.    

    The point being, if the above items are true as explained, is that when you set the self righteousness bar so high by stating you are not going to be business as usual and you are going to be better than those before you, then you are going to be highly scrutinized during your campaign to see if you are living up to your own rhetoric and beliefs, making it almost impossible not to look like a hypocrite.  If you stand for a belief you got to stand for it all the way with no exceptions.

    Maybe all this is just old news to the rest of you and I am just catching up.  Thanks any way to anyone for any clarification.  

    Some answers: (none / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:02:16 PM EST
    On Iraq vote
    "So it's not clear to me what differences we've had since I've been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test." [The New Yorker, 10/30/06] "Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." ["Audacity of Hope," 2006, p. 294]
    On donations"
    But the Illinois Democrat's policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there. Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues. "Clearly, the distinction is not that significant," said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues. "He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different," Weissman said. "But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists."
    caclean

    Parent
    The Onion (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:01:40 PM EST
    sums it up nicely--why we can't have another black president.

    If we cannot learn from the movies, how will we ever become educated voters?

    Heh. But the AA president on '24' (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:13:48 PM EST
    is not mentioned here -- or anywhere I've seen.  And, seriously, I wonder how much that hugely popular show might have helped make America more comfortable with the Obama candidacy?  

    Of course, as a Clinton supporter, I say it's too bad that the tv shows with women presidents didn't succeed past a season.  And I thought one of them was quite good.  I don't watch a lot of non-cable so I never saw the other one -- nor did I ever catch more than an episode or two of '24,' but I know it has been a huge hit with many people of greatly differing ideologies, ages, etc.

    Pop culture's impact is immeasurable -- but real.

    Parent

    So you would agree with those (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:39:49 PM EST
    who say that the continual denigration of the Fathers in the typical TV show is destroying the family??

    Parent
    The 3-month writer's strike is over. (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:31:59 PM EST
    It caused $2 Billion in losses, of which the striking union members incurred maybe $250 Million while the remaining $1.75 Billion of lost income, etc., was borne by the average working Joes and Janes of LA.

    So cool.

    The writers strike that began Nov. 5 wrung $2 billion from the local economy, as much as four times more than the 1988 strike that lasted six weeks longer.

    Most of the pain, experts say, was felt by independent contractors, small-business owners and others that have courted TV production crews as favored customers.

    The Los Angeles Economic Development Corp. estimates that while $733 million in production spending has been lost, another $1.3 billion came from the pockets of the caterers, florists, valets, hotel operators, restaurant workers, costume-house employees and others.



    Well at least it's over.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:47:12 PM EST
    hopefully all parties handle it a little smarter next time it's negotiation time.  

    The writer's appear to have won on principle and made some small gains, but to a certain extent everybody lost.

    Parent

    Been catching bits and pieces.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:22:36 PM EST
    of the congressional hearings on performance enhancing drugs....they're really dragging Clemens over the coals boy...couldn't be happening to a nicer guy:)

    Lying through his teeth under oath may not be the wisest move on Clemens' part, but congress deserves to be lied to for wasting their time and our money on this circus.

    We all know he was on something, but why should we care?  I'll never get it...

    I really don't know if he was (none / 0) (#50)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:25:34 PM EST
    but what the hell are we doing wasting my tax money on this.

    Parent
    As the Congressman from (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:42:04 PM EST
    California with the funny mustache.

    Parent
    He never... (none / 0) (#51)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:45:25 PM EST
    used performance enhancing drugs, and he never threw a bat at Mike Piazza.

    Parent
    That one I saw (none / 0) (#52)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:49:02 PM EST
    but did you see him shoot up with performance enhancing drugs?

    Parent
    No.... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:20:33 PM EST
    but I saw his stats shoot up like he was on drugs.  

    Not that we should care...he's a grown man who can do what he wants.  

    Personally, if there was an injection I could take that would effectively double my salary at little long term risk, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

    Parent

    Haw!! (none / 0) (#57)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:38:06 PM EST
    Me too.

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:44:13 PM EST
    He had nothing to gain by doing this. All he had to do was cop an apology and it would all be over with. Now he is a risk of being charged with perjury, etc.

    Besides. I thought you was against snitches.

    ;-)

    Parent

    I am.... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:17:54 AM EST
    the trainer was wrong to drop dimes in my book.  I'm not on his side....not on anyone's side.  It's all a joke to me.

    And you're right...Roger shoulda been smart like Petite and Giambi...admit it and move on.  

    But he's too damn stubborn, and now he's liable to end up trading pin stripes for prison stripes, and destroying what's left of his legacy.  Hell of a pitcher, with or without dope, but not to bright.

    Parent

    Here is an excerpt from an interview Justice Anton Scalia had with the Law in Action program on BBC Radio 4 (posted on the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7239748.stm . He said it was "extraordinary" to assume that the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" - the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment - also applied to "so-called" torture.
    "To begin with the constitution... is referring to punishment for crime. And, for example, incarcerating someone indefinitely would certainly be cruel and unusual punishment for a crime."

    Justice Scalia argued that courts could take stronger measures when a witness refused to answer questions.

    "I suppose it's the same thing about so-called torture. Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the constitution?" he asked.
      I'm surprised the blogs have not picked up onthis and are busy chasing the never ending election results instead.

    I heard that on NPR yesterday. (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:35:07 PM EST
    My take was not that he suggested "cops" could "rough you up," say, if you refused to admit whether you rolled through a stop sign, but rather he felt that when interrogating the guy who set the bomb (that will take out LA) as to where he put the bomb, that the constitution does not say you can't smack him around in order to encourage him to tell you. He was pretty specific in his scenario.

    I'm making no judgments here, just trying to present his argument.

    Parent

    It depends on whether your blog (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:46:44 PM EST
    is located in Los Angeles or Chicago.

    Or do you want to argue that not taking all necessary actions to protect your fellow citizens is the moral thing to do.

    Parent

    It's no over till the fat Texas rose sings (none / 0) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:38:39 PM EST
    Do not despair, it's not over till Texas sings. We knew the Potomac races would go these way. The gloating and rubbing it in is rather disturbing. The contortions to try to figure out the outcome can blow up your brains. So, lets see how the fight shapes. I think Obama has had a great deal of good luck, lets see where that luck takes them. If they do these whole thing with Rules are Rules and also forcing Superdelagets to vote with their state distortion, the one sweet wonderful part, would be to see Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick have to vote for Hillary.

    Speaking of Texas.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:57:58 PM EST
    came across this interecting article thanks to fark.com

    Texas is the only state in the union where peyote is sold legally.  Link