More thread.
Make a new account
Don't tell him I told you. Parent
At least the organization of the site makes it easy to skip over stuff at will. Parent
I don't comment that much, though I read everything that gets posted and all the comments, mostly because there are a number of great personalities and authoritative people that make this a rich discussion board with a great format, all provided by a couple of great hosts. Lately its been worse than the primaries, which is a feat, and a shame. Parent
This part of your comment is a bit confusing:
The squeaky stuff needs to get toned down, from both sides; this is a great site thats getting bogged down with the same old battles day in day out. It's like an Israel/Palestine thing
Are you suggesting that both sides are on an even playing field in Israel and Palestine -- or that both sides are 'equally at fault'.
If that is what you're suggesting, Squeaky might be more than happy to inform you otherwise -- if his prior statements on the issue are any indication. Parent
Ha ha (5.00 / 2) (#2) by Militarytracy on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:39:22 PM EST Helen Thomas stabs Obama between the eyes. This is supposed to be a BP oil spill discussion Helen. To hell with that though, let's talk about how we fight and die for nothing in Afghanistan and don't give her any Bushisms either :) Obama talks about this topic much much easier and confidence reappears in his voice because he doesn't have to fake that he applied a robust response to THAT danger :) Too funny, she's a great lady.
Stabs Obama Between the Eyes? (5.00 / 1) (#36) by squeaky on Thu May 27, 2010 at 01:41:06 PM EST Well nice fantasy life you have. Your characterization of the exchange say more about your apparent violent hatred of Obama, than anything about Helen Thomas or Obama.
In other words, business as usual--Freaky Squeaky picking a fight with one of the commenters he spends day and night stalking. It's a full-time job, as I discovered in my brief tenure as pipsqueak, tracking just two days of Squeaky's prodigious commenting output so pipsqueak could give every single one of Squeaky's comments a rating of 5.
Call it performance art. Squeaky knows art, and he knows what he doesn't like. Squeaky doesn't like being stalked, and bullies don't like being laughed at. Crybaby.
Anyway, who cares. I'm out of here. Squeaky is your problem now. Parent
You came to clean up the thread long after the fact and you have no sense of how it unfolded. As you said earlier, you don't read the threads unless somebody requests it and I doubt you have the time to read all the comments with equal care. If you had, there wouldn't still be comments wherein Squeaky basically accuses Military Tracy of wanting to murder Obama:
Stabs Obama Between the Eyes? (5.00 / 1) (#36) by squeaky on Thu May 27, 2010 at 01:41:06 PM EST ---------------------------------------------------- Well nice fantasy life you have. Your characterization of the exchange say more about your apparent violent hatred of Obama, than anything about Helen Thomas or Obama. Video here...And the hilarious thing is that your bloody fantasy about Thomas stabbing Obama with killer instinct prowess, drips with dramatic irony, because you and Helen Thomas have opposite views about the Afghanistan war, and you and Obama are basically in agreement that the Taliban et al. are a threat to us and need to be wiped out. Thomas on the other hand wants troops out now, a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with.
We get that $hit from Squeaky day after bloody day, 60-70 comments worth of it. Tell me Jeralyn, what did I say that comes anywhere close to that?
I responded to somebody else who had already suggested that multiple people may be writing under the name of Squeaky. But you have deleted those preceding comments. You also deleted my comment, the one that you said "started it" all. FWIW, this is what I said:
Squeaky may be multiple people.. at least s/he has a mini-me named pipsqueak who showed up for the first time yesterday to give Squeaky a rating of 5 on 83 comments -- in one fell swoop.
I basically outed pipsqueak for fu@k's sake. That's a hanging offense Jeralyn, really? Maybe it is you who is "still reacting to something that happened in an earlier thread". Like the Tuesday Night Open Thread, wherein you and I had words about the "inappropriateness" of me saying "Salazar is a pig on the environment". Well, Jeralyn, I said that, in part, because you have turned a blind eye to the BP Spill for the past month.
FWIW: I can cite you a whole lot worse by other commenters, on any number of threads. People, who I respect, have called Obama a "stupid jerk" an "idiot"; and Arlen Specter "an evil old whore" -- today. Yet those commenters aren't getting a public, pants-down-spanking from you are they?
Yet, for some reason you took notice of me and told me you didn't like the way I "put things" the first week I showed up here, two years ago, and you have bird-dogged me every since. You like to keep it tame at Talk Left Jeralyn -- and therein lies the rub.
With some notable exceptions, too many TL commenters are following your play-it-safe lead. So, buh bye for keeps. I hope you and Squeaky are very happy together. You are losing it to Firedoglake, Corrente, and even the DailyKos. I see many people, who used to be here, are now posting there. Think about that.
I just read your comment #40, and all I have to say to that is fu@k me running and I'm glad I didn't make more monetary contributions. Parent
So, buh bye for keeps.
The thing is,I agree with a lot of what you say, and what Squeaky says, and of course Anne and just about everyone else. I don't think there is a lot of disagreement on the issues, but I do get tired of the vitriol.
Often I would like to agree with the substantive part of a post, but am not going to if it also insults someone or pushes the same old 'see I told you this would happen' line, on either side. I am no more likely to climb on that bandwagon than I was to line up for the kool-aid in 2008. Parent
I think if people could learn to recognize when things are getting out of hand and just walk away it would be easier.
I know we are all passionate about these issues, but sometimes it's ok to let someone else have the last word. Even if it is a bit nasty. Especially when it's nasty because then you stop it from escalating. That's the point when I just learn to skim/skip. Because the conversation has become irrelevant. Parent
see you later...
lol Parent
Jeralyn left a good comment #201, which reads in part:
No one needs to leave here for fear of being personally attacked. If it's brought to my attention, I'll take care of it. Feel free to disagree with each others comments, but please avoid the attacks...you can report a nasty comment by sending me an e-mail. I never publish who complained.
Jeralyn deleted "9 personal insults"; although one may find that there are still other equally insulting personal comments on the thread -- in which case one could email Jeralyn to request deletion. Parent
I agree, Oculus is a great commenter. Parent
On a more serious note, Jeralyn, you must realize that squeaky is dragging down the level of discourse on your otherwise wonderful site. It's embarrassing. This unfortunate fact has been noted on other sites as well, where there is even speculation about bribery. Personally, I don't believe that squeaky or anyone else has bought you off, but others do believe it, and they believe it because the behavior of one dysfunctional commenter is allowed to run rampant, for whatever reason. In short, squeaky is damaging your brand.
Thank you for TalkLeft. I will now withdraw as a commenter, although I will continue to read your posts and may also continue to read the comments, or at least those comment threads that squeaky hasn't hijacked with his/her compulsive demonstrations of belligerence.
With warm regards and all best wishes, pipsqueak/Spamlet/Palomino Parent
I never hesitate to write him an email when he's over the top and he always apologizes and ceases -- until someone else pushes his buttons too far.
I tend to agree with the substance of a lot of his comments. But it's the tone that matters most. If he's violating comment rules, his comments will be deleted just like everyone elses, including JimakaPPJ, who has probably had more comments deleted for hijacking threads and taking things to a personal level than anyone except Dark Avenger who refused to listen and is gone.
Except for comments on posts I write about a specific crime topic (and which usually generate very few comments) I rarely read the comments threads on a regular basis. After 8 years, given our generally small but regular group of commenters, I figure everyone knows and follows the rules. If no one points it out to me, and I don't know about it, I obviously can't act on it.
As to what people write on other sites about TL or me, I don't haven't seen or care to see those comments either. And I suspect those are sites that always find something to criticize about me or TL. Two years ago, it was probably for backing Obama in the election. Last year it might have been for tolerating JimakaPPJ. A few months ago it might have been about Captain Howdy's prolific one sentence comments. This month it's about Squeaky. Next month they will find something else.
This is a hobby, not a job. Sometimes I have a lot of time to spend on the blog, other times barely any. After 8 years, it ebbs and flows. People come and go.
I want the tone to remain civil. And I expect the pro-prosecution, pro-victim crowd to not clutter up my posts with predictable, repetitive comments that disrespect the mission of the site. When I see the first comment in every such thread is by the same commenter who always takes an anti-defendant stance, I take that as nothing but an attempt to annoy and harass. (If s/he at least waited until the 5th comment, it wouldn't be so bad, but this commenter has to be first all the time.)
Everyone has a choice of where to comment. I appreciate all who take the time to comment here. I also realize that commenters have formed bonds with each other and many continue to comment here not because of what I write, but because they want to interact with each other. That's fine, and I am proud to have created a place that can be called a community of sorts. At the same time, those who post because of an agenda that is at odds with this site, or simply to annoy, will face limited tolerance. And those that violate the rules, regardless of what they have donated or contributed dollar-wise or merchandise-wise, will be banned or asked to leave when it's brought to my attention.
Hope this answers your concerns. Parent
You have made several personal attacks on me which include a mentally ill diagnosis.
If anyone has a problem, mentally it would be you. You clearly appear to be obsessed over me. How many screen names have you invented for the sole purpose of harassing me?
Sick, imo, very sick.... Parent
Unless you know, and if so pray tell.. Parent
BP temporarily stopped pumping drilling fluid into its stricken oil well late Wednesday after engineers saw that too much of the fluid was escaping along with the leaking crude oil.
A defensive President Obama sought Thursday to quell doubts about his handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, insisting that his administration has been "in charge" from the moment it began and bristling that critics who accuse it of being sluggish to react "don't know the facts." But at times during a 63-minute news conference in the East Room of the White House, the president seemed to undercut his own argument. He enumerated a litany of fumbles and lapses: that the government lacks resources and "superior technology" to respond to the disaster; that he personally had assumed oil companies "had their act together when it came to worst-case scenarios"; that his administration "fell short" with its acceptance of BP's inaccurate estimate of the size of the gusher; that reforms of the corruption-plagued government agency that oversees offshore drilling "weren't happening fast enough." At one point, Obama said he did not know whether Elizabeth Birnbaum -- the director of the Minerals Management Service he blamed for allowing the oil industry to overrule environmental and safety concerns -- had resigned or been fired hours before. The news conference marked a sharp departure in tone from the first days after an oil rig explosion caused the spill, when the White House seemed determined to fix the blame and keep the public outrage directed at the oil company involved. "In case you were wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility," Obama said Thursday. "It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down." This is the familiar Obama: resolute and in charge. But six weeks after the spill began, those words seemed to highlight the difficulty he has had in convincing the country that he is on top of the situation. As oil continues to foul the gulf, the conflicting signals coming from the president and his team have imperiled his reputation for competence and coolness in the face of crisis.
But at times during a 63-minute news conference in the East Room of the White House, the president seemed to undercut his own argument. He enumerated a litany of fumbles and lapses: that the government lacks resources and "superior technology" to respond to the disaster; that he personally had assumed oil companies "had their act together when it came to worst-case scenarios"; that his administration "fell short" with its acceptance of BP's inaccurate estimate of the size of the gusher; that reforms of the corruption-plagued government agency that oversees offshore drilling "weren't happening fast enough."
At one point, Obama said he did not know whether Elizabeth Birnbaum -- the director of the Minerals Management Service he blamed for allowing the oil industry to overrule environmental and safety concerns -- had resigned or been fired hours before.
The news conference marked a sharp departure in tone from the first days after an oil rig explosion caused the spill, when the White House seemed determined to fix the blame and keep the public outrage directed at the oil company involved. "In case you were wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility," Obama said Thursday. "It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down."
This is the familiar Obama: resolute and in charge. But six weeks after the spill began, those words seemed to highlight the difficulty he has had in convincing the country that he is on top of the situation. As oil continues to foul the gulf, the conflicting signals coming from the president and his team have imperiled his reputation for competence and coolness in the face of crisis.
How the heck does he not know if the MMS resigned or was fired????? Parent
But as a real American from the Heartland where all true patriots are raised, you probably already knew that.
P.S. The Fathers are down a run. Parent
The ones on the far right Parent
The economic relief bill, which is the centerpiece of the second, smaller stimulus now before Congress, appears to be collapsing. The bill had already been trimmed back to try and win enough votes to pass the House, but now the Blue Dogs are even balking at the trimmed back bill. As such, a vote is no longer likely to take place today. link
While their demise is to be cheered in November, they will harm a lot of real folks with their actions.
um, no. sorry. you want the dog. keep the dog. you want me to keep the dog you keep your kids. if they want to visit once to say goodbye fine but my life does not allow for a "visiting schedule".
does this make me a bad person?
Basically the guy should keep the dog or not. Daycare shouldn't have to come with saving a dog's life. Amazing, nerve, of the guy, imo.
But then again, it may be interesting to check out the kids, they may be cool, and add quality to your life, on your terms only, that is. Parent
poor little runt.
The initial White House response was to deny that Sestak was ever offered a job, yet Sestak stuck to his story. So someone was lying. After a week or so of Administration officials saying nothing more than there nothing "inappropriate" occurred, the President has now promised an "official" response. Oddly, the President insists that "nothing improper" happened, but is unable (or unwilling) to provide the details -- details he should have at his command if he is in a position to assure the press that "nothing improper" occurred. In the meantime, the Washington Post reports Sestak's brother (and campaign counsel) has recently met with White House folks about the allegations and the planned White House response. What's the point of this if not to make sure everyone gets their stories straight so the issue will go away. This sort of thing only strengthens Senate Republicans' demand for a special prosecutor. (Of course, one wonders why Sestak told reporters about his brother's contacts with the White House. Doesn't he know when to shut up? Or does he have it in for someone in the White House?)
In the meantime, the Washington Post reports Sestak's brother (and campaign counsel) has recently met with White House folks about the allegations and the planned White House response. What's the point of this if not to make sure everyone gets their stories straight so the issue will go away. This sort of thing only strengthens Senate Republicans' demand for a special prosecutor. (Of course, one wonders why Sestak told reporters about his brother's contacts with the White House. Doesn't he know when to shut up? Or does he have it in for someone in the White House?)
Greg Sargent has a Clinton angle to the story:
According to the sources, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked Clinton and his longtime adviser, lawyer Doug Band, to talk to Sestak about the race. It's unclear right now whether the White House will say that Clinton was asked to suggest specific administration positions for Sestak, whether Clinton floated positions on his own, whether Clinton discussed other options not related to the adminstration, or whether employment even came up at all in the talks. But the news that Clinton is at the center of this whole story is noteworthy on its own because of the former president's stature, and underscores how heavily invested the White House was in dissuading Sestak from running. The White House sent Clinton to talk to Sestak because Arlen Specter, constituting the 60th Dem vote in the Senate, was viewed as key to enacting Obama's agenda. The White House maintains that Clinton's overtures to Sestak merely constituted an effort to gauge his seriousness about the race, the sources say, adding that Clinton was informally discussing the range of options open to Sestak as part of a larger conversation meant to ascertain Sestak's thinking.
But the news that Clinton is at the center of this whole story is noteworthy on its own because of the former president's stature, and underscores how heavily invested the White House was in dissuading Sestak from running. The White House sent Clinton to talk to Sestak because Arlen Specter, constituting the 60th Dem vote in the Senate, was viewed as key to enacting Obama's agenda.
The White House maintains that Clinton's overtures to Sestak merely constituted an effort to gauge his seriousness about the race, the sources say, adding that Clinton was informally discussing the range of options open to Sestak as part of a larger conversation meant to ascertain Sestak's thinking.
sorry you just have to click.