home

Thursday Open Thread

Our last open thread is full. Here's a new one, all topics welcome.

< Sony Cancels Release of "The Interview" | Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Appears in Court >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    After much discussion and calculation, ... (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:22:39 AM EST
    ... The Spouse and I tendered an offer this evening on that house in Hilo we looked at over the Thanksgiving weekend. Now, we wait for an answer. If all goes according to plan, we'll be celebrating our next Christmas season at our new home on the Big Island.

    We're going to keep our townhouse here in Honolulu, because I'll need the freedom and convenience to come back at least one day a week to Oahu for work meetings, etc. The rest of the time, I can work from Hilo. Elder Daughter will obviously stay here, too, because this is where her job is. And eventually, Younger Daughter can return here following her graduation from UH-Hilo in the spring of 2016, if she so desires.

    I'm so excited.

    Reminders of the real Jeb Bush (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:02:25 AM EST
    "If you want a government that's gonna intrude on your life, enforce their personal views on you, then I guess Jeb Bush is your man," Schiavo explained, adding, "We really don't need another Bush in office." Felos described Bush's actions interference in Schiavo case as, "An egregious example of the fat hand of government inserting itself into a family's medical decision and the obtrusive hand of government trying to override their decision." Though Michael Schiavo got a court order in 2002 to remove his wife's feeding tube - he said his wife had not wanted to be kept alive artificially - Jeb Bush intervened, pushing the state legislature to pass an unconstitutional bill in a special session giving him authority to order the feeding tube reinserted. When a state judge ordered it removed again, Felos told ThinkProgress, Bush "manipulated the organs of state government in order to try to evade the court order." Link


    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:56:28 AM EST
    Sharia Bush. The ones screeching the most about Sharia Law I bet are the same ones that support Sharia Bush.

    Parent
    As your other recent comment indicated (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:44:43 AM EST
    his Cuba position may ding his famous Latino appeal.  I think it's a pretty scathing statement about the red party that this is the best they have.

    Parent
    Letterman (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:02:57 PM EST
    JEB, a dive into the gene pool: (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    The integrity of his father, the charm of his mother, and the intelligence of his brother.  

    Parent
    Rush Limbaugh (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:20:08 PM EST
    Forward! (into the past...) (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    (an old Firesign theatre line)

    Parent
    You've got to give credit (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:01:17 PM EST
    where credit's due.

    If I remember the Limbaugh biography correctly he was wasting away his life bouncing along on the low end of our society, job after job, loser after loser when, inadvertently, he fell into a part-time radio gig. Again, my memory is a little foggy but, I seem to recall he didn't do very well. Then, by some quirk of fate he "lost it' in one of his broadcasts, and said some really dumb things. Figuring his temporary insanity cost him his job, imagine his surprise when the ratings showed his "schtick" was a winner.

    I only bring this up because I enjoy reading about people, and, that moment in life when they realize they'll never be the same again. Of course, for most people, "that moment" is usually more traditional. Like a singer, or a group, who play small venues for a long time until, out of the blue, an agent in the audience spots them, and, boom! "Elvis, Beatles, Aerosmith, or, whatever. Or, imagine a guy in New York in the 19th century, working some menial job when he happens to read in the paper about a gold strike in California. You know the rest, he make it to the west coast, strikes it rich, and lives like a king the rest of his life. These are all sort of "feel good" stories, but, I don't know what you'd call Limbaugh's moment.

    Think about it, here's a guy with no unusually elevated intellect, no discernible talent, certainly no physical appeal, but, then, one day.....boom! The bell went off in his head, and, it was saying, "There's a goldmine in Stupid." Think about it, this complete mediocrity scores the brass ring realizing just how big the "stupid" constituency is in this country. In every field of endeavor you have to display at least a modicum of talent, whether low brow, or, highbrow, an entertainer has to show he/she is better, even slightly, than the audience.  But, Limbaugh discovered, "no, you don't." I can just imagine his glee when he realized there is no bottom to the moron-blessed audience. For an entertainer this must have been heaven. No matter how idiotic the verbiage he spewed was the faster his audience grew.

    As the country was moving ahead rapidly on so many fronts: civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, science and technology, Limbaugh couldn't contain his joy. "When everything is going good in our society, just go the other way." Racism, ding! Misogyny, ding! Homophobia, ding. Winners all. Sure, 75% of the public got that he was a reptilian charlatan, but, 25% of three hundred million is one big jackpot.

    Yup, just as so many genocidal maniacs throughout history Caligula, Genghis, Attila, To Jo, displayed some sort of demented genius, we have our little, tubby pervert playing Pied Piper to his band of knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, nose picking, almost literate, virtual human mutants.

    I wonder if the thought goes through his head as he's signing his latest 200 million dollar contract, "if education ever became mandatory in the U.S. I'm screwed." Then he remembers election results, and, laughs, "Nah, never gonna happen."


    Parent

    Russian Economy Collapses (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:19:08 AM EST

    This seems like a pretty big deal.  Any other day this would have been a big story.   Kind of a busy news day yesterday.

    Russia's Economy Is Collapsing. Here's What You Need to Know.


    Can't get to the link, but my (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 11:45:32 AM EST
    question is that I wonder how much of the low oil prices are due to US and NATO retaliatory measures against Russia? If they leaned on OPEC a little (or a lot).

    If so, it seems that one need not be as bellicose as Lindsey Graham and John McCain and other righties preferred Obama to be to get results. Speak softly and carry a big oil drum.

    Parent

    The conspiracy theory (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    of the US and Saudi Arabia working to reduce the oil prices is the line of Putin.  It serves his purposes of deflection and scapegoating for his failures.  However,  there are several vectors at play in something as complicated--enough for plausible deniability.  

    Putin is, in my view, wrong only in that it is not a conspiracy, but a strategy.  A twin strategy of lower gas prices and sanctions.  Russia's oil and gas revenues make up about 50 percent of the budget and 60 percent of exports.

    Sanctions make it very difficult for Russian companies to access global markets (e.g., re-financing). Debts are owed and coming due, monthly.  Corporations and banks are scheduled to repay $30 billion this month in foreign loans, with a steady march upward, each month. Russia has a substantial reserve ($400 billion, but not all liquid) that will be needed for budget shortfalls and bail outs.  Also, capital will flee, despite 17 percent interest rates.

    Prime Minister Medvedev has tried to dampen concerns, which means things are likely pretty bad.  Putin is looking for a nice face-saving way of putting the Ukraine rebels on hold.   And, President Obama is poised to trigger additional sanctions. Turning the screws some more.

     The trick in this financial war will be to know when to stop.  As satisfying as it might be to see Putin sweat (he will be taking his shirt off even at budget meetings), it will not be to our advantage to have a financial collapse of Russia.

    Parent

    The general consensus in the oil pits (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:33:29 PM EST
    is that Saudi Arabia is, unilaterally, responsible for the dramatic plunge in oil prices.

    S.A. is the lowest cost oil extractor in the world, while the U.S. "Fracking" Industry is the highest. S.A. has been getting annoyed with a few of the OPEC members that have been, surreptitiously, pumping more than their quota. They, also, are P.O'd at the American Fracking upstarts, selling more oil into the market than the Saudis feel is wise, and, rejecting calls to "cool it."

    So, like they do every once in a while, just to establish who's "king of the hill" when it comes to Oil, they decided to teach the two renegades a lesson. Usually, when the market price of oil starts dropping, S.A. will cut back on production. (They're the only entity large enough to do it, and, rich enough to be able to sustain a lower income for sustained periods of time.) This time, however, they went the other way, causing the almost 50% drop in prices.

    One of the reason's for today's 400+ jump in the stock market was the Saudi's letting it be known that the recent drop in oil prices was not the beginning of a secular drop in demand, but, rather a Saudi-controlled "adjustment" to the market.

    I just wish they'd be as forceful in demanding cooperation in the fight against terrorism as they are in demanding cooperation in oil production.

    Parent

    Yes, I see it as a strategy (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:47:51 PM EST
    I guess one man's coordinated strategy is another man's conspiracy theory.

    All i know is Bush and Reagan would be strutting around bragging about it about now.

    Parent

    Putin Press conference (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:36:54 AM EST
    Pity the Deputy Mayor of Moscow; (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:18:40 AM EST
    He'll have to delay acquiring his next million dollar wristwatch.

    An oldie but a goodie.  

    Parent

    He can always hock (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:12:46 PM EST
    the super bowl ring

    Parent
    "The smallest coffins are the heaviest " (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:26:46 AM EST
    a message written on the wall in Pakistan

    Damn Man... (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:51:37 AM EST
    ...give me a warning or something, that hit me like a brick.

    Parent
    Physically there (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:01:44 AM EST
    St Louis KMOX Radio Mark Reardon defends Witness 40

    He interviews the author of The Smoking Gun article exposing Witness 40 -- Andrew Goldberg -- and criticizes him for the expose.

    He asks why what Witness 40 told the Grand Jury that was not true is any worse than what others told the Grand Jury that may not have been true.

    Andrew Goldberg is stunned by the question, and after a few seconds of noticeable radio silence responds: "But were they physically there???"

    It goes right over Reardon's head as he doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact that she was not even physically to see anything, and then goes on to defend her right to appear before the Grand Jury.

    This is the level of journalistic stupidity that people in St Louis have been battered with in this case.

    In case you missed it in a previous post (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:06:17 AM EST
    Which once again begs the question (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    WHY did they put her in front of the GJ in the first place? If they wanted to provide clarity to the GJ they could have just as well put the man on the moon on the stand.

    Parent
    They put her on (none / 0) (#46)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:53:12 AM EST
    because they were desperate to find witnesses to back up Wilson's account and had their fingers crossed that she would come through.

    And it wasn't the prosecutors who finally exposed her but the FBI investigators who did the diligence that the prosecutors didn't.

    And yet at the end of a 2.5 hour performance before the GJ, she still stood by her discredited story -- every word of it -- and did not relent.

    And as of yesterday she still stands by her  discredited story -- as do those who continue to quote her across media and the internet -- and in treehouses.

    Parent

    Uncle Chip (none / 0) (#192)
    by Palli on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    you might be interested in the analysis on
    twitter.com/tchopstl

    Yesterday it concentrated on analyzing the differences between the interviews and testimony of DW. These have been neglected because the "thug" storyline sucked all the attention toward justified shooting through witness accounts.
    tchopst has discovered strange peculiarities. Such as how there could be a complete & detailed account of the "robbery" from a clerk on 8/9 who then required a translator during the official interview the next day.

    tchopstl might be interested in your distance/blood drops/gun shot analysis too.
    It is a waste of energy talking to the rightwing provocateurs here.

    Parent

    She should never have been put before (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:35:59 AM EST
    the grand jury in the first place; it's not like no one knew she wasn't a credible witness before they put her in the witness chair, so why put her on at all?

    If they were going to put her on, why not all the rest of the crackpots who routinely call in with "information" in these cases?  

