home

Thursday Afternoon Open Thread

It's time for me to stop following other people's cases and concentrate on my own the rest of the day.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Blagojevich Closing Arguments Set for Monday | Obama Administration Will Not Cut Taxes For The Wealthy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sherrod and Pigford Settlement Vote (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:26:40 PM EST
    It's also important to understand that Andrew Breitbart's timing of the release of the grossly distorted video of Sherrod, which he admits having had for weeks, may not be entirely random. Congress will soon vote on whether to fund part of a settlement between the USDA and African-American farmers who faced acknowledged discrimination -- farmers like Sherrod and her husband used to be. It's a tiny piece of the upcoming war supplemental bill....

    For years, and continuing through the 1990s, the USDA denied loans and grants to scores of farmers simply because they were African-American. Timothy Pigford finally sued the department in 1997; the suit became a class action with 400 additional plaintiffs and 2,000 farmers thought eligible; and the result was what's known as the Pigford settlement, decided in 1999.

    The Pigford settlement offered two tracks: Track A offered $50,000 (plus loan forgiveness and tax offsets) to each eligible African-American farmer who had complained of discrimination since 1983, subject to applications and reviews; Track B offered the possibility of larger damages, provided plaintiffs could show a preponderance of evidence to arbitrators, prove their losses were greater than $50,000 and, of course, wait out the process. Less than 1 percent of the 22,721 class members chose to pursue Track B.

    According to multiple sources that TPMmuckraker has not independently confirmed, Sherrod and her husband, Charles, were two of only 170 plaintiffs that chose Track B. Vilsack acknowledged in his press conference that Sherrod was a claimant in the Pigford settlement.

    TPM

    That is correct (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:41:51 PM EST


    {snip}
    New Communities, Inc., the land trust that Shirley and Charles Sherrod established ...

    {snip}

    The cash award acknowledges racial discrimination on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the years 1981-85. (President Reagan abolished the USDA Office of Civil Rights when he became President in 1981.) New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).

    {snip}

    From the Rural Development Leadership Network website, of which she is a directory

    Parent

    From that same webpage (none / 0) (#9)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:44:17 PM EST
    Board Vice Chair Shirley Sherrod was appointed Georgia Director for Rural Development by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on July 25. Only days earlier, she learned that New Communities, a group she founded with her husband and other families (see below) has won a thirteen million dollar settlement in the minority farmers law suit Pigford vs Vilsack.


    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:53:22 PM EST
    And if your intent is to cast aspersions on Sherrod, you are no better than Breitbart, imo.

    The Washington Times mused that Sherrod resigned because she was afraid the attention would expose "sanctioned conflicts of interest" arising from her own settlement -- though there was zero evidence to that effect. In fact, Vilsack has since acknowledged that her experience as part of the Pigford class makes her uniquely positioned to understand the historical challenges faced by the USDA. Fox News piled on, saying the settlement "thickens the plot.
    "


    Parent
    You started the topic (none / 0) (#12)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:55:31 PM EST
    and used a left oriented source.

    I used the source of the actual organization.  Their exact words, not mine.

    Parent

    I think your source (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CST on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    is also very clear that there was no conflict of interest here:

    "Only days earlier, she learned that New Communities, a group she founded with her husband and other families (see below) has won a thirteen million dollar settlement "

    emphasis mine.  She she won the settlement before she ever took the position.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:02:02 PM EST
    It is called implying guilt by association.  The new McCarthyism.

    Parent
    McCarthy was right (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:22:40 PM EST
    there were Communists (and spies) in the government.

    But his numbers and method of publicity were terrible.

    Parent

    Are you on the the Texas Board of Education? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    McCarthy was right..lol (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 03:51:45 PM EST
    And the dont-tax-corporations-and-the-wealthy workers-as-disposable-toools crowd is working inch-by-inch and day-by-day to make communism appear a viable alternative to people in this country again

    The Right needs to start coming up with some higher quality morons for folk heros. If thats possible.

    Parent

    You need to research (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 10:30:25 PM EST
    corp taxes...

    lol

    "Communism! It's what for dinner!"

    Parent

    I've heard quite a few (none / 0) (#142)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 03:20:22 PM EST
    on the Right say corporations shouldn't have to pay taxes..and quite a few on the Right who'er just 'awaitin' on Armageddon..

    Yet you people are still soiling yourselves over creeping socialism.

    Parent

    Confused? (none / 0) (#144)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 05:06:41 PM EST
    Corporations "effectively" don't pay taxes as it is all passed on to the consumer/customer.  All that does is make the product more expensive and the administrative burden higher on the corporation resulting in them relocating to a more business friendly and less expensive location.  A loser for the location that increases the taxes.

    How does that correlate to socialism?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 06:30:37 PM EST
    this has been the christian right's - and corporate America's - problem right along: that when it comes to business, one's duty to one's community, in this case in the form of contributions for the common good, should extend only to insuring the optimal "business friendly" climate for the shareholders. Somehow, for a while now, this mentality has been seen as completely congenial with our treasured ethical traditions by the conservative "values" folks: taxes paid by business having no other meaning or purpose than as an unwanted expense to be passed on consumers.

    As some others have said, it's Jesus on Sunday and Ayn Rand the other six days of the week.

         

    Parent

    Businesses are not established (none / 0) (#146)
    by BTAL on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 08:14:07 AM EST
    to be charitable nor religious organizations.  The looping in of religious values is a complete strawman.

    But, to follow you logic, increased business taxes actually nets out in effectively non-societal benefit with few jobs and all its negative siblings.

    Drive business away, then you do have the socialism solution as the only alternative.

    To look at it any other way is completely out of touch with reality and history.


    Parent

    I realize that many (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 08:59:41 PM EST
    say businesses have one purpose and one purpose only, but I might expect that as someone concerned with 'higher' values, that you would find that view a little fragmented.

    I guess some evangelicals mean to be taken quite literally when they schizophrenically divide up "this world" from the next.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    But you supported him, and continue to think of him as a hero.

    Parent
    hehe (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 10:28:35 PM EST
    I was a very political 14 year old.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:27:47 AM EST
    Well then:

    But you supported him for 56 + or - years, and continue to think of him as a hero.


    Parent

    That's called indoctrination :) (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 07:18:33 AM EST
    Speaking from my own experience completely.

    Parent
    Yes, we gathered around the color (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 07:35:21 AM EST
    TV in our air conditioned family room and watched the hearings...

    Later we used our computers to see what the blogosphere was saying...

    Not.

    lol......I guess Squeaky lives in a parallel universe.

    Let me repeat.

    He was correct in his charges.

    He was wrong in his specific numbers.

    And his PR was terrible.

    If that makes me evil, then I'm evil.

    Parent

    I was responding to being 14 (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:44:56 AM EST
    and thinking that your "political" beliefs and your desire to participate was your own and generated from your own life experiences and your own memory of the history of past outcomes and where they led the nation and where you felt the nation needed to be headed and WHY :)  Once again, speaking from my own experiences Jim :)

    Parent
    If there was ever an indication Jim (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:46:46 AM EST
    of indoctrination....it is a 14 year old with strong political beliefs :)  Speaking from my own distorted childhood Jim :)

    Parent
    CST, I did not claim there was a conflict (none / 0) (#20)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:15:35 PM EST
    just provided a source that was directly from the organization where she is a director and that published the report.

    Squeaky's source had a link to the same page, but I had learned about it earlier and not from TPM.

    Was not going to attempt to blockquote the entire page as it was too long, just the section that addressed the original post relating to the two different tracks offered to the class action suit.

    All other attacks (not from you) are purely twisted knickers.

    Parent

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:32:42 PM EST
    I just was providing....   Yeah Right

    Yeah, and it is no coincidence that your GOP cronies have been making a case that the Pigford Settlement is rife with fraud.

    Rep. Steve King (R-IA), for example, tweeted immediately on Tuesday morning, after the Sherrod case hit the news, that many Pigford claims amount to fraud:

    Shirley Sharrod fired by Vilsack 4 racism in her USDA position. America needs to know that, not all, but billion$ of Pigford Farms is fraud.



    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:00:26 PM EST
    The same quote is from my link. It does seem clear that you are taking a part of Sherrod's story and through selective editing making it about greed and corruption.

    Disgusting. No different from Breitbart, imo, except he is a pro.

    Parent

    Latest out of state... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:28:21 PM EST
    wingnut to chime in on the mosque near ground zero...Newt Gingrich.

    A money quote...

    "America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization."

    Really Newt?  Get that man some rubber sheets!

    I definitely liked it better before 9/11 when a good chunk of "the real America" wouldn't have minded if NY fell into the Atlantic Ocean.  Their "concern" is creepy.

    newt is running (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:29:30 PM EST
    for the big house.  it will only get worse from here.

    Parent
    Yup. I think he's going to make (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:55:27 PM EST
    the Pat Buchanan of 2000 look like a big ole' teddy bear.

    Parent
    and you know what (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:58:15 PM EST
    considering the field he looks pretty good.


    Parent
    for the nomination I mean (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:59:42 PM EST
    although he is the only one who has a hint of Obamas intellectual weight.  he can make that wingnut $hit sound like america and apple pie.


    Parent
    Newt is a slug of a human being (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:04:13 PM EST
    true slime....This is why he won't get the nomination....

    He admitted he shut the government down in Bill's first term because Bill made him sit in the back of Air Force One on the way to Rabin's funeral, and never came and spoke to him personally during the flight.

    Gingrich is a small person.....

    Parent

    I love a show of return (none / 0) (#92)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:12:05 PM EST
    partisanship every once in a while!

    Parent
    Not sure that is a hindrance in getting (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 08:29:13 PM EST
    the Republican nomination these days.

    Parent
    totally agree (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:08:10 PM EST
    It would not surprise me at all. But then, what would surprise me at this point?

    Parent
    It's what has always made Newt (none / 0) (#84)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:47:21 PM EST
    so dangerous

    Parent
    I'm sure it will... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:42:49 PM EST
    with him and your special lady Palin desperately trying to out hate the other before 2012.

    Are there no mosques being built in Georgia or Alaska that these two can't foam at the mouth over?  I don't wanna spoil the Crusades retro party or anything, but these two are cramping NYC's style, where only a very small yet vocal group of nativists oppose the damn thing, and the local Team R contingent pandering to them of course.

    Didn't Mr. Family Values (lol) momma ever teach him to mind his own business?

    Parent

    "Crusades retro party." Good one. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:31:09 PM EST
    Why does the Muslim community wish (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    to insult many Americans and cause friction?

    The mosque is purely and truly an "in your face" insult and and measuring stick to see just how far extremists can go in demanding their way.

    There is no shortage of other locations.

    Parent

    I doubt that (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:33:17 PM EST
    "many" americans really care all that much.


    Parent
    It's two blocks away (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:34:36 PM EST
    It isn't just a mosque, it's a community building and it's two blocks away.  Most likely won't be able to see the community building unless you bulldoze some of the buildings in between.

    Freedom of speech and freedom of religion sure are getting the far-right upset.  Everyone is entitled to Constitutional protection.  Seems Fox is just trying to stir up more white rage against people of color.

    Parent

    but its (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:38:12 PM EST
    in your face dont you see?

    jims face is two blocks wide.

    Parent

    But, But,.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:41:13 PM EST
    It is a sacrilegious affront to american consumerism. It is being built on the site of Sy Sims (an educated consumer is our best customer) and Burlington coat factory. Cultural landmarks...

    Parent
    Is that true (none / 0) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:44:01 PM EST
    It's being built in an old Burlington Coat factory?  That's too funny if fact.  ha!

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    I had shopped at the Sy Sims, and Burlington Coat Factory pre 9/11.

    Parent
    Isn't that a wonderful detail (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    that puts this debate in a different perspective?
    Details we don't get here in the hinterlands, details that perhaps only a Noo Yawker would know.

    Of course, from reading wonderful books about early Noo Yawk City (Five Points, Rats, etc.), I would bet that the site -- and just about any site -- actually has some amazing history that hasn't literally been unearthed yet, has been forgotten.  After reading such research, my next trip to the city was quite a different experience; I knew more about where to look and about what I was seeing, less distracted by the big store windows and the bright lights . . . and the traffic, oh, the traffic.  

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 03:13:43 PM EST
    As a NYer who lives within walking distance to the WTC site, from all the right wing press about the Mosque, I would have thought that it was being built right in the center of the site.

    I had to do research to find out exactly where the Mosque was being built, and had a good laugh when I found out where it was.

    Here is an entertaining village voice piece about the project:

    The Downtown Mosque Plan Riles the Loons

    Parent

    no kidding (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CST on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 03:18:25 PM EST
    I had thought the same thing.

    Oh well, that's our media, never letting facts get in the way of pure outrage.

    Personally, I'd have no problem with it being part of the actual site either.

    Parent

    That old NYC history... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    is crazy fun stuff...my old neighborhood had the nation's first free kindergarten, funded by Mr. Conrad Poppenhusen,  the town's founder, inventor of vulcanized rubber, and a very progressive community-minded industrialist.  It was also a favorite summer getaway for city dwellers with many lush beer gardens.

    Parent
    Thanks! A nice bit of history (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    to add to what I teach about the nation's first kindergarten, in 1856, which is nearby my abode.
    In the German language, by an immigrant trained in her homeland by the founder of the first kindergarten.

    Unfortunately for her, she had to close down her school when she had to move with her husband to our nation's capital half a decade later -- because he, also a German immigrant, served in Lincoln's cabinet.

    The German freethinkers were a fascinating group with huge impact in this country.  Of course, reading their works, I suspect that they would be deported today by the fools in our capital now!

    Parent

    Deported AND forbidden to speak (none / 0) (#91)
    by DFLer on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:08:13 PM EST
    anything other than English and therefore no kindergartens in the USA.

    Parent
    My own take on (none / 0) (#86)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:52:10 PM EST
    all this about NY -- my home -- is love of the fact that all that wonderful history is thrown in together with the fancy shops and the cultural & ethnic diversity.

    Parent
    Insulting (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:29:16 PM EST
    If anyone is insulting here it is you, ppj. Bigory seems to be your middle name these days.

    Parent
    I'm on record... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    as prefering a casino be built on the site, but I'm certainly not insulted it's gonna be a community center containing a mosque.  Just no more banks:)

    For those that are insulted, in a free country that is expected to happen quite frequently.  It's a good sign to be insulted...it means somebody still got at least a little freedom...rejoice!

    Parent

    how about (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:45:34 PM EST
    a mosque/cansino?

    Parent
    Not bad... (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:49:09 PM EST
    lets really make heads explode with a multi-denominational prayer center/casino/Amsterdam-style coffee shop/strip club/driving range.  Something for everybody!

    It is a melting pot right?

    Parent

    The propblem is that gambling is against (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:23:16 PM EST
    Sharia law... So that could lead to all kinds of problems...

    But I could make book on your stoning.... Say 9 to 5 you won't survive past the 30 minute mark.

    Kdog, check out who the Imam is behind this. What he has said and what he has done. And check out the historical significant of the name.

    It isn't a pretty picture.

    As I said, there are plenty of places for a Mosque that would offend no one.

    Why do you think they chose this one?


    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:38:58 PM EST
    because all muslims stone people to death; because they all interpret Sharia Law the same way..

    Where in the U.S could a mosque be placed that wouldn't offend the fragile sensibilities of the Fox and talk radio educated, white-christian-patriot nitwits?

    Parent

    It's also against NY State law... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:21:30 PM EST
    last I checked...far too much in common with that sharia sh*t already for my liking:)

    But fear not my friend...if it comes to the point where I must fear stoning in addition to the current potential robbery and kidnapping punishment for playing some cards I give you my word I will join the fight against our new muslim overlords.  Stoning is enough to get me out of hiding in plain sight...I think...I hope!

     

    Parent

    It will be to late (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 10:35:34 PM EST
    Do they stone you for (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 07:36:42 AM EST
    gambling and smoking dope in NY??

    Parent
    No... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 07:47:10 AM EST
    were civilized...if you're caught playing cards usually you just get robbed, then checked for warrants.  If you're running the game you get robbed and kidnapped.

    Smoking dope still gets you kidnapped, unless you're lucky enough to run into a lawman with common sense and a heart who isn't being monitored by a supervisor.

    Parent

    The question is... which is worse? (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:46:45 PM EST
    Isn't it bad enough that the inside of (none / 0) (#87)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:53:11 PM EST
    some of the cineplexes here look like low-end Vegas casinos in decor?

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:44:59 PM EST
    My idea for a park was not on the sy sims/burlington coat factory site, but on the entire WTC plot which is 16 acres.

    Parent
    The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 03:21:23 PM EST
    Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA) makes almost all attempts to prevent the building of mosques illegal under Federal Law.

    A statute to ostensibly ensure religious freedom, RLUIPA makes it very, very difficult to disallow building and use permits for houses of worship.  Backed by conservative Christians who believed they were being persecuted.  The argument had been that slow-growthers and NIMBYs had prevented churches from even performing renovations......

    The First Amendment obviously prohibits the outright bigotry of jimakaPPJ and Palin and Gingrich.  But RLUIPA goes one step further and pretty much requires a compelling governmental interest to deny building permits on normal land use type reasons such as too much traffic and noise.

    Many attacked RLUIPA as a violation of Federalism--why is the Federal Government getting itself involved in local land use issues, they said.

    Hoisted on their petard, are these "religious" conservatives, as they bellow bigotry about Muslims....

    Not just bigotry but stupidity.  Not even George W. Bush equated terrorism with Islam.

    Parent

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ks on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    "I definitely liked it better before 9/11 when a good chunk of "the real America" wouldn't have minded if NY fell into the Atlantic Ocean.  Their "concern" is creepy."

    As a native NYCer, that always make me laugh.


    Parent

    Up is Down (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    Hilarious money quote, if anything is true it is that the right wing in America is on a cultural-political offensive against Muslims, the new Lepers.

    The real money quote for me is this:

    A community board in lower Manhattan voted overwhelming in support of the building in May.

    link

    FU Gingrich, Palin, et al. and MYOB.

    Parent

    this just reminds me (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by CST on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    of all the "national security voters" in the 2004 election.  Exit polling showed that the people most concerned about national security and terrorism (who voted republican) overwhelmingly lived in places that would never be terrorized.

    Parent
    Sad thing isq (none / 0) (#88)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:55:00 PM EST
    they are the ones who get the most federal anti-terrorism money per capita.

    Parent
    As a NY'er (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:08:39 PM EST
    You know that the inhabitants of lower Manhattan are not quite typical representatives of America, nor Earth, in my opinion.

    Parent
    in my opinion (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by CST on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:21:31 PM EST
    there is no such thing as a "typical representative of America, or Earth"

    one person/city's "typical" is another persons "crazy"

    there is also no such thing as "real America" btw.  It's all real, and it's all America.

    Parent

    Slander? (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:19:13 PM EST
    Why because you are against the Mosque too?

    The members of community board 1, my community board, are upstanding citizens. Many of the members are distinguished in their respective fields.

    If you think that these people are freaks, you are the freak.

    In fact if downtown NYC was not representative of the US or planet earth, why would so many people be flocking to live here, from around the US and the world?

    Nasty, slander a community because you hate the idea of a Mosque being built.

    Parent

    Deep breaths (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:38:38 PM EST
    slow.....deep.....breaths

    read my post, then read yours
    seek help

    Parent

    "It is called implying guilt (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:52:29 PM EST
    by association."

    Parent
    a lot of the NYers (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:00:16 PM EST
    I know (I lived in manhattan for almost 20 years) probably would not object to that characterization.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:06:11 PM EST
    But context is everything....  

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:03:03 PM EST
    Let's clear this up right now:

    As a NYer, are you for or against the Mosque project?

    Parent

    fair (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:09:19 PM EST
    question

    Parent
    As a NYer (since 1951) (none / 0) (#81)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:24:41 PM EST
    I haven't made a determination yet.

    I watch the second tower go down from our offices in Queens & share an apt. on the lower east side with my cousin. So, just for credentials sake, that gives me the right to make any cracks about NYC I want to.

    But I would like to watch this discussion play out for a while and see what develops. You know I'm a big supporter of Israel, yet I wish they had never decided to establish their new country over there. I don't care who has legal rights to whatever; some things are just too sensitive, and what Israel left to posterior in 1948 is why I wish they had settled in Nevada, or New mexico, or somewhere else.

    Too many of my family were killed by the Nazis and I carried too many body parts off the fields of  NE Asia to make snap decisions about something sensitive like this & that I don't know enough about yet.

    Let's way & see.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:43:38 PM EST
    Pretty much where I thought you were coming from...

    Given the context of your original comment, you did appear to be aligning with those who were against building the Mosque.

    And by claiming your NYer creds, it appeared that you were voicing an opinion to distance yourself from the downtown community board and the downtown residents.

    Parent

    Stop being so reasonable.... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:50:20 PM EST
    The way I look at it is...

    It's not at the towers site, it's not a freakin' Osama Bin Ladin memorial...what are you gonna do, establish a 5 square mile mosque-free perimeter?  

    Now I don't know how shady the guys behind it are, but I think I got a good idea about where the antis are coming from and it's not a pretty place.  

    Parent

    Re: how shady the guys behind it are (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:24:54 PM EST
    From the NY Times via Wiki

    Mr. Abu-Namous said he had spent a lot of time responding to statements by his predecessor, Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, who two weeks after the World Trade Center attack left for home in Egypt, before his four-year term ended. Mosque officials said he and his family had received threats.

    On Oct. 4, an Arabic language Web site, www.lailatalqadr.com, posted an interview in which Sheik Gemeaha said that Zionists in command of the nation's air traffic control towers had helped the suicide hijackings; that the Zionist media were giving Muslims a bad image; that Jews spread corruption; and that Jewish doctors were poisoning Muslim children.

    ''Of course, it's wrong to specify a certain group of people and attribute the wrong thing to them when you don't have evidence,'' Mr. Abu-Namous said of the sheik's comments.

    As a NY'er, my feeling is the project needs to proceed.  Seems it would be the best thing to do to let the world know NY continues to be the shining example of liberal thought its always been.


    Parent

    The rest of the world (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    especially the radical Muslim part..... does not care how liberal New York is.... except how it allows them to use it against New York.

    Parent
    Well said Vic... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 07:50:44 AM EST
    our ideals demand the project continue...regardless of the knucklehead quotient of the developers.

    Parent
    Eh, dogBuddy (none / 0) (#94)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:20:14 PM EST
    There ain't a religion, color, or nationality that's not welcome in my home, but until I know more about, like a real smart feller once said,......"how shady the guys behind it are".......

    You remember, about two years ago, right after Mr. Obama threw his hat into the ring, everybody with a brain that I knew locked elbows, put on that Rev, Moon fixated gleem on their faces, and went rushing to usher in The New Change-Man!

    I picked him out then, like a secret Service cat picks out a sniper in a crowd.

    Same thing here, rush, rush, rush...Gotta know RIGHT NOW!

    Everybody's my friend....till you ain't.

    Like I said, wait & see.


    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:26:20 PM EST
    Electing the POTUS, is the same as someone building a Mosque and community center, nowhere close to where you live?

    Wow, that is a stretch.

    It does sound like you have jumped on a bandwagon, and not a pretty one, imo.

    Parent

    Probably worse now. (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:36:46 PM EST
    The New York City metropolitan region - which includes Long Island and parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania - also leads the country in migration outflow, with an average of 211,014 leaving a year. The number is higher than the state figure because many of those leaving the metropolitan region resettle in other areas of New York.

    Link

    Parent

    Nice Non-Sequitur (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:48:56 PM EST
    Considering that we were talking about lower manhattan.

    But then again that is one of your favorite propaganda techniques. Just like you are arguing about Federal Funds for the WTC cleanup, as if the Mosque were part of the WTC site.

    New York has ranked first in population among American cities since the first census in 1790. New York will maintain this position, although there are varying forecasts on how much the population will increase. The most realistic population projections from the Department of City Planning anticipate a 1.1 million increase by 2030, bringing the city's population total to 9.1 million.

    wiki


    Parent

    Maybe we could do a PR blitz... (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 07:29:30 PM EST
    I love New York.... it's better than any third world country!

    Despite the tremendous outflow, the overall city population, at 8.2 million, is growing due to increases in international immigration and a birthrate that is greater than the death rate.

    lol

    Parent

    Moronic Comment, IMO (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 07:44:57 PM EST
    Hard for me to believe that you are as ignorant as you sound.  

    NYC has always been a city of immigrants.

    Parent

    Smear away Squeaky (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 09:45:29 PM EST
    You have no idea of what is happening in the real world.

    Parent
    Real World? (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 09:56:35 PM EST
    NYC's history is the history of immigrants. That is a fact, despite whatever "real world" fantasy you are having at the moment.

    Don't forget to look under your bed.

    Parent

    You make my point (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 10:00:19 PM EST
    Parts of NYC look like a third world country. Now we know why.

    Parent
    Third world country.. (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 03:04:52 PM EST
    Yes, some us of us immediatly start getting nervous in any part of the country where we cant count on looking out and seeing a sea of white faces brandishing signs with Tea Party slogans.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:44:49 PM EST
    myob...you beat me to it.  A "family value" instilled in me at a young age:)

    Parent
    Then maybe we should let them (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    pay for the clean up and refund all the money paid to the victims....

    I mean if this NOT a national thing, then the locals should pay for it.

    Parent

    We did pay for it... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:45:00 PM EST
    in many lives and chronic lung problems...If the generous assistance from the rest of the country came with strings attached, it woulda been nice to let us know ahead of time.

    Parent
    It would have been nicer (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    to have let the rest of the country that the locals were gonna support building a mosque there...

    I don't think the money would have poured in the way it did.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    The site is on private property. The developer, Sharif El-Gamal a NYer, paid $4,000,000 to buy the property from the previous owners. But your pal Pamela Geller, of Atlas Shrugged tried to get it landmarked...

    Send her some money... she is going to need it.

    Parent

    By your logic, (none / 0) (#37)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    I should have a say on what gets built on or around the site of the Oklahoma City Federal building, Pentagon, entire city of New Orleans, ect.

    Parent
    or off of (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CST on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    any highway.

    Federal funds are used for all sorts of things that remain under local control.

    The Texas School Board gets to decide what to teach kids in Texas despite the fact that they receive federal funds.  Is that a problem for you Jim?

    Parent

    Your strawman is burning.... (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:28:49 PM EST
    The use of Federal funds are always subject to federal approval... Look what happened when the Feds wanted the drinking age moved to 21.

    Parent
    there are no federal funds (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CST on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:30:53 PM EST
    being used for this mosque.  Your statement is about a building that is in the vicinity of a federally funded project.  Therefore anything in the vicinity of a federal highway would be the relevant comparison.

    We're not talking about anything that's actually on federal land here - which is where your drinking age comparison would relate.

    Parent

    Oh please (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 07:26:36 PM EST
    No federal funds involved in the clean up?

    lol

    Parent

    and even in the case (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:32:45 PM EST
    where they are subject to federal approval, that control is often ceded to local governments.

    The fed does not approve every building that is constructed off of a highway.

    Parent

    qualifers are your name (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 09:57:53 PM EST
    even in....is often...

    And the proposed mosque is not  off I 80....

    Question: Why do you think we should endure a spit in the eye over this?

    Parent

    When did you move to lower (none / 0) (#119)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 10:29:33 PM EST
    Manhattan? 'cause if it ain't your 'hood, there's no spit in your eye.

    Parent
    I didn't live in Honolulu either (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 10:38:04 PM EST
    So your point is that each 'hood must defend itself?

    Parent
    No, of course not (none / 0) (#124)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 10:56:00 PM EST
    so I guess your point is we shouldn't defend 'hoods with places of worship you don't approve of even though the community hood does approve? Perhaps you would be up for abolishing your local community board and taking away the freedoms of your local community?

    Parent
    the only person (none / 0) (#137)
    by CST on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:30:31 AM EST
    spitting in my eye right now is you.  I have no problem with Mosques or Muslims.  Some of my favorite people are Muslims.  And you insult them here every day with your bigotry and your hate.

    There are no federal funds being used.  What part of NOT ON THE WTC SITE do you not understand?

    Your original statement was that if federal funds were involved you should get a say.  I was pointing out there are many places where federal funds are ceded to local control.  That doesn't mean all of them are.  Just that your original statement was irrelevant because that happens all the time.

    But whatever, continue hating Muslims if it makes you happy.  I don't need a boogeyman in my life.

    Parent

    Interesting and very readable article (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 08:05:42 PM EST
    at the New Yorker on financial reform with a focus on Volcker's role.  Article contains truly lay-friendly definitions of terms such as commercial vs. investment bank, Volcker rule, and more.  Explains the impact of the bailouts, the oft overlooked change of Goldman and Morgan Stanley to bank holding companies, etc.

    Link

    best (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:17:02 PM EST
    funny (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:43:27 PM EST
    Unrepentant in the face of criticism that she took no questions Wednesday at her first campaign press conference, Nevada senatorial candidate and teabagger darling Sharron Angle this morning announced in a press release that she has hired a new campaign spokesman known merely as "The Freedom Mime."

    "From now on, any members of the lamestream media who want to badger me with intrusive questions about my `position' on this or that `issue' can talk not to the hand, but to the mime," Angle said in a statement.



    The Early Daze, pt. 13 (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:56:47 PM EST
    Update... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:10:22 PM EST
    on the plight of Iroquois National Lacrosse missing the world chamionships...the US came through with a waiver to allow them to use their native docs to travel, thanks in part to the work of Hillary Clinton (well done!), then the UK backed off on their promise to allow it if the US did, citing "security concerns".  That's just lame...shame on the UK.

    But the silver lining is all this impediment to free travel has put a media spotlight on the Nation...and led to some donors helping out the Nation, including James Cameron coming up with 50 large.

    Hopefully justice and reason prevails before the next international tournament...they are a sovereign nation and their docs should be sufficient.

    Thanks for update and details (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:23:07 PM EST
    as I had heard only that the team did not, in the end, get to go -- so I had not heard that our State Department did give it a try, nor that it then was the UK that still stopped the First People who invented the game from being able to compete in it.

    Still, that the U.S. even was part of the original screwup is just so discouraging.  We just keep bolloxing up how to behave as guests here, don't we?

    Parent

    Yes we do... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:30:10 PM EST
    both nations sh*t the bed at the start, though we did try to do the right thing at the last minute, even if only on a "one time" waiver, while the Brits seemed to go out of their way to keep the Iroquois from competing.  I guess they didn't want their squad to get their arses kicked in the opening match by such a small nation.

    The problem will remain for the Iriquois, and I don't blame them one bit for refusing to travel on US or Canadian docs, as they are not Americans or Canadians...they are Iroquois.  Tyrannized Iroquois.  Get it straight and get it fixed permanently!

    Parent

    BTW... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:41:12 PM EST
    the recent Sports Illustrated piece on Iroquois National Lacrosse is an excellent read.  Link

    Parent
    Timmy finds a nut (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:15:12 PM EST
    WASHINGTON--Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the Obama administration will allow tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire on schedule despite calls from a small but increasingly vocal group of Democrats to delay any tax increases.


    Show me the numbers (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    And here I thought... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 03:02:14 PM EST
    Ice-T was getting soft in his old age...he sounded like the guy who wrote "Cop Killer" when some, I quote, "punk b*tch rookie cop" decided to f8ck with him.

    You tell 'em Ice!

    The House (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 03:58:37 PM EST
    Is preparing to proceed against Charlie Rangel for ethics violations.  WaPo reports:

    The House ethics committee is preparing to conduct what to amounts to a trial for former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.).

    The committee has concluded that Rangel violated House ethics rules and will release a public statement of violation next week.

    It has been eight years since the U.S. House of Representatives conducted a similar review -- that of former Rep. Jim Trafficant, who was later expelled. It is based on 18 months of investigation into Rangel's conduct as a member of Congress and how may have used his House position to influence his private business. That investigation has focused on Rangel's amendment of his financial disclosure forms and his fundraising using official congressional letterhead for a center in his name at City College of New York.




    Expulsion seems unlikely (none / 0) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 04:22:47 PM EST
    Traficant was actually found guilty of racketeering etc.  Other politicians re-do their tax returns so I'm curious to know if he stepped up with the tax situation or it was found thru an audit... The villa rental income looks the worst to me.  He could have erroneously thought he had legally shifted income offshore but he has absolutely no excuse for not claiming the income on disclosure forms.

    Parent
    Sad to see this for (none / 0) (#82)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:27:27 PM EST
    Rangel, but apparently he's following in the checkered footsteps of the guy he defeated 40 yrs ago, Adam Clayton Powell, who ended up expelled (then re-instated via election).  Some people just stay too long and begin to think they can cut corners as they accumulate power and as they try to add some wealth.

    Colorful fellow and never shy about appearing in the media, but never much of an effective spokesman for liberal causes, imo, espcecially because of his peculiar and somewhat off-putting speaking style.  Perhaps he brought home the bacon for his Harlem district all those years, or possibly he kept getting re-elected for other reasons.

    Parent

    Peculiar and off-putting? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:06:29 PM EST
    I don't know what you're referring to.  He's never struck me that way.  What's peculiar and off-putting about the way he speaks?

    Parent
    You mean everyone (none / 0) (#101)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 07:26:59 PM EST
    is supposed to react the same way to how pols speak as you do?

    The way they speak or look, these are often subjective matters that strike the listener harshly or benignly or not at all.  Rangel's combination of thick New York accent to go with his uniquely gravelly and nasally voice doesn't exactly create melodious music in my ears.  

    Not the kind of sound I want to put on my iPod or hear coming over the teevee.  But his voice isn't the most grating among pols.  Probably one of the slow drawling southern GOPers -- Haley Barbour or Mitch McConnell -- tops the list of those I'd like to never hear speak again, and not just for their political views.  

    Parent

    No, Brodie (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 10:56:00 PM EST
    I'm just asking what you find objectionable.  You mean people aren't ever supposed to ask for details when somebody makes a flat statement they don't understand the basis for?

    You didn't say "I find his speech peculiar and off-putting," you asserted flatly that it was peculiar and off-putting, and I wondered what I was missing.

    If it's just a matter of his gravelly voice and NY accent, then it really is solely a matter of one's personal likes and dislikes.  I actually love that raspy voice and unapologetically working-class NY accent, but each to his own.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:25:38 AM EST
    I can't understand why his voice would be annoying either.

    Parent
    I actually kind of like it (none / 0) (#109)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 08:31:27 PM EST
    But yeah, it's not for everyone!

    Parent
    Stephanie Miller and her (none / 0) (#110)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 09:35:17 PM EST
    crew have had some playful fun mocking his voice over the years, though I think they like him a little more than I do.  

    On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a golden voice, 10 being as annoyingly grating as possible, Rangel probably rates only a 7 in my book.  So, not nearly enough to put him in a league with McConnell, Barbour, or Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.  

    Parent

    Seems Small Potatoes (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:17:13 PM EST
    Relatively speaking...

    And too bad prostitution is not legal, and sex is not legally monetized, because a lot of these guys would be getting "gifts", without reporting them, from their lobbyists et al..

    Parent

    MSNBC is listing the issues he is (none / 0) (#97)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    facing/charged with as:

    The investigation of Rangel has focused on:

    • His use of official stationery to raise money for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.

    • Whether he had the Ways and Means Committee consider legislation that would benefit donors to the Rangel Center at the same time the congressman solicited donations or pledges.

    • Preservation of a tax shelter for an oil drilling company, Nabors Industries, which has a chief executive who donated money to the center while Rangel's committee considered the loophole legislation.

    • Use of four rent-controlled apartment units in New York City, when the city's rent stabilization program is supposed to apply to one's primary residence. This raises the question of how all the units could be primary residences. One was a campaign office, raising the separate question of whether the rent break was an improper gift.

    • Whether Rangel, as required, publicly reported information on the financing and rental of his ownership interest in a unit within the Punta Cana Yacht Club in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Rangel also had to pay back taxes on the rental income.

    • Whether he intentionally failed to report -- when required -- hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in assets. The amended disclosure reports added a credit union IRA, mutual fund accounts and stock.

    Seems to be more than just mis-filing some house asset reports and mis-using some letterhead stationary.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 06:50:19 PM EST
    All unproven charges, but still small potatoes compared to the GOP scandals over the last 10 years, IMO.

    Parent
    IMO, Rangel should be ashamed of himself (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 07:24:15 PM EST
    re using as his office space four apartments which were supposed to be for subsidized primary residences.  This type of housing is in very short supply with long waiting lists.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 07:27:30 PM EST
    Personally, I would not jump to moral conclusions, without knowing the specifics. And, yes, if true it is illegal.

    Parent
    There ya go (none / 0) (#114)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 09:59:32 PM EST
    I knew you could do it.

    I love Charly R,
    but even for him I say, let's wait & see.

    Parent

    Apples And ORanges (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 10:16:50 PM EST
    The building of an Islamic community center and Mosque is a given. It has the approval of all the NYC boards, and the soon to be Governor is campaigning on it.

    Rangel, on the other hand, has been accused of ethics violations, there are no charges as of yet.

    And as far as my comment, apart from my tendency to assume innocence, my point to oculus was about a moral issue.

    When presented as a fact that Rangel was preventing homeless and starving NYers from having a rent stabilized apartment, I said that it was illegal to do that, but the immorality of it is not clear without knowing what the specifics are.

    If you are jumping on the Palin express and calling for investigation of the funding for the Mosque, before you pass judgement, I have a quote for you:

    "I don't think we're going to go and start investigating funding sources for religious organizations or vetting people who preach, pray in religious organizations," the mayor said.
    "That just is so out of character for what this nation stands for and the way we conduct ourselves.
    "

    Mayor Bloomberg

    Parent

    The government investigates (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 07:48:34 AM EST
    funding of some radical Christian groups all the time as well as some Muslim charities. And I seem to remember some mega churches getting hit with investigations and IRS lookie seesw over how the money was spent.... (Hello Tammy!)

    And when you quibble over the immorality of a rich man using rent controlled housing instead of the poor...

    "Well, there you go again."

    lol

    You define yourself so well for all of us to see.

    Parent

    Well then, a whole buncha NY'ers are shady then. (none / 0) (#134)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:19:41 AM EST
    Rent stabilization/rent control depends on the circumstances and the whims of the landlord.  Further, whether someone "poor" would be living in these apartments is debatable.  Anyone who can get their hands on one of these apartments strives to keep them.  Rangel is hardly alone in this.  

    "It has nothing to do with fair," said Brenda Cargill, who has lived in Rangel's apartment building since 1960, when she was a child moving in with her parents. She said tenants who inherit, or maintain, rent-stabilized apartments earn their space, even next to higher-paying neighbors. "I think of it as a balance. No one is getting over on anyone."

    CBS News NY

    Parent
    Anyone can try to justify anything (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:48:45 PM EST
    Of course it doesn't work, but....

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 04:18:54 PM EST
    The government investigates funding of some radical Christian groups all the time as well as some Muslim charities.

    Yes, and it is called probable cause, getting a warrant, and investigating, pressing charges if warranted and a fair trial.

    Of course you would advocate a fascist state where no probable cause exists. The new america, as you would have it. No wonder you are such a staunch supporter of the AZ law.

    Parent

    Which is why (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:02:40 AM EST
    The House is going to have a trial (of sorts)

    Parent
    AZ News (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 08:20:33 PM EST
    Reporting from Phoenix -- A federal judge on Thursday expressed skepticism that a key part of a controversial Arizona law to control illegal immigration is constitutional.

    The judge did not rule on lawsuits seeking a court order to prevent the law from taking effect July 29. Nor did she indicate how she might rule or when.

    But U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton noted at a hearing that the U.S. Supreme Court has long barred states from creating their own immigrant registration systems. She said the Arizona measure's stipulation that makes a crime of failing to have immigration documents may violate that.

    LA Times


    Good for CNN! (none / 0) (#117)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 10:18:23 PM EST
    Doing a special, "anatomy of a smear campaign," Starring our Mr, Breitbart

    Read it and weep (none / 0) (#140)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:36:34 PM EST
    Sirota explains the WH's "pundit Delusion"

    I can't think of anything much more disgusting than checking your grade with David Brooks every week.