home

Sunday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 04:21:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Another beautiful day in Colorado, here's the western view from my balcony. (larger version here and here.)

[More...]

View of Downtown


(larger version here.)

Nighttime view


(larger version here.)

Here's an 11 second video where you can see all the views in one place.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Iowa | Obama's Advisors Want to Step Up War Against ISIS >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Open Thread | 208 comments (208 topical)
    Beautiful view J! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 04:52:02 PM EST
    Very happy for you- hope you don't have to move again for a long while!

    Fall starting here too....only upper 80s.....sigh. At least it is below 70 at night.

    Looks like that moving thing (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 08:09:33 PM EST
    worked out well.

    Congratulations!

    Sounds like Biden (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 09:04:14 PM EST
    has accused Maureen Dowd of flowery fiction with regard to the deathbed wish.

    Truthfully (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 05:42:41 AM EST
    though leaking a story to Maureen Dowd is asking for trouble.

    Parent
    Great view (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 11:07:25 PM EST
    Congratulations J.

    Nothing like checking in and in new comments seeing a comment from Jim to fishcamp that begins "Your mom, yes". I'm scared to death knowing what that comment pertains to :)

    MT, get under your bed and hide ;-) (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 11:38:47 PM EST
    ... Fishcamp wanted to know if his Mom's block warden duty during WWII, in which he accompanied her as a 4 year old counted as national service in my mind.

    My answer was "Your Mom, yes. You know."  Guess my feeble attempt at being "punny" failed...

    Parent

    asked and answered (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:46:06 AM EST
    Please no more about Jim.

    Parent
    Rubio (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 07:55:32 AM EST
    Doesn't like being a Senator, so he's all in for POTUS.

    I don't think he realize that not doing a job just because you don't like it, is not a good selling point for you to get a promotion and take on bigger responsibilities.

    Rubio (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 08:13:17 AM EST
    is rerunning Obama's 2008 campaign to a T. He's even repeating verbatim the things Obama said.

    Parent
    Well, except Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by sj on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:21:14 PM EST
    didn't admit out loud that he hated being in the Senate.

    Parent
    You Mean the Job He is Not Doing... (none / 0) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:43:04 PM EST
    ...while running around telling people 'Officials who don't do their jobs should be fired' ?

    After being widely criticized for his absenteeism in the Senate, where he has missed more votes than any other legislator, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) argued that government officials should be fired for not doing their jobs.

    In a rare appearance on the Senate floor Tuesday, where his first vote in nearly a month was to end sanctuary cities, the presidential hopeful advocated for a proposed bill that would institute more accountability in the scandal-plagued Department of Veterans Affairs.

    "If you work at the VA, and you aren't doing your job, they get to fire you," Rubio said of the proposed bill. "I think people are shocked that that doesn't actually exist in the entire government, since there's really no other job in the country where if you don't do your job, you don't get fired.

     LINK

    Yeah Marco, no one is surprised you haven't been fired.

    Parent

    I must (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 08:32:25 AM EST
    admit to being concerned with what seems to me to be the relentless push by the media to get us into a conflict with Russia.

    TV show after TV show, for at least a decade, portrays the mafia as being Russian. Villains are Russian. Russians are villains.

    Now, we read, that they are cruising around looking to cut undersea cables that would effectively knock out communication and commerce for the West. (A special nod of gratitude to the war-thirsty NYTimes for printing information about the location of the cables so that terrists and others can find them more easily.)

    I do not apologize, nor do I condemn, Russia's activities in the Ukraine or in Syria. As far as Syria is concerned, it seems to me that Russia and the US have a common interest in quelling that civil war - and that the ongoing media push to portray Syria as a prototype war between Russia and the USA is dangerous, misguided and telling.

    What I'm getting at, I guess, is that the media seem bent on finding newer and more devastating wars for us. Peace is not an option. Can't sell papers or airtime about peace.

    Afghanistan, Iraq... so yesterday.
    Syria... not much legs there.

    But - war with Russia - a major nuclear power with a sophisticated arsenal -- NOW you're talkin"!

    Jimmy Carter offers (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    some rational thinking on steps to a Syrian peace proposal, involving five nations, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the USA.

     A general outline from Iran (cease-fire, unity government, constitutional reforms, and elections) implemented by the UN Security Council and working with the five nations, may achieve these goals.

      Mr. Carter notes, "the needed concessions are not from the combatants in Syria, but from the proud nations that claim to want peace but refuse to cooperate with one another."

    Parent

    Couple Comments From Closed Thread... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    • Capt, there is no Mrs Drudge, but if she did exist, I am sure she would not be allowed to speak, certainly not for 11 hours.  And if you believe the David Brock or David Cohen, Matt is on your team.

    • Gas in Houston is <$2 for mid grade, I want to ~1.89 and regular I have seen for ~1.69

    • Jim all your predictions about gas, the economy, and pretty much everything you have said about Obama were completely wrong.  Time for you to get out of the prediction game, you are not good at it.

    • Is it just me or would anyone else like to see live Iowa republican caucuses ? "Trump, no, Carson hates immigrants/women/muslims more !!"

    • If we start start investigating all doctor's political views and general knowledge for the world, the country would become Jehovah's Witnesses.  I'd probably let a surgeon who worked at Johns Hopkins and separated conjoined twins, operate on my kid, if I could afford him, but I sure as hell wouldn't ask what he thought about Sunnis or Shiites.

    • While southerners in general have some odd things in the language, you ain't heard nothin' till you have spoken to a cajun.  I have to talk to people in Louisiana every day, and those cajuns are so far out there I don't know what the heck they are talking about moist of the time.

    • For the record, Houston didn't hurt like the rest of the country during the economic crisis, but <$80 crude is killing the industry and now we are hurtin' for certain.  And on a pollution front, cheap gas is not good at all.  100,000 people and counting have lost their jobs because of cheap gas.  


    Having spent a little time in the area (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    Let me help you:

    English -
    "I don't know what the heck they are talking about most of the time"

    Cajun -
    "Idunowhadahekdeybedawkinaboudmodadime"

    Parent

    That is So Spot On... (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    ...that there is no mistaken you have spent too much time in Louisiana, remarkable really, and like level 50 funny.

    I still get hung up on these two:

    Nacogdoches, TX - NAK-ə-DOH-chiss

    Natchitoches, LA - NAK-ə-tĭsh



    Parent
    When it comes to predictions (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 07:07:47 PM EST
    theres a forty year old pitcher on the Toledo Mud Hens who has a higher career batting average than Jim does..

    Parent
    Oh really??? (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 05:12:53 PM EST
    (CNSNews.com) - A record 94,610,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month -- an increase of 579,000 from August -- and the labor force participation rate reached its lowest point in 38 years, with 62.4 percent of the U.S. population either holding a job or actively seeking one.

    In other disappointing news, the economy added only 142,000 jobs in September, well below economists' expectations, but the unemployment rate remained at 5.1 percent, where it was in August.

    Link

    You actually believe the economy is in good shape?? Well, when you get laid off the recession will become a depression.

    And, as previously noted, gasoline prices will get jacked up as soon as OPEC thinks enough US companies have been driven out of business.

    Thanks for agreeing:

    For the record, Houston didn't hurt like the rest of the country during the economic crisis, but <$80 crude is killing the industry and now we are hurtin' for certain.

    But even at 2.19 a gallon we haven't approached the $1.50 that was there in 8/05.

    Or the buck a gallon when Bubba was Pez.

    Here is a look at what happened during Obama's term.

    And he was all for high prices.... Gotta go green you know.

    And what proof do you have that Hillary knows more about Islam than Carson? His comments make more sense about that subject than anything she has said.


    Parent

    100,000 Times Better... (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:26:23 AM EST
    ...than the people you vote for.

    But good side stepping the actual post about you being wrong all the time.  You are getting quite skilled at neglecting facts, remarkable really.

    Parent

    Uh Scott (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    My whole response proved me right and you wrong.

    I have said that the economy is bad. You want to use the U3 figure which is between 5 and 6%. he problem with that is that it doesn't show the people who have dropped out. That is shown in the U6, which is at 10%.

    If you want to say 10% is the new normal be my guest.

    Parent

    Lower than when he took ovet (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    When it was over 14. It went up after the fallout of the Bush recession and has been trending downward since 2010.

    Parent
    Of COURSE he does (none / 0) (#159)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    Just ask any Islamaohobe.

    Parent
    The truth about gas prices (none / 0) (#162)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:27:29 PM EST
    Under Bush versus Obama. $.06 difference back in 2014, and they've only fallen since then.

    Oops!

    Parent

    This is why the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 11:31:52 AM EST
    (And Democrats, too) should just give it up.  Scandal-mongering just doesn't work.

    The failure of Benghazi to take down either Obama or Clinton should not have surprised anyone. Presidential scandal politics almost never pay off for the opposition party.

    Six months after the Abu Ghraib torture revelations surfaced, President George W. Bush won re-election with a larger popular vote share than in his first race. The same was true for Bill Clinton in the aftermath of Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate. House Republicans' headlong pursuit of impeachment led to Democratic gains in the 1998 midterms, precipitating the fall of Speaker Newt Gingrich.

    In the decade that came before, Ronald Reagan had shrugged off first-term scandals involving cabinet officials to win re-election easily. After Democrats conjured up a Republican "sleaze factor" theme, Reagan carried 49 states in 1984. The Iran-contra scandal was a bigger challenge--a special prosecutor's report would eventually hurt George H.W. Bush in 1992--but by that time Reagan had forged a historic arms control agreement with the Soviets, helped George H.W. Bush win the presidency, and left office with high personal popularity and job approval ratings.

    Yet opposition parties can't help themselves when the whiff of scandal is in the air. Like a gambling addict, politicians always want to bet the next scandal is going to come up "Watergate." During the Obama presidency, Republicans have never left the scandal casino, no matter how many times the (White) house won.
    See David Vtter, who will (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:24:18 PM EST
    be in the run-off to be elected Gvernor of Louisiana.

    Parent
    I would offer that ... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:43:17 PM EST
    ... the writer's conflation of wholly contrived issues (Whitewater, The Lewinsky Affair and Benghazi) with bona fide criminal inquiries (Watergate, Abu Ghraib and Iran-Contra) offers the reader a misleading and ridiculous comparison regarding the nature of political scandal.

    While I would agree that scandalmongering for its own sake is often counterproductive, Americans do have a vested interest in ensuring that actual criminality in our government be mitigated and removed to the extent possible. And sometimes, that requires the political highlighting of serious wrongdoing and actual malfeasance.

    In that regard, I would argue that this country's long-term interests would likely have been far better served during the Iran-Contra scandal had Democrats on Capitol Hill decided to play political hardball with the Reagan administration, rather than walk on eggshells in the face of the president's popularity for fear of appearing too political.

    As special counsel Lawrence Walsh's subsequent report showed, Iran-Contra constituted both a very serious breach of law and a cartoonishly bad policy regime, all of which ultimately proved completely antithetical to the public interest. Yet to this very day, very few people could tell you what Iran-Contra was actually about, and that sort of pervasive ignorance can only invite future criminal mischief in the highest echelons of our government.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Which us the writer said (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 02:24:12 PM EST
    Good-government types may huff: Well, why should Republicans give up? Congress has a responsibility to exercise oversight of the executive branch. It has every right to conduct independent investigations and not accept other institutional findings at face value.

    All correct. Honest, independent congressional investigations are a necessary component of our system of checks and balances. But pursuing the truth without fear or favor also means not fearing your own political base. It means accepting all the data instead of cherry-picking it. It means embracing reality even when you fail to find hard evidence of criminality or ethical lapses.



    Parent
    The writer, Bill Shere, also said: (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:18:49 PM EST
    "Six months after the Abu Ghraib torture revelations surfaced, President George W. Bush won re-election with a larger popular vote share than in his first race. The same was true for Bill Clinton in the aftermath of Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate. House Republicans' headlong pursuit of impeachment led to Democratic gains in the 1998 midterms, precipitating the fall of Speaker Newt Gingrich." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Therefore, Sher clearly equated the very real war crimes which occurred at Abu Ghraib with the aforementioned and patently phony Clinton pseudo-scandals, before basically dismissing both because neither party was effectively able to mine any political gold from them. It's a false equivalence which you were apparently only too happy to embrace, when you called upon "Republicans (And Democrats, too)" to "just give it up."

    In fact, the only real equivalence I see here is that while Republicans trumped up Whitewater and Benghazi for reasons which were entirely political, Democrats for their part failed to effectively pursue the real crimes of Iran Contra and Abu Ghraib for the exact same shortsighted and superficial rationale.

    So, I have to disagree with you about "([and] Democrats too) should just give it up." Sometimes, one should do the right thing in politics because it's actually the right thing to do, and let the chips fall where they may. To do otherwise is indicative not of one's personal resolve but rather, a willingness to succumb to the expediency of the moment, even if it's at the later and / or greater expense of justice -- not to mention legislative prerogative and diligence.

    True "good-government types," whether they're Democrat or Republican, should (a) demonstrate their willingness to defend and uphold the inherent standards and protocols of due governmental processes whenever it's deemed necessary, and (b) not hesitate to hold their own party members to a higher bar whenever they fail to do so themselves.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It will (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    be nice when everybody forgets that Watergate happened in the sense that everybody keeps hoping for it to happen again. When there are no one alive that actually remembers it then perhaps people will quit hoping to find another one.

    Parent
    I don't know... (none / 0) (#39)
    by sj on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:19:52 PM EST
    When there are no one alive that actually remembers it then perhaps people will quit hoping to find another one.
    Even young people are "gate"-ing scandals and potential scandals of all levels.

    Personally, I hope no one forgets Watergate. Too much history is already going down the rabbit hole.


    Parent

    I mean (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    quit looking through everything from the prism of Watergate. History, yes, remember.

    If young people are doing then I guess it's going to last forever.

    Parent

    Watergate Envy (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:51:45 PM EST


    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:26:12 PM EST
    think the bigger problem is the "banality of evil" aspect of it all. This gate that gate what the hey, it's just boys being boys, or something.

    Parent
    Agreed. ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 05:27:22 PM EST
    The silly and irritating penchant of lazy journalists to attach the suffix "-gate" to every perceived and / or would-be misdeed, regardless of venue or circumstance -- e.g., "Deflategate," "Filegate," "Debategate," "Contragate," "Nannygate," "Rathergate," "Memogate," "Climategate" &etc. -- denotes the ultimate in media-induced false equivalence, because such continuous, clichéd and hackneyed usage serves only to trivialize the actual seriousness of the original Watergate scandal and its attendant crimes committed by members of the Nixon White House. The truth of the matter is that 40-plus years ex post facto, this country is still paying a very high price for Watergate.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 07:08:36 PM EST
    the original Watergate was small potatoes compared to his real crime
    Johnson was livid. He even called the Republican Senate Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen, to complain that "they oughtn't be doing this. This is treason."

    "I know," was Dirksen's feeble reply.


    (sorry for the Hersh)

    Nixon was treasonous but is mostly remembered for his relative petty crimes, thus history is whitewashed from the get go.

    Parent

    sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks.. (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 07:19:55 PM EST
    maybe not suffering any consequences is what emoldened Nixon's near-megalomaniacal sense of entitlement that led to Watergate.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 07:39:28 PM EST
    it seems to have emboldened all future Republicans to go big in their crimes. Don't get caught doing the small stuff and do the Tom Sawyer deal with the press, works like a charm.

    Parent
    Watergate was never solely about the ... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:50:58 PM EST
    ... third-rate bungled attempt to wiretap the offices of then-DNC Chair Lawrence O'Brien and the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel and Office Complex. Rather, the name "Watergate" stands as metaphor for a whole host of crimes committed by the Nixon White House and its attendant campaign.

    Personally, regarding Nixon's apparent sabotage of the 1968 Paris peace talks, I stand by my earlier comments from a few months back, when that story was being discussed at NPR and elsewhere. Basically, LBJ could've saved our country a whole lot of grief by arresting and prosecuting that effin SOB for violation of the Logan Act, and not thinking twice about it as he did.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    All previous scandals (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 05:23:27 PM EST
    happened BSM. Before Social Media.

    So I don't think anyone really knows what is going to be different this time around.

    Parent

    All previous scandals.. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 06:47:56 PM EST
    Care to make a prediction?

    Will the Unholy-demonic alliance between the liberal media and Big Government once more see fit to shield us all from the aweful truth?

    Parent

    You Acxtual Scadals Like... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:29:08 AM EST
    ...the President sanctioning burglaries and Ronnie selling Arms to Iran to help fight a war Congress expressly outlawed, not made up ones revolving around BJ's & emails.

    Good point.

    Parent

    et al (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:49:59 PM EST
    jondee - I don't think anyone has the vaguest of what will happen.

    Scott, Nixon became involved after the fact. As with Hillary it is always the cover up that gets'em.

    Parent

    Oh, I have a pretty good idea.. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:45:29 PM EST
    but keep hoping and praying and wishing and farting into the teeth of a stiff wind. Keep praying to Allah that he'll make that social liberal Ben Carson President while you're at it..

    And Nixon telling his attack dogs to sic 'em without knowing all the gory details, doesn't make him strictly involved "after the fact".

    Parent

    No jondee (1.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    there is no proof that Nixon told them to do what they did.

    But he did say, "If you like your doctor you can keep you doctor."

    No... wait that lie was by Obama.

    Parent

    Jeb! says no more Mr nice guy (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    From now on he's going to say what he thinks. What the heck was he saying before :)?

    This should be fun... (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:46:58 PM EST
    I like mimes.  Does the GOP base like mimes?

    Parent
    Oh, man (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:24:55 PM EST
    that ought to be some good comedy. Though he's been unintentionally quite funny up until this point.

    Parent
    So Jeb Thinks His Problem... (none / 0) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 10:12:20 AM EST
    ...is he is too nice, good lord, what did Barbara, George Sr & Jr tell him in Texas, be more like Trump ?

    Parent
    The lawyer was not at the gym today, (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by fishcamp on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 05:12:55 PM EST
    But the old Marine was.  He said those Benghazi congressmen were not smart enough to ask the right questions.  I agreed, and he said you could just see that Hillary was ready to lie.  I just said Semper Fi and walked away.

    And apparently, Sgt. Peckerwood ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 05:32:22 PM EST
    fishcamp: "He said those Benghazi congressmen were not smart enough to ask the right questions."

    ... isn't smart enough himself to stop voting for them.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 06:04:11 PM EST
    that's the new one. The idiots in the GOP just didn't ask the right questions. Baa waa waa. The only people that say that have to be people that didn't watch the hearings. The GOP all but pilfered through her underwear drawers.

    You should ask him what he thinks should be done about those idiots.

    Parent

    Did you have any gentlemen callers? (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 07:27:52 PM EST
    Roby was weird in asking a version of that question......

    Parent
    Not 'on' Twitter myself (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Nemi on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:05:00 AM EST
    (but constantly amazed at how so many people have so much time to spend on being social, at numerous platforms ... 'on screen'), I was sent this, heh:

    Clinton campaign now weighing the feasibility of having Benghazi Committee accompany her on all campaign stops going forward.


    Parent
    Ha! Yes, they should have asked (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 06:39:17 PM EST
    'When did you stop covering up Benghazi? Gotcha Madame Secretary!!' And Gowdy grinned maniacly....

    Parent
    The new book about Justice Ginsburg, (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 02:30:40 PM EST
    entitled Notorious RBG, is available starting today. Read all about it. And visit the Notorious RBG website. I think Ginsburg may well be the first Supreme Court justice with her own Tumblr page, certainly the first to achieve cultural cult heroine status.

    Also, coffee mugs and t-shirts are available for those special liberal lovers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on your holiday shopping list.

    The Hobby Lobby family (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    has been under federal investigation for the past four years for smuggling antiquities from Iraq into the US.

    The artifacts are for the Green Family's Bible Museum to be opened in DC in 2017.  The only way to get such items of cultural heritage into the country if they are not to leave the country of origin or do not have proper provenance, is to  lie.

    The tablets from Iraq were described to customs are "handcrafted clay tablets,"  (true), worth $300. (false).  Steve Green, CEO of Hobby Lobby, admitted it might have some illegally acquired antiquities.  But, it must just be bad paperwork--four years worth of investigation required to sort it out, apparently.

    Maybe, the Green's got the tablets from the same guy who took the vase from the unprotected Baghdad museum that Rummy said was the same guy filmed over and over.  Or, maybe, just loot sold by terrorists, such as ISIS, to finance their insurrection. Or, time-honored, war profiteering. Nah, just bad paper work. That is my firmly held belief.

    In honor of the Bay Area's Sharktoberfest, ... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 03:36:08 PM EST
    ... 20 great white sharks between 10-18 feet in length have gathered offshore this month at Pacifica while another made a surprise visit to Alcatraz for lunch, much to the delight of human visitors and the obvious consternation of the resident sea lion population.

    At last we know why Hillary did what she did (1.00 / 3) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    People will believe what suits them. But the more probable truth concerning Benghazi is that the early story was a deception with a purpose, which was to buy time until the administration and the CIA could figure out how to manage the crisis without exposing the intelligence agency's operation in the area.

    link

    She lied for her country.

    What better thing could she have done??

    Well, just saying, "We are still investigating and won't speculate," comes to mind.

    But then I'm not the world's smartest woman.

    Funny thing (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:30:46 PM EST
    ...if there were mistakes made in 24 hours of a fluid situation in Benghazi, the mistakes leading up to the invasion of Iraq are several orders of magnitude more serious.  And Bush&Co. spent TWO YEARS being wrong abut this, not exactly a fluid, changing situation.

    I knew, and said as loudly as I could, before the invasion, that the president was lying about WMD.  How could I know that?  After all, I don't have a security clearance.  But I can add 2+2, which was all that was necessary in 2003 to bust the president for lying.  The media are not good at math.

    Was I right?  There were no WMD, which was my claim.  Did these lies about Iraq cost us more than the events at Benghazi?

    Did you believe that there were WMD?  Why?  We both served in the military long enough ago to remember that the claims leading up to this invasion were Vietnam redux.

    Parent

    Oh, jeez...now you've done it... (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:55:51 PM EST
    we're going to be deluged with the "proof" that there were, in fact, WMD...you know it's coming.

    With respect to Benghazi, we know that this is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.  If the administration had waited to say anything at all until they had a good grasp on the information and facts, people like jim would be screaming that they waited in order to "get their stories straight."  Because they tried to be timely with what was clearly a fluid situation, they are being treated as liars because what they knew at the outset changed as they learned more.

    It's a complete waste of time to try to reason with the jims of the world - they believe what they want, and you can't tell them otherwise, and in all cases, they will not accept any explanation that does not incriminate anyone with a (D) after his or her name for anything and everything bad that happened.

    Which makes Jeb's insistence that his brother kept us safe even more pathetic and hilarious.

    It's a sickness, really, chronic but not terminal.  And there's apparently no cure.  

    Parent

    hrc's comments in error (none / 0) (#188)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 02:30:26 PM EST
    hrc's comments can't have been the result of mere confusion because she was simultaneously or contemporanesouly telling others that it was an al-qaeda affiliate that had done the attack.

    As Rep. Jim Jordan noted, on Sept. 11, 2012, the night of the Benghazi attacks, Clinton emailed her daughter that "two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al-Qaida-like group." That's also what she told the Libyan president that evening and the Egyptian president Sept. 12.

    Parent

    Yes, there were WMD's and (none / 0) (#204)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 04:07:04 PM EST
    Saddam had tried to purchase yellow cake as Ms Plame's husband confirmed.

    But the WMD's were mostly taken to Syria and the nuke program never got off the ground.

    All of which we now know but didn't then.

    But since you are trying to conflate the lies of Hillary, Obama and Rice with the belief by Bush that the evidence was strong enough to demand regime change then it's simple.

    As I said, Hillary should have said, "We're investigating."

    And Bush should have said, "We've got all this evidence but I'm willing to gamble...But Saddam doesn't want to cooperate.

    Now that we have change history I think I'll have a sweet ice tea and some cheery pie.

    Parent

    but you're smarter than the average bear.. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    exceptional bears and other quadrupeds, not so much..

    Maybe she made public statements based on the unfolding available information at the time of the attacks -- which included multiple factors that were still being sorted out by the investigators in a ongoing fluid investigation.

    No Jim, as much as you hope and pray and wish for it to be otherwise, she didn't "lie" the way your buddies Nixon, Reagan, Ollie North lied. And there won't be any ultimate far-right revenge or vindication ever coming out of any of this. Sorry.  

    Parent

    Please (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by FlJoe on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:42:08 PM EST
    point to her lie. At the very worst the SD was laying some smoke cover for the CIA agents who were still fighting for their lives on the ground.

    Parent
    re possible hrc lying (none / 0) (#193)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 02:48:56 PM EST
    But in a public statement on Sept. 11, she blamed a spontaneous protest of an anti-Islam video. She blamed the video again on Sept. 12 and Sept. 13. The father of one Benghazi victim relays how Clinton told him that the administration would arrest "the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son."

    the special defenders were out of the area about 12 hours after the attack began--surely you have heard of the book "13 hours"?

    Parent

    Nor are you not the world's smartest man. (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:44:37 PM EST
    So give it up, already. If you do so, I promise to not only think about sparing your life, but also that of your first born, when I'm named by Madame President for Life as chair of the national death panel after we've taken away your guns, imposed Sharia law, and relocated thousands upon thousands of undocumented Mexican immigrants to your hometown, so that we can ensure that they outnumber you even before they each vote twice in the next scheduled one-party election. And if you surrender to the inevitable now rather than later, I'll even reconsider selling off your women into white slavery, and instead only indenture them in perpetuity to married gay couples who want someone to cook and clean for them.

    Parent
    I am smart enough to know (none / 0) (#203)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    that in your heart that is exactly what you would like to do, as in this video.

    So no need to try and act like it is sarcasm.

    Parent

    it appears (none / 0) (#187)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 02:26:20 PM EST
    One possibility is that she lied to contribute to the Obama re-election campaign and one of the themes of that was that al-quaeda was on the run.  Al-quaeda doing an attack on 9/11 in a nation where we thought we had just won a victory.  

    Why do you believe that she lied and others lied for several weeks?  Protecting a handful of CIA mercenaries or operatives or whatever they were was certainly not a reason for Obama's people lying over a period of weeks.

    Parent

    a conservative court or ??? (none / 0) (#3)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 08:22:07 PM EST
    I prefer a somewhat conservative or libertarian court . . .  

    Hilary v Trump does not look especially favorable to me to retain a conservative court; I assume that Trump would lose badly . . .

    I'd hope for at least a Rep chance with Rubio . . .

    By the way, do most of those who post here believe that dc v heller on the 2nd am was badly decided?  It seems to me fairly straightfowardly that it was properly decided, except in the sense of at the beginning when the courts ruled that 5 of the 6 plaintiffs lacked standing . . . though I don't have the reasoning for that in front of me . . .

    Considering the damage (none / 0) (#18)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:39:55 AM EST
    ...done to the Republic by the conservative court (Bush v. Gore, Hobby Lobby, Citizens United), why on earth would anyone volunteer for further whipping?

    I look forward to Scalia dying in a prostitutes...uh, arms, and being replaced by the newly retired Barack Obama.

    Parent

    why (none / 0) (#32)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 11:40:13 AM EST
    why would Scalia die in the arms of a prostitute?

    It would seem rather unlikely . . .

    the court created problems with bush v gore, yes . . .  but Hobby Lobby and citizens united seem reasonable.  

    You wish the gov to have the power to force corporations and other persons to do things beyond keeping air and water clean and beyond having a reasonably safe workplace for employees?

    The gov does not expect those with religious objections to fight and kill in wars.  You wish to draft a bunch of them or all of them to insure that they provide certain kinds of contraception?

    Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. _ (2014), is a landmark decision[1][2] by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest. It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[3] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a] The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

    For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees, by a 5-4 vote.[4] The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control.[5]

    The ruling could have widespread impact, allowing corporations to claim religious exemptions from federal laws.[6][7]

    Lower court history[edit]
    In September 2012, Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against enforcement of the contraception rule based on the RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The district court denied Hobby Lobby's request for a preliminary injunction. In March 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted a hearing of the case. In June, the appeals court ruled that Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a person who has religious freedom.[6] The court ordered the government to stop enforcement of the contraception rule on Hobby Lobby and sent the case back to the district court, which granted preliminary injunction in July. In September, the government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.[22]

    Two other federal appeals courts ruled against the contraception coverage rule, while another two upheld it.[12]

    The case was previously titled Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. Sylvia Burwell was automatically substituted as petitioner when she was approved by the United States Senate as the Secretary of Health and Human Services after being nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Kathleen Sebelius following Sibelius' resignation on April 10, 2014.

    Parent

    Hobby Lobby? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:01:31 PM EST
    It was a horrible case.  It said a for-profit corporation can in essence, have a religion.  It pierced the corporate veil, which is why not one Fortune 500 company filed an amicus in support of Hobby Lobby.

    They may have cut off their nose to spite their face.

    That separation is what legal and business scholars call the "corporate veil," and it's fundamental to the entire operation. Now, thanks to the Hobby Lobby case, it's in question. By letting Hobby Lobby's owners assert their personal religious rights over an entire corporation, the Supreme Court has poked a major hole in the veil. In other words, if a company is not truly separate from its owners, the owners could be made responsible for its debts and other burdens.

    "If religious shareholders can do it, why can't creditors and government regulators pierce the corporate veil in the other direction?" Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University, asked in an email.

    Link

    And OMG, Citizens United seems reasonable????

    Parent

    Was hoping no one would take (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    that bait, because that's all this guy is doing: baiting and trolling.

    Do not engage: chances are he's using the issue of birth control - and prostitutes! - to segue into one of his sick little scenarios for whatever little thrill he gets from doing that.

    Parent

    I believe that you just described ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:28:10 PM EST
    Anne: "[C]hances are he's using the issue of birth control - and prostitutes! - to segue into one of his sick little scenarios for whatever little thrill he gets from doing that."

    ... U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), who's run into some pretty gnarly headwinds on the road to the governor's mansion in Baton Rouge.

    ;-D

    Parent

    the choice (none / 0) (#206)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 04:24:46 PM EST
    the choice of the 3 cases was that of repack rider . . .
    the idea of Scalia dying in the arms of a prostitute, no matter how unlikely and doubtful was the choice of repack rider . . .

    I personally don't think that the court decision of bush v gore was properly decided and so I have no reason to object to repack rider's claim that it was bad and created a problem.  That leaves 2 court decisions to which rider objects, together with his supposition about the manner of Scalia's death.  You object to my responding both of two of repack's choices?

    Here we have the blog of an active practicing lawyer . . . which she in fact moderates at times . ..  I think she is licensed on both the federal and state levels, but I have not bothered to check and I have never checked such a thing . . .

    and on the blog of an active, practicing lawyer over which she has power and moderating control,
    a fellow poster suggests some innovative way, although nonviolent way, for a Supreme court justice to die  . . .

    You personally repeatedly find ways to insult me . . . and another poster here finds ways to insult Supreme Court Justices with whom he does not agree.  

    Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said on Monday that he has "never heard one member of our court say something insulting about another, not even as a joke."

    Breyer, appearing on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," explained that the Supreme Court's "discussion is professional, it is serious, and it is not personal, and we are good friends despite the fact that we agree some of the time and we disagree others of the time."

    You folks like Breyer or I suppose you do or you at least or some of you respect him . . .  does it occur to you folks to imitate him?

     though whether or not Breyer spoke the truth I do not know.  Justices disagree with each other violently at times--but I don't read enough dissents to know if they contain insults at other justices.

    Breyer: That's a good question. I don't know about leave the rest of the government out of it, but I will say when we're sitting around the table, the nine of us discussing, I have been there over 20 years, 21, I have never heard a voice raised in anger. I have never heard one member of our court say something insulting about another, not even as a joke. Of course, we disagree. We disagree about half the time. We're unanimous about half the time and we're 5-4, and not always the same four, maybe 20% or so, and we feel it possibly quite strongly, but the discussion is professional, it is serious, and it is not personal, and we are good friends despite the fact that we agree some of the time and we disagree others of the time.

    Colbert: You're yelling at me right now. You're yelling at me right now.

    oh, boy . . .


    Parent

    Why? (4.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:10:34 PM EST
    why would Scalia die in the arms of a prostitute?

    It would seem rather unlikely . . .

    I agree that it is unlikely, but somewhere in a desperate corner of the Third World there must be a starving, disease ridden prostitute who would take Scalia's money.

    Parent

    Who knew (none / 0) (#80)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:39:14 PM EST
    ...that Scalia had a fan on this blog?

    Parent
    Decency and fair comment, including (none / 0) (#96)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 07:28:10 PM EST
    strong opinions if they have any sort of factual basis, have a fan here. Baseless, vile personal attacks that lack even a satirical reference point do not, at least not in me. Whom you are attacking in that kind of way is irrelevant to my strong disapproval, which I am willing to express. What would that have to do with being a "fan" of Scalia's jurisprudence, his political or moral stance, or his public persona, as you wrongly infer? (Scalia, however, along with Justice Brennan and the entire rest of the Supreme Court, would agree with me that comments very much like yours are protected by the First Amendment.

    Parent
    For Me, It Was a Really Funny... (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    ...and obvious joke, which could have been applied to a lot of people and be just as funny.

    I do not read to most things zaitztheunconvicted writes, as theunconvicted refers to his bragging about not being arrest for exposing himself, I belief in a thong, to unsuspecting young women at Green Lake.

    His posts tend to gyrate around the sexual and I for one do not contribute.  

    Parent

    If Scalia (none / 0) (#148)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 10:44:23 AM EST
    ...has a redeeming quality, please identify it for me.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by FlJoe on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 10:56:50 AM EST
    he's not Dick Cheney.

    Parent
    While unlikely, it would certainly be funny. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 05:06:35 PM EST
    It would be reminiscent of former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller's sudden death from a heart attack at age 70 at his midtown Manhattan townhouse, while apparently in the intimate company of his comely 26-year-old female executive assistant. In that case, the punchlines quickly wrote themselves.

    Parent
    on the 2nd am . . . (none / 0) (#110)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 06:47:43 AM EST
    It seems as you are forgetting that 4 liberal justices in the Heller decision would have joined with others to deny individuals the right to bear arms.  You think that is a good idea?

    Parent
    diff topic . . . (none / 0) (#4)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Oct 25, 2015 at 08:26:20 PM EST
    Well, now that there is seemingly little to add to the ongoing saga of the email server of HRC . . .

    does anyone here listen to popular music . . . and if so, in the Becky G song Break a Sweat, at 1:20 to 1:22 it sounds to me like she is using some unusual language I will not post her to keep Jeralyn happier . . .

    Supposedly the actual lyric is
    "You been talking all damn night," but on the radio or on the computer I hear, "You been . . . all damn night."  Does anyone wish to help me know if I have a badly overactive imagination  or if I am hearing correctly what she was singing?

    Thanks . . . though of course, I don't know if this question is of high priority to most of us . . .  Probably not . . . but various football scores are not of high priority either . . .

    Okay look - you already tried to get (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    this thing going a couple weeks ago, and no one took your troll bait.

    Not just because no one gives a rat's a$$ - although no one does - but because we've learned the hard way that you get a prurient little thrill from asking these "innocent" little questions.

    You're not fooling anyone.

    Here's a suggestion: Google the damn lyrics, and then you'll know what the words are.  

    Parent

    on insulting others (none / 0) (#102)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 09:12:40 PM EST
    There are lots of people with whom I do not agree . . . there are few or no people whom I spend time and energy writing insults or derogatory comments about.

    Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin . . .  they did not have advantages that I may have had . . . and I pray that God show them and any of their imitators the right way.

    Do you think it helps your case any me or anything I might say for you to write derogatory speculations about my motives?

    I drive at least a little most days a week and I listen to the radio . . .  Sometimes I listen to komonews, sometimes to 570 kvi, sometimes to radiodisney and sometimes to sirius xm hits #1.

    Most of the things I hear are really straightforward and there is not much mystery . . .

    "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead --his eyes are closed."--Einstein

    and now, after several weeks and some additional research, I have a suspicion as to some of the intent of Becky G or her songwriter . . .  Tis very funny given the distribution of the song.

    Parent

    RIP, Phillip 'Flip' Saunders (1955-2015). (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 03:16:36 AM EST
    The head coach and president of basketball operations for the NBA's Minnesota Timberwolves succumbed today to complications related to Hodgkin's lymphoma, only four months after having been initially diagnosed this past summer.

    While Hodgkin's has a much higher cure rate today than was the case 40 years ago, its mortality rate is still close to 15%. Saunders first announced his intention to continue coaching while undergoing chemotherapy, and his doctors expressed their confidence at the time that he had an excellent chance at full recovery.

    But that sunny prognosis became decidedly less optimistic in September, when Saunders was admitted to the hospital in Minneapolis and took an indefinite leave of absence from the team. Although the situation was never discussed publicly by family members and team executives, several of his players feared that their coach's health situation was perhaps much more dire than was first thought. Sadly, Saunders never returned to the job he loved, and his players' speculation proved to have been well-founded.

    Saunders first arrived in Minneapolis as an 18-year-old freshman from Ohio 42 years ago, under scholarship to play basketball for the University of Minnesota. He soon met his wife there, and fell in love with both her and her home state. He is the winningest coach in T-Wolves history and the only one to get them to the NBA playoffs, reaching the Western Conference finals in 2004. Prior to being hospitalized last month, he had noted his high hopes for his team this year, which opens the 2015-16 NBA season Wednesday night in Los Angeles.

    Aloha to a player's coach and all-around good guy, who will be missed.

    FYI... (none / 0) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 08:46:46 AM EST
    ...Nice place, super cool views, hope the smoke smell is behind you.

    The video is marked 'private'.

    Or not (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 09:39:45 AM EST

    Donald stopped being an obnoxious dbag? (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 23, 2015 at 09:34:27 AM EST
    I need to pay more attention.  I missed that.
    This is what I think. For the most part Trump is not and will not attack Carsonand vice versa.  Why?  Because they both want each other's voters, 1, and two, together they can shut out the establishment.  In most polls their combined support equals 50% or more.  There is nothing at this point to be gained.
    With Trump, it's always the same thing. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:29:45 AM EST
    His numbers are down in Iowa because (1) Bloomberg hates him and (3) The Des Moines Register is a 3rd rate newspaper.

    Honestly, I think both of them - Trump and Carson - are crazy as the day is long, but Carson may have the edge in the crazy department.  Although, the more we hear from Cruz, the nuttier he sounds.

    Parent

    Donald (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:11:59 AM EST
    knows what he is doing here. A lot of evangelicals consider Seventh Day Adventists a cult. As a matter of fact I think SDA is mentioned in the book Kingdom of the Cults.

    Parent
    In an effort to combat... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 11:02:13 AM EST
    the no energy/low key meme, Carson is running around telling the story of when he once tried to gut a teenage friend with a knife when he was 14 over a radio station dispute.

    I see a big jump in the polls for Benny "The Blade" Carson!  Call him drab again, I dare ya, I double dare ya!!!

    Parent

    Crack Would Be Just as Effective... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    ...and then 2020 he can brag about kicking crack.

    For the record, isn't the right trying to arm everyone because of fear from people like young Carson:

    The retired neurosurgeon went on to explain that "as a teenager, I would go after people with rocks, and bricks, and baseball bats, and hammers."

    This guy is the quick essential idiot doctor.  I always though rumors about doctors this dumb were just folklore.


    Parent

    Good surgeons (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    may also be fools.  It is not uncommon. Ben Carson, however, makes for fools libel.   Something is wrong with him; even Lindsey wonders about Carson and why he is losing to him. Of course, that is another story, but still.

    Carson is, well, ....different, and not in a good way.  But, of even greater concern is Iowa.  The supporters who find him electorally attractive: For example, from the Des Moines Register of likely Republican caucus goers, among attractive qualities is that Carson has no foreign policy experience (42%)--starting at zero is great (probably the same thinking when they may need brain surgery); The least of the attractive attributes (31%) was his conducting fetal tissue research, which could have led to who knows what--like a cure for disease. So, maybe,understandable; who wants that, no need when the end times are at hand.

      And, these caucus goers were wild about Carson saying that Adolph Hitler would not have been as successful  if the people had been armed (77%). Yes, a rush at Peenemunde so as to be  armed with V-2 rockets may have turned it around.  

    The country and media should not spend much time on Republican's in Iowa. Perhaps a line or two would to it, on page 52 in the comics section---after the caucus.

    Parent

    He told a differing story (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    Also. One of his friends was ridiculing him, and he just happened to be holding a hunting knife at school? The belt buckle was hidden under friends clothing, and it broke the blade?

    Then he locked himself in a bathroom and prayed. At  school? It's a little bizarre.

    I'm not a knife expert, but a hunting knife breaking when striking a belt buckle?

    Parent

    That is Because... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:39:20 PM EST
    ...a hunting knife is simply a knife you take hunting, could have any size blade.  But, your average hunting knife if meant to gut/field dress a deer, and also general utility, so not a knife you want breaking easily, most are fixed blade.  Think of smaller bowie knife.

    He is so full of it, you tell me, HERE is what comes up for hunting knives in google, think a belt buckle would break these, hell no, but who knows, there is literally no knife that cannot be called a hunting knife.

    Who the hell ever heard of someone breaking a knife, anyways.  I have used them to pry, to hammer, to throw, to do to a lot of things they aren't mean to do, all I ever did is chip a blade, never broke a knife, including pocket knives.

    Reminds me of the movies, when a medallion or book saves someone's life because it stopped a bullet.  We are too believe that Ben Carson would be in prison if it weren't for a belt buckle, fock.

    Parent

    I think he means for this story to be (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:50:31 PM EST
    A God thing, God saved him.

    When I was in grade school there wasn't a bathroom you could lock everyone out of either.

    Parent

    I'd like to thank god... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:59:07 PM EST
    that those conjoined twins weren't connected by one of them there indestructible super-natural belt buckles of his youth...Benny The Blade's scalpel would have been no match for it.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:53:05 PM EST
    sounds like his true story in that "Popeye Organization."

    Parent
    I still love best the story he told about being (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:12:36 PM EST
    in Pop-eyes and thwarting himself getting robbed by telling the robber he should rob the cashier instead.

    A real profile in courage!

    Maybe this knife story is to make us forget that one.

    Parent

    But, this was courgeous. (none / 0) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:19:44 PM EST
    The cashier was Adolph Hitler.

    Parent
    I don't know why no one likes that story (none / 0) (#101)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 08:56:31 PM EST
    (not you in particular, Ruffian.  A lot of people don't appreciate the story.)

    If it is a true recounting, it shows the man's ability to think on his feet.  (although he seems a bit slower now) The first rule of surviving having a gun pointed at you is to get the gun pointing somewhere else.

    I couldn't help thinking of Willy Loman when I heard this story.  Carson was merely pointing out that the cash register was where the money was.

    Parent

    I think you're referring... (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:15:41 AM EST
    to one of my heroes, the late great bank robber Willie Sutton.

    Parent
    I appreciate it on a lot of levels (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 11:17:31 AM EST
    He did do maybe what a lot of people would have done. But I think his telling of it was in the context of the conversation of preventing or dealing with gun violence. It was just funny that he pulled that out as how he deals with it - tells the perp to shoot someone else. Plus his inimitable delivery.  All in all, a great moment in campaign history.

    Parent
    Has anybody (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:40:47 AM EST
    heard about the family meeting Jeb had the other day? Is he going to drop out of the GOP race? I know a few days ago he said he wasn't.

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:53:24 AM EST
    Trump won't shut up about it! ;)

    Between running home to mommy and daddy for the comfort of Barbara's milk and cookies, and the "Trump is mean to me" whining, his campaign is long past toast and into crouton territory.

    Parent

    Not good for Jebbie (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    That crowd likes their men to have the appearance of being all macho.

    Just think how this will prevent Tweety from having that tingle up his leg. No Tweety tingle could be the downfall of Jebbie.

    Parent

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:13:59 PM EST
    the "lumberjack" vibe, but Mommy told him to dress warm.  

    Parent
    This is scary (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 06:01:52 PM EST
    Dubya may have been the smarter of the two.

    The only thing more pitiful than how Jebbie put the hoodie on was how he looked after he had it on.

    Only someone really stupid would have let that photo exist after viewing it.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 11:09:36 AM EST
    but I have been slam up with work and am getting all my news from TL :)

    Parent
    Did you know that The Donald (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 07:55:18 PM EST
    got started w/a small from his father--$1,000,000?

    Parent
    Slumlord Millionaires (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 08:47:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Did he actually (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 08:52:28 PM EST
    say that? You never know with him.

    Parent
    Yes. And he had to pay interest. (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:32:25 PM EST
    See RollingStone. .

    Parent
    They are trying to convince donors (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:49:25 AM EST
    that he is still the man to beat. He brought in his father and brother and mother to make the pitch.
    (It was yesterday and today)

    At the same time it's beginning to look like Ted Cruz is pulling in more money in Texas than Bush.

    Jeb¢ is getting slapped around in every state he goes.

    Parent

    He's so weak. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:59:13 AM EST
    Trump said something like, Jeb had to go see his "mommy and daddy" this weekend - he just loves to infantilize the other candidates (not realizing, I guess, that he may be the biggest baby of them all).

    And it's been effective, reducing Jeb to stomping his feet and pouting and telling people, "if that's what you want, vote for Trump."

    I'm embarrassed for my country.

    Parent

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 02:06:55 PM EST
    ...but I am giving Trump this one, and while it was childish and pathetic, so is Jeb, and it's about time that sh1tty family be on the wrong end of the doling out crapstick.

    It was most certainly true, and from what I can tell, George & Barbara told Jeb to stand up for himself and that is how we ended up with, "Fine, vote for him, if that is what you want."

    I wish more jack@sses would go after that family, especially George & Barbara as they enabled an idiot to be the most powerful man in the world for their precious glory/legacy.

    So as childish as it is, mocking the family that enabled GWB and is desperate to the same for the dumber version, well to that I say Trump gets a pass on this one.

    I'd rather be shameful of my country than have GWB II running it.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:16:33 PM EST
    Now that I am over the barrier of imagining anyone getting milk, cookies, or any other kind of comfort from Barbara Bush, I can focus on the larger picture.

    No amount of ridicule is enough for that family. Kind of wish Trump had run in 2004.

    Parent

    Wednesday night GOP debate on CNBC (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:59:10 AM EST
    Early stage at 6:00 has 4 candidates:
    Santorum - Jindal - Pataki - Graham

    The main stage at 8:00 has ten. From left to right should be:
    Kasich - Huckabee - Bush - Rubio - Trump - Carson - Fiorina - Cruz - Christie - Paul

    Jeb will be desperate to put on a show. Fiorina will likely get her traditional post debate bump again. Paul will probably withdraw within a week.

    The kiddie table... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    will draw higher ratings than the main table for thuis one...World Series Game 2 is on Wednesday Night.

    America's Pastime v. America's Waste o' time...no contest.

    Parent

    In case anyone misses the debate (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 11:38:28 AM EST
    I can preemptively provide a synopsis : taxation and government programs are bad; government regulation of any aspect of the private sector is bad; this country was founded on Christian principals and Ben Carson is a better Christian than any of the other candidates; all the candidates believe in the sanctity of life and that the right to bear arms is sacrosanct; Democrats don't know how to protect America; contrary to appearences, Carly Fiorina does know how to run a business..and Donald Trump is an offensively boorish adolescent with no experience in government. And Obamacare is bad.

    There. Now no one has to watch to watch the debate

    Parent

    And miss all that potential comedy gold? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:32:28 PM EST
    Shirley, you jest. :)

    Parent
    Or maybe (none / 0) (#126)
    by Nemi on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:51:35 AM EST
    a continuation of this? :)


    Parent
    Don't (none / 0) (#129)
    by FlJoe on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:56:49 AM EST
    forget, Hillary lied!

    Parent
    What will Ben Carson say next? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:43:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Birth control = slavery. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:48:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Given Carson's past use of Nazi analogies, ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:37:09 PM EST
    ... a statement comparing Hillary Clinton to Eva Braun ought to be forthcoming in the very near future.

    Parent
    Carson spilled some soup (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:57:44 PM EST
    on his neck tie today at lunch and it was the worst thing since the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster. It was a really good tie, although he knows that wearing a tie these days is politically incorrect.

    Parent
    David Plouffe endores HRC. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 12:25:40 PM EST


    Is Russia threatening to (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 01:54:58 PM EST
    Do damage to the Internet?

    A re-kindling (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 02:50:00 PM EST
    of the Cold War.  Cable tapping is more likely than cable cutting, unless a hot war, since cutting cables which carry global electronic commerce would adversely affect Russia as well. Of course, the cables are vulnerable what with cables following similar paths since the 1860s and new technologies enabling their destruction.

    NYT reports the federal (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 03:24:29 PM EST
    budget/debt limit dilemma is close to being solved, possibly w/the administration agreeing to Medicare and SS.disbility
    cuts.

    link

    Arghhhh!!! (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by desertswine on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:04:19 PM EST
    C'mon Obama, whuddaya doin. (Again).

    Parent
    Let's please not assume anything as of yet. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:56:16 PM EST
    Remember, this is the very same Beltway media corps which only last week was telling us that Joe Biden's entry into the presidential race was imminent.

    Parent
    While not voted on, an agreement has (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 06:27:03 AM EST
    been reached, and once again, who do they look to to pay for increases in defense spending?

    The deal would specifically extend the 2 percent payment cut to Medicare under the sequester and create a "flat benefit" for disability recipients, which would be tied to the federal poverty line rather than an individual's own savings. Budget experts at the Heritage Foundation have championed the flat benefit.

    "This would be the first significant reform to Social Security since 1983, and would result in $168 billion long-term savings," according to a source familiar with the talks.

    Several House Democrats, led by Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra (Calif.), have also said they would oppose any deal that decreased benefits.

    The Heritage Foundation?  Really?  That speaks for itself.

    Parent

    Say it ain't (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:06:09 PM EST
    so
    officials briefed on the negotiations said the emerging accord would call for cuts in spending on Medicare and Social Security disability benefits.
    Please say it ain't so.

    Parent
    See, he knows how to make (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:27:49 PM EST
    compromises (well, at least he didn't give in re Planned Parenthood-yet).

    Parent
    CNN (none / 0) (#77)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:34:38 PM EST
    just broke the news but said nothing about SS or Medicare.

    Raise "some" spending, put on some "budget caps" and kick the Debt limit can until March 2017, hello Hillary.

    Parent

    The cuts look like they come (none / 0) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:37:49 PM EST
    from having two doctors agree that someone is disabled instead of one, and maintaining the 2% decrease in fees to doctors that was established sometime ago that is about to expire.

    That would have the cuts come by eliminating fraud and maintaining the status quo on payments.

    There is a also a 50/50 increase in spending for domestic and defense which they expect a large portion of the GOP House to reject.

    Parent

    Social Security Disability cