home

Saturday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 03:23:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Republicans torpedoed proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts to the middle class. Obama says he'll keep trying to work out a deal.

In the TV department, I just discovered the Canadian TV series Intelligence, set in Vancouver, with all my favorite themes: the War on Drugs, snitches, wiretaps and police corruption.

In Intelligence, [creator]Haddock posits that drugs are the crucial modern industry and that information, the buying and selling of “intel” on everything from heroin trafficking to international terrorism, is the most addictive and profitable drug of all...

...the writer’s overwhelming theme: in true crime as in true love, everyone is in bed together.

The drug kingpin at the center of the series, Jimmy Reardon, has good qualities as well as bad. In other words, he's portrayed as far more than the sum of his misdeeds. The crooked and overly personally ambitious cops and higher-ups have no redeeming qualities. I watched 6 episodes of the first season last night. It's available free on Netflix streaming.

We have beautiful, balmy weather today. Too nice to stay indoors. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Report: DEA Teaming Up With Mexican Marines and Navy | Wikileaks Mirror Sites Everywhere >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday Open Thread | 61 comments (61 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I think Obama's political belief (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by observed on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 04:26:38 PM EST
    system is fairly clear now. He became a Democrat precisely because he is not one;  rather, he sees his place in history deriving from getting Democrats to agree that Reagan was right, except on some social issues. What other interpretation makes more sense?

    I think Obama ran as a Democrat (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:37:08 PM EST
    in the state and national elections because the Chicago Democratic machine gave him the best chance to win those races; once elected in Illinois, he was spoon-fed legislation that would build his resume and help propel him to higher office.  His short tenure in the Senate was wholly unremarkable, and clearly just another stepping-stone to higher office - where he has continued to be less-than-inspiring.

    Someone who facilitates - as Obama does - is less interested in his own position than in helping opposing sides reach some kind of an agreement; this is who Obama is: less concerned with the underlying principles than with being able to say he brought diverse viewpoints together.

    That being said, I think when push comes to shove, Obama is more comfortable on the conservative side than he is on the liberal side - even if it is the liberal side that is largely responsible for putting him in the Oval Office.

    He talks a good story - but the proof of the puddding is in the eating, as they say, and when you look at his actions, there is little that marks him as a progressive.

    I think the Deficit Commission said more than anything else - well, that and his clear affinity for authoritarian Bush policies - and the sooner people understand that Obama is not progressive, that he shudders at liberal policy, the better; believing Obama will someday come to his senses, or grow a spine, or discover that he has balls, is a waste of time.

    The sooner we see him for what he is - and isn't - the sooner we can devise ways to work around him, or use his need to be accepted in our favor instead of seeing that work in favor of conservatives.

    Parent

    Excellent comment, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Zorba on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:54:01 PM EST
    I totally agree.  The part about the Chicago Machine- it all makes sense, because it's extremely difficult to get anywhere in Chicago politics without going through the Machine.  I always thought that maybe the Machine was using Obama for some nefarious purpose, but if you're right (and I believe that you very likely are), Obama was using the Machine.  He's not what I consider a Democrat.  More of a Blue Dog, neo-liberal, DLC, center-right, Reagan "Democrat" (more right than center IMO, but then, I'm pretty far left).

    Parent
    It would be nice if Obama was the only (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 09:39:33 AM EST
    Democratic member in D.C. that we needed to work around.  December 3, 2010.

    U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) today led a group of 14 Senators in sending a letter to the White House and the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives urging action on the urgent fiscal challenges facing our nation, regardless of the outcome of today's scheduled vote by members of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. ....

    Senators signing the Warner letter include Evan Bayh (D-IN), Mark Begich (D-AK), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Jon Tester (D-MT) and Mark Udall (D-CO)
    ...
    "Prompt action is needed to bring the country's deficit into balance and stabilize our debt over the long term," the joint letter concludes. "Regardless of whether the Commission's report receives the support of at least 14 of its 18 members, we urge legislative action to address these problems. link


    The 14 does not even include Durbin and Conrad, both who indicated that they would vote in favor of the Cat Food Commissions recommendations. There are more than enough Democratic Senators willing to go along with draconian measures support the Cat Food Commission. Don't expect a filibuster to prevent gutting of Social Security. BTW, many of the same Senators support maintaining the tax cuts for the wealthy.

