home

Friday Open Thread

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Thursday Open Thread | Saturday College Football Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    RIP, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap (1911-2013). (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 12:51:12 PM EST
    One of the great military tacticians and strategists in the 20th century, the architect of defeat for first the French and then the Americans in Vietnam, later fended off a Chinese invasion of his country in 1979, which led him to encourage reconciliation with the United States as a counterweight to China. He was 102.

    "Giap understood what the French and Americans did not: that a peasant army, imbued with patience, nationalism and a willingness to endure untold suffering, could defeat a far more powerful force whose cause was not enthusiastically supported at home. Giap lost an estimated 1 million Communist soldiers in winning Vietnam's independence as a unified state, but he never expressed the slightest doubt that such huge casualties were worth the sacrifice."

    The man was a genius at his craft, and came to define patriotism in his homeland, in a manner by which few others ever do in their own countries.

    Aloha to a worthy adversary in war, and a trusted friend in peace.

    TGIF (none / 0) (#8)
    by fishcamp on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    And it helps if you have... (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:19:20 PM EST
    Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

    A:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support of the war from our rear was completely secure  while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence  that we should hold on  in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

    Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

    A: Keenly.

    And helps even more if you had Uncle Walter making false claims....

    Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [lloks like a re-writing of history with the benefit of hindsight]

    Q: What about the results?

    A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.

    Link

    Parent

    Because what could be more (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    unchristian and unpatriotic than being anti-war?

    Face it Jim: as painful as it is to admit, Bill Ayers and Hanoi Jane were right and the chickenhawks are still wrong.

    Parent

    Given that our stated goal was ... (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:10:45 PM EST
    ... the preservation of our client state South Vietnam, suffice to say that we lost the Vietnam War. Period. There's no other way to spin it. The anti-Vietnam War movement was proved right by events, Jim. They weren't the reason we lost that war.

    Our country's military involvement in Vietnam was pure folly, based as it was upon a pointed misreading on our part of the inherent nature of that conflict. It was a war waged by the Vietnamese people for their sovereignty and independence, and not as proxies for the Soviet Union. Communism wasn't the end game for Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap, but rather the means to attain that end.

    From a military and strategic standpoint, we violated perhaps the most fundamental of the noted warrior / philosopher Sun Tzu's stated tenets for waging war, which is that to ensure one's success in battle, one must know both one's enemy and one's own selves.

    In the case of Vietnam, we ultimately knew neither, because we gravely underestimated North Vietnam's capacity to absorb enormous punishment, and greatly overestimated both our own ability to inflict that level of pain for a prolonged period, and the capability and willingness of our South Vietnamese clients to stand up for themselves. Hitting that dubious trifecta as we did, small wonder that our leaders in Washington finally exhausted the American people's patience and resolve to stay the course.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    C'mon Jim, get over it (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 05:45:35 PM EST
    I left the Army on 15 February 1968 (E-5, Honorable) and immediately took up the anti-war cause.  The Vietnam War was an obvious fraud.  Everyone I served with knew that, but regulations prohibit expressing that sentiment while in uniform.

    Parent
    Repack, I see that you haven't got (1.00 / 2) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 08:44:10 PM EST
    over it.

    Parent
    Sounds like a flippant (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 08:49:03 PM EST
    response trivializing a significant experience.

    Parent
    Speak for yourself, please. (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 10:55:21 PM EST
    Given your previous post highlighting the antiwar movement, with its snide reference to "Uncle Walter" and the accompanying link to the revisionist site you provided, you're hardly in any position to be telling others to "get over it" regarding Vietnam.

    Parent
    Or, as I heard, (none / 0) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:20:17 PM EST
    and, came to believe,

    "an adversary who refuses to be defeated, cannot lose."

    Parent

    How'd that work out for Hitler? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:43:31 PM EST
    John Boehner wants you to know that, (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:27:11 PM EST
    This isn't some damn game.

    Specifically (and do try to read this without rolling your eyes or hooting in derision):

    Good morning, everyone. When we have a crisis like the one we're in the middle of this week, the American people expect their leaders to sit down and try to resolve their differences. I was at the White House the other night and listening to the president some 20 times explain to me why he wasn't going to negotiate. I sat there and listened to the majority leader in the United States Senate describe to me that we're not going to talk until we surrender. I get the Wall Street Journal out and it says "we don't care how long this lasts because we're winning." This isn't some damn game. The American people don't want their government shut down and neither do I. All we're asking for is to sit down and have a discussion and reopen the government and to bring fairness to the American people under Obamacare. It's as simple as that. But it all has to begin with a simple discussion.

    Is John Boehner aware of who is responsible for the shutdown?  Does he have one of those weird kinds of amnesia that renders his memory blank with respect to the 30-something times his caucus tried to repeal the ACA - and failed?

    These people - the John Boehners and the Ted Cruzes, the Mitch McConnells and Louie Gohmerts (how has that guy not been pronounced brain dead?), the whole lot of batsh!t-crazy Tea Party Republicans - AND - the craven Democrats who waited until they had a giant gun to their heads before locating their spines ought to be run out of town and forbidden to return or to ever hold a position of "public trust" again.

    AND the - I'm sorry, there simply is no other word for them - MORONS who keep voting them into office - this is on them, too.

    Maybe the answer is for them to don their skimpiest thongs, light the sage sticks, dance around the well of the Senate and recite Dr. Seuss, while goats scamper up and down the aisles...it would make about as much sense and would do as much good as Permanently Orange John Boehner informing us that what they've been doing isn't a game.

    Thank my everloving God it's fking Friday.

    Boehner (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:24:45 PM EST
    might be telling the truth when he says he doesn't want a government shut down but honestly his inability to control the crazies has led to this.

    It's scary to think that the teavangelicals want to suicide bomb the entire country.

    Parent

    This is a GOP caucus whose own member ... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:37:27 PM EST
    ... can publicly berate a presently unpaid National Park Service ranger on television over the closure of the Second World War Memorial in D.C., telling her that she should be ashamed of herself, while he is still receiving his own paycheck -- and without even pausing to consider the irony and hypocrisy of it all.

    Parent
    Boehner is probably hungover (none / 0) (#22)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    or still drunk from the previous evening when he goes on the floor of the House each morning. And the taxpayers are footing the bill for his continued brown-nosing of the Tea Party. He and his cohorts are already planning to put the U.S. in default in two weeks.

    Parent
    To be declared brain dead... (none / 0) (#80)
    by unitron on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 07:28:38 PM EST
    ...doesn't there have to have been a working brain there previously?

    Parent
    Erza Klein on Federal Web site (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:34:43 PM EST
    Wonkbook: Obamacare's Web site is really bad

    ... the Obama administration doesn't have a basically working product that would be improved by a software update. They have a Web site that almost nobody has been able to successfully use. If Apple launched a major new product that functioned as badly as Obamacare's online insurance marketplace, the tech world would be calling for Tim Cook's head.
    ...
    Yes, the overwhelming crush of traffic is behind many of the Web site's failures. But the Web site was clearly far, far from prepared for traffic at anywhere near these levels. That's a planning flaw: The Obama administration badly underestimated the level of interest. The fact that the traffic is good news for the law doesn't obviate the fact that the site's inability to absorb that traffic is bad news for the law.

    Part of the problem, according to a number of designers, is that the site is badly coded, which makes the traffic problems more acute. There's a darkly amusing thread on Reddit where web designers are picking through the site's code and mocking it mercilessly. link

    According to Erza, there are signs that the site is improving. The wait times are improving yet they aren't the only problem as the site crashs five or six screens in. I'm in total agreement with Erza's statement:

    The Obama administration need to get the marketplace working, and fast.


    What is it about "millions of people (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:51:53 PM EST
    without health insurance" that would lead ANYONE to underestimate interest in it?  I mean, every time Obama turned around he was talking about the millions of people who'd be gaining access to insurance, so come on, can we please stop acting like it makes sense that they could have possibly "underestimated" interest in this thing?

    It would be about as believable as Best Buy advertising 72-inch, high-def flat-screen TVs for $99, and expressing surprise when 5,000 people showed up to buy the 5 of them they had in stock.  Really?  You didn't think this would be of that much interest to people?


    Parent

    I guess as someone who was (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:22:35 PM EST
    involved with starting new processes, I'm coming at this at a slightly different angle.

    This is the part that is aggravating me to no end:

    ...the site is badly coded, which makes the traffic problems more acute. There's a darkly amusing thread on Reddit where web designers are picking through the site's code and mocking it mercilessly.

    Who in the "h&ll" was in charge of overseeing the development of this site? No way with a 3 year lead time the code should be so sloppy or not fully and properly tested prior to implementation. The need for a high level professional roll out should have been one of the first concerns as Klein points out:

    But the Obama administration did itself -- and the millions of people who wanted to explore signing up -- a terrible disservice by building a Web site that, four days into launch, is still unusable for most Americans. They knew that the only way to quiet the law's critics was to implement it effectively. And building a working e-commerce Web site is not an impossible task, even with the added challenges of getting various government data services to talk to each other. Instead, the Obama administration gave critics arguing that the law isn't ready for primetime more ammunition for their case.

     

    Parent

    It does not bode well... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:30:43 PM EST
    and there's no excuse for it, none.

    Parent
    That bugged me as well (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sj on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:47:01 PM EST
    I started reading the Reddit thread and the sorts of problems being described mean a complete re-write is the only real solution. It's like it was created by developers who had just taken a class or two.

    I haven't read the whole thing. I don't know if I will, either, because it's pretty demoralizing.

    Parent

    Read the whole thread (none / 0) (#76)
    by vicndabx on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 06:28:00 PM EST
    These are basically threading issues due to not enough capacity on servers likely not controlled by the Feds IT team.  No doubt there are some tweaks needed to improve performance, but since you sound like you do some development these comments should sound familiar:

    It's quite possible that the caching headers for the site were not set as aggressively as they should have, causing the site to wilt under load. That would be a disappointing oversight, if true, but (as a developer of an election-day system with similar large one-day loads) I can state it can be quite hard to properly test a million people hitting your site at once (at least not without quite substantial budget devoted to the task).

    It should also be noted that (as far as I understand it) there are actually 51 or so separate IT projecand then there are separate state-specific sitests here: there's the central connector, . Reading the anecdotes at {link} it seems that a number of the failures encountered were at state-specific sites. Here in Massachusetts apparently our state site performed with few problems -- but that's not surprising, since we set up our site years ago when Romney invented Obamacare. ;)

    As someone that deals regularly w/large code releases, it is more often than not, that large implementations such as this DO NOT go off w/some glitches in the beginning.  Performance testing is always done - but it's usually dependent on some baseline that frankly, probably didn't exist before now.

    That being said, if these issues persist well into next week...Houston, we have a problem.

    What they should've done is a trial/test implementation where they invite users to try it out or something similar.  Don't know how you do something like that with deadlines tied to laws.

    Parent

    Read quite a bit of the thread linked (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 06:58:14 PM EST
    in Erza's article.

    It highlighted coding problems as well as capacity problems. From what was being highlighted by the designers discussing the coding, the coding errors were sloppy and amateurish. That was implied even in the part you quoted:

    It's quite possible that the caching headers for the site were not set as aggressively as they should have, causing the site to wilt under load. That would be a disappointing oversight, if true,

    There are as you say always glitches but these problems seems to go beyond minor easy to fix problems. Not only are there problems with people accessing the system, there are also seem to be problems with the interfaces.

    Once again, they had 3 years to put this system together so time should not have been a factor. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the actual law that would have prohibited a trial/test implementation period by select users as long as the insurance was not actually sold prior to January, 2014.

    Parent

    Well, developers are notoriously egotistical (none / 0) (#81)
    by vicndabx on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 07:51:59 PM EST
    So I take many of the dis-type comments w/a grain of salt.  I will say this though.  Three years doesn't mean much.  HIPAA required moving to a totally new format for medical data exchange.  From what I remember, timelines were similar - implementation occurred over several years, requirements gathering, development, testing, etc.  There were still technical glitches.  Testing can only reveal but so much.

    Recent example of the issues involved w/large scale implementations - discussion I was having the other day w/MilitaryTracy re: ICD-10.  Concern about issues led CMS to move implementation out a year.

    Like I said though, they need to get the issues worked out quickly.  That's another piece of a successful rollout - emergency fixes that occur quickly. Particularly when the brand (in this case the gov't) is at stake.

    Parent

    It is quite possible that the numerous (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 12:54:48 AM EST
    web designers who have critiqued the system are both egotistical and correct in their assessment that the system is poorly coded. Erza Klein, an Obama fan and a wonk evidently was convinced that the product was deficient enough to write an article titled:
    Obamacare's Web site is really bad

    Regardless of the implementation schedules of the other systems that you reference, the Federal insurance exchange does not have the luxury of implementing it over several more years and I doubt seriously that it would be wise to move implementation out a year due to concerns about issues like CMS.

    Parent

    I can only assume... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 01:29:08 PM EST
    That most people on this site are in the fortunate position of having insurance.  I am 61 now and haven't had insurance for decades.  Due to surgery last month and missing work for 5 weeks, I will have a hard time making 10k for the year.  And now I am more in debt to the tune of thousands.

    In addition, I missed a month because I needed to get back on my medications for my Bipolar because if I didn't, there was a strong possibility that I would get fired.  

    If no one has ever tried to go through county services, I suggest you come to Texas and try here.  

    Anne, this is not directly to you.  I just wrote this after reading a bunch of responses re: ACA.
    I hate the word "Obamacare."  It polarizes both sides and it should be called its lawful name.

    Parent

    And Ezra (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:56:12 PM EST
    Is buying the administration's line that the site is crashing because "it's too popular", indicating that people really like the plan, so the traffic is just overwhelming.  No, people are going to the exchange because they have had a dearth of real information for their situation and have heard abut this for 3 years, and FINALLY they may be able to get some answers.  Especially as they HAVE to do something about their situation.

    Parent
    Disagree (none / 0) (#77)
    by vicndabx on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 06:37:02 PM EST
    That's not true, there was information out there for internet users.  Healthcare.gov has been up for the longest.

    Fact is, many of us are procrastinators.  Not that one would have been able to enroll prior to know, but your point about a lack of info being available is just wrong.

    If by dearth, then you mean, letters mailed to every person in the country suspected of not having information and being told where to go, well then, yeah.

    Other point here is, information sharing requires funding - approved by a tight wad House of Representatives.

    Parent

    I got onto the Texas (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 08:31:27 PM EST
    portion of the Federal website after a ten minute last night.  

    Parent
    Were you able to go through the entire (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 01:16:37 AM EST
    process?

    As of the close of business on Wednesday, enrollment counselors in Texas were saying that they hadn't been able to get anyone all the way through the process.

    "We haven't gotten anyone all the way through the process," said Tim McKinney, president and chief executive of United Way of Tarrant County, in Texas, which has one of the nation's biggest teams of enrollment counselors. "Yesterday, we were completely frozen out. Today, some of our navigators were able to at least get into the system, but they can't get very far into it." link


    Parent
    It seems ironic (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 10:52:49 AM EST
    that the Republican's Obamacare-obsessive government shutdown has obscured, in large measure, the technological problems of Obamacare being encountered.  

    Parent
    Yes ironic for sure (none / 0) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 11:14:41 AM EST
    Although there have been quotes from Republicans in the last couple of days stating that the system problems are just more proof that Obamacare is not ready for prime time and needs to be delayed, these quotes are not getting as much air time as they would if the government shut down was not the main topic of interest.

    Parent
    True colors. (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 05:09:38 AM EST
    The NYTimes has a headline regarding the back and forth with the Karzai regime in Afghanistan regarding how many troops will remain indefinately in Afghanistan after 2014.

    Notice its choice of language in its summary of the article:

    The United States and Afghanistan disagree over the role American forces should play beyond 2014, officials say, raising the specter of a total pullout.

    "Raising the specter" ???

    How about raising the "possibility" of a total pullout?

    Or - "...raising hopes for a total withdrawal from a totally untenable, unending, deadly and prohibitively costly quagmire that is draining our economy and driving many of our soldiers to suicide"?

    As if a total (none / 0) (#102)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 08:37:17 AM EST
    pull-out is something to be feared???   Rather than, as you said, something to be wished for.
    Interesting choice of wording from the Times.  Who is the reporter's source, I wonder?  Sounds like someone who would prefer for us to stay for quite awhile..........

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 08:59:06 AM EST
    that this summary has to be attributed to the person who has the byline: Matthew Rosenberg.

    But it think it truly refects the ambivilence that I always sense from the NYTimes.

    I think that Times is still knee-deep in the pro-war consevative "patriotic" fever into which it sunk during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#104)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 08:59:31 AM EST
    that this summary has to be attributed to the person who has the byline: Matthew Rosenberg.

    But it think it truly refects the ambivilence that I always sense from the NYTimes.

    I think that Times is still knee-deep in the pro-war consevative "patriotic" fever into which it sunk during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

    Parent

    Good catch (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jack203 on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 10:05:45 AM EST
    Bad word choice by the Times author.  Someone should send a complaint.

    spectre US, specter [ˈspɛktə]
    n

    1. (Spirituality, New Age, Astrology & Self-help / Alternative Belief Systems) a ghost; phantom; apparition
    2. a mental image of something unpleasant or menacing the spectre of redundancy


    Parent
    Spelling aside, (none / 0) (#112)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 04:43:59 PM EST
    the point is that the Times considers the prospect of our being completely free of that swamp in
    Afghanistan to be something unpleasant or menacing - as opposed to something great and liberating.

    My point was about the political inclination of the Times - not than the spelling or mispelling of a word.

    I wonder why you missed that.

    Parent

    Yes, well (none / 0) (#113)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 06:00:54 PM EST
    I can't blame Jack.  I have a feeling that he got distracted by the spelling.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.    ;-)

    Parent
    You're (none / 0) (#114)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 07:08:52 PM EST
    right.

    He was distracted by the spelling.

    I think this is a time when we can't afford to be distracted.

    I don't mean to be judgmental.

    I'm a bit frightened to tell you the truth.

    Parent

    I'm actually pretty alarmed, too, lentinel (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 07:42:29 PM EST
    It's scary what is happening.  

    Parent
    To be devil's advocate (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jack203 on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 09:52:31 PM EST
    Was it a bad word choice?  Yes. So much so, I think it deserves a complaint.

    But publicly both the US and Afghanistan governments claim that a complete withdrawal will be a very negative outcome.  Of course, this is just the public face they put on.  But it could explain what the NY Times author was referencing.

    Parent

    Hey Yman!!!!! (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:57:17 PM EST
    Those names on the list aren't on TV spouting their hatred.

    They are more like:

    "Madison -- A 26-year-old woman was charged Thursday with two felony counts and two misdemeanor counts accusing her of making email threats against Wisconsin lawmakers during the height of the battle over Gov. Scott Walker's budget-repair bill.

    Link

    None are Tea Party members, though some may have been members of groups like:

    Code Pink

    BTW - I see that you got all of your info from  this source yet you didn't acknowledge it.

    Are you Joe Biden in disguise??


    Why do you keep screaming? (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:31:26 PM EST
    I'm sure Yman can hear your b.s. without it.  Numerous exclamation points are for teenage girls.

    Hey Jim!!!!!!!!! Know what I mean?????????

    Parent

    Conservatives (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:36:14 PM EST
    are melting down all over the place. The world did not end when Obamacare went into effect October 1st. People are now getting to check it out for themselves and not rely on what the GOP has been telling them and they are quite frankly realizing that a lot of what the GOP has been telling them has been a lie.  

    Parent
    Shhh!! Don't encourage Jim. (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:18:18 PM EST
    Otherwise, he might start writing in all caps.

    ;-D

    Parent

    DONALD (1.00 / 3) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 08:56:12 PM EST
    IF I THOUGHT THAT WOULD CONVERT YOU TO BEING A TRUE LIBERAL INSTEAD OF LEFTIST i would write in all small letters and never !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do that.

    But it won't. You are truly a lost person who has never contributed to society in a private endeavor.

    Look up drone in the dictionary.

    It defines you.

    Parent

    The older you get, Jim, ... (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 11:07:14 PM EST
    ... the more rosey your rose-colored glasses get, as you continue to pine for a past which never really existed except in episodes of "Leave It to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best."

    Good night. Don't forget to take your meds.

    Parent

    Never contributed.. (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 12:33:06 PM EST
    more Southern-pulpit, talk radio hyperbole..

    a person would have to have god-like powers to make a pronouncement like that about someone else..

    Parent

    Hey shoephone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (1.00 / 2) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:07:36 PM EST
    Guess what two words I am think about you????????

    lol

    Parent

    Don't know, but ... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 05:21:37 PM EST

    Hey shoephone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Guess what two words I am think about you????????

    ... I guess we can rule out "proper" and "English".

    Parent

    Jim not only writes like a teenager (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 06:40:49 PM EST
    He thinks like one.

    Junior high school must have been truly traumatizing.

    Parent

    Right!!! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:32:03 PM EST
    Clinic bombers and unhinged gun nuts may break my bones..but as long as they don't do it on t.v..

    Parent
    Well, according to the Left (1.00 / 4) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    they are created from media.

    Are you changing your mind???

    Parent

    "The left"? (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 05:54:51 PM EST
    "According to The Left..."  Help me here, which spokesperson for "the left" are you referring to, and can you cite the quotation that supports your accusation?  If it is not from someone I as a non-gun-owning hippie communist Army vet liberal do not respect, would you still consider it to represent "the left?"

    Because your strawman's pants are on fire.

    Your desperation to justify the absurd is refreshing.

    Parent

    As usual, Repack (1.00 / 4) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 08:57:43 PM EST
    you can't grasp a concept that you can't physically grasp.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:37:08 PM EST
    Those names on the list aren't on TV spouting their hatred.

    So these rightwing nuts committing actual/real acts of violence don't count, because they're not on TV, as opposed to your examples, which include a comedian making a joke, a union protester knocking a phone away from his face, and angry, anonymous voicemail messages left at a winger group?  Uhmmmm, ... not that it matters, but you do realize that only 2 of your examples were "on TV" - the two comedians making jokes.

    So rightwing murderers actually committing murder are worse than left-wing comedians telling offensive jokes.

    Heh.

    None are Tea Party members, though some may have been members of groups like:

    Code Pink

    You didn't ask for acts of violence from Tea party members, Jim.  You asked for examples of rightwing violence.


    How about some examples of Right Wingers doing things like I have shown??

    BTW - You have absolutely no idea whether these guys were Tea Party members, but your claim that they "may have been" members of groups like Code Pink is funny.  Yep - because so many Code Pink members are "Sovereign Citizen" members, anti-abortion activists and trying to a$$asinate President Obama.

    Heh.

    BTW, Jim - Since you've figured out how to Google, you might be able to figure out that the examples I gave were from one of my previous posts to you, and I provided lots of links in that post.  But when you start linking to all your sources, maybe you can start complaining others.

    Parent

    Hooey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yman (1.00 / 3) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:20:41 PM EST
    That's as weak as tea made from a used tea bag.

    You changed it just enough to make it appear as if it came from multiple sources...

    Really, Biden should be proud of you.

    In the meantime another Leftie icon strikes:

    Calling Republicans the "devil incarnate" in tweets filled with expletives, she suggested they be put in jail and ultimately killed.

    "WE R NOT HOSTAGES.If UR REPUBLIC IS FREAKING THE WHOLE WORLD OUT,MAYBE WE SHOULD DEEP 6 THEIR WEAK A**'S (sic)," she screamed.

    Link

    Parent

    "From a used tea bag" ... LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 05:39:06 PM EST
    Hehehehe ...

    I know you were going for something else, Jim, but you gotta appreciate the irony and humor in your use of that phrase.

    BTW - Funny how you're  outraged by a celebrities use of the phrase "deep six", comedian's jokes, and fairy tales of imaginary violence, while ignoring the actual, real rightwing violence that occurs all to often.

    BBTW -

     Hooey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yman That's as weak as tea made from a used tea bag.

    You changed it just enough to make it appear as if it came from multiple sources...

    Really, Biden should be proud of you.

    It's been awhile since my original OP (which can easily be found by Googling), but my source for the original post was an article on Democratic Underground.  So, once again, besides being completely irrelevant to the accuracy of the facts, your accusation is an outright falsehood/fabrication/fairy tale/etc.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Ah, the reason why I love (1.00 / 3) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 08:59:14 PM EST
    Yman is that after caught doing something he just rattles on like plagiarizing is okay.

    Parent
    "Plagiarizing" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 09:19:19 PM EST
    As opposed to lying about "plagiarizing", which Jim is perfectly fine with ...

    But it's nice to finally hear you express your love for me, Jim.  I knew you were repressing something all this time.  You know, ...

    ... something more than the truth, that is.

    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 147 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 12:28:58 PM EST
    We need a love machine, too. (link)

    Off to the National Yo Yo contest in Chico CA this weekend with my son and his best friend. It'll be about 500 dudes and 2 chicks. And, hey, who doesn't love a full day in Chico?

    Have fun... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 12:53:07 PM EST
    at the yo-yo sausage party...what fathers do for their sons;)

    Today/tonight is my cousin's wedding...I know he's sh*tting a brick right now.  Dead man walking, dead man walking here  

    Gonna miss the church but I'll be there where it counts...the reception.  Our side of the fam that isn't in the wedding party have rented a party bus...no drinking and driving, just lots and lots of drinking. Let the festivities begin!  I just better not be the only one bringing any reefer, I'm packing lighter than I'd like to be, and all the McArabs always assume I have enough sh*t to bless 20 people.  Usually a sound assumption, but not this time.  I better make some calls.

    Parent

    Dude, don't bogart my herbage (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:47:51 PM EST
    I know the feeling. Back in the day, when I wasn't even that big a toker, but had hair to the middle of my back and the Jesus goatee, everyone, and I mean EVERYone I worked with, was friends with, ran into on the street, assumed I was the easiest and quickest route between themselves and a Zig-Zag carrot.  Now that I'm more of the recluse family man, it ain't so bad. You have my condolences. And if you were only out here, damn, I could hook you up with a top-notch ounce for about $250. The west is the best, my man. At least on this.

    Peace out, have a great one.

    Parent

    Shooter... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 12:44:38 PM EST
    continued from other thread...

    I wish I was kidding my friend...surely you've heard about the somewhat recent laws passed prohibiting sagging pants that expose underwear, nevermind just a thong!

    Personally, I side with those who would rather not see it in a park...with some "never too young to be a dirty old man" exceptions of course;)  But I am dead set against indecent exposure laws.

    Going back to (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    our puritan roots I guess with this kind of stuff. I personally think they are hideous and look really uncomfortable. I can see these dress code rules for schools but do we really need them for people walking down the street??? Dying of laughter would probably the biggest danger a lot of these people wearing thongs would cause


    Parent
    FYI... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:14:55 PM EST
    Because of several gender equality court cases, women in NYC are free to go topless.

    Not sure what any of this has to do with the legality of thongs in Seattle...

    Parent

    I think there's something slightly (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    insane about people getting more fired up about a fat, hairy, modern day Silenus in a thong than they do about a lack of green spaces and some inner city neighborhoods that look like Stalingrad
    circa 1943..

    Parent
    Was talking with a friend about parks (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:47:21 PM EST
    just the other day.

    When our kids are young we loved to hang out at the parks, cuz that's where the kids could play on the swings and slides and stuff.

    Now that our kids are teenagers we make sure they don't hang out at the very same parks, cuz that's where the kids selling/doing drugs are.

    Parent

    Even if the parents are absentee (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    and irresponsible, it's not the kid's fault..

    We pay the bonuses of already-over-compensated shysters on Wall St, but let too many of those kids twist in the wind. Unconscionable. And then we end up paying for it later anyway.

    Meanwhile we get fired up because some guy looks like he's smuggling grapes into the country..

    Parent

    I get the first two sentences, (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:44:30 PM EST
    but this one lost me:
    Meanwhile we get fired up because some guy looks like he's smuggling grapes into the country..


    Parent
    This might be a thong reference... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:46:16 PM EST
    in case you missed it, we've been burning up the internet discussing the wearing of thongs...

    Parent
    Yes, a thong reference. (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:53:14 PM EST
    comments. Sorry thongaphiles and phobes!

    Parent
    Puritans (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 05:14:46 PM EST
    They loved their suds though. I am reminded of the historical side note that they came ashore at Plymouth Rock partly because they'd run out of water with which to brew their happy juice. Okay, granted, this was beer mostly very low in alcohol, and was considered safer than possibly tainted water. Sex, however, that was the devil's playground, and even if he drank beer, too, that pitchfork carrying sumbitch was always trying to heat our mortal loins and make us fall short of God -- who, apparently, didn't need sex to make kids. So what temptation did he ever face? The hypocrite.

    Parent
    Go read my last comment to you (none / 0) (#3)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 12:47:19 PM EST
    on the other thread... that's pretty much what I was saying.

    Parent
    I want a law banning (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 12:56:29 PM EST
    grotesquelly wealthy, coked-out, art dealers and collectors from promoting bad art..

    Since we're well into a discussion of the unsightly and distasteful..

    I heard recently that in the NY art scene it's common for Warhol and Koons prints to go for much more than some Goyas and Brueghals..Surely we're in the End Times if that's really true..

    Parent

    Saw it... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 12:54:36 PM EST
    you weren't the one I was really betting on shoe...my pal jbindc is my horse in the friendly bet with Shooter;)

    Parent
    So, (none / 0) (#10)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:11:57 PM EST
    what's the score so far?

    Parent
    I'm 0-1... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    but only need 1...I'm going out on a limb to say jb is an uber-lock! Anne's a coinflip;)

    Parent
    I don't think it's necessary to arrest (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:01:05 PM EST
    someone for wearing a thong, however gross that vision is.

    And I'd have a problem with a breast-feeding mom being arrested for "exposing" her baby's meal supply.  I breast-fed both my children, but I would guess that most of the time when I had to do it "in public," no one knew that's what I was doing.  It's called "discretion."

    There's context to be considered here, too.  Someone wearing a thong on a public beach is no more distressing than anyone else in a bathing suit.  But some guy in a skimpy thong strolling around or near the playground, well, that's more of a concern.

    I still can't believe how much bandwidth we've used discussing freaking butt-floss.

    Parent

    No, I don't think we need a law (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    But I think it's perfectly fine for parks to have rules and limits as to what is acceptable attire, with regards to things like butt floss.

    I don't know what you're picturing, but it ain't gonna be Kate Upton patronizing your local park prancing around in a thong.

    Probably more like this

    Parent

    Nope, (none / 0) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    I say the feeling is, "hold your nose," and let'r rip (or tear, chafe, annoy, etc.)

    No law!

    Parent

    Today's... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:19:59 PM EST
    early contenders for best government shutdown headlines....

    Shutdown Brings Toilet Paper Crisis, Protesters

    Another Shutdown Casualty: Pro Football for Deployed Troops

    And my favorite, in response to the civil disobedience of some nonagenarians...

    WWII Memorial Barricade Wired Shut

    Leno was on a roll last night... (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    Said the NY Giants are upset with the shutdown because now they can't apply for disaster relief.


    Parent
    Sick burn... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    the NFC East is shaping up as the worst division in football, beat Philly this week and your boys are right back in it!

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:49:10 PM EST
    somebody has to win it.

    Parent
    Looks like the home of.. (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:51:05 PM EST
    our next 8-8 division winner!

    Sh*t 7-9 might take the NFC Least.  As long as it ain't the Cowboys I'm good;)

    Parent

    Ha! I don't think I've heard "burn" (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:51:17 PM EST
    since I moved to CA. Anyway, I think I'll take up fishing as my Sunday hobby...

    Parent
    Hey Yman!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:27:04 PM EST
    Jim - I, like you, want a Medicare-for-all single payer plan.  Unfortunately, the Republicans in Congress wouldn't allow such a plan (save me the BS about the Democrats having a majority in the House and Senate - every Republican filibustered and voted against cloture).  You're one of those that put them in office.  Maybe you can send them the bill!

    Correct me if I am wrong Obama had a large majority in both Houses.....

    Yet he did not even introduce a single payer plan for the Repubs to attack...

    Face it, your Dear Leader is just another phony politician paying of the big corporations.

    BTW - Why no links on your claims??

    Not that I don't trust you....

    :-)

    A teabagger who says (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:37:44 PM EST
    he favors single payer is like a serial rapist in favor of safe sex.

    Parent
    Jondee, what you lack is balance. (4.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    I mean does he also favor gay rights, including marriage? A woman's right to choose? Reform of our drug laws???

    Oh wait! That's me.

    Jondee, your comment is about as nasty as it gets.

    But we all know that is just you. You really can't help it.

    Parent

    It seems that balance (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by sj on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:10:19 PM EST
    is something you have plenty of:

    On the one hand, you are a vociferous "social liberal".

    On the other hand, you vote for representation who will oppose those interests. Vociferously. Also strenuously.

    So there's no downside for you. You can throw your "positions" out as evidence of a functioning cerebral cortext and never, ever worry that you will in any way help make those things a reality.

    Like I said. Balanced.

    Parent

    er.... "cortex" (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by sj on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:15:37 PM EST
    Mine failed me.

    Parent
    Actually you have no knowledge as to I (1.00 / 3) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 08:49:42 PM EST
    vote for.

    OTOH, I confess that there hasn't been a Democrat worth a damn when it comes to national defense since Truman.

    We both know that you chugged down the koolaid and voted for Hope and Change.

    You seen your healthcare premiums yet??

    Obamacare is a killer. Of the economy. Of people.

    We could have had a V8.

    He sold you out.

    I knew he would.

    That makes me smarter than you.

    But in just as bad a shape.

    Parent

    And you knew (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 10:03:18 PM EST
    Romney would win because that is what your gut told you.

    Parent
    We need and like Obamacare (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 10:07:04 PM EST
    We only have insurance because of Obamacare.  Otherwise, the dreaded pre-existing condition shuts us out from any insurance.

    Parent
    Not exactly... (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by sj on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 10:52:14 PM EST
    Actually you have no knowledge as to I (1.00 / 2) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 07:49:42 PM MDT

    vote for.
    OTOH, I confess that there hasn't been a Democrat worth a damn when it comes to national defense since Truman.

    We both know that you chugged down the koolaid and voted for Hope and Change.


    You are wrong on both counts. If you bothered to remember, you would recall that I have said I voted Green party because I decided a few years ago to vote my interests and not my posse.

    And while it is true that I don't have names in the local elections, you said not long ago that you have voted for every Repub since you voted for Carter in 76. I didn't even need to bookmark the comment because it was that easy to find.

    I don't know if it makes me smarter than you, but... I have this memory, you see.

    Parent

    Good Point on the Economy... (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 09:20:49 AM EST
    ...compared to 8 years ago it is horrible.  Funny how you clowns can look at the economies of various administrations and come to the opposite conclusion of reality.

    I mean GD Jim, wast has gotten in your drawers, you disappear for months, then come out swinging with like 100 ratings of '1'.  Most folks would realize that those ratings are worse than GWB at his lowest or Romney at his finest, not Jim, he is burning up the comments area with pure and utter non-sense and won't be held back by facts and reality.

    Whatever you are doing with the meds, it's time for the opposite, so either get back on them if you forgotten to take them, or stop with the new ones because you have seriously come unhinged.  That shred of reality you used to cling to, seems to have left the building.

    And for the love of god, turn off the Fox News, it's clearly aiding in your hatred of reality.

    Parent

    He's (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    having a massive meltdown/Bush apologia session. It's really pretty typical of conservatives these days.

    Parent
    You said you voted for Carter.. (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 12:23:01 PM EST
    What? Your "the South shall rise again" instinct temporarily got the better of your national defense instinct?

    Parent
    Nasty.. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:14:18 PM EST
    Speaking of which, I've seen your blog and it's about as balanced (and smelly) as last year's Jack 'O Lantern this year.

    And yeah, I just can't help calling you on your neverending stream of b.s. For what it's worth.

    Parent

    jim's blog...jeez. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:28:24 PM EST
    Now, if he would just occasionally bark out, "hey, kids - get offa my lawn!!" my mental image of him would be complete.

    Parent
    Jondee (1.00 / 3) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 08:51:43 PM EST
    what you are is a twit. You never make a comment that has any intellectual content.

    You are just another Leftie barking at the moon.

    Perhaps Anne will join you and you can hold hands.

    Parent

    And you Jim (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    are a "social liberal" hoaxer..

    soiling yourself over the excess human-generated
    free inquiry and tolerance in the atmosphere.

    You're not even a clever fraud: if you really wanted to pull it off, you should've interspersed some posts about the futility of the drug war etc with the wingnut radio rants at your blog.

    Parent

    I recall a number of reported cases (none / 0) (#45)
    by scribe on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    in which the rapist interrupted his progress to don a condom.


    Parent
    Obama campagined (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 08:36:05 PM EST
    on the current rebate/insurance model....

    He could not change course and then propose a single payer plan and be taken seriously.

    Parent

    True dat (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by sj on Sat Oct 05, 2013 at 11:27:29 PM EST
    If he believed in single payer he would have said so. But in addition to the current rebate/insurance model, he also campaigned on the "public option".

    "Barack Obama's Plan for a Healthy America" stated that:

    (1) OBAMA'S PLAN TO COVER UNINSURED. Obama will make available a new national health plan that will allow individuals without access to affordable insurance coverage, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress.
    I don't think he, or most other politicians, worry too much about the campaign "promises" once the votes are counted. He hasn't felt bound to any number of other campaign positions. And, fwiw, I don't expect anyone to stay static in their viewpoints. Ideally, thoughts evolve.

    Parent
    Nancy Pelosi passed (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Sun Oct 06, 2013 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    the public option out of the House by one or two votes at the cost of the Stupak Amendment.

    That amendment was changed and the Public Option was lost in the Senate.  

    If the opening offer has the Public Option, then you have to win without any concessions to keep it.....That is why many say you need to start with Single Payer....But that was never possible.

    Parent

    fwiw (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by sj on Sun Oct 06, 2013 at 11:08:41 PM EST
    I neither believe nor disbelieve a politician's campaign promises. I watch what they do, not what they say. And the record can be as dry or cut and dry as you make it sound. But contemporaneously I happen to recall that rather than putting in effort to promote the public option by leadership, there was effort put in to lower expectations.

    And I'm not going to speak to the effort to establish single payer. It is your opinion that it was never possible. The only thing that makes that a "fact" is that there was no political will to do so. Again, by leadership. There was already in place the closed door meetings with the representatives of insurance companies.

    Parent

    I remember that, (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 12:59:28 AM EST
    and, you're right, Yman

    For a while the Public Option seemed viable, and seemed to be getting a head of steam. More and more quotes coming out of the Congressional delegations, all positive. I remember thinking, "wow," this thing might really happen.

    And, then, seemingly out of the blue, the P.O. was "off the table." No fight, no debate, no explanation.....just, "thud."

    I just remember thinking, "wtf?"

    Parent

    WTF? (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 08:38:17 AM EST
    Nothing really that mysterious about why the public option went away. It went away the same way negotiated prices for prescription drugs went away. Obama negotiated it away in a back room deal.

    Parent
    Blame it on the Senate (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 08:49:48 AM EST
    As opposed to Obama who sat on his hands while the Democrats in Congress were begging for leadership.  Actually, sitting on his hands would have been preferable to his active discouragement of the public option in favor of the insurance company alternative.

    No public option, no C-SPAN hearings and backroom deals with the Insurance/Drug lobbies.

    Maybe that's where we get the expression, "Don't write checks your @$$ can't cash."

    Parent

    He also campaigned ... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 06, 2013 at 08:35:32 AM EST
    But I have a question for you (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by sj on Sun Oct 06, 2013 at 11:11:24 PM EST
    If it is true
    thatHe could not change course and then propose a single payer plan and be taken seriously.
    Why do you suppose he is still taken seriously after changing course on a number of other issues?

    Parent
    Jim demanding links (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 09:11:12 PM EST
    Kinda reminds me of Rush Limbaugh making fat jokes about MO  ...

    But since you asked, this should get you started with why a minority of Republicans were able to filibuster even the moderate ACA:


    With the Republican minority in the Senate vowing to filibuster any bill that they did not support, requiring a cloture vote to end debate, 60 votes would be necessary to get passage in the Senate. At the start of the 111th Congress, Democrats had only 58 votes; the Senate seat in Minnesota that would be won by Al Franken was still undergoing a recount, and Arlen Specter was still a Republican.

    To reach 60 votes, negotiations were undertaken to satisfy the demands of moderate Democrats, and to try to bring aboard several Republican senators; particular attention was given to Bob Bennett, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe. Negotiations continued even after July 7--when Franken was sworn into office, and by which time Specter had switched parties--because of disagreements over the substance of the bill, which was still being drafted in committee, and because moderate Democrats hoped to win bipartisan support. However, on August 25, before the bill could come up for a vote, Ted Kennedy--a long-time advocate for healthcare reform--died, depriving Democrats of their 60th vote. Before the seat was filled, attention was drawn to Senator Snowe because of her vote in favor of the draft bill in the Finance Committee on October 15, however she explicitly stated that this did not mean she would support the final bill. Paul Kirk was appointed as Senator Kennedy's temporary replacement on September 24.

    Following the Finance Committee vote, negotiations turned to the demands of moderate Democrats to finalize their support, whose votes would be necessary to break the Republican filibuster. Majority leader Harry Reid focused on satisfying the centrist members of the Democratic caucus until the holdouts narrowed down to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucused with Democrats, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Lieberman, despite intense negotiations in search of a compromise by Reid, refused to support a public option; a concession granted only after Lieberman agreed to commit to voting for the bill if the provision was not included, even though it had majority support in Congress. There was debate among supporters of the bill about the importance of the public option, although the vast majority of supporters concluded that it was a minor part of the reform overall, and that congressional Democrats' fight for it won various concessions, including conditional waivers allowing states to set up state-based public options such as Vermont's Green Mountain Care.

    With every other Democrat now in favor and every other Republican now overtly opposed, the White House and Reid moved on to addressing Senator Nelson's concerns in order to win filibuster-proof support for the bill; they had by this point concluded that "it was a waste of time dealing with [Snowe]" because, after her vote for the draft bill in the Finance Committee, Snowe had come under intense pressure from the Republican Senate leadership who opposed reform...

    On December 23, the Senate voted 60-39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60-39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against (except for Jim Bunning, who did not vote).[101] The bill was endorsed by the AMA and AARP.

    BTW, Jim - I couldn't care less if you trust me.  Unlike you, I deal in facts, not lies.

    Parent

    Yman = from the previous thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    "Yes"??

    Actually, I was agreeing with you and blostering your point, so trying to pick a fight is silly.

    I have no idea what your point was (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:44:50 PM EST
    But if your're in agreement that Congress/staffers/Obama are not receiving special treatment or exemptions from the ACA, that's fine.

    Parent
    That's what I was pointing out (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:56:19 PM EST
    That Congress and staffers are required to buy at least the "gold" level plan - to counter Jim's argument that Congress is exempt.

    You seemed to place me in Jim's camp, in other words, arguing where there was no argument.

    Parent

    The point is they receive a (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:11:22 PM EST
    subsidy.

    If someone else pays for it then they are exempt from paying for it.....

    And why did the Demos not agree that everyone should be under Obamacare??

    Very strange....

    Parent

    Are you seriously that clueless? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 05:28:14 PM EST
    The point is they receive a subsidy.

    If someone else pays for it then they are exempt from paying for it.....

    Read the links from Factcheck or any other non-winger source.  That "subsidy" is the employer contribution, which any employee with health benefits receives.  In the case of Congressional staffers, their employer (the federal government) pays the employer portion of their premium.  They pay the rest.

    You really need to do some basic reading before you start making these ridiculous accusations.

    Parent

    This is the Hannity (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 10:04:52 PM EST
    talking point.....

    It is interesting to see what happens when someone repeats a talking point without understanding what they are saying.

    Parent

    Difficult to tell from your OP (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:10:03 PM EST
    Some are claiming that this additional requirement is actually a special treatment or exemption.

    Parent
    JP Morgan on the Brink? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 03:59:43 PM EST
    News just broke that Jamie Dimon is stepping down as Chairman.  A lot of the stories are playing this as if it was expected.

    But look at CNBC's over the top defense of him earlier in the week.

    Although Taibbi is an appropriate person to comment on this, I wish I had a clear version of the CNBC vid. It even more damning without the commentary. It was all over YouTube a few days ago.  But this fair use example is the only one I could find that hadn't been taken down.

    Will the criminal enterprise, known as JP Morgan, scapegroat their way out of a crisis once again?  The government shutdown is providing plenty of cover.  But that's just a coincidence, right?

    But did he leave a last will and testament? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 04:46:23 PM EST
    Walter White's obituary appears on page A-4 of today's Albuquerque Journal.

    I'm leaving everything to TL. (none / 0) (#74)
    by fishcamp on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 05:47:41 PM EST
    Ah, the70 million (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 08:43:55 PM EST
    smackeroos or mackeroons....

    Parent