    My opinion is that it didn't matter that she was "discredited" in front of the grand jury - they still got to hear her, and I'm sure there were more than a few who wanted to believe her.  And, as you've pointed out, she wasn't the only one the lawyers knew going in weren't credible - but they still got to tell their story.

    Parent

    Brainwashing From Watching Too Much TV (2.00 / 1) (#52)
    by RickyJim on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    I mean watching too many televised US trials where witnesses are called by the advocates instead of the judge(s), the latter way being the usual elsewhere on this planet.  As far as I know, the witnesses in this trial were all the ones interviewed previously be law enforcement.  Do you know of any exceptions?  I find the insults to the jury's intelligence and ability, due to the inconsequential fact that this witness was called, totally disgusting.  If I were living in St. Louis, I would vote for Mr. McCulloch when he runs again, due to the fine way he curtailed the legal shenanigans that would have resulted if the case was handled by letting it go to a standard adversarial trial.

    Parent
    inconsequential fact??? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 12:49:42 PM EST
    I find the insults to the jury's intelligence and ability, due to the inconsequential fact that this witness was called, totally disgusting.

    So then the fact that this Witness 40 was not even there on Canfield Dr that day is an "inconsequential fact" to you???

    You been spending too much time in that treehouse.

    Parent

    Or maybe you spend too much time in here? (none / 0) (#121)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:08:08 PM EST
    I read both blogs and get info/opinions from both sides.

    Parent
    No baby missed it (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    the Stale thing missed the point.  That story defined the right wing coverage of the event.  It was probably the single most defining point of view for your friends on the right.  That is on the so called prosecutor .  That person should never have been allowed in the room.  No competent process would have allowed it.


    Parent
    Oh man (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:06:59 AM EST
    no BODY missed it.  Or it's source.

    Parent
    Could you provide some support for that claim? (none / 0) (#35)
    by toggle on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    I am not closely following the "right wing" coverage of the incident, but I don't recall anyone citing Witness 40 in defense of Wilson. She seems to have been taken as discredited from the get-go. You might be thinking of Witness 10.

    I would note, again, that the prosecutors presented all the witnesses to the grand jury, including numerous accusers whose accounts were every bit as dubious as Witness 40's.

    Parent

    Shawn Hannity (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:34:43 AM EST
    I am not closely following the "right wing" coverage of the incident, but I don't recall anyone citing Witness 40 in defense of Wilson.

    So I guess you don't listen to Shawn Hannity:

    MSNBC Chris Hayes on Ferguson Witness #40

    Parent

    So Sean Hannity (none / 0) (#47)
    by toggle on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08:07 AM EST
    Quoted a single line from the account three times on TV, apparently right after the massive document dump and presumably before anyone had time to sort through everything. That's it?

    I note that Witness 10 (one of the few witnesses whose testimony fully comported with the physical and documentary evidence) said Brown "charged" at Wilson, too.

    As to this claim that "the other witnesses were actually there," that is what they said. They said lots of other things that have been proven to be false, so I'm not sure why you think they have to be believed on that point.

    Parent

    No it's not (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 11:24:38 AM EST
    its an example.  We are not your assistant.  If you want to know Google is your friend.  You don't even need thumbs.

    Parent
    Witness 10 (none / 0) (#51)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 11:56:36 AM EST
    I note that Witness 10 (one of the few witnesses whose testimony fully comported with the physical and documentary evidence) said Brown "charged" at Wilson, too.

    Witness 10 -- you mean the guy who was 480 feet away from the shooting with trees and vehicles in the way and yet he saw and heard everything with precision including things that only investigators knew.

    BTW the physical evidence disputes the "charge" claim as moving 22 feet over a 7 second time span is not even close to a "charge" unless you're an 8 year old playing Pop Warner football.

    Heck -- 3.14 feet per second is not even walking speed. It's stumble speed.

    So whoever claims it is either lying about what they saw, or lying about being there, or plays Pop Warner football.  

    Witness 10 was as much a witness as Witness 40.

    Wait until people start digging into his story and where he was when he claimed to have seen and heard everything from over a football field and a half away with the ability to see through trees and cars.

    Parent

    Well, the physical evidence, and witness (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:37:04 PM EST
    testimony, show that Brown moved more like 50' toward Wilson over that 6.5 second time span of the recording of Wilson's gunshots, with a distinct pause in the middle.

    So, yeah, he was moving toward Wilson at a pretty good clip.

    Wilson was backing up as he shot, according to him, the physical evidence, and all the witnesses, and Brown's body lay past the location of the first shell casing, ie., past the spot where Wilson first started shooting at Brown, which further shows that the witnesses and other physical evidence were correct that Brown was coming at Wilson.

    It would seem your "22 feet" is the distance from where Brown paused his forward movement, and Wilson paused his shooting, to where Brown finally fell.

    He did that 22 feet in about 1.7 seconds, according the the recording of the gunshots. Certainly not Usain Bolt speed, but not bad for the almost 300 lb Brown.

    If your thought is something along the lines that this case will be re-opened, your (deliberate?) misrepresentation of evidence certainly does not work in your favor.

    Question, do you think if you and others keep at it that the case will be re-opened?

    Parent

    I hesitate to say anything (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:43:54 PM EST
     that could possibly encourage chip but, 50' in at 6.5 seconds isn't my idea of a pretty good clip.

       We're not talking NFL player speed here ( probably 290 lbers in the NFL can cover 40 yards in less than 5.5 seconds), but covering 16.6666 yards in 6.5 seconds could be done at a staggering walk.

    Parent

    OK. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 02:33:23 PM EST
    Wiki say average adult walking speed is 3.1 mph, which converts to 4.5 feet/second.

    That 50' in 6.5 seconds includes the pause, as I  said. If the pause was, say, a second, that's 50 feet in 5.5 seconds.

    50 feet in 5.5 seconds is 9 feet/second, which is 2x wiki's average walking speed.

    Maybe he only pauses for 0.5 seconds, that still puts his speed at over 8 feet/second, vs average walking speed of 4.5 feet/second.

    Additionally, the final 22 feet of that 50 feet, when Wilson fired the fatal shot, was covered in 1.7 seconds which is 12.9 feet/second which is close to 3x average walking speed.

    If you really want to get technical, you recognize that his speed was not constant; there was time spent at slower speeds during acceleration and also deceleration, which means his peak speed during his forward motion was faster than average speed calculations above.

    Parent

    ftr, some of my analysis above is wrong. (none / 0) (#193)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:22:27 PM EST
    My assumption about the length of Brown's pause looks to be wrong, and I also made a math error.

    Assuming Wilson's pause in firing was because Brown paused his forward motion, and that Wilson restarted his firing when Brown restarted his forward motion, and thus Wilson's firing and pause roughly matches Brown's forward motion and pause, then I was wrong above; Brown did not pause for 1 second, nor 0.5 seconds, he paused for approximately 3 (3.025) seconds.

    2. The recording gives the precise time sequencing of the shots fired, which we present below. There is a total elapsed time of 6.5 seconds over the 10 shots. Two volleys, the first of 6 shots and second of 4, are separated by approximately 3 seconds.

    So therefore he traveled the 50 feet, er, ok, 48 feet 2 inches, in 6.5 - 3 = 3.5 seconds.

    The chart at the link above shows Wilson's first volley was 1.8 seconds, a 3.025 second pause, and then his second volley of 1.7 seconds, for a total of 6.5 seconds.

    Brown's speed during his 1.7s final, fatal, phase of his forward motion calculates out to 22 feet/1.7s = 12.9 feet/second, which is about 4x the average person's walking speed of 3.1 feet/second.

    During the first 1.8s phase of his forward motion he traveled 48 feet 2 inches minus the 22 feet of his second phase of forward motion = 26 feet 2 inches.

    26.16 feet/1.8s = 15.6 feet per second, which puts him at about 5X the average person's walking speed of 3.1 feet/second.

    Parent

    The average person can walk (none / 0) (#102)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:49:20 PM EST
    a mile in 20 minutes -- that's 3 miles an hour --  15840 feet in 3600 seconds -- 4.4 feet per second.

    Brown was moving toward Wilson at 3 feet per second -- well below even walking speed.


    Parent

    Cherry picking again (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 02:15:47 PM EST
    No the 22 feet from the point of the furthest blood stain to the body is the ONLY physical evidence showing MB's movement after he turned,. And here we go with deciding that the only witness statements supporting Wilson are valid. Which witness said that he "moved more than 50'. The one that was hundreds of feet away or the one that wasn't even there? And where did you come up with the 1.7 seconds ?

    Parent
    Well, Dorian Johnson, among others, (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 02:37:53 PM EST
    are in general agreement as to the spot where Brown turned around, ie, where he stopped going away from Wilson and started going toward him. That spot is about 50' from where Brown fell.

    Parent
    SUO (none / 0) (#82)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:16:18 PM EST
    Brown moved more like 50' toward Wilson over that 6.5 second time span of the recording of Wilson's gunshots

    Show me that 50 number or anything close to it in the report.

    It would seem your "22 feet" is the distance from where Brown paused his forward movement, and Wilson paused his shooting, to where Brown finally fell.

    LOL -- You and people who live in treehouses wish.

    The detectives identified the blood on the ground at Markers 19/20 as evidence that that is as far as Brown ran. There was no blood beyond that point -- thus no physical evidence that he went further than that.

    Even Wilson's lawyers agreed that the blood stains at Markers 19/20 marked the place where Brown had to have stopped, turned around, and began to come back.

    Diagram of the shooting scene here

    The distance from furthest blood stain there to Brown's feet post mortem was 21'7".

    The other blood stain was about 2 feet closer.

    So that "22 feet" that I cite might actually have been closer to 19.5 or 20 feet. I'm just being conservative by using that 22 number.

    your (deliberate?) misrepresentation of evidence.

    Is that the best you got -- baseless accusations without evidence???

    Will your failure to find that "50" number in the report also qualify as "your (deliberate?) misrepresentation of evidence"???

    Parent

    DJ and other witnesses said Brown (none / 0) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:40:08 PM EST
    turned around at, or just about at, Copper Creek Court.

    Copper Creek Ct is on the map you linked to. It is well beyond the furthest blood stain on the ground that you refer to, that you claim that Wilson's lawyers said is the point where Brown turned around.

    This is what DJ said about where Brown turned around, page 158:

    He wasn't really all the way on the driveway when the shot went off, and he turned around, and he was in the street"

    As you can see on the map, the "driveway" he is referring to is Copper Creek Ct., it mainly functions as a driveway/parking lot for the apartments.

    Witness 14, page 3, also says Brown turned around at Copper Creek:

    The officer the boy was still standing on the, on the, on the partially on the parking lot and the grass.

    ftr, both of these witnesses say a lot of things that seem to contradict themselves, the above are what they said regarding the location where they saw Brown turn around; ie, approximately at Copper Creek Ct.

    Could you provide a link to this:

    Even Wilson's lawyers agreed that the blood stains at Markers 19/20 marked the place where Brown had to have stopped, turned around, and began to come back.
    meaning that Brown only did 22 feet total from when he turned around.

    That would certainly put a damper on the idea that Brown "charged" Wilson and make my math above moot.

    Also, I again ask you, do you think if you and others keep at it that the case will be re-opened?

    Parent

    Cherry picking again (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by FlJoe on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:08:20 PM EST
    All of a sudden you are quoting your favorite "discredited" witness DJ to back up Wilson's narrative.

    Parent
    DJ said -- (none / 0) (#114)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:38:35 PM EST
    DJ and other witnesses said Brown turned around at, or just about at, Copper Creek Court.

    What do the words: "just about at" mean??? He didn't make it there. The blood brothers 19 and 20 say he didn't.

    It's wonderful to see you embrace the testimony of Dorian Johnson. He also said that Wilson shot at Brown with his back turned. Will you embrace that part of his testimony too???

    He wasn't really all the way on the driveway when the shot went off, and he turned around, and he was in the street"

    Right  -- he never made it to the driveway at Copper Creek or the grass. He was still in the street at Markers 19/20 at turnaround.

    And frankly I'm being generous to Wilson here because Brown's walk back would have started closer to Marker 19 which was more like 20 feet away rather than 22.

    Furthermore Wilson said that he began to shoot after a few seconds as Brown came towards him, thus not immediately at Marker 19 but closer in.  

    So Brown let's say takes 2 steps [6 feet closer]  toward Wilson. That puts him 14 feet from where he went down. It's then at that point when  Wilson opens up for 7 seconds.

    2 feet per second is nursing home speed. Granny can go that fast with her walker.

    Markers 19 and 20 together with the audio recording prove that that those who testified that Brown "charged" Wilson were lying big time. That's Witness 40, Witness 10, and Wilson himself.


    Parent

    I think most reasonable people understand (none / 0) (#125)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:15:52 PM EST
    what DJ was saying
    He wasn't really all the way on the driveway when the shot went off, and he turned around
    [my bolds] especially when witness 14's testimony also says that he was partially on the driveway.

    In fact, if you read down further in W14's testimony, she reiterates that Brown had

    about one foot on the grass and one foot on the driveway.
    Neither witness give a professional engineer's-exact description of the location, but certainly enough to understand where he was when he turned around, ie, at Copper Creek Ct.

    Still waiting on your link to this:

    Even Wilson's lawyers agreed that the blood stains at Markers 19/20 marked the place where Brown had to have stopped, turned around, and began to come back.

    (Hint. Wilson's lawyers carry much more weight than your unsupported claims.)

    Parent

    In fact (none / 0) (#137)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 07:08:49 PM EST
    if you read down further in W14's testimony, she reiterates that Brown had about one foot on the grass and one foot on the driveway.

    So Witness 14 is more reliable than the physical evidence documented by the detectives???

    Do you believe everything else that Witness 14 said or just this???

    Still waiting on your link to this:

    You're a big boy -- find it yourself.

    Parent

    Detectives: (none / 0) (#144)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 11:55:20 PM EST
    Prosecutor:
    Next board I'm going to mark Grand Jury Exhibit 105. .... And why is it that this cone was placed at that location on Canfield Drive or Canfield Road?

    Detective:
    As best we could tell based off of witness accounts, that would have been the furthest point east that Michael Brown would have went to. So that intersection of roughly Coppercreek Court and Canfield Drive. ....

    Grand Juror:
    ... is this the point where he stopped in the roadway and turned?

    Detective:
    Yes, ma'am. We are basing that off of witness statements as best we could tell. That was the point that they had made reference to and so we used that as the furthest eastern point to go to.


    Witness 17:
    Urn, um, then some way, somehow, I guess, hm- uh, Mike, he broke free
    from the officer and he ran down the street to like, lguess I wanna say
    it?s Copper Creek Dr., I guess that?s what it is and he looked down at his
    hand, he stopped at the entrance of the driveway, he looked down at
    the palm of his hand.

    Witness 57:
    DET Okay. You previously described in the map here, that?that, where you put this X,
    is where Mike where you saw him run to, right? The intersection of Canfield
    Drive and Copper Creek Court, right?
    Yes.


    Parent
    Impressive! (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 01:09:28 AM EST
    Let's reiterate: (none / 0) (#152)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 06:39:07 AM EST
    based off of witness accounts, that would have been the furthest point east that Michael Brown would have went to.

    "based off of witness accounts" -- not the physical evidence like the blood on the ground at Markers 19 and 20.

    No physical evidence puts him beyond Markers 19/20 -- none, nada, zilch.

    If he was bleeding so profusely onto the ground at Markers 19/20, and travelled beyond that point, then there would have been blood beyond that point. But there was none -- not one little droplet.

    To quote Bob McCulloch: "All witness accounts must be measured against each other and the physical evidence."

    Case in point:Your Witness 17:

    Detective: "Now about how far from the  patrol vehicle did Mike Brown run???"

    Witness 17: "I would probably say maybe about twenty, about twenty, twenty yards, twenty, thirty yards maybe."

    Is there some reason why you missed that???

    Markers 19/20 are 55 yards away and Copper Creek Dr is 70 -- both far cries from 20 or 30.

    I rest my case.

    Parent

    Unless of course (none / 0) (#158)
    by toggle on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 08:44:57 AM EST
    ...Brown started bleeding again only after Wilson shot him a second time, after he had already advanced forward some distance.

    If Brown had been bleeding the whole time, he would have left a blood trail between his body and the car, but the blood trail is only behind the body (i.e., on the far side of the cop).  That means it resulted from him being shot after he had already turned around and advanced some distance on the cop.

    Parent

    toggle (none / 0) (#176)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    That means it resulted from him being shot after he had already turned around and advanced some distance on the cop.

    In order for that to be the case you have to make sense out of the blood on the ground at Markers 19 and 20 in light of the final 7 second audio recording.

    For your scenario to work: Brown would have to have arrived back at Marker 20 after being shot at 6 times consuming 3 seconds of the 7 second audio.

    Then after a pause at that spot to allow the blood to flow and accumulate on the ground. let's say what by some miracle that consumes 2 seconds -- consuming  now 5 seconds of the 7 second audio.

    That gives him 2 seconds to move 3 feet to Marker 19 all the while Wilson is pumping 4 more shots into his head.

    His 7 seconds run out and he still has not had time to stop and bleed at Marker 19 -- much less travel 20 more feet to his left to where he finally ended up.

    That scenario is even worse for Wilson.

    That's why Wilson's lawyers were delighted to concede that Brown turned around at Markers 19/20 and came back from there all the while hoping that no one would do the math on the "charge" claim.

    Parent

    That does not make any sense (none / 0) (#186)
    by toggle on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:15:52 AM EST
    I am confused by what you are saying. The blood at those markers was twenty-something feet behind Brown's body. That means he advanced to that point, was hit by at least one shot that caused him to bleed onto the ground [it does not have to have been from the first volley], then advanced another twenty feet before being stopped by the fatal shot [which does not necessarily have to be the last shot fired].  There is plenty of time for that to have happened.

    Parent
    toggle (none / 0) (#189)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:43:38 AM EST
    So then which shot caused all the blood on the ground at Markers 19 and 20 in your scenario:

    1] One of the two that drew blood at the Tahoe, or

    2] The one that hit him while his back was turned denied by Team Wilson but testified to by 75% of the witnesses, or

    3] One of the 6 of the 10 last shots in the final 7 second volley.

    Parent

    There was no shot in the back (none / 0) (#191)
    by toggle on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    We've already gone through that numerous times. Twelve shots were fired in total. Two were back at the car, and ten are recorded as occurring in a short time on an audio recording.

    The audio recording forecloses the possibility that a shot was fired at Brown's back before the final confrontation. Yes, it was a claim made on Day One by Dorian Johnson, but it did not happen. The witnesses who said that were lying or mistaken.

    The blood almost certainly did not come from the first two shots because there was not a 150-ft-long blood trail from the car.

    So, yeah, that blood came from one of the last ten shots.  There's no way to say for sure which one it was, except that it wasn't one of the last couple because they were incapacitating, and Brown's body was found 20-something feet in front of that spot.

    Nearly all of the accounts describe a pause in Brown's advance in between the volleys, presumably caused by him being shot.  In all likelihood that's when it happened.

    Parent

    audio shows nothing (none / 0) (#195)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:24:34 PM EST
    about the positions of MB or DW. I am still not convinced that no shots came while MB had his back turned. There is simply no way that the directions of the arm shots can be determined as there is an almost an infinite amount of positions the arms can be held at especially while running or turning.

    Parent
    While I agree about the arm shots (none / 0) (#200)
    by toggle on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    The fact is that all 12 shots are accounted for. 2 at the car, 10 in the final volleys.

    There could not have been another shot or shots fired at Brown's back.

    Parent

    toggle 3 (none / 0) (#198)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    So, yeah, that blood came from one of the last ten shots.

    Okay then since those last 10 shots took only 7 seconds from first to last and then he was down, how did he have enough time after the first one to hit him to drop all that blood at Marker 19, then go 3 feet over to Marker 20 to do the same there, catching the final 4 bullets in the process there, and then have enough time to travel 20 feet to his left to fall down.

    Virtually all witnesses are in agreement on the fact that he took the final 4 bullets right where he fell.

    Parent

    Wilson's statement minimizes the distance (none / 0) (#167)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:04:37 AM EST
    In his statements Wilson himself puts the distance between them @ around 20 feet when MB stopped. In his official interview with the detective he say's MB moved "at least 15 back towards him". Where does this so called 50' bull rush come from.
    By his own statements Wilson has pretty much
    eliminated the high speed charging scenario. I wish we could say case closed but I am sure someone will be able to spin Wilson's own words to show MB was a high speed charging bull.


    Parent
    Wilson also says (none / 0) (#168)
    by toggle on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:09:18 AM EST
    That he was backing up as Brown was advancing on him. This was corroborated by the locations of the spent casings ejected from his gun.

    Parent
    backed up around 10' (none / 0) (#172)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:26:54 AM EST
    I know but that does not change anything. His own words puts MB's advance far less then the 50' ft claimed by some people here.

    Parent
    If by "some people" you mean (none / 0) (#196)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:30:26 PM EST
    the Detectives and Grand Jury, then yes, I agree.

    You can see what they said at comment #188.

    Parent

    Cherry picking again (none / 0) (#202)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:53:28 PM EST
    So the testimony from several witnesses is all "wrong" except for the part where he reached the corner and the testimony from DW is all "correct" except for the part about the distance between them and MB's movement.

    Parent
    Here' some more cherry picking: (none / 0) (#209)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 01:39:56 PM EST
    Witness 10:
    12 Okay. And so now you testified that when

    13 Mike Brown gets to around the corner, or the corner

    14 of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court is where he
    15 turns around; is that right?

    16 A Yes.

    Witness from Vol 16:

    You running and pow, pow, so I guess he
    2 felt something and he turned around, and he turned
    3 around right on Coppercreek directly in front of
    4 where I was able to see in eyes View.


    Parent
    shell casings are inconclusive (none / 0) (#177)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    from policeone.com
    Contrary to persistent myth, where a cartridge case lands when it's ejected from a semiautomatic pistol is not a reliable indicator of where the shooter was standing when the gun was fired. That fact has been scientifically confirmed by the Force Science Institute in a series of research experiments starting back in 2004. "Yet some investigators and firearms experts continue to use the location of spent casings as critical reference points in reconstructing shooting scenes," says FSI's executive director, Dr. Bill Lewinski.

    Parent
    One cartridge (none / 0) (#187)
    by toggle on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:21:58 AM EST
    I completely agree that one cartridge is not a reliable indicator, in the sense that it is irrefutable, 100% proof, but:

    1. The usefulness of the location depends on the specific firearm in question; and

    2. The more cartridges that were ejected, the stronger the conclusion you can draw from their resting places.

    In this case, nearly all of the brass was found "behind" Brown's body, meaning on the far side of Brown's body. They concluded that in this case the resting places of the ejected brass was important, and there's nothing I've seen to refute that.

    I also do not put much stock in estimates of distance since few people are able to do it accurately. If Wilson said ten or fifteen feet [I don't know that he did, I am just assuming for the sake of argument], it doesn't mean he didn't go farther.

    Parent

    Your Witness 57 (none / 0) (#154)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 07:35:52 AM EST
    DET: Okay. You previously described in the map here, that? that, where you put this X, is where Mike where you saw him run to, right? The intersection of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court, right?

    Witness 57: Yes.

    So is there some reason that you missed this part:

    I didn't see the shooting ... I heard.

    That's .. it got to a point right here I didn't really see 'cause of the barrier, the uh concrete barrier ... I didn't see ... After the shots, after the shots, that's when I came outside

    Detective: So its fair to say that he ran TOWARDS the intersection or AT the intersection of ... Copper Creek Court and Canfield Drive. Is that fair to say

    Witness 57: Pretty much, yes, uh huh, yes.

    Watch out for those little prepositions -- they are known to spoil a lot of your prefabrications.

    I rest my case again.


    Parent

    I said "more like 50 feet" (none / 0) (#188)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:31:36 AM EST
    the Detectives say 48 feet 2 inches.

    Mea culpa.

    GRAND JUROR: I know we've heard evidence that Michael Brown after he turned around and advanced back towards Officer Wilson, and we have our diagram of the crime scene with the measurements on it and I just want to make sure I'm interpreting all of this right. So as far as physical evidence, we have the blood on the ground that was about 21 or 22 feet from where Michael Brown ended up. So we know for a fact that's a minimum distance he might have advanced and from eyewitness testimony that placed him at the corner of Coppercreek, that dimension looks like it is closer to 48 to 50 feet; is that correct? So that would be like an outer

    A [Detective] I'm going to look at this diagram also just so I'm sure we are on the same page here. this So you're saying, obviously,
    would be zero right here, right.

    GRAND JUROR: The distance was 48 feet 2 inches according to this diagram.

    A [Detective] Correct, yes, sir. So we would say, and you made reference to the blood on the ground. So from this point here, the red stains in the roadway are identified what was later determined to be Michael Brown's blood as Items 19 and 20 on the key for the diagram. So Items 19 and 20, so the zero is here, identified as being 31 feet and 26 feet 7 inches, and this direction here, and then you're correct in saying if we continue to move west on Canfield Drive, Michael Brown's left foot and right foot for that matter are, 48 feet 2 inches, yes, sir.



    Parent
    every bit as dubious???? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    I would note, again, that the prosecutors presented all the witnesses to the grand jury, including numerous accusers whose accounts were every bit as dubious as Witness 40's.
    Really!!! The other witnesses were actually there on the scene.

    Witness 40 was not even there --

    How does that even compare???

    How do you put on a witness to an event that she was never on the scene to witness???

    Parent

    I don't know what you mean (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 12:18:40 PM EST
    by "your friends on the right."

    But pointing out once again that Uncle Chip is a conspiracy theorist is not "right" or "left".

    Parent

    Discredited??? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:22:04 AM EST
    You should send that to Shawn Hannity @ FOX News since they apparently haven't gotten the message and continue to quote her as if she is gospel.

    Parent
    You put everbody... (none / 0) (#91)
    by unitron on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:03:17 PM EST
    ...who claims to have evidence or be a witness in front of the Grand Jury and you let the GJ decide their validity of their testimony for themselves.

    That way no one can say you withheld any evidence for either side.

    Unless you think the people on the GJ are all gullible, easily fooled idiots, but somehow the people on the petit jury if it had gone to trial would all have had the wisdom of Solomon.

    Parent

    Kims weird haircut (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    ever wonder wassupwithat?-

    Kim Jong Un allegedly has a crippling fear of barbers, stemming from traumatic childhood events. Therefore, he prefers to cuts his own hair. His DIY buzz-cut has apparently struck such a chord with the nation that when they're not busy being exploited, young men reportedly queue up in front of parlors to get the Jong-Un cut.

    Traumatic events with barbers?  The mind reels.
    just doin my patriotic duty to trash the little terd

    What is it with oppressors... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:57:43 AM EST
    being so sensitive and cranky...just look at our own police.

    You get to run roughshod over people and you're all bent out of shape because somebody calls you on it?  Seriously?  Be happy, you're a winner in the game of life!

    How lucky would the North Korean and American people be if all we had to worry about was somebody making fun of us or criticizing us.  Kimmy Un don't know how good he has it!  And neither do our domestic brands of swine.  

    Parent

    "Kim Jong un, (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    has a crippling fear of barbers."   We are, apparently, looking for appropriate retaliation. How about tapping into the CIA torture consultants, Mitchell and Jensen's (aka, Maquis and de Sade) expertise of continued blasting of loud music.

    Via satellite, we could audio- blanket Pyongyang with the famous aria, Largo al factotum, from the opera, "The Barber of Seville."  The aria's repeat of the barber's name, Figaro, should be enough for Kim to (a) repent and watch "Interview," and (b) demonstrate that torture works.

    Parent

    Update on My Idiot Friend (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:57:52 AM EST
    Back in August I wrote about post about my friend who forgot be had a loaded gun in his backpack and was reminded at the airport when a TSA scanner discovered it.

    It was rather humorous in that Omar's bag didn't come through the scanner, so he started looking in other lines and we were laughing that only Omar could lose his bag in the scanner.  The laughter stopped when they asked Omar if he owned a gun.

    They drove him back to my car, they put the gun in my car, and brought my friend back to the airport.  No charges, nothing and we made our flight no problem.  It was rather bazaar in that no one seemed very concerned, acting like it was no big deal.  The police, not TSA, called the DA who after a couple minutes told them to let him go.

    Well last week he got what he said was a civil forfeiture from the TSA for $3000, 50% off if he pays in a week.  That is crazy, they aren't leaving him anytime to make a decision or even consult an attorney.  Not that he could in anyway claim he didn't do it, his only defense is he simply forgot about it.  I know, but this is Omar, and to us that is no doubt what happened.  For the rest of the population, a rather heavy and clunky chunk of metal in our backpack would not go unnoticed.

    Hmmm. $1500 now or running the clock (none / 0) (#40)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    with an attorney who knows how to deal with this?

    I wouldn't even know where to look for that kind of expertise.  Ask Jeralyn?

    Your friend's lucky.  Does paying the $1500 keep him off the secret watch lists?  Or are we all on it now because we know you and you know him?

    Parent

    You Know... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:51:15 AM EST
    ...they aren't going to tell him.  But his name is Omar and even though he is Guatemalan, he's dark and looks Middle Eastern.

    No way am I getting involved, and I doubt he has the means to pay the $1500, much less get an attorney.

    The point wasn't 'What Would Omar Do ?" as past history would lead me to believe he is going to pretend that letter never arrived and get drunk every night.  It was that for normal folks, that is a tiny window to make a decision considering all that you mentioned and the other ramifications that, to me, surely need to be reviewed by someone with knowledge of these things.

    Parent

    note "criminal referral" (none / 0) (#49)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 11:38:47 AM EST
    VI. INDIVIDUALS
    1. Security Violations by Individuals for Prohibited Items
    Discovered at Checkpoint/Sterile Area/Onboard Aircraft
    A. Firearms, Realistic Firearm Replicas, and Shocking Devices
    i. Loaded firearms (or unloaded firearms with accessible $3,000-$7,500 +
    ammunition) Criminal Referral
    ii. Unloaded firearms $1,500-$3,000 +
    Criminal Referral
    iii. BB, pellet, and compressed-air guns; flare and starter
    pistols; realistic replicas of firearms (including gun
    lighters); permanently inert firearms; spear guns; stun
    guns, cattle prods, or other shocking devices $250-$1,500
    iv. Firearm parts $250-$1,500
    B. Sharp Objects

    that's from the TSA Guidelines

      Because this is a "civil" penalty he has no right to appointed counsel.

      He also needs to be aware that there are potential federal and state or even local criminal laws.

    Unlike civil statute, the federal statute criminalizing boarding or attempting to board  a plane with a gun requires criminal intent and "I forgot" (if credited) is a viable (and common) defense.

       Bear in mind though that depending on state and  local law, simply carrying a concealed weapon anywhere in the jurisdiction outside one's home without a proper permit  can be an offense. These laws can also differ on how they define concealed carry. (e,g., some allow carrying an unloaded  gun concealed, but not on the person, in a case, etc.)

      The fine they are proposing is the minimum and "I forgot" isn ot a defense, so that far is a pretty easy call. TSA can inform him that IT will not seek a FEDERAL prosecution but it can't guarantee what other agencies might do.

       

    Parent

    FYI: our hostess frowns on providing (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:24:25 PM EST
    legal advice here.

    Parent
    Thanks, One More Question (none / 0) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:13:14 PM EST
    What is the difference between a civil penalty and criminal one ?

    Don't worry, as mentioned above, no way I am getting in the middle of this, so anything mentioned isn't advise in that one one will be using it.

    This is just my own personal curiosity.

    Parent

    A civil penalty (none / 0) (#156)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 08:35:08 AM EST
      levied by a government agency is, in theory, not considered "punishment" for a wrong but compensation for the harm occasioned by the wrong.

      From a more  practical standpoint, the big difference is a civil penalty does not leave one with a criminal record and the disabilities that arise from a conviction.

    Parent

    I just got a call from a recording (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:07:55 PM EST
    Of course I hung up as soon as I realized it was a robot who spoke with a female voice and called itself Rachel.

    Does ANYONE ever listen to an unsolicited recorded message?

    If not, duh.  If so, why?

    Related subject.  Sometimes it is not a robot, it is a real person.  Depending on my mood, I often toy with them.  (I almost said "torture," but it is no longer a useful metaphor.)

    The caller is reading from a script whose purpose is to get you to say, "Yes."  Knowing that, I give them everything but.

    I answer every question with one of my own, or demand more information about the caller.  Sometimes I tell them it is a password protected line, and the password is the family dog's name.  There is no dog.

    I'm not going to answer any real questions asked by some anonymous caller.  These conversations give me wonderful opportunities for creative conversation, the object is to make the caller hang up on ME.

    At Home... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:05:26 PM EST
    ...I never pick up the phone, but sometimes when I am expecting a call I will turn the volume up on the answering machine.  So from time to time I get to hear a entire recorded message because I am too lazy to get up and hit stop.

    Some of those messages are long, but they all have one thing in common, they are painful to my ears.

    The last presidential cycle, I decide I was going to screw up every poll that called with answers that didn't make sense.  It lasted 2 calls before I decided that policy was really stupid.  The entertainment value I thought I would receive, was cancelled out by the sheer number of questions.

    Parent

    I Forgot... At Work. (none / 0) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 09:23:07 AM EST
    So I work in sales tax and occasionally I have to fill out applications for a new business, which usually means address changes or adding a jurisdiction in which we have not sold into before.

    This year, I did a massive change of address in Texas.  I updated all of out locations, so around 70 applications.  The problem is that is public data and I have learned in the past to use our switchboard number rather than my line.  For Texas, since they already had my info from years back, it populated my line.

    As mentioned, it's public data, so after an app is sent in I normally get about 10 calls asking if we take credit cards, if we need long distance, if we have a security system, blah, blah, blah.  Well for 70 apps, the telemarketers assumed it was 70 different locations and my phone was tied up for weeks.  I actually unplugged it, because when I spoke with IT, they said the only solution is a new number.  After 15 years that is just not an option.

    They were ruthless and of course it got where I was just being a jack@ss.  Well whomever was in area code 312, somehow managed an autocall that would have no one on the other end.  Just call me, literally every minute, so often that when I answered, my other line would start ringing with the same number.  I tried calling the number, nothing.

    It's work, so there are times in which I am expecting calls and had no choice but to plug it in sometimes.  It was a fricken night mare.

    No point other than being rude to one of them really did not work out well.  Even now, at least once a day I still get area code 312 calling and I bite my lip, and just say 'We are a Corporation', which seems to satisfy them.

    It bothers me to no end that we have to send in paperwork to comply with tax law, yet that becomes public data and allows 3rd parties to call and send mail solicitations.

    Parent

    Ha! I don't even answer my phone (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:50:00 PM EST
    and barely listen to the people I actually want to talk to!

    Parent
    Yeh, if I don't (none / 0) (#93)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:07:06 PM EST
    recognize the number, or if it's "unknown" or an 800 number, I just let it go to voicemail.  I figure, if it's someone I want to talk to, I can always pick up mid-message, or call back later.

    Parent
    I get in trouble for doing that sometimes (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:23:32 AM EST
    Why do I not answer these strange calls from numbers we don't know? When someone works on an Army post and their phone rings, answer that call.  The calls that come into a home phone though?  You could waste a whole day answering it sometimes.

    Parent
    Just tell them (none / 0) (#69)
    by toggle on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:45:24 PM EST
    They need to talk to the head of the household and that you'll go get him momentarily. Please hold on....

    With cell phones you don't even have to come back and put the phone back on the hook.

    Parent

    Have you gotten the "I'm calling from (none / 0) (#84)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:27:08 PM EST
    Windows Media to tell you that your computer is compromised with highly dangerous malware and spyware" call?

    We kept getting calls from a particular area code, multiple times a day, and no messages were ever left.  Once I called the number back and got a message that the phone was not in service - which seemed odd to me.

    So, the next time we got a call from that number, I decided to answer it, and that's what was on the other end - the infamous Windows Media Security representative.  I said, "Ohhh, so I suppose the next thing you're going to tell me is that you need access to my computer, right?  Well, sorry lady, I'm not falling for that.  You are not from Windows Media, you are running a scam.  I can hear the boiler room full of  scammers in the background of this call, for crying out loud.  I don't have malware or spyware, and no one who actually works for Windows is going to call people on the phone about it."  This woman with a British accent got very assertive with me - and when I told her I was going to report the call, she said, "go right ahead - I'll wait."

    I told her that she could just go fk herself, and to stop calling.

    As near as I can tell, those calls have stopped.

    But I did find out something interesting.  These robocalls with recorded messages are not subject to the Do Not Call restrictions, apparently.  They get around it by just "letting you know" that if you want a security system or lower rates on your mortgage or credit card, here's a number you can call for more information - it's not considered a sales call.

    I've called some of these numbers back and asked to be taken off their call list, but I think it's like trying to kill cockroaches...

    Parent

    My solution to all this (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:31:29 PM EST
    (btw back in day when had a laNd line I sometimes toyed with them)
    Is to dump the land line and go cell.  If I dont recognize the number I don't answer it.  Stranger, meet my voice mail.  Voice mail, stranger.
    Problem solved.

    Parent
    You don't ask to be taken off... (none / 0) (#89)
    by unitron on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:58:17 PM EST
    ...of their list, you demand to be put on their do not call list.

    If they take you off of the list they're using right now you could still easily be on the next list they buy from someone else, but they have to check all of them against their do not call list.

    That's the way the law is set up.

    Parent

    I got a call like that. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:32:25 PM EST
    Real person. Trying to sell me an extended warranty for my car. Or so I assume. She asked me if I knew the mileage on my car. I replied "yes." Then stopped. I think the answer was supposed to be a number in the way of miles. Because at that point she got flustered. I guess because I wasn't following the script. She sort of got back on track and asked me if I would tell her the mileage. I replied "no." And stopped. She got flustered again, couldn't seem to figure out where to go from there so she hung up.

    Parent
    A friend of mine (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:55:22 PM EST
    an actor, would always make them try to talk him out of committing suicide.  He wouldn't let them off the phone saying if they hang up he will kill himself and it will be their fault.

    Parent
    Another sort of big deal (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:56:25 PM EST
    that got lost in yesterday's massive news dump-

    Citing Health Risks, Cuomo Bans Fracking in New York State

    I saw that yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    would like CA to do the same . . .

    Parent
    For those of you commenting and (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 01:29:17 AM EST
    arguing about details of the death of Michael Brown, please also make a contribution to the ACLU.

    Had to take a little disco nap last night (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:01:51 AM EST
    so I could watch the last Colbert Report when it aired at 11:30.  It was a nice ending and transition out of the 'Colbert' character and into the new phase of his career.

    I will miss that show so much. Really the end of an era for me. It was just the right combination of satire and silliness. He is the most engaging talk show format interviewer around, which I'm sure will be proved in his new show.

    Onward and upward Stephen!

    A disco nap :) (none / 0) (#173)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    I haven't watched it yet.  Another one of my friends says she cried through the whole thing.

    Parent
    Josh and I just watched it (none / 0) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:45:29 AM EST
    Did you notice that the commercial for the new Nightly Show was filled in that uppercrusty diner that you and I had lunch in in NYC?

    Parent
    Yes Anne, really (2.00 / 2) (#120)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:01:07 PM EST
    Some people like RJ aren't blinded by emotion.  They see these trials more clearly than you do.

    From the previous thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:49:08 AM EST
    What Jim wrote.

    Sadly, yes. (1.00 / 4) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:16:46 AM EST
    Kill everyone who is where the weapons are.
    Men, women and children too.

    And when Hamas stops the rockets and leaves let me know.

    My opinion of this statement is still on the thread, quoted by another commentator.  

    Why do you leave out stuff?? (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 07:52:17 AM EST
    Let's look at the thread.

    Enough already in Gaza (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:11:24 AM CST
    Eye for an eye was about proportionality.
    Firing rockets that hurt few does not justify bombing hospitals and killing children.

    I responded

    Baloney (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 07:58:53 AM CST
    All of our current problems stem from "proportionally."
    Sane policies don't dictate that you fight wars in a proportional manner.

    If you aren't interested in defending yourself, your family, your friends, and your country then you should just surrender.

    Israel has chosen to fight.

    It is sad that Hamas, a well known radical islamist (name changed at Jeralyn's request) organization, has decided to hide its weapons in schools, hospitals and other locations were civilians are sure to be.

    But they have.

    Just as a surgeon must remove good tissue while cutting out a tumor, Israel must kill civilians will stropping the cancerous rockers and tunnels.

    Simply put. Hamas uses its people to protect its weapons. Israel uses its weapons to protect its people.

    Mordiggian snarked:

    How many innocent children have to die (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:09:41 AM CST
    in order for Israel to feel that it has sufficiently protected its' citizens.

    Correct answer:  "All of them, Katie."

    I responded.

    Almost correct. But the answer is: (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:13:28 AM CST
    "All of them put in harms way by Hamas."
    BTW - How many German and Japanese children do you think we killed in WWII??

    Now, one of the reasons that Jeralyn has, in the past, asked us not to quote each other is exactly this. Yman and then you go out of context and I feel that I must respond.

    So I'm through here.

    Here's the thread which you couldn't provide a link to.

    Parent

    I Don't Get It... (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:57:18 AM EST
    ...you mean leaving parts of the quote out for the purpose of changing what was really meant, is bad ?

    But that has been your MO since day 1, Jim.  It's how you make a living here at TL.

    Parent

    Sorry, jim, but reading the entirety of (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:53:03 AM EST
    that thread does not work in your favor.

    Apparently, you are giving it the Fox News treatment, wherein words and sentences clear on their face are represented as meaning something entirely different, or not existing at all.

    We all know what you said, there was never any doubt what you meant, so be an adult, own your own words and quit wasting bandwidth doing your impression of Humpty-Dumpty:

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."



    Parent
    Anne, as usual you don't grasp what's going (1.00 / 3) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:34:37 PM EST
    on and dash off in all directions.

    My complaint is that Yman, AKA Shadow1 and Mordoggian, AKA Shadow2, don't want to post my complete comments.

    Instead they lie by omission. They don't provide
    the full context.

    BTW - Do you steal beat your husband??

    Parent

    For phuckes sake (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 02:36:55 PM EST
    is it not enough that we have to scroll/wade through your idiotic Nyeah-nyeah-nyeah-I know you are but what am I ONCE.
     You have to phucking post it again in case we missed it.
    Fir the love of God get a life.

    Parent
    I see that you also can't (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:44:12 PM EST
    justify Hamas using humand shields.

    Oh well, no surprise there.

    Have a nice night.

    Parent

    As you like to tell people, (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:00:49 AM EST
    you wrote what you wrote, Jim.

    As for context, 4 people gave you 1 votes for it at the time.

    Yman was right and you were wrong.  I'm sorry that apparently p*sses you off, but facts be facts.

    Anyone can get the whole thread by clicking on the link in the isolated comment, Jim.  I don't know why you can't just man up and take responsibility for your words without a lot of weasely "explainations" about how you really didn't mean what you wrote.

    It's the hit dog that howls the loudest, folks.  See above if you don't believe me.


    Parent

    Mordiggian (2.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:03:08 AM EST
    If you will quote what I wrote in context I have no problem because what I wrote represents my considered opinion.

    And no. The link you provided does not open to the actual thread but to my comment #90 which leaves out the MKS's comment and my response.

    What you and Yman are doing is called "propaganda" or more bluntly, you have lied by omission.

    Parent

    If I quoted it in context (none / 0) (#19)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:10:35 AM EST
    then I would also have to quote the responses to it as well to be "fair and balanced", as your favorite news channel puts it.

    If you don't want to be called out for the cr*p you write here, don't write cr*p here.

    Parent

    So you admit that your intent is to (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:51:15 AM EST
    lie by omission.

    If I quoted it in context then I would also have to quote the responses to it as well to be "fair and balanced", as your favorite news channel puts it.

    I have a suggestion that, if you agree, will return this to what a blog, among other things, does. Discuss views and positions.

    Now, I have posted that I have no problem with Israel launching attacks against locations that Hamas has stored weapons  and/or rocket launching sites, even if Hamas has put these weapons/launch sites in places which civilians...men, women and children are there and will be killed. It is Hamas' fault. They are trying to use their own people...men, women and children....as human shields.

    Israel has a right to exist and has a right to defend itself.

    Kindky explain what Israel should do.

    I wait for your answer.

    Parent

    What they should NOT do ... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    .. is commit war crimes by doing what you advocate:

    Sadly, yes. Kill everyone who is where the weapons are.  Men, women and children too.  And when Hamas stops the rockets and leaves let me know.

    There is no context that would justify this position - it's criminal.  Israel can defend itself and attack Hamas without killing men, women and children "where the weapons are" - which, in Gaza is everywhere.

    C'mon, Jim - man up.  Own your own words.

    You wrote 'em.

    Parent

    Now, now Shadow1 (2.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:39:14 PM EST
    are you saying that if someone attacks you and says you can't attack back because they have civilians.... men, women and children..... being used as human shields.

    And thank you for making my point...

    where the weapons are" - which, in Gaza is everywhere.

    WHO PUT THE WEAPONS THERE?? Hmmmmmmm... can you spell HAMAS????

    Parent

    Except in the UN-run refugee centers (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:32:42 PM EST
    That have repeatedly been shelled by the Israelis.

    Parent
    Can you read? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 08:44:55 AM EST
    I'm assuming you can, but since you constantly feel the need to restate/misstate my words, perhaps I'm giving you too much credit.  I'll spell it out very clearly for the reading-challenged.

    Israel can respond and go after people who are attacking them in Gaza, or elsewhere.  Israel cannot do what you are advocating - which is to kill "all the people where the weapons are".  You are advocating war crimes.

    Simple enough for even you to understand.

    Parent

    You wrote what you write (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:47:14 AM EST
    and no amount of context can change that.

    Parent
    Of course I did (2.00 / 1) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:42:39 PM EST
    my struggle has been to get you and Shadow1 to quote everything that I wrote so the casual reader can see my point.

    When you don't do that you have lied.  Which you have admitted to.

    Now. Can you explain why my position is wrong? Can you justify Hamas using human shields????



    Parent

    SHOUTING DOESN'T MAKE YOUR (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:28:14 PM EST
    CASE FOR YOU!

    And I never said that Hamas was justified in using innocent civilians as shields, just as the Israelis have to stop using that excuse when they hit designate refugee centers that have no weapons or Hamas, military or civilian, in their midst.

    So take your own advice and quit making things up to make yourself look good.  You like to pose as some sort of moral authority when people who are lefties around here take exception to your Pavlonian habit of blaming libruls for every problem from adultery to zoonoses in American society.  That you keep getting your nose bent when your efforts to tell us how evil Demos are met with facts and derision is your problem, not mine.

    Parent

    Hamas struck first. (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:42:05 PM EST
    Let me know when Israel does.

    Parent
    And by attacking the UN-run refugee centers (none / 0) (#162)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 09:34:09 AM EST
    the Israelis descend to the level of Hamas and lose all moral credibility in doing so.

    No charge for the lesson.

    Parent

    There's no need to (none / 0) (#159)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 08:50:43 AM EST
    Can you explain why my position is wrong? Can you justify Hamas using human shields????

    No one is claiming that Hamas has the right to use human shields (or the Israelis when they do it).  But the use of human shield does not justify the indiscriminate killing of all civilians just for living in an area where there are weapons - which is what you are advocating.  There are many responses/choices for Israel between no response and your position - killing everyone in the area.

    Parent

    Heh (2.00 / 1) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:34:46 AM EST
    Yman -
    No one is claiming that Hamas has the right to use human shields

    And if we had some ham we would have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs.

    That's exactly what you are claiming. I mean, since we know they do, what's your complaint??

    Mordiggian -

    the Israelis descend to the level of Hamas and lose all moral credibility in doing so.

    First of all prove that Israel knew that there were no weapons. After all, Yman has claimed that Gaza is covered in weapons.

    Both of you. It is a nasty nasty war. Clinton arranged a settlement that gave the Palestinians 90% of what they wanted and they walked away.

    They don't want peace. This is a war, at its bottom, that is against Jews, not Israel. It is a religious war.

    And the only way to stop it is to blockage the ports and stop the weapons.

    Parent

    All of which is irrelevant ... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:53:48 AM EST
    ... to the point - and false.  I am not claiming Hamas has the right to use human shields.  They do not.  Hopefully, you're able to comprehend a three-word sentence with words no longer than four letters.  But then again, ...

    Israel can defend itself and go after Hamas in Gaza and elsewhere without "killing all the people where the weapons are".  There are many options between inaction and war crimes, which is what you are advocating.

    Parent

    Not this again (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 02:19:38 AM EST
    Waging a war against a civilian population is against International Law.   It is a War Crime.

    You area all about going all out to kill every living thing to win a war.

    But you are advocating War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.  

    Jim, your kind of conduct during war would get you hanged in times past. Ask the Japanese and Nazis we tried for War Crimes and hanged.

    Parent

    Hooey (1.00 / 1) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    You are allowing the Palestinians to use human shields to protect rocket launch sites.

    What should Israel do?? Just accept the missiles??

    Quit hiding behind useless UN resolutions and just admit that you are pro Palestinian.

    And we hanged them because we won.

    If we had lost they would have hung us.

    The victor writes the history.

    Parent

    I Did Not Realize... (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:02:50 AM EST
    ...there was a victor of a war in what, like 60 years.  Are you suggesting Israel has won, a 'war' that hasn't been declared ?

    Jim, we get it, you are pro war crimes, you can rationalize all day long, but you still think committing war crimes is a legitimate war tactic, doubly so if you win.

    On this front, you are a despicable human being, in line with these despicable human beings who were found guilty of committing war crimes.  You may notice that not one American is on the list, just despicable human beings that share your same world views on war.

    Congratulations, jesus would be proud.

    Parent

    Just learned how Obama (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 07:34:03 AM EST
    is signing fewer Executive Orders than Bush.

    He's signing memorandums.... 198 of them...

    The things I learn watch FNC.

    .....If it walks like a duck.....quacks like a duck...swims like a duck... it's a duck!

    The New Yorker covered this two years ago (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:04:20 AM EST
    Here.

    As for the memos, how do you expect him to make policy decisions?  By interpretive dance, instead?

    But thanks, for telling us about the scoop from Fox.  I'm sure people will be changing their minds about them after this latest "revelation".

    LOL!

    Parent

    Pilobolus 4 President! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:06:44 AM EST
    When the memo tells (2.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:07:52 AM EST
    the agency to violate the law....

    Well, you take it from there.

    Parent

    Since you raise a serious claim (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    That Obama is breaking the law with these memos, perhaps you have a link to back it up?

    Parent
    I need more evidence than (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:17:11 PM EST
    "I heard it on Fox News."

    Parent
    Why would Jim cite Fox (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 02:27:27 AM EST
    as authoritative here?

    Even if he heard it there, would not one have the good sense to refrain from citing such discredited source here?

    Does he not know that no one here believe Fox on anything?  But he cites it thinking it will be persuasive?

    Fox News, Baghdad Bob, Witness 40--all the same they are.......

    Parent

    I reckon he cites Fox to keep (none / 0) (#204)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    the "conversation" going.

    Parent
    So Your Saying... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 08:58:50 AM EST
    ...Obama is a republican ?

    Parent
    "The things you learn" (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 09:43:23 AM EST
    via Fox are probably wrong more often than they are right.

    But, hey, thanks for providing me with some morning hilarity - even if it was unintentional on your part.

    Parent

    Btw, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:43:14 PM EST
    what does your new Benghazi bumper sticker say?

    "The bi-partisan investigatory committee lied and people died"?

    Parent

    Do you have a bumper sticker?? (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:46:15 PM EST
    How gauche.

    But please, it should say,

    The bi-partisan investigatory committee lied after people died"?

    Parent

    Tell us about the lies Jim (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:17:26 PM EST
    like the one about the comittee being bi-partisan:

    WASHINGTON -- Two days after a  Republican-led committee found no intelligence failure or coverup in the deadly Benghazi ​embassy ​attacks,​ ​Republicans are moving to discredit the two-year investigation.

    "I think the report is full of crap," said GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on CNN's ​"​State of the Union.​"​

    The report by the House Intelligence Committee​,​ dumped Friday​,​ concluded there was no wrongdoing by the Obama administration and no one intentionally misled the American people regarding the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks that killed four Americans​ -- Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

    The panel is chaired by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), a vocal critic of President Obama. Rogers and his Democrat counterpart, Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, concluded "there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks" in the report, which had little fanfare the Friday before Thanksgiving.

    Now, technically speaking, a committee that contains even one member of the opposite party is bipartisan, but that isn't the same thing here, the Republicans were the majority of the committee, as the majority party always is in this cases, as anyone who stayed awake through high school civics class would tell you.

    So, a vocal Republican critic of President Obama found no fault in the response to the Benghazi attack.

    That's kind of interesting, don't you think?

    Parent

    I think they lied (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:46:39 PM EST
    The informed American people know they lied.

    BTW - The issue isn't "intelligence failure."

    The issue, as the contractors who were said, is that the military didn't respond.

    The second issue is that Susan Rice went on for days about how it was a riot and not an attack.

    Have a nice night.

    Parent

    Sometimes the truth is hard (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 02:54:43 AM EST
    thing to accept.

    Lara Logan and her lying contractor--is that what you are referring to?

    Jim, hate to tell you but the right wing tooth fairy isn't going to leave you a favorable report on Benghazi.

    Right wingers lied about Benghazi, and their credibility died.  That is the true legacy of the right wing propaganda mongering over Benghazi.

    Parent

    Someone's lying (4.50 / 2) (#160)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    ... and it's not the committee.

    Let's see the evidence/links, or your silly fairy tales are nothing more than more, wingnut BS.

    Parent

    What military didn't respond? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 08:20:45 AM EST
    Because a fast action team was on its way.

    Parent
    you think (none / 0) (#165)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 09:53:46 AM EST
    Is a pretty low standard, Jim.  

    If I remember correctly, there is a post at your site where you "show" Obama saying he's a Muslim on the TeeVee.

    One of the contractors you mentioned was shown to have lied about the events there, Jim.  

    Appearing on CBS This Morning the next day, Logan said, "We were wrong. We made a mistake." She also told the audience that 60 Minutes would issue a correction the following Sunday. As CBS offered apologies, Threshold decided to take the costly step of pulling The Embassy House from circulation.

    On Sunday, at the tail end of the program, Logan appeared on camera to issue her correction. "We end our broadcast tonight with a correction on a story we reported October 27 about the attack on the American special mission compound in Benghazi, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed," Logan said. "In the story, a security officer working for the State Department, Dylan Davies, told us he went to the compound during the attack and detailed his role that night."

    She continued:

    After our report aired, questions arose about whether his account was true, when an incident report surfaced. It told a different story about what he did the night of the attack. Davies denied having anything to do with that incident report and insisted the story he told us was not only accurate, it was the same story he told the FBI when they interviewed him.

    On Thursday night, when we discovered the account he gave the FBI was different than what he told us, we realized we had been misled, and it was a mistake to include him in our report. For that, we are very sorry. The most important thing to every person at 60 Minutes is the truth, and the truth is, we made a mistake.

    As for Susan Rice

    "Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." [Washington Post, 10/19/12]

    [T]he idea that Rice should be disqualified because of statements she made on television in the days after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, strikes me as unfair. It seems pretty clear now that she based her statements on information the CIA provided at the time. That information proved erroneous, and why the CIA was giving faulty information to senior administration officials remains unclear. I haven't seen persuasive evidence to support the theory that Rice's statements were part of a coverup to hide a terrorist attack. The fact that Rice was working from information provided by the CIA would seem to undercut such a theory. [The Washington Post, 11/16/12]

    You really should investigate anything you get from the news media, left or right.

    Have a great day!

    Parent

    I liked (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:55:57 PM EST
    your comment about Seth Rogan in the other thread. If a movie has Seth Rogan in it, I'm not watching unless somebody I know has been and just raves about it. Even since I saw him in that movie with Katherine Heigl I run the other way when he's in a movie. I feel the same way about Mickey Rourke.

    Parent
    "50/50" and "The Last (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 01:25:09 AM EST
    Waltz" were good movies.

    Parent
    He has turned (none / 0) (#142)
    by Slado on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:59:32 PM EST
    Into one of those actors that seems to bring the same character to every movie.   He definitely isn't pushing himself.   I think his actual talent is writing and getting these movies made.   Even though they aren't if highbrow artistic value.

    Parent
    I don't know anything more (none / 0) (#31)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:15:08 AM EST
     than in the story but found it interesting:

      Judge rejects SC sheriff's plea agreement

    He looks nice (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:16:38 AM EST
    He looks like Jimmy Hoffa. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:29:58 AM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#36)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:24:15 AM EST
     a pair of aviators and a smokey hat and he could star in the reboot of Smokey and the Bandit.

    Parent
    Crickets. Chirp chirp. (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:43:01 PM EST


    Did you consider the possibility (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 01:49:29 PM EST
    that no one cares about the piercing insights of CNN analysts?

    Parent
    Sure. That might be what I would say too (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:11:32 PM EST
    if I realized the "piercing insights" went against my frozen in concrete position yet were actually pretty reasonable.

    Parent
    Or, ... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    ... because all they're doing is speculating and offering their opinions about what might have motivated McCullogh, with no actual evidence?

    Parent
    Do you seriously think (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    I have not heard all of that at least ten times since August?

    Srsly?

    Not sure if you know but they are trying, using the recent revelations about witnesses like 40 And other things, to get the GJ no bill set aside to get another run at it.  Will they succeed?  Who knows.  I hope they do.

    People, reasonable people-not like me-lots of them, disagree with your position on this.  Learn to live with it.

    I have.

    Parent

    Recent revelations? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by toggle on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:51:47 PM EST
    Nearly everything discrediting Witness 40 was "revealed" to the grand jury, and has been available in the transcripts that were released on day one.

    Anybody who was following the case already knew she was discredited. A long time ago. There's nothing recent about any of this except the laughable, ignorant claims that her account was somehow important to the decision not to indict.


    Parent

    Like him (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:57:46 PM EST
    Your usual level of insight on display (none / 0) (#111)
    by toggle on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    An AP article from November 27:

    Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer's window "from his navel up," with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online.

    Short URL

    Parent

    Srsly? What is my position on this? (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    If you are asking my opinion (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:45:46 PM EST
    i would say you are a tireless defender of the prosecutor and the process.  

    Parent
    Then you would be wrong. (none / 0) (#106)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:01:16 PM EST
    But I am not surprised.

    Although you did not ask for it, imo, you have only the capacity to put others in one of two categories: 1) Savior 2) Oppressor.

    I am neither.

    I have stated my position on this multiple times: I find Brown's death completely disturbing, however I see no way to prove that Wilson acted outside the law.

    Parent

    I not going to argue about this (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:06:44 PM EST
    but honestly I have to point out that you have posted thousands of comments on this subject.   On ONE side of this subject.   which fortunately are there for anyone to read.  I will say read them.  and decide for yourself.

    Good evening.

    Parent

    of my comments are related to the legal aspects.

    iwo stuff that does or does not "prove that Wilson acted outside the law."

    On that I agree with you.

    Sleep tight.

    Parent

    I usually enjoy their discussions (none / 0) (#124)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:14:52 PM EST
    Sometimes it's a train wreck of people talking over each other.  Sometimes they do a good job of presenting different opinions.  

    The main problem I have with CNN is their hosts tend to be wimpy, rarely give their opinion, and let guests get away with nonsense.

    Fox is usually the opposite.  The hosts go out of their way to let their opinions be known.

    How does MSNBC do things during these high profile cases?  

    Parent

    "Mad Frankie Fraser" Funeral Mobbed (none / 0) (#71)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    by British Gangland associates.

    Interesting (change of place) photographs.

    I want that hearse (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    Gorgeous

    Parent
    On that subject (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    sort of

    Aztec death whistle

    Holy hell.   Imagine hundreds if these.

    Parent

    lol; sounds a bit like a phone modem (none / 0) (#108)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    If this guy didn't exist (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:05:32 PM EST
    we would have to invent him - video

    "You know those who are homosexual will die out because they don't reproduce. You have to have heterosexual sex to reproduce.


    I almost fell out of my chair (none / 0) (#99)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:43:24 PM EST
    this morning whilst eating my Mini-Wheats when I read that headline and then the story. Robertson's dementia is getting worse.

    Parent
    Really (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 04:47:11 PM EST
    if it get any worse he won't be able to count the money he's raking in from the rubes on that stupid tv show.

    Parent
    Sunny Hostin isn't really a legal analyst (none / 0) (#119)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 05:53:56 PM EST
    When she opines about a black victim case, she becomes more of an advocate. Her behavior during the Zimmerman trial was embarrassing. Somehow she got to keep her job and do the same schtick during the Wilson investigation.

    Hmmmmm (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:20:27 PM EST
    Funny how CNN lists her job title as legal analyst.

    Asunción "Sunny" Hostin is CNN's legal analyst for American Morning, its flagship morning program. Based in the network's New York bureau, Hostin joined CNN in September 2007.

    Here is her background per CNN:

    Previously, Hostin served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., where she was awarded a Special Achievement Award for her work as a child sex crimes prosecutor. She also served as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. While in private practice, Hostin specialized in the litigation of employment, securities and white-collar criminal. As a member of the Criminal Justice Act panel, Hostin also represented criminal defendants in federal district court in New York. Hostin has also been an adjunct professor of evidence at Pace Law School.

    Hostin earned her bachelor's degree from Binghamton University and her law degree from the University of Notre Dame School of Law.

    Source: CNN

    Do you have any proof that CNN was dissatisfied with Ms. Hostin's role as their legal analysis or that she was ever in danger of losing her job?

    Parent

    You didn't get my point (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    When she covers a back victim/grievance case, she's awful.  Her comments become biased to the point of absurdity. I used to enjoy her take on legal matters but she's too one sided now.

    Did you watch the Zimmerman trial? Every day she looked at the camera with a straight face and told us the prosecution was doing well.  

    CNN probably likes her crazy comments.  

    Parent

    I got your point just fine (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 07:00:55 PM EST
    Your previous statement is inaccurate.

    Sunny Hostin isn't really a legal analyst

    Per CNN, Sunny Hostin really is a legal analyst. That is her job title at CNN.

    That you are biased in the opposite direction or the fact that you personally don't like or agree with her does not change the fact that she is CNN's legal analyst.

    Parent

    When Jeralyn has time to blog, (none / 0) (#129)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:25:50 PM EST
    give expert analysis, and minimize the personal attacks, this place is great.  A combo of left side politics and defense attorney minded legal commentary.

    I think I already did? (none / 0) (#134)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 06:55:26 PM EST
    I doubt I'm as conservative as you think. What would define someone as right wing vs. moderate? Which issues? Could someone be right wing if they voted for Obama? What about views on religion or abortion?

    Dude (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 07:23:39 PM EST
    Not gonna try to unpack that comment.  Life is to short.  I think maybe you try but I can only go by what you write here.  And frankly, if you are asking my opinion-happening more than usual today-not pretty.  
    You are not a knuckle dragger you are more polished.  But not as polished as you think.  There are a lot of smart people here.  Someone, I forget who, told you to drop the wide eyed act and just say what you think.  Like BillyBob and tugger.  Maybe you haven't made peace with what you think.  I make cookies but I'm not the Oracle.  It's the wide eyed krap that pushes people's buttons.  It insults the intelligence.  
    So there it is. You asked. Not up for a philosophy thing.  My battery is dying an I want to watch AHS.
    And I'm afraid I think you can be right wing, by local standards, and vote for Obama.

    Parent
    Russia (none / 0) (#141)
    by Slado on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 10:56:49 PM EST
    Excellent article about the strategic differences between the US and Russia.

    Reminds me of the Russian ambassador during the Cuban middle crisis that explained to Kennedy that we can't negotiate with the soviets unless we can put ourselves in their position and see the crisis through their eyes.

     

    Actually I hesitate to introduce a cooking (none / 0) (#143)
    by ZtoA on Thu Dec 18, 2014 at 11:33:23 PM EST
    thread-let into todays news. But my mum just arrived for the holidays and she fancies herself 'gluten free' these days (she is 90 and is delightful). I am only just newly a baker and tried a couple of gluten free cracker recipes tonite. They tasted pretty good but looked rather bad. Tomorrow I want to bake a loaf of gluten free bread for her. Any ideas?

    Go for it. Reading recipes is the ultimate (none / 0) (#145)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:24:33 AM EST
    low calorie treat.

    Parent
    The family that commits crimes together... (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 07:01:49 AM EST
    "A Brave Move" to open doors (none / 0) (#163)
    by Politalkix on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 09:36:31 AM EST
    Been on a Duane Allman kick (none / 0) (#164)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 09:43:12 AM EST
     The Weight

      Aretha helps a little.

    Pretty good article (none / 0) (#169)
    by CST on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:19:54 AM EST
    in the Times today called "Your Waitress, Your Professor"

    I think this is something a lot of young people are going through.  I know I can certainly relate to that feeling over the last few years when I was waiting tables as my primary source of income.

    I could write a whole book on the subject but this lady does a pretty good job with the article.

    We dodged a bullet in healthcare (none / 0) (#170)
    by Politalkix on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:22:10 AM EST
    by not considering single payer. Any attempt would have been the end of getting health care legislation passed for atleast a generation. It would have been a repeat of the 1993 fiasco.

    link

    Everyone who demagogued on putting single payer plans on the table owes the President an apology.
    (but I am not counting on it :-))
    If it cound not be done in Vermont, it was ridiculous to consider doing it for the whole country. Period.

    Yes, But Taking it Off the Table... (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:52:05 AM EST
    ...was huge mistake, given the size of the bargaining chip.  I disagree strongly with your belief and conclusions.

    Who in the real world takes something off the table before negotiations.  I know, the guy who believes he is the grand negotiator, when in reality he is the grand compromiser, which in terms of ACA, means giving the opposition damn near everything they wanted, including taking single payer off the table.

    ACA pretty much guarantees the that single payer healthcare legislation is never enacted in the foreseeable future.  And in case you have been in a closet, that legislation is jeopardy of being dismantled, bit by bit, doubly so if the next Prez is a republican.

    I am glad they passed it, but please don't act like I have to get on my knees and praise Obama for legislation that is at best, better than nothing.

    Parent

    One thing that is irrefutable (none / 0) (#197)
    by NYShooter on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:32:58 PM EST
    is that the American public likes its information....simple. They don't do paragraphs, nor, sentences with more than four words. Nuance is out.

    That's why one-liner bumper stickers work. That's why, politicians, when doing their Master's bidding to cut their taxes, don't go into long, sleep inducing dissertations explaining the tax code. They simply coin it, the "Death Tax." When Progressives offer up some, obviously needed legislation for the middle-class, they don't waste time debating the issue, and, suggesting alternatives. They, simply smirk, and quip, "Lipstick on a pig."

    Anyway, this is just my complaint about how the Democrats just have never gotten it. I just can't help wondering, back when Obama had everything going for him, when all his stars were aligned, when his strength & power were the greatest, when he had an overwhelming mandate. If he had, at that time, at the start of his healthcare initiative, just used the words, "Medicare for All," how it could have changed everything.

    Take every argument against "Obamacare," it's too complicated, unfair, too costly, and, on, and, on. Those arguments would be gone. Everybody knows, and Loves, Medicare.

    It's simple.

    Parent

    What the cheerleaders forget is (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:43:25 PM EST
    Obama never wanted Medicare for All. And now they sit around waiting for those plans to fail so they can say their guy was right, too bad for everyone else.

    Obama was the problem day one for Medicare for All.

    Parent

    Medicare for All (none / 0) (#201)
    by Politalkix on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:46:37 PM EST
    was definitely a better bumper sticker (and I agree with you that Americans like to keep their information simple) than most. However, it was not foolproof. Grandma does not go to clinics for abortions and nobody's grandpa or grandma is lazy and mooching off on welfare like "those people" with "calves like cantaloupes" who will not work but will receive healthcare coverage while your taxes will go up to support them.

    Parent
    Oh B*llsh!t (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    those issues were still there with Obamacare, yet he managed to get that through, because that is what he wanted. And yes, Obamacare is letting "those people" "mooch" off the system and at a higher cost . . .

    Parent
    Medicare for all (none / 0) (#205)
    by Politalkix on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    cannot be supported without raising taxes (corporate or individual).

    Taxes have not gone up for anybody to support ACA. This is the difference.

    Parent

    More B*llsh!t (3.50 / 2) (#206)
    by sj on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    Taxes have not gone up for anybody to support ACA. This is the difference.
    Dollars are dollars. Most people that I know don't care if the dollars they are paying are called "taxes" or "insurance premiums". They live on their net income.

    Only those who "demagogued" (your preferred usage) reflexively about "Taxes!!!" care how those dollars are deducted from available income.

    Parent

    It sounds good ...but (none / 0) (#207)
    by christinep on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    Yes, we Democrats do go into overly long explanations too often. Mottoes, calls to action, synopses (like B. Clinton's "Economy, healthcare, education, & the environment" worked very well in the 90s) and clear, concise shorthand ... our party could use instruction on the how-to.

    The "but" here is that the Healthcare reform call--historically--defied everyone wanting change for decades. No matter how well-intentioned (geez, do I remember the single-payer call to action in 1993 and the earlier push by the late Senator Edward Kennedy) ... it didn't work. It didn't work, primarily, because too many interests and too much $$$$ had aligned against change since the 1930s when the Republicans fixed a way to prevent the change that large majorities said they wanted.  The opposition hit and played on all the fears that one could imagine ... costs, ideology, government bureaucracy and lack of any choice, etc.  

    Before the close of this year, I say again: President Obama recognized the need for the deal ... that the competing interests needed to realize a benefit (the medical interests such as nurses, doctors, hospital associations, insurers, pharmaceuticals, and--clearly--the vast majority of those insured already and those not insured ... the goals of greater access for more people in the US defined insurance reform as this President gave some to get a lot; he obtained that access for so many millions at reasonable costs. The willingness to compromise definitely allowed gains in the Saul Alinsky, community building model, btw.  In the reality of 70 years, he realized meaningful change where others could not; and, for me and many others, that counts for more than I can express.

    For politalkix: Indeed, the Vermont decision in recent days to jettison for now its goal of single-payer says even more. Theory or practice ... Vermont chose what it could do, and--for now--put aside the theoretically better approach.  Whether we say it or no, if typically progressive Vermont could not attain a progressive good, what chances would there have been in the US at large? For those who would not even have had the door opened for them, I'd say: Fat Chance.  

    It is a season traditionally linked to hope.  The evolution and growth of the ACA/Obamacare is realizing that hope.  

    Parent

    Does that mean Obama ... (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 10:56:29 AM EST
    Ya think perhaps (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:12:08 AM EST
     the fiscal realities of a predominantly rural state of 620,000 with  a limited tax base (50th in GDP)  in which many people necessarily have to seek "advanced" care in  a different state might just be a little different than for the nation as a whole?

       If ya gonna be doing much of this debunkin' stuff ya might want to get a like someone other than a TV personality to back you up.

    Parent

    Senator Tom Harkin (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by sj on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 12:22:49 PM EST
    Who is one of the co-authors of the ACA and he disagrees with you.
    "We had the power to do it in a way that would have simplified healthcare, made it more efficient and made it less costly and we didn't do it," Harkin told The Hill. "So I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or not done anything at all..."

    He says definitively:

    He believes Congress should have enacted "single-payer right from the get-go or at least put a public option would have simplified a lot."

    "We had the votes to do that and we blew it," he said.

    ...
    "There's this old saying, `If you have the votes, vote. If you don't, talk.' We had the votes but we talked," he said.


    Everyone who says they didn't have the votes owes health care advocates an apology.
    (but I am not counting on it :-))

    Parent
    Comment (none / 0) (#181)
    by Politalkix on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:00:22 AM EST
    in Red State. Very typical of other comments. The President has earned their grudging respect.

    "Spot on.

    Look, hate him or dispise him, he is forging ahead with his agenda irrespective of what the polls or electorate says. To his base, they can't get enough of him and his policies and would chant 4-more-years at their convention come 2016.

    The only person on our side that excites us like Obama excites his base is Cruz. However, he is viewed as the enemy (even more so than democrats) who must be discredited and marginalized.

    So why I despise Obama and his ruinous policies for the America, I 'admire' him for his testicular fortitude to take unpopular positions even in the face of electoral disapproval. I wished our side leadership has half Obama's guts"


    Was That From the Onion ? (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:11:18 AM EST
    I mean seriously,
    I 'admire' him for his testicular fortitude to take unpopular positions even in the face of electoral disapproval.
    GD did that make me laugh, and I am positive Wall Street and Bush & Co, are laughing even harder.

    I am just waiting for Congress to repeal ACA and the rationalization Mr Testicular Fortitude will use when signing it into law.

    Parent

    "Very typical" - heh (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 11:11:36 AM EST
    Heh - yes, I'm sure that comment is representative of a multitude of commenters at Red State who respect Obama "testicular fortitude".

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Dear G0d ...

    Parent

    Military Tracy, re Colbert (none / 0) (#208)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    I will have to watch the tape again and look at that diner in the ad. I did not catch that the first time.  

    And yes, I was actually a little teary too. It does feel like a loss of something good.

    480 feet away (none / 0) (#210)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 02:29:18 PM EST
    Witness 10:
    12 Okay. And so now you testified that when
    13 Mike Brown gets to around the corner, or the corner
    14 of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court is where he
    15 turns around; is that right?
    16 A Yes.

    Would that be this Witness 10 who was over 480 feet away:

    Lawrence O'Donnell LOL Destroys Ferguson Prosecutor's (Robert McCulloch) Reliance On "Key" Witness

    GJ documents vol 24: (none / 0) (#211)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 02:44:03 PM EST
    Q [Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kathi Alizadeh] And again, based on the photograph that's on the back of the board, you can tell what perspective these photographs were from which is from where, Detective?

    A [Detective] Again, this is from the eastern most point
    that witnesses had identified Michael Brown's
    traveling on Canfield Drive. So, again, we are
    talking about the intersection of Coppercreek Court



    Summing up (none / 0) (#212)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 19, 2014 at 03:10:50 PM EST
    Yman writes

    Israel can defend itself and go after Hamas in Gaza and elsewhere without "killing all the people where the weapons are".  There are many options between inaction and war crimes, which is what you are advocating.

    Oh please, what are those actions?? Should Israel invade and just take control?? How many people would that kill??

    Look, its simple. Hammas quits launching rockets and Israel will quit retaliation. I hope that concept isn't too difficult.

    Mordiggian - Your blathering to try and cover. Rice said what she said numerous times. She lied. Live with it.

    Scott, speaking of despicable human beings I think anyone who defends Hamas for using human shields by attacking Israel for defending themselves is despicable themselves. Wear your badge with shame.

    BTW - If you don't understand that:

    The victors write the history.

    Then no wonder you can't grasp anything about the ME situation.