    Parent
    Oh, Dianne. How could you. (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 11:25:53 AM EST


    Parent
    This statement (post # 1) (none / 0) (#5)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 05:24:29 PM EST
    may have as much value as a statement saying that HRC sees her place in history deriving from getting Democrats to agree that Kissinger and Condi Rice were right, except on some minutae.

    Parent
    It's not about Hillary. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by observed on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 05:32:40 PM EST
    Obama is the worst President in many decades at advocating for his party's cause. His lack of fervor reflects his fundamental disagreement with Dem values ---disagreement he has expressed more or less explicitly, a few times.

    Parent
    I understand it is not about Hillary (none / 0) (#7)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 05:42:55 PM EST
    it is about the problem of making sweeping statements.

    Parent
    Sweeping statement - (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cal1942 on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:07:00 PM EST
    Sweepimng or not, the statement was right on the money.

    Parent
    Obama apologizes and (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by observed on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:36:50 PM EST
    kowtows to Republicans, and talks to his own party members as if they were stupid children. Only the (D) keeps you from seeing the obvious.

    Parent
    Second (none / 0) (#16)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:13:56 PM EST
    The problem with "sweeping statements" of any kind...a reader often wants to say "huh" or "so?" Words such as "the best" or "the worst" call for delineation and comparison. Elsewise, it is not-so-pure emotional venting.

    Specific examples and specific comparisons lead to productive discussion, debate. Throwing mud or vomiting one's emotions? So what....

    Parent

    Specifically, you throw (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by observed on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:42:39 PM EST
    the sweeping charge of "emotionalism" at a great deal of criticism of Obama.

    Parent
    That's a tactic designed to (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 08:26:39 PM EST
    delegitimize whatever points are being made - not unlike asking a woman if it's "that time of the month;" it's highly offensive.

    I've always been a little suspicious of people who have such tight control over their emotions that they seem to be utterly devoid of passion and unable to be moved by much of anything; there are a lot of things at stake here that cry out for passion, and all we get from Obama is...something close to indifference.

    Don't let christine get to you; be passionate.

    Parent

    Funny. (none / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 09:57:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 09:56:27 PM EST
    Emotion or not...where are the comparisons and the specifics? It really is as simple as that. And, clever does not change that.

    Parent
    Worst in 90 years, at least. (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by observed on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 10:03:35 PM EST
    There is one comparison. Two, compare his complete failure on the current tax cut issue to Clinton's tax increase in 1993. His caving on Guantanamo and civilian  trials. You tell ME where he has stood up to the GOP!

    Parent
    Christine, you were so focused on (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    the first part of observed's comment - "Obama is the worst president in decades" - and so eager to bat it down as orginating in pure emotion, that you missed the important and specific part: "at advocating for his party's cause."

    Sure, you could make the argument that "the party" isn't the same party, that it has moved in a new - and rightward - direction and in that sense, Obama isn't doing too bad, but - and this is an important "but" - for those of us who liked the "old" Democratic party philosophy, who are - or were - Democrats because of our more liberal leanings, our belief in lifting up the least among us, our belief in the Constitution as a means to protect us from the power of government, our belief in women's autonomy over their own bodies - to name but a few - the gap between what we want a Democratic president to advocate for, and what we are getting from Obama, is becoming Grand Canyon-sized.

    On top of that, how does what Obama campaigned for, and as, compare to what he has delivered?  How does his rhetoric from then compare to his action of the past two years?  How has his rhetoric changed from then until now?  Is settling for "something" the same as advocating with strength and passion for the best policies?  Which issues has Obama twisted arms over, and who has reaped the benefit - or suffered the detriment?  Is the message Democrats are receiving from Obama via his actions one that inspires confidence in him as an advocate for the ordinary citizen?

    We look, we listen, we consider; of course, emotion plays a role, because these are important issues, critical to our own survival as well as to the health and survival of the democracy.  

    We're entitled to reach rational conclusions and then feel something - good or bad; I think that's what makes us human, christine.

    Parent

    So, because the GOP is run by hacks, (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 06:47:37 PM EST
    that gives four Democrats--including Feingold-- ample cover for voting against the tax bill? Manchin, Webb, and Nelson are playing typical blue dog games, but is this a show of integrity or some kind of payback from Feingold? And Sanders, apparently didn't vote at all. Yeah, I know: if they'd all voted in favor, it still would only have made 58 votes, not enough to overcome the magic number of 60 but, isn't it at least worth going on the record?

    Ferget it. I just answered my own question.

    It seems only fair (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:22:09 PM EST
    to look only at the vote.... Whether someone is our pal or usually votes in an appropriate way does not matter in the end. In my view Sen. Feingold on this vote is every bit as wrong as Sens. Nelson and Liebermann.
    It is a trap to play favorites when it comes to the actual votes. For example: Will we allow "excuses" or "special reasoning" on the upcoming DADT vote?

    Parent
    Feingold (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:10:05 PM EST
    has been all over the board lately which may explain why he lost the election.

    Parent
    Will he vote for all (none / 0) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:43:38 PM EST
    If he believes all cuts should expire then he is being consistent.  If he's merely making sure he, his family and friends and the wealthy that donate to campaigns are getting away with bleeding hundreds of billions from the middle class, I guess he's giving people the middle finger on his way out.

    Parent
    Feingold (none / 0) (#31)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 08:42:59 PM EST
    Didn't Sen. Feingold campaign on retaining the tax cuts for the middle class and letting it expire for the wealthy? I cannot understand his votes today.
    linkBUSH TAX CUTS:

    Feingold: Feingold favors tax cuts for the middle class but he says extending them to the extremely wealthy would cost the country $700 billion in the next 10 years. He says cuts for the middle class represent a commonsense solution to bringing down the deficit.

    Johnson: Johnson says the best way for Congress to deal with the failing economy would have been first to ensure that tax cuts for the wealthy that passed under President George W. Bush not expire in 2011 as planned. He says that move would have created a great deal of confidence in the American economy because "businesses would have started investing and consumers would have started spending."

    Parent

    Here is what we may want to consider (none / 0) (#37)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 10:01:21 PM EST
    Sometimes, the great liberal isn't the great liberal...anymore than the great conservative isn't the great conservative. It is something to ponder.

    Parent
    That's true, but if it's also true that (none / 0) (#40)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 11:44:37 PM EST
    "pols do what they do" then I want to know why Feingold voted against, because without an explanation from him, it comes off as some sort of pettiness about proving a point, or just plain "payback." And, in most cases, the only people who get screwed by payback votes are the American people. FTR, I haven't always understood some of Feingold's votes.

    Parent
    To what extent does an explanation matter? (2.00 / 0) (#52)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 12:02:58 PM EST
    It may sound harsh, but Feingold's vote says what he thought...the same as Lieberman. Well, probably not; yet, we really can't see or hear either of their minds. I do recall a few "passes" that Feingold was accorded. Was that fair? I don't know. I may carry equal treatment a step too far here, but think about your own reaction when someone you knew well/sort of well and respected even and think about someone that you didn't much care for nor respect. They both do the same thing, a not good thing. While not making a sweeping statement about either person's nature or character, do you respond by favoring the friend and disfavoring the other, by disfavoring both in that instance or something else?

    Parent
    You assume a lot (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 04:49:25 PM EST
    No, I don't just give people passes on crappy behavior because they're "friends." As far as I'm concerned, words means very little and actions mean a lot, regardless of whether someone is a "friend."

    As for Feingold's reasoning being immaterial to the outcome, I call b.s. in the strongest terms. I think he owes Democratic voters an explanation, and I'm sure he will be asked for one by his consituents and the media. If Patty Murray voted stupidly on a bill of great importance, you can bet I'd call her office demanding an explanation. So would a lot of other WA State Dems (we're a prickly bunch out here: we like to let our representatives to know when they screw up). I guess in your world, a "D" is a "D" no matter what, and we should just let the bad "D" votes ride. In my world, the "D" doesn't count for much unless the person behind it gets the message that they work for us, and therefore, every single vote they cast on our behalf deserves our scrutiny. It's called accountability to the voters, something that die-hard loyalists wouldn't know much about.

    Parent

    You may have misunderstood (none / 0) (#58)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 09:13:00 PM EST
    If I was unclear, let me restate: My point is that Feingold's explanation is not relevant to his vote...the action of his vote is all that is relevant. In that sense, we may be saying the same thing. My point further is that I do not like to assume--about you or most others--but that also means that I don't treat his explanation any differently than I would Ben Nelson's, etc. The reason: It is the vote that counts, and not what someone says that he/she was really thinking. Again, we may be talking past each other.

    Parent
    An addition for Zorba (none / 0) (#59)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 09:19:07 PM EST
    A clarification from me to you: Would you suggest that a vote is different in nature if the person who cast it is someone you like as opposed to someone that you don't? Am I assuming too much to say that a vote is a vote...and that an explanation does not change the vote? Would you suggest that someone you like is entitled to an explanation and that someone you don't is not?

    Again--and to be clear--my real issue is with those who might give a pass or an ok to someone they like when that person votes the same as someone they don't like. 'Seems pretty simple to me that a vote is a vote. Did I miss something? Or, is something assumed that is not stated?

    Parent

    Excuse the last attempt on this (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 09:25:24 PM EST
    To be blunt: All I have been saying is that Feingold's vote speaks for itself; and, that explanations or excuses or reasons don't add anything for me. I think that Feingold voted wrong on this matter; all his words won't change that.

    Parent
    As I recall, Sen. Feingold stated he (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 11:51:32 PM EST
    wouldn't vote for an HCR bill w/o certain features.  But he did.

    Parent
    A "Patriot Tax" on the wealthy? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 09:35:49 PM EST
    That should take care of soaring deficits during wars. May also provide a counter incentive to rush a nation towards war......
    link

    Frank Rich has it right (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 09:36:59 PM EST
    In Sunday's NYT Rich explains Obama's degrading, and humiliating behavior as that one could expect from a victim of "Stockholm's Syndrome."

    He states:  "It explains that hostage takers (Republicans) are most successful at winning a victim's (Obama) loyalty if they temper their brutality with a bogus show of kindness. Soon enough, the hostage will start concentrating on his captors' "good side" and develop psychological characteristics to please them -- "dependency; lack of initiative; and an inability to act, decide or think."

    As an example, this:

    "This dynamic was acted out -- yet again -- in President Obama's latest and perhaps most humiliating attempt to placate his Republican captors in Washington. No sooner did he invite the G.O.P.'s Congressional leaders to a post-election White House summit meeting than they countered his hospitality with a slap -- postponing the date for two weeks because of "scheduling conflicts." But they were kind enough to reschedule, and that was enough to get Obama to concentrate once more on his captors' "good side." And so, as the big bipartisan event finally arrived last week, he handed them an unexpected gift, a freeze on federal salaries. Then he made a hostage video hailing the White House meeting as "a sincere effort on the part of everybody involved to actually commit to work together." Hardly had this staged effusion of happy talk been disseminated than we learned of Mitch McConnell's letter vowing to hold not just the president but the entire government hostage by blocking all legislation until the Bush-era tax cuts were extended for the top 2 percent of American households. "

    That says it all.

    a person misdeeds (none / 0) (#2)
    by nyjets on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 05:05:42 PM EST
    "In other words, he's portrayed as far more than the sum of his misdeeds. "

    In some cases, for example if the misdeeds include hurting and killing innocent people, a person is always the sum of his or hers misdeeds.

    Not at all (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 05:24:03 PM EST
    Every person is more than the sum of their misdeeds. As a judge once told me after a trial, everyone has some good in them. Even if it's just that their mother loves them.

    Parent
    Problem (none / 0) (#3)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    is not one of political beliefs but one of execution (and politics) on some issues as far as this President is concerned. As I mentioned before, I have been quite happy (or neutral) with BHO's initiatives on most issues. However, I have very strong disagreements with him about how he is handling the issue of extension of tax cuts and negotiating with Republicans in this regard. After today's votes, I would like him to play hardball politics and let tax cuts for everyone expire if Republicans do not back down.
    BTW, I did not ever think much of Pres Reagan's policies. They were really bad for the country. However it may not be entirely unreasonable (IMO) to take the view that Reagan was destructive for America (and the world) but New Deal policies (much as I admire FDR)may not be the panacea in solving all our economic problems at this time. The world has changed a lot since FDR's times!

     

    Intelligence (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ben Hussey on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 06:06:48 PM EST
    Jeralyn,
    This TV program from Canada, only lasted 2 years .
    The rumor was that this show created a fire-storm within both the Canadian and U.S. governments .
    As you watch this series, you will be very pleased
    to see a TV show that was this truthful and accurate . Jimmie Reardon was played by Ian Tracy, who was a Detective on another Canadin TV show called DaVinci's Inquest .
    It lasted 11 years and both were created by Chris Hadden .
    Amazon and NetFliz both have DaVinci's Inquest and Intelligence .
    These are 2 of my favorites .

    I found Intelligence at my local video (none / 0) (#9)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 06:47:31 PM EST
    store last year. It is excellent. Much more true to reality than just about anything I've found on US television.

    I was quite sad that it only lasted the two seasons. I, too, have come across the rumors of a firestorm of protest within both the Canadian and US governments. I suspect that may be why it only made it the two seasons.

    Parent

    Congratulations to the Oregon Ducks. (none / 0) (#11)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 06:49:26 PM EST
    Today's win over the Oregon State Beavers in the Civil War sends the Ducks to the national championship game come January.

    Way to go, Ducks. Beat Auburn!

    The Silver (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:12:23 PM EST
    uniforms were a little too much. I hope they stick with the traditional green or white for the Title game. although I'm sure Phil Knight will break out something new for them.

    Parent
    Maybe the neon yellow uniforms, on (none / 0) (#18)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:22:35 PM EST
    the off chance the reflections of the sun will blind Auburn?

    Parent
    War Eagle! (none / 0) (#28)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 08:27:28 PM EST
    It will be an excellent BCS. Auburn/Oregon features two high power offenses.

    I think it's a destiny year for my beloved Tigers, though.

    Parent

    Yeah, we feel the same (none / 0) (#32)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 09:24:44 PM EST
    about the Ducks this year. Destiny.

    We'll talk more in early January, jeff.

    Parent

    And about Feingold (none / 0) (#14)
    by cal1942 on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:10:08 PM EST
    Voting against cloture. A last chance to do something decent and he failed the test.

    Maybe he's against extending any of these cuts... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by masslib on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 07:23:32 PM EST
    If so, I'm with him.  They are hardly "middle class tax cuts".  

    Parent
    All we know is how he voted (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 10:04:30 PM EST
    ...like Nelson and Liebermann. If that is okay, then that is okay.

    Parent
    Garrison Keillor on tonight's (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 08:10:44 PM EST
    "Prairie Home Companion" did a wonderful song riffing on the state dept. cables.  Then Mayor Bloomberg joined Mr. Keillor.  Very funny.

    Tutor/science fair project update: (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 08:14:05 PM EST
    I went to Home Depot to get an outside electric outlet, etc., endded up browsing for maybe 2 hrs.  Bought some stuff I think may work.  Then went to Michael's in search of a shadow box--remember those.  But instead I found quite a sturdy unfinished wood crate.  One of the Home Depot clerk's suggested a fishing store re weights.  Too bad my tutoree wasn't with me!

    Argh! fishing weights! (none / 0) (#29)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 08:30:02 PM EST
    check online if you're not near the coast. some weights could be huge for deep-sea fishing. I've used 8-ounce weights in the currents off of south Florida before, and seen all sorts of sizes.

    Parent
    Tutoree will ask his science teacher (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 11:52:32 PM EST
    if he can borrow slotted weights and hanger.  The missing piece of the puzzle.

    Parent
    What can I say? (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 08:36:54 PM EST
    THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody!  (Applause.)  I'm sorry, Bagram, I can't hear you.  (Applause.)  Air Assault!  (Applause.)  It is great to be back.  Let me first of all thank the 101st Airborne Division Band.  Where's the band?  Give them a big round of applause.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  

    To Chief Thomas Hager and to the commander and conductor.  I gather we had a couple of other bands playing, Manifest Destiny and Nuts.  I don't know about, you know -- I don't know how they sounded.  What did you think?  Were they pretty good?  (Hooah!)

    Obama in Afghanistan Dec. 3, 2010

    What can ya say... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by kdog on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 08:03:00 AM EST
    makes you wonder what other bad news is coming down the turnpike when the pres goes to the occupation zone and gives a rah-rah Billy Badass speech.

    Still wanna scream when Bush/Obama says those troops are protecting America...its an especially cruel old joke.  

    Parent

    We are crushing the Tal-ee-ban, (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 11:27:05 AM EST
    he sd.

    Parent
    Rendezvous with Destiny... (none / 0) (#61)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 11:11:15 AM EST
    Argh. That and 'Nuts' are famous 101st Airborne division quotes.

    Upon activation of the division, Major General Bill Lee said, "The 101st Airborne has no history... but a rendezvous with destiny."

    Brigadier General Anthony McCauliffe, division artillery commander and the commander during the siege of Bastogne, famously replied "Nuts!" when asked to surrender.

    Written message was something like this

    "To the German Commander:

    Nuts.

    the American Commander."

    Details, Mr. President... Details.

    Parent

    I see republicans have enough stones (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 09:25:11 AM EST
    to filibuster bills they don't like. Which Dems will filibuster extending the tax cuts for millionaires?

    Yeah,sometimes I crack myself up.

    It is really a sad state of affairs (none / 0) (#47)
    by Politalkix on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    if we cannot get 41 Senators to fillibuster the extension of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires in this bad economy.
    New START is a national security issue. Someone should tell the Prez that any "compromise" with Republicans that hurt national security as well as increases the deficit (by giving tax cuts to the very wealthy) will not go well with the majority of Americans.

    Parent
    You tell him. (none / 0) (#48)
    by observed on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 11:14:22 AM EST


    Parent
    The obvious problem (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 01:08:39 PM EST
    there is no bill to give tax cuts to millionaires on the table to filibuster. The options left are let them all expire or give to everyone.

    Parent
    Let it all expire (none / 0) (#55)
    by Politalkix on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 02:39:24 PM EST
    When the tea partiers explode about the tax increase, Democrats should just keep reminding everybody of yesterday's votes (when every Republican in the Senate voted against giving a tax cut to all) and the vote in the House (when all but 3 Republicans voted against middle class and small business tax cuts).
    The Senate can also stop any of Boehner's tax break bills for the super rich from making it to the floor of the Senate next year if they choose to do so. Pelosi can then remind voters that when she was the majority leader, tax rates for the middle class were lower than what it became after Boehner took over.

    Parent
    Right now the way you let them expire (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 05:55:07 PM EST
    Is to filibuster the upcoming 'compromise' extension bill. I'm sick of all the cowardly anonymous stories about how mad Senate Dems are at the WH. Stand up for something for a change.


    Parent
    I'm beginning to see the Bob Shieffer (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 09:44:31 AM EST
    Face the Nation show as the most despicable beltway media shown the air. His 'aw shucks' everyman routine as he softballs John Kyl and pretends the republicans are offering a laudable compromise on taxes and unemployment benefits while the dems are wasting time on political theater is making me sick. and Dick Durbin is not helping.

    Excerpt from singer Helen Boatwright's (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 12:25:47 PM EST
    NYT obit.:

    If the concert singing Mrs. Boatwright favored has less marquee value than opera, which she performed on occasion, then that, she made unequivocally clear, was fine with her.

    "I sing opera, but I am a musician," she told The Sheboygan Press in 2004. "I teach too many crummy kids who think they've got to be opera singers. Opera is such a teeny tiny part in the world of music. I don't want to be called an opera singer."

     [Emphasis added.]

    link

    Saturday Open Thread | 61 comments (61 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment