home

March Madness: The Sweet Sixteen Part 2

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 11:42:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Tonight the second set of four Sweet Sixteen games will be played. Yesterday, I correctly picked Kentucky and West Virginia to beat the spread, pushed with Xavier (+5) in a 2OT loss to K-State and missed the Butler upset of Syracuse.

Tonight is Big Ten night, as 3 Big Ten teams play. As for betting propositions, I like Tennessee (+5) over Ohio State, Baylor (-5) over St. Mary's, Mich St (-1) over N. Iowa and Purdue (+9) over Duke.

This is an Open Thread.

< What Do Progressives Believe About Health Care Reform? | A Proud Terrorist Lawyer >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    March Madness: The Sweet Sixteen Part 2 | 135 comments (135 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Piss off. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Buckeye on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:05:55 PM EST


    Can reasonable people ever disagree ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:12:49 PM EST
    ... about the likely outcome of a Buckeye game?

    Parent
    They aren't called (none / 0) (#54)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:18:57 PM EST
    "Suck-eyes" for nothin'

    (my husband is a Buckeye, so I kid).

    Parent

    Me, when it comes (none / 0) (#63)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:46:06 PM EST
    to a non-West Coast matchup, I do the usual cold hard political calculation to decide.

    TN has increasingly been a knuckledragging Repub enclave since they turned aside favorite son Al Gore in 2000 and went instead for that moran Shrub; OH went for Obama in 2008.  That's all I need to know right there.

    Well, OH also has spaceman hero turned Dem senator John Glenn and all those amazing and intruiguing ancient mound formations; TN has that singing cowboy turned one-time Repub office seeker who sang that dandy tune in High Noon, and very few if any ancient mounds.  

    Parent

    Tennessee has ugly uniforms, a silly nickname, (none / 0) (#85)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 05:17:21 PM EST
    ... and occasionally beat the Stanford women, so that's three strikes against them. OTOH, they are the underdogs today, so I'll probably be rooting for them anyway.

    Parent
    It worked! (none / 0) (#90)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 09:54:02 PM EST
    Those ugly orange uniforms put the Buckeyes off their game!

    Parent
    The Lady Vols... (none / 0) (#92)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 02:05:34 PM EST
    ...got smacked down by Baylor and their 6'8" freshman center.  

    Griner had 27 points and 10 blocks to lead fourth-seeded Baylor to a 77-62 win over the top-seeded Lady Vols on Saturday and advance to the NCAA tournament regional finals for a second time.

    Look out UConn.  Baylor is young and hungry.

    Parent

    Honey Trap For Bibi (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:49:56 PM EST
    Knowing Netanyahu would be reenergized by his speech at the [AIPAC] lobby, Obama and his staff set him a honey trap. Over the weekend they sought to quell the row that flared up during U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's trip here two weeks ago, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described Netanyahu's response to the ultimatums Washington presented to him as "useful."

    Special envoy George Mitchell made a televised visit to the prime minister's bureau Sunday to invite Netanyahu to the White House. Washington, it seemed, was trying to make nice.

    Netanyahu leaves U.S. disgraced, isolated and weaker

    The Times They Are A-Changin...

    interesting take (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:54:22 PM EST
    from Haaretz

    Parent
    Haaretz (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:57:22 PM EST
    Is not right wing, unlike the current Israeli gov...

    Parent
    some more international perspective (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    on the "spat" (my personal opinion being I'm kind of glad to see the U.S. take a stand against Israel - especially when Israel does the wrong thing and blatantly rubs it in your face).

    A quote from Maariv:

    "What is clear is this, that the Americans are determined. They mean what they say. They will not allow Netanyahu to continue to wink in all directions. It is not only [East] Jerusalem, Bibi, it is all the territories. Not only Netanyahu has reached his moment of truth, the 'T' junction we have been avoiding for more than 40 years - the whole of Israel stands there. America is leaving us and is in fact becoming Europe. From now, we are all alone. The whole world talks about a Palestinian state in an area similar to 1967. Obama wants to know whether Netanyahu is there - in explicit words, in writing... A simple question demanding a simple answer."


    Parent

    I am extremely glad (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    as is my jewish coworker sitting next to me.
    this is long overdue.


    Parent
    for those who wonder (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:29:26 PM EST
    why one might like foreign policy under Obama - this is one reason - it's a clear shift in tactics on an old issue, and long overdue.

    Between this and the Russia deal, it's been an interesting post-healthcare shift to diplomacy.  The world has kind of been sitting back and waiting for this to get done as well.  It's definitely time to take care of other presidential business.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    Neither AIPAD nor Israel represents the jews. That is a fact. My guess is that there as only a very small faction of Jews in the US left of center who support Israel blindly. The rest are solidly right, and I believe that most Jews in the US are to the left.

    Do the math.

    Parent

    Nothing more toxic (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:08:15 PM EST
    than a bad metaphor.

    When the need for group "identity" becomes that overriding, and that identity is always tied into a circle-the-wagons, self-and-others tribal survival strategy of limited usefulness (for the longterm well-being of the general populace, not the interests of fearmongers), what you end up with is the perpetual, fluctuating state of crisis that seems to be the ongoing reality over there.  

    Parent

    I have a bad feeling about this (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    I agree with the spirit, but this sounds eerily like the last words of someone about to reside under a bus:

    What is clear is this, that the Americans are determined. They mean what they say. They will not allow Netanyahu to continue to wink in all directions.


    Parent
    I agree with CST (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    I think they are totally serious about this and I am proud of them for it.  yes.  quite a shift from the Bush years.

    Parent
    I sincerely hope so (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:33:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Hillary would not be making (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:34:03 PM EST
    speeches saying "daylight is opening up between US and Israel" if they were not serious.


    Parent
    Let's see if U.S. continues to (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:55:22 PM EST
    give Israel money in the quantities we have been.  I think Greenwald had the actual figure recently.  Astounding.

    Parent
    the important thing is (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    that's what the public in Israel now thinks about where the U.S. stands.  On issues like this (a high level diplomatic dispute rather than a muddled policy discussion), perception is reality.

    Parent
    The Left (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:44:03 PM EST
    There is a healthy left in Israel. It is about time the the US started supporting them instead of the rabid right.

    Parent
    hey question (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:06:57 PM EST
    were you a Hillary supporter in the primaries?  I was told the other day you were.  I did not remember you being a Hillary supporter.

    Parent
    You are such a rabblerouser! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:18:20 PM EST


    Parent
    He was (none / 0) (#37)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:13:16 PM EST
    No one knew.  Jeralyn pointed it out on occasion.  It was and is well hidden under his hatred for Clinton supporters.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    No one knew, that is if you define "no one" as only the refugee cultists that flooded TL shortly after Jan 2008.

    And it is absurd to claim that I hated Clinton supporters. I was only allergic to blind worship. My contempt was equally distributed between the cults of Obots and Hillites. It is just that the Obots were so outweighed by the Hillites here at TL that almost of my anti cult comments wound up being directed to the Hillites.

    Parent

    my respect for you (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    just ticked up a notch.


    Parent
    For as long as I've been... (3.50 / 2) (#55)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:21:02 PM EST
    ...reading/posting at TL (a long time), Squeaky has always been very up-front and forthright.  

    Maybe that's what gets under the skin of the TL "Mean Girls" clique.

    Parent

    Ah, I love the smell of irony. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:47:47 PM EST
    A mean-spirited, opportunistic, petty swipe of a comment identifying a "Mean Girls Clique". Too funny! I guess you can always hope that others are dense enough not to see the hypocrisy!

    As for cliques, there are quite a few cliques and subcliques that can be identified amongst commenters at TL. Human nature. YMMV.

    Parent

    and it was not low (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    before

    Parent
    "Refugee cultists"? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 07:48:07 PM EST
    "Blind worship"?  See, that's the problem with your false equivalency.  It sounds reasonable on its face "I'm allergic to the blind worship on both sides".  But it's like the creationists who argue that "creation science" should be taught along with Evolution Theory.  Except, one is science, one is not.

    No one at TL is engaging in "worship" of Hillary or belong to a "cult" simply because they defend her of criticize Obama.

    You True Progs may have issues with basic facts, ...

    ... but you sure have good imaginations.

    Parent

    Yeah Refugees (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 08:55:25 PM EST
    Extremely poor analogy, but I'm not surprised.

    And good to know that the people who voted for Hillary and chose not to vote for Obama have a new term for 65.5 million americans who did vote for Obama.

    Progs

    Is that an acronym or did you intentionally invent a nasty sounding abbreviation?

    Parent

    Extremely accurate analogy, ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 09:29:56 PM EST
    ... but I'm not surprised you ducked the point.

    And good to know that the people who voted for Hillary and chose not to vote for Obama have a new term for 65.5 million americans who did vote for Obama.

    Progs

    Hahahah .... seriously?  True Progs are only a tiny, tiny fraction of the Democratic Party, and an even tinier fraction of the people who voted for Obama.

    But nice try at conflating the two ...

    BTW - Not an acronym, just an abbreviation.  But if you think it sounds "nasty", well, ....

    ... that's just a bonus. :)

    Parent

    Good To Know (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 10:20:39 PM EST
    I was using hyperbole in the hopes of getting you to clarify who the "progs" were.
    True Progs are only a tiny, tiny fraction of the Democratic Party, and an even tinier fraction of the people who voted for Obama.

    OK, so who is this tinier faction of the people who voted for Obama? Can you refine your description?

    It appears to be that many here want to throw that particular Democratic subset under the bus because they feel as if they were thrown under the bus, right?

    I assume that this some kind of payback for treatment received on other blogs, like dkos.  

    Parent

    That's the root ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 10:55:27 PM EST
    ... of much of your problem.  You assume a lot of things.

    True progs = progressive idealogues.  Some reluctantly vote Democratic as the lesser of two evils while constantly complaining that there are barely any differences between the parties.  Others vote third party (Green, Socialist, etc.) while lamenting the two-party system.  They disdain "mainstream" Democrats as not being sufficiently progressive, being the morally-superior, self-proclaimed arbiters of progressivism.

    In Obama's case, there is a split among the True Progs.  Some True progs bought the Hope/Change spiel, thinking that Obama was one "them", but downplaying it in order to get elected.  These include some of his loudest critics from the left, angry as they are about being duped.  Others never bought it, but voted for him for their own reasons (including the lesser of two evils argument).

    Feel better, now?

    Parent

    Ideologue (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 05:26:56 PM EST
    Basically, a disparaging term applied by other ideologues to people who dont believe the same things they do.

    ditto for "true prog".

    Parent

    Maybe you should stick to ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 06:23:29 PM EST
    ... defining the words you use in your posts.

    You have enough trouble with those, already.

    Parent

    And you should (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 09:45:15 PM EST
    go back to grasping reality with one hand, while perusing Hill 'n Bill's greatest hits with the other.

    Parent
    Any more links (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:05:44 PM EST
    to threads in which you almost come off as smart?

    Heh heh.

    Parent

    The link ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:23:58 AM EST
    ... was to a thread where you falsely accused someone else of racism for a music reference.  I guess if some people are always looking for something hard enough, they're bound to see it, ...

    ... even if it only exists in their imagination.

    Parent

    Falsely Accuse of Racism (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:06:51 PM EST
    This is what he did. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Salo on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:39:05 PM EST
    He's a hustler baby.  That's what his daddy made him. - Simian Mobile Disco.

    That is clearly overt racism. Just because Salo cowardly used the words to a song by a band named Simian, apparently thinking it clever.. only means that Salo chose to use a dogwhistle rather than just outright call Obama a monkey.

    Parent

    Look again (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:04:57 PM EST
    "Simian mobile disco" is simply the name of a hip-hop/electronic band, which Sumac (the OP) pointed out.  It is the use of the word "Simian" that Jondee and SS took offense to, and they subsequently dropped the issue when Sumac pointed out that it was a quote from a band.  A quote which, BTW, makes perfect sense in the context of the post to which Sumac was responding.  The fact that you decided to interpret the quote as a racist comment from someone you don't know and who has no history of racist comments says more about you than the OP.  Then again, ...

    ... not really much of a surprise.

    Hey, .... if he was praising Obama by quoting a song by the Monkees, say .... "You Just May Be the One",  .... would that have been okay?

    BTW - "Clearly overt racism", yet it's a "dogwhistle"?  

    Interesting oxymoron.

    Parent

    The Monkees.. (none / 0) (#137)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    just cant break out of the world of primate references even when it's in your interest to..

    Next it'll be "Gwine to run all night, gwine to run all day.." as a tribute to Obama's stamina.

    Quit while you're behind.

    Parent

    I'm not behind ... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    ... I just can't stop laughing every time I think about how you were so busted on that one.  Maybe next time you should take 5 seconds and do a google search before you accuse someone of being a racist.

    BTW - For the slow, the "Monkeys" reference was a band with a name roughly analogous to "Simian", but a little better known.

    Of course you would interpret that as a racist comment.

    Parent

    It's an associative leap (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:29:44 PM EST
    just like you - and the other moron - not being able to come up with an image to relate to Obama that isnt to the kind of drool Fox commentators post.

    Parent
    A Dogwhistle (none / 0) (#139)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:44:51 PM EST
    Is overt racism, if you are able to hear the dogwhistle.
    And I am quite aware of the band and the quote from one of their lyrics. That does not make it any less racist. How is this:

    This is what she [Hillary] did. A B!tch Iz A B!tch, Slam her a$$ in a ditch. - N.W.A

    No that is not sexist, no not one bit.... lol

    Parent

    Ahhh, yes ..... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:42:38 PM EST
    ... it's overt if you have special powers of hearing.

    (snicker)

    BTW - That's supposed to be an analogy?  I'm not sure where you got the "Hillary" in the middle of it, but it isn't even remotely similar.  Using a sexist slur ("b1tch") and advocating violence against women is, on its face, sexist.

    No special powers of hearing or reading-between-the-invisible-lines required.

    Nice try, though.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    Obviously you missed the Civil Rights movement, and all the KKK opposition which routinely compared Africian Americian's to Monkeys. But maybe you did not know that Simian means monkey?

    Hard to tell how much you do not know.

    Perhaps you also thought that when Sen George Allen used the term macca, he was also referring to a rock group.

    It is a clever tactic of racists to juxtapose two seemingly innocent things, like a noose and an oak tree. Remember that? Not racism either, just a noose hanging on a tree at Jena High School left over from rodeo practice..

    Craig Franklin, assistant editor of The Jena Times, stated that the nooses were actually a prank by three students aimed at white members of the school rodeo team, and that the school's investigating committee had concluded that "the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history."

    Wiki

    Parent

    Indeed, ... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 06:35:26 PM EST
    ... I do know what it means, hence my earlier response and the "Monkeys" analogy.  Speaking of which, you keep comparing Sumac's reference to obvious racist acts and trying to compare them.  Either you don't think you understand the concept of analogies, or you think you're actaully fooling people.

    BTW - I "missed the Civil Rights movement"?  As usual, you're speaking out of the wrong end, on topics which you know nothing about.  I've been on the front lines of the struggle for civil rights, both personally and professionally.  I've fought racism up close and personally, which is why I'm offended by those who look for imaginary acts of racism, thereby demeaning real acts of racism.  What was it you said?  Oh, yeah:

    Crying wolf is despicable and cowardly, imo.


    Parent
    Oh I See (none / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:25:51 PM EST
    A response to what Obama did regarding Health Care Reform, Salo quotes a song, with no quotation marks, and the name of the band, without identifying that it is a band.

    The lyrics of the song depict a poor black hustler thinking about going to a record store to steal records.

    It is the perfect racist comment, if you do not know that Salo was referring to a band, and why would you, there are no quotation marks, links or reference, it appears as overtly racist comment.

    But apologists come in and say, whoa he was just quoting a band, whose name was Simian, that has nothing to do with Obama.

    Well guess again, not only is Salo implicitly comparing Obama to a Monkey, a typical racist meme, he is comparing him to a poor black shoplifter, aka criminal, OMG could that be another racist stereotype of the black man.

    And of course it was just the most succinct way for Salo to respond to a comment about Obama and his HCR, because the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of Obama is Simian and Hustler, not to mention his Muslim daddy made him do it, most likely Madrass training.

    And as far as my analogy goes it is quite perfect, using the term Simian and hustler in close proximity to Obama, is just as bigoted as "randomly" using the term B!thch,, in close proximity to  Hillary.

    Everyone knows that Obama is a Simian hustler, and that Hillary is a b*itch. As you said ooops, love when that happens.

    Parent

    The bands name is not .... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:44:33 PM EST
    ... merely "Simian", it is "Simian Mobile Disco", which is what Sumac wrote in his OP.  If that wasn't enough to clue some of the slower types in, maybe they could do a 5 second Google search and figure it out.  Clearly, as indicated in their responses, Jondee and SS were offended by the mere use of the word "Simian", not the content of the quote.  Of course, once it was explained that "Simian Mobile Disco" referred to a music group, they let the matter drop.

    As far as the rest of your post goes, it's just too funny.  Get back to me when you've taken a basic logic course.  While you're at it, try a course in basic research methodology, since your attempts at "research" are also pretty funny.

    Parent

    Ideologue? (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 11:42:45 PM EST
    an adherent of an ideology, esp. one who is uncompromising and dogmatic : a Nazi ideologue.

    By progressive ideologue do you mean someone who is uncompromising and dogmatic?

     Some reluctantly vote Democratic as the lesser of two evils...
    isn't that a compromise?

    I am just a bit confused as to what you mean that they are uncompromising yet they compromise.

    And, while we are at it are these Progs?:

    What do progressives believe? (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    Well, with respect to the ones holding office, I think the answer is "Whatever they have to to keep collecting campaign contributions and winning elections."
    In the blogosphere, it seems to be, "whatever it is that allows them to keep their access open, the mainstream gigs coming with regularity, improve their chances of being quoted in the mainstream, and stay firmly in place on the pedestal their audiences have placed them on."

    or this?

    Speaking only for myself, I know (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:07:51 PM EST
    that I am a liberal and that I have come to loathe the term "progressive;" there may have been a time when the conventional wisdom was that the two terms were interchangeable, but based on what progressives have done and not done over the last three or four years, I don't believe that is any longer the case.  Progressives seem to have taken over the party, though, and so I no longer feel part of something that wants what I want.[emphasis mine


    Parent
    Maybe if you didn't always apply your own ... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 02:47:39 PM EST
    ... definitions to the words of others, you wouldn't be so confused.

    1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
    2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
    .

    Re: the latter 2/3 of your post, you seem to have me confused with someone else.  If you want to know why Anne considers herself "liberal" rather than "progressive", maybe you should ask her.  Then again, we all know you're not really asking ...

    ... don't we?

    Parent

    I See (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 04:17:41 PM EST
    So you are evading the issue. OK, just thought I would try to understand who you Anne et al., are referring to when you say disparaging things about "progressives".

    And considering that I have seen no difference between your position and Anne's, an opinion based on both of your respective comments, I thought I would be able to get a grip on who exactly these eeeevil people that you both loath.

    Parent

    Not evading anything (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 05:00:26 PM EST
    I just can't read Anne's mind, so I don't want to speak for her .... another problem you have.

    Kinda piling up there, aren't they?

    BTW - The fact that you can't see something is supposed to mean something?

    Parent

    Mind Reading? (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 05:39:06 PM EST
    I just can't read Anne's mind,

    Stop changing the subject. No one here has mentioned anything about mindreading:

    And considering that I have seen no difference between your position and Anne's, an opinion based on both of your respective comments

    Comments exist in the concrete world of black and white. Your comments and Anne comments reflect similar viewpoints when it comes to Obama and Progressives. It is obvious for all to read, no mind reading necessary.


    Parent

    Not changing anything, ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 05:59:39 PM EST
    ... just poking fun at those who repeatedly feel the need to attack the motives and "invisible predicates" in others.

    OTOH, it is pretty easy, .... so maybe you're on to something.

    BTW -

    Comments exist in the concrete world of black and white.

    Not very "progressive" of you ... sounds more like something Sean Hannity would say.  Anne and I may have similar viewpoints regarding Obama... I haven't read enough of her comments to say.  In fact, you may have noticed that many "progressives" who were once strong supporters of his have reached many of the same conclusions re: Obama's leadership, or lack thereof, on many issues.  Where you start to have issues is where you try to read-between the-invisible-lines of others comments in order to attack their motives and conclusions.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 06:07:31 PM EST
    Sorry that my writing is so poor that it is incomprehensible to you.

    This sentence:

    Comments exist in the concrete world of black and white.

    Was not written to invoke Sean Hannity, but rather to counter the claim that in order to understand the fact that your comments and Anne's comments you would need mindreading skills.  

    I just can't read Anne's mind, so I don't want to speak for her .....

    You do not need mindreading skills, just reading skills.

    Parent

    It's not 'incomprehensible", ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 06:15:56 PM EST
    ... it's illogical, in that after you read (and often misinterpret) the words of others you repeatedly pretend to know their hidden motives and "invisible predicates" they've cleverly hidden within those words, trying to reveal to others what the poster really meant.

    Kinda' funny, ... in a way.

    Parent

    Hidden (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 06:32:59 PM EST
    Nothing hidden. Would you like quotes? There are only about 10,000 or more in the TL archives...

    Parent
    Absolutely. I'd LOVE some (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 06:59:06 PM EST
    Show me the ones where the people you're criticizing express their devotion to "St. Hillary", or their membership in the "cult".  I'd love to see those.  They should be right there in "concrete world of black and white" as you say.

    Or are you just straining to read-between-the-lines in search of those "invisible predicates" you're so fond of?

    Parent

    A Smidgen (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 07:33:09 PM EST
    I love her. (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    She's scary smart.  To think how close we came to having this great leader in these troubling times.  It's a disappointment.

    What is really disappointing to me is (5.00 / 16) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:20:49 AM EST
    that Hillary Clinton is spot-on and she won't be our nominee.  Why have we permitted this to happen?

    The fix was in + she didn't fold as per the script (5.00 / 13) (#21)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    The hobbling of Hillary by her own party, and increasingly ludicrous rationalizations offered (The Sanctified ROOLZ!) will be the real story of this election.
    She's more qualified, more deserving, earned more votes and delegates by a fair count and threatened to win it no matter how crooked the race became.

     frickin' love her! (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Lil on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:00:16 PM EST

     Dear Barack (5.00 / 13) (#14)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:05:28 PM EST
    This is what presidential sounds like. I wish you'd take a few lessons...

     I love Hillary (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:05:49 PM EST
    but I'm not sure if a President Obama will be any better or worse than a President McCain.

    I'm with you (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:08:57 PM EST
    Love Hillary.  Love her picture of Democrats and her belief in the Democratic party.
    Still not convinced to vote for Obama

     She is my fighter (5.00 / 11) (#17)
    by nell on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:05:50 PM EST
    and my hero, this bit about Harriet Tubman is fantastic. She is amazing.

     It's the first speech of Hillary 2012 (5.00 / 12) (#22)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:06:43 PM EST
    "No matter what happens, you keep going."
    I am wearing her t-shirt forever.  I am sleeping with it under my pillow tonight.  I would follow her through hell.

    We love you, Hillary.

     Wonderful!!! (5.00 / 11) (#33)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:08:39 PM EST
    Hillary actually has learned to use her voice like an instrument, she carries the musical line of the thought. Great breath control.

    HILLARY. RODHAM. CLINTON. (5.00 / 12) (#44)
    by maladroit on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:10:12 PM EST
    I love this woman.

     I cried and smiled (5.00 / 8) (#63)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:14:23 PM EST
    She SHOULD be the one.

    [new] I had tears filling up my eyes (5.00 / 11) (#97)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:19:19 PM EST
    during the video.  
    They came back when they panned to Bill, saying over and over, "I love you."

    She was smart, she was like a laser focused on the issues.  She hit McCain and she hit him hard.

    And she had me on everything...until she said, "...and that is why we must elect Barack Obama."

    Hillary (5.00 / 7) (#102)
    by lovepolitics on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:19:42 PM EST
    This is just heartbreaking that this woman is not the democratic nominee or at least the veep.  It just makes me so MAD!  I cannot vote for Obama no matter what Hillary says. She is AMAZING!

    Parent

    That's IT?!?!? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 07:54:48 PM EST
    Uhhhhh, ..... yeah.  Many people supported her candidacy and lauded her.

    One quote from Oculus expressing disappointment?  One quote from Anne disagreeing with Hillary's statement of support for Obama?  Various quotes from other Hillary supporters praising her and/or expressing disappointment in Obama's nomination.  That's IT?  Where's the quotes from the people you're criticizing speaking of Hillary in messianic/religious terms (or, as you say, "St. Hillary"), their membership in the cult, or any of the other things you accuse them of on a daily basis?

    Too funny.

    Parent

    Many of those comments came on the (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    same date, August 26, 2008; if I'm not mistaken - I didn't memorize the date, or have it marked on my calendar - that was the day Hillary gave her official, I'm-out-of-the-race speech to her supporters.

    I'm not going to apologize for experiencing some emotion as I listened to/watched the speech; my disappointment and sadness at her not being the nominee is no less appropriate or human than the tears of joy some people shed at Obama getting the nomination.

    I knew she would do the good soldier thing and ask people to support Obama, and in retrospect, I guess I understand it, but at the time, it made no sense to me.  How do you support the guy who trashed you as much and as often as Obama did?  How do you support the guy who managed to commandeer the Democratic party hierarchy to manipulate and break the party's rules to engineer the nomination for himself - and in the process disenfranchise thousands of voters who expected their votes to count for the person they were cast for?

    Much of my disappointment and anger was for what the party did, but I won't deny that I never saw Obama as being the transformative candidate that he was able to dazzle people into thinking he was.  I had no illusions about Hillary - I was prepared for her to disappoint me if she were the nominee, and had been elected, but she was a person of substance and principle, things I felt were lacking in Obama.  We'd already seen examples of WORM - and I had no reason to think that would get better if he were elected.

    I don't see the entire political scene in terms of Hillary; she's the SOS, and that's her arena.  Obama owns his office, his policies, his actions, and he sinks or swims on his own - not because of who he isn't, but because of who he is.

    Squeaky will never, ever believe that; why, I just don't know, and don't understand.  It seems to me that it helps her avoid having to hold Obama accountable, avoid according any credibility to the criticism leveled at Obama for fear of having to admit others are right.

    I have no problem with anyone choosing to defend Obama, to explain why he or she believes that what he does is the right thing to do, but defending Obama only on the basis that others criticize him because they are obsessed with Hillary is, two years after the primaries, with Hillary capably handling the duties as Secretary of State, just not credible.

    Parent

    I take it back (none / 0) (#124)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 10:31:22 PM EST
    Anne and I may have similar viewpoints regarding Obama... I haven't read enough of her comments to say.

    I definitely agree with you.  That would be, of course, your opinion as expressed by you, as opposed to the delusional interpretations of others.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 11:18:13 PM EST
    As far as I have claimed that there are in excess of 10,000 of these comments in the TL archives, I thought it prudent to start with at google search of Hillary Love.

    May as well get the fish in a barrel when you have the chance. There are countless examples, just on that search in excess of six thousand.

    Parent

    But, what is the point of this, squeaky? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:31:07 AM EST
    What is the point of being able to say, "but on such-and-such a date, at this exact time, you said the following?"  I don't think anyone who supported Hillary has denied doing so, and I, at least, never elevated her to sainthood, or claimed she was anything other than what she was and what her long record reflected.  I knew that on some issues, she was not as liberal as I was, but on the issues that mattered most to me, she had a record of commitment, support and hard work.  

    I didn't see that in Obama, and it wasn't in his record; he actually didn't have much of a record, and what there was of it did not impress.  Given how little he left the wake of his climb up the ladder, it seemed like it was all about being at the top, not what he was able to accomplish for others on his way there; this did not speak to me of an interest in service, but of an interest in self - not really what I was looking for in a candidate.

    And, as I have stated on occasions too numerous to count - but which I'm sure you could find in the TL archives - I could not ignore or condone or support or justify the actions of the party itself, on any basis, regardless of which candidate benefited or was negatively affected by it; the distortion and corruption of the process and of the party's own rules crossed a major line for me, one I am not likely to forget about.  And why should I?  Why should I ignore what the party did?  People's votes were at stake, and I don't care which party is screwing with the electoral process: it's wrong, and I found it disturbing that so many didn't just condone it, they celebrated it.

    There were lessons to be learned from the 2008 election, and it's been my experience that if one chooses to forget what those lessons are, or fails to address the underlying issues, not only will history repeat itself, but we will find that the ugliness has seeped into many layers of our society.

    My suggestion would be that if there is something I have said that you don't understand, ask me and I will explain.  If you find yourself assuming I have meant something not expressly stated, stop: chances are your assumption is wrong.  Don't read between the lines - just read the lines themselves; I am not given to being cryptic about my opinions or my feelings, and you cannot use assumptions or your crystal ball and have, or exepct to have, an honest discussion - the key word there being "honest."

    If you can't be honest in your approach, there is no point in engaging you; you might as well talk to yourself.


    Parent

    Point (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:05:54 AM EST
    What is the point of being able to say, "but on such-and-such a date, at this exact time, you said the following?"

    Not much of a point in itself, more a response to this:

    Absolutely. I'd LOVE some (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 06:59:06 PM EST
    Show me the ones where the people you're criticizing express their devotion to "St. Hillary", or their membership in the "cult".  I'd love to see those.  They should be right there in "concrete world of black and white" as you say.

    And, I should have realized that Yman had zero interest in getting an idea of the love fests that were going on for Hillary at TL during the primary.

    His or her request was not sincere, in the least. If s/he were interested in anything more than trolling, s/he would have done his or her own research and would clearly see that TL was a Hillary fan site.

    Oh well, I fell for it.

    And as for you, you were in the tank for Hillary just as much as any Obot was for Obama.

    To make believe that there was any significant policy difference between Hillary and Obama is dishonest. And Obama did have enough of a record to make a reasonable comparison with Hillary. They were both about the same, policy wise. Stylistically they were quite different.

    Parent

    Did you read me when I was (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:48:47 AM EST
    commenting at The Carpetbagger Report?  If so, then you know I was an Edwards supporter for some time before I came to support Hillary.  You may see me as being in the tank for Hillary because I arrived at TL as a Hillary supporter, but I don't put myself in the same category with those who were commenting at Taylor Marsh's place, for example; I was never a "Hill-bot," for heaven's sake.

    As for the only differences being stylistic, I don't agree, nor do I agree that Obama had enough of a record; you can probably find some examples of me saying that I thought he had potential, but that it was too soon for him to occupy the WH; maybe the VP gig that would position him for a run in 2016.  I wanted to see something other than, "okay, I won that election - what can I run for next?"  I wanted to see something other than glomming onto the work of others and taking credit for it.  Something more than being spoon-fed legislation he could put his name on.  Something other than shirking his sub-committee responsibilities.  If working hard, not necessarily to be in the limelight, is a difference of style, then I liked hers better.

    I didn't like the constant hedging on women's reproductive rights; yes, I know he always said he was for a woman's right to choose, but his constant references to others who could help make that decision was telling.  And regardless of whether you see the recent EO as changing anything, one thing should be clear: Obama made no declaration against using women's rights as a bargaining chip during the whole Stupak/Nelson/Pitts thing.

    Harry and Louise was not a stylistic difference, it was a policy difference.  Changing his FISA vote was not a stylistic difference, it was a policy difference.  Sending out brochures touting his religiosity was not a stylistic difference, it was a policy difference.  The rank misogyny was not a matter of style, but of character.  

    You may see those as not meaningful, but they had meaning for me, and I have seen little from Obama that suggests I was wrong to feel the way I did.  And as I said earlier, these are his policies now, his actions - this is his presidency, and whatever differences there were with Hillary are meaningless, because she is not setting policy.

    Do I think she would have governed differently?  Do I think she would have adopted the Bush policies on so many things?  I'd like to think not, but you can be sure that if she had, I would not be finding ways to defend her; I would have been just as critical of her as I have been of Obama.  Would health reform have been different?  Maybe.  I think she would have put her focus on jobs and the economy first, so maybe we would be farther along than we are in that respect.

    So, now that I have done the equivalent of a doctoral dissertation on this subject, I hope you can have enough respect for my positions to put to rest your insistence that everything I express about Obama is filtered through a distorted lens of WWHD, and fueled by hatred as opposed to thoughtful - meaning I actually think about what it is I believe and what my positions are - consideration not reached casually.

    I guess we'll see if anything changes.


    Parent

    Dissertation? (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    Come on Anne, this is no longer than most of your comments. That is your style. And no, I did not read you at carpetbagger, as I  rarely read comments anywhere but TL.  
    If working hard, not necessarily to be in the limelight, is a difference of style, then I liked hers better.

    Personally I saw the "lazy" meme as a pure political construct, meant to remind people of the stereotype that black people do not work hard, and if they do it is for the wrong reasons. Nothing more than a dogwhistle.

    Do I think she would have governed differently?  Do I think she would have adopted the Bush policies on so many things?  I'd like to think not, but you can be sure that if she had, I would not be finding ways to defend her; I would have been just as critical of her as I have been of Obama.

    Obama just like Bush? You give yourself away, here. In any case I am glad to hear that you imagine that you would be able to criticize Hillary were she acting like a mainstream democrat.

    Parent

    Which answers the question of (none / 0) (#131)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    whether you can change - or have any interest in changing - the way you relate to people who do not share your views; clearly, the answer is while you might be able to change, you don't have any interest in it.

    You are still putting your thoughts into my head, still reducing my opinions to some simplistic construct that allows you to distort it, and that doesn't work for me.

    Time to move on past your comments for the forseeable future; I have already wasted time on them that I will never get back.

    Parent

    Please tell me you're ... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    ... in 4th grade?  Who else would cite the number of responses to a generic Google search as a "methodology" to prove a (revised) thesis?  Seriously?  But just for kicks, let's look at the first page of your results:

    1.  A comment from you, sarcastically referencing "Hillary love".
    2.  A comment discussing the Obama campaign's "Hillary love" (tongue-in-cheek?) post nomination.
    3.  A joke from Hillary telling John Heileman she'd "love" to look at his emails.
    4.  Another sarcastic comment from you sarcastically referencing "Hillary love".
    5.  A reference to Bill Clinton saying "I love you" to Hillary at the beginning of her speech.
    6.  Yet another sarcastic "Hillary love" reference from you!
    7.  Someone (not one of the people you attack) acknowledging that, while they "certainly never expected to love Hillary Clinton", she's won their "affection".
    8.  OMG!  Yet another "Hillary love" reference from you ... go figure!
    9.  Someone (again, not someone you regularly attack) titling their post "Love Hillary", followed by yet another "Hillary love" reference from you.
    10.  Someone making a tongue-in-cheek comment about Rev. Wright exhibiting signs of "Hillary love".

    So out of your very first "data sample", that makes 3 jokes, 1 expression of affection, 1 "I love you" from Bill Clinton, 1 "Love Hillary" comment, and 5 "Hillary love" comments from you.

    Wow.

    I guess using your "research" and "methodology", ...

    ... that makes you the biggest "Hillary lover" of all.

    Parent

    Moronic (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 08:39:20 PM EST
    I did your homework for you, last time. If the name Hillary were replaced by Obama you would be calling them obots.

    You are not honest.

    Parent

    If that was supposed ... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 28, 2010 at 08:54:20 PM EST
    ... to be "homework", you just an "F".  Matter of fact, I'd make you take it back and try it again.

    But nice try at combining anyone who laudes Hillary or criticizes Obama into one imaginary being to attack those you disagree with.  Well, it would be, ...

    ... if it wasn't so obvious.

    Parent

    I See (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:16:32 AM EST
    You have no interest in the question at hand. I provided you with a method and a smidgen of the research you claimed to be interested in.

    Obviously you are doing nothing but trolling. Not serious at all.

    Parent

    There's no "question" at all, ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:22:53 AM EST
    ... just a little fairytale.

    BTW - Some posts lauding Clinton or criticizing Obama is not "research".  What I asked for is posts from the people you regularly attack which indicate they believe Hillary is some kind of deity/saint, that they "worship" her, or belong to some kind of "cult" that you keep referencing.

    Obviously, despite the fact that there are "10,000 + comments" in "black and white", you can't find any.

    Shocker.

    Parent

    I remember (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:30:49 PM EST
    pretty much everyone here originally supported Hillary.  The rift came post-primary when half the lot switched to Obama and half didn't.

    Most Obama supporting Dems (in the primary) got rabble roused out of here pre-PA.

    Parent

    Not me (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:05:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    I met her once and was quite blown away by her presence, (2003 or 2004?). I voted for her in the primaries but saw little difference between her policies and Obama's, which were both significantly to the right of what I would have preferred. Mostly it was a style choice for me, I could relate to Hillary's while Obama turned me off more than not. But I had no illusion that either one of them were progressive, or liberal. I saw them as center right, while the GOP was far right.

    Hillary was also my Senator, although I voted for her in 2000 but did not vote for her re-election in 2006, because of her foreign policy positions on (Iraq, Israel). I voted for the progressive  antiwar activist Jonathan Tasini, who had no chance of winning.

    Parent

    I didnt support her either (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 02:21:51 PM EST
    which means, according to the received (adolescent) wisdom, that I "hate" her. There's very little wiggle room on this issue apparently.

    Though, I would've certainly voted for here had she gotten the nomination. Whether I would go on from there to caterwaul for two years about being thrown under the bus and called a misogynist is doubtful.

    Parent

    Speaking of adolescent... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:52:32 PM EST
    good example

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 05:53:58 PM EST
    But I like to think that mine has a certain panache..a certain..how do you say it? Elusive charm?

    Parent
    More (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 04:01:32 PM EST
    Smells of irony waft through the tubes of TL, this time with a gluttonous dollop of self satisfied hypocrisy:
    Ah, I love the smell of irony. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:47:47 PM EST
    A mean-spirited, opportunistic, petty swipe of a comment identifying a "Mean Girls Clique". Too funny! I guess you can always hope that others are dense enough not to see the hypocrisy!

    Speaking of adolescent... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:52:32 PM EST
    good example


    Parent
    Tasini: (none / 0) (#94)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 02:39:32 PM EST
    another one full of nothing but hatred.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 03:00:12 PM EST
    A full blown case of CDS with a generous helping of sexism...

    Not to mention he is a commie and hates our freedoms.


    Parent

    Exactly, and Clinton and Obama know the stakes (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    on this one. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

    Parent
    Went to another Sitar and Tabla concert (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:54:28 PM EST
    last night.  Kick-off of an Indian Fine Arts Festival.  Opening speaker is a renowned neuroscientist who works at UC and Salk and is Indian.  He remarked U.S. elected a black man, which has not happened in England or Europe.  I wanted to say:  but look at all the women leaders of those places.  But I refrained.

    Very diplomatic of you (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    Hope the music came after that point to take the edge off!

    Parent
    It did--for the next couple hours. (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    Intriguing listening.  

    Parent
    Ethnic Minorities in Government (none / 0) (#30)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    Your post piqued my interest, and Goole produced this interesting report on Ethnic Minorities in Politics, Government and Public Life by the Library of the House of Commons. Ethnic minorities are under-represented everywhere the report had data for: UK, Europe, USA, Canada, and New Zealand.

    And Maggie Thatcher's success didn't do anything to speed up the acceptance of minority women in government:

    Women from ethnic minorities are particularly under-represented. At present there are only two black women Members, and no Asian woman has ever been elected. The Fawcett Society calculated that at the present rate of change it would be more than three centuries before Parliament represents Britain's population of women from ethnic minorities. [emphasis added]


    Parent
    THE EARLY DAZE, part 9 (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    A new nugget is up at the memoir blog.  It's a nugget made of rawhide and red stitching.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever (none / 0) (#3)
    by me only on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:09:27 PM EST
    who are you picking for Gent - Wevelgem?

    ncaa (none / 0) (#4)
    by jharp on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:33:51 PM EST
    Good times for me tonight.

    I'm an Ohio State grad with a daughter headed to Purdue next fall. And I must brag that my daughter is deaf.

    Tennessee is mighty tough and I agree with your pick. But if Ohio can get past them I like Ohio's chances to win it all.

    Oh and the final four is about 10 minutes from my house. Maybe I'll have to show up.

    wish Kdog was here (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    I just purchased some synthetic pot.  which is not illegal.  not for another three weeks.
    very curious.

    Did somebody... (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:35:02 PM EST
    rub a lamp?

    I dont know if I agree with synthetic reefer on principal Cap, but Im curious as to your findings.  Im bugging on the size of this sack this dude showed me last night for 40 freakin bucks...musta been 2 ozs!  The denny of course, but solid denny.

    Greetings from Tlaquepaque gang...my ears were ringing and I had to pop into this internet cafe to email some family and friends to report my arrival anyways, no cell service, so heres a quick hello to all my friends.  

    The special lady is more beautiful than she is in my dreams...relieved that the magic picked up right where we left it...she rocks my world off its axis.  Had a blast last night at this free concert in the square in Guadalajara, some Argentenian punk band..then to some live salsa club that was pumpin up the volume...late night beef tongue tacos off the street were tasty.  Off exploring Tlaquepaque now, bugging on the news sights and sounds, till the special lady gets outta work and can show me around more proper.

    Behave yourselves, keep the country from falling apart till I get back...not that I give a sh"t right now...lol.  Vaya con dios amigos!  Manana, Cancun!  

    PS...As to your comments yesterday, If I find a buried treasure of spanish dubloons I might not be back, but otherwise I will be haunting the threads with my brand of knuckleheadism in no time.    

    Parent

    We used to say: were your ears ringing? (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:37:49 PM EST
    Guess so.  Glad you are enjoying yourself.

    Parent
    Do not intend to insult Mexico, (none / 0) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:06:37 PM EST
    as did President Carter in his infamous quip on a trip to Mexico in 1979, but do be careful eating those "street tacos".

    Parent
    You must be joking (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 07:23:37 PM EST
    kdog lives on handfuls out of the mixed nuts bowl at his "everyone is constantly peeing drunk and not washing" local beer joint :)

    Parent
    thats not (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:12:47 PM EST
    what I rubbed Kdog

    Parent
    Pot growers fear legalization (none / 0) (#86)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 05:29:42 PM EST
    This is for kdog.

     Pot growers in California's Humboldt County are worried that passage of a ballot initiative legalizing marijuana will adversely affect their businesses. This fear led to a community meeting earlier this week with local business people and political leaders to discuss the potential ramifications for Humboldt's biggest cash crop.

    Growers worry that legalization will lower both prices and quality, and will diminish the value of the highly-touted Humboldt brand.  

    Parent

    Misplaced Worry, IMO (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 05:41:43 PM EST
    It is the gold standard of weed in the US, imo.

    Several years ago I met a woman who had a small organic farm in Humbolt. Her complaint then was that because of the expanding police power in the name of WOT, amtrack, plane searches, that distribution networks were drying up. At the time she said that there was a glut and the Mafia was coming in and buying the product at cut rate prices.

     

    Parent

    Heard From Some (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:53:59 PM EST
    Who have used it... It is a boon for those who are subject to random drug test, because it does not register on the tests yet provides quite a nice buzz...  

    Parent
    cant confirm (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 12:54:51 PM EST
    until the cocktail hour.  but will report.

    Parent
    what is this you speak of? (none / 0) (#13)
    by lilburro on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    I read this CNN article...so you just buy it online?

    Parent
    I bought it (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:08:15 PM EST
    at the local head shop.  but you can buy it online.
    and the illegal part is only Illinois I think.
    thought I could be wrong.

    Parent
    there a huge variety (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:09:27 PM EST
    of types and prices.  the lady at the head shop recommended Demon.
    its not cheap.  its at least as much if not more that real pot.  so it better be good.

    Parent
    Fox's Steve Doocy ventures forth to (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:25:58 PM EST
    prove that the tea partiers have had their views distorted and maligned by the media. Doocy interviews ex-SNL cast member Victoria Jackson. It is hard to believe she is not goofing on him here. She was not this funny on SNL.

    Hilarity ensues. From media matters, h/t Atrios:


    Doocy did what he could to recover, though, saying that Obama "is not a Communist," and quickly tried to change the subject to how the Left has tried to "diminish" the Tea Party as something illegitimate. But Jackson just refused to play ball, explaining that she had learned about Obama's communism from Doocy's Fox News colleague Glenn Beck:

    DOOCY: Now, he is not a Communist. But you just pointed out that you hold up signs and stuff like that and people make fun of you. What do you think about how some on the other political side have tried to diminish or, you know, or marginalize the Tea Party people?

    JACKSON: Well, I guess they're afraid of the power of our passion and our numbers and, you know, you might not say Communist, but I watch Glenn Beck and he's taught me well. Progressive is the new word for Communist, but it's the same goal as government control of everything and it's very obvious that Obama is trying to do that. And I don't want to brag, but I sort of called it before he was elected and when I was on O'Reilly and I said he was a Communist and I got a lot of hate mail, but I got some that said I was a prescient which means "a prophet."
    Victoria Jackson was apparently (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:24:33 PM EST
    being quite serious....It's not a put on.....which makes it really funny....

    Parent
    It's illegal in (none / 0) (#31)
    by ytterby on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    Kansas now. Just passed the law about a month ago

    would a shorter list (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:08:16 PM EST
    be what IS legal in Kansas?

    ;-)

    Parent

    Saw a weird... (none / 0) (#36)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    ...commercial about Kansas last night.  At first I thought it was your typical "come play in Kansas" vacation type thing.  But it turned out to be a plea from the State to ex-pats to return home to live.  "Come back to Kansas"!

    I've never seen anything like that before.    

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:05:17 PM EST
    as long as there is a "south" Kansas doesnt have to worry about winning the crown on crazy.

    Parent
    Were Dorothy and Toto featured? (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:18:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Child, you cut me to the quick.. (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:26:45 PM EST
    Im an old Kansas man myself!

    Parent
    I sympathize, being from Iowa. One of my (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:28:11 PM EST
    brother's friends did move back--but kept his condo near Lincoln Park in Chicago.  Wise man.

    Parent
    Anecdotal evidence re local (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    reaction to HCR.  Elderly (meaning older than I) man is holding up line for picking up prescriptions.  Can't seem to get PIN for his ATM card.  Finally finished, turns around and apologizes to those in line, adding, with new HCR, all will be right.  Universal laughter.  

    Oh man (none / 0) (#57)
    by lilburro on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:32:35 PM EST
    Palin and McCain together...Gawker is hilarious.  And this is indeed extremely frightening.  Ugh.

    wasnt that awsum (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    I saw that last night.  although I did not click the link I know what you must be talking about.
    I was rolling of the floor.
    umm (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:41:13 PM EST
    can we recruit her to run?  She would be way better than Scott Brown.

    I had no idea she lived in MA.

    it sounded (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    like a pretty damn good idea to me.
    if its good enough for the republitards to raise money on its good enough for me.

    Parent
    oh yea (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:53:25 PM EST
    I also like the Romney dig.  One thing Scott Brown should remember - besides the rounds he makes for national republicans, and despite the fact that he is often in the news, Mitt Romney is currently unemployed.

    Parent
    Maddow sure would have run (none / 0) (#64)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:51:24 PM EST
    and fought harder for that seat compared to the person the Dems nominated, that woman who's name conveniently escapes me at the moment.

    Maddow can be feisty but not off-putting, and it's no secret she's very smart.

    Still, I can't blame her for not wanting to give up what is a rather nifty job which allows her to sound off nightly and often show the big boys how solid journalism should be done.

    Parent

    Don't the telephone lines (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:11:12 PM EST
    work very well there in Hawaii--that's some static and distortion....

    The silver lining in the loss of Market Coca Leaves is that she was a prosecutor, and, maybe, Democrats will stop trying to be so tough-on-crime to win office....

    Parent

    rhodes scholar (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    actually

    Parent
    Gasp! (none / 0) (#67)
    by lilburro on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 03:59:28 PM EST
    She could be our lesbian Ronald Reagan!

    Also Scott Brown is asking for it.  I can see Maddow beating him easily.

    Parent

    Hahaha (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by lilburro on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:28:02 PM EST
    No really though...if anyone could usher in an age of liberalism it would be her, no?  She would be President for 8 years, and then we could talk about her like she was the best thing since sliced bread for 30 years and slap her name on airports.

    Parent
    the more I think about it (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:01:55 PM EST
    the more I like this idea.

    She probably would rather have her current job though.

    Parent

    Has our side ever (none / 0) (#70)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:04:12 PM EST
    had a former prominent tv news anchor/reporter type run for higher office?

    I know Cronkite was asked to run for prez, and so was Moyers.  Only Moyers took it seriously for a while, or took a few days to think it over, because the suggestion came from a credible political operative.

    Parent

    The Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:08:32 PM EST
    do seem to have so very many celebrity candidates....

    But there is Al Franken on the Democrats' side....

    Parent

    Who can forget .. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    Pigasus Pig.

    Parent
    I think they slightly (none / 0) (#77)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:18:34 PM EST
    outnumber our side in terms of mid-to-major celebrity names making it to important office.  We have Bill Bradley and Franken I think, as senator.

    In 20/20 hindsight, Dems should have had Greg Peck ready to take over for Pat Brown in 1966 -- oh how history might have turned out differently if some of the more outspoken types on our side had taken a risk with their Hollywood careers and taken the political plunge.  

    Parent

    Yep, looking forward (none / 0) (#88)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 06:56:20 PM EST
    to even bigger and better things for KJ, one of my favorite NBAers who used to have a devastatingly quick crossover into the lane.  Stay steady at the helm, don't be distracted by some of the tempting but fatal things that come along with fame and power, and then maybe we're talking congressman in a few years.

    Re HGD, I have some mixed feelings about her, or perhaps a few more than I do the previous Dem recipient of Nixon's Red-smearing tactics, Jerry Voorhis.  JV had the slight disadvantage of seeing the Nixon smear machine in action for the first time, though I recall he fought fairly well despite.

    HGD knew or should have known how her opponent would operate, but instead of beating back the sleazy insinuations squarely and promptly, she tended to shrug them off as "boys will be boys" (shades of the dilatory Al Gore, sadly).  Her stump style also left a lot to be desired in that, Hubert Humphrey-like, she insisted on telling the assembled faithful all she knew about topics a, b, c, d, e, f .... and so on.  Turns out she knew quite a lot about quite a few issues.  Not so great however for revving up the support she needed.  Most would have been happy and gone home energized had she stopped after 2 or 3 topics.  

    I've forgotten all her story after that loss and into the 60s and beyond.  There was that rumor that when she first went to Congress in the 40s, she met and had a fling, allegedly, supposedly, with one Lyndon Johnson.  Wouldn't surprise me ...

    Parent

    Stephen Colbert (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:06:12 PM EST
    tried to run in South Carolina as a democrat and a republican.

    That's probably not what you're talking about though :)

    Parent

    Yeah, that's kinda (none / 0) (#76)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:13:54 PM EST
    wacky Pat Paulsen stuff from a comedian who's doing it for a joke.

    Parent
    I changed my mind (none / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:05:55 PM EST
    Skip the Intro to Logic course.

    Start with Remedial Logic.

    March Madness: The Sweet Sixteen Part 2 | 135 comments (135 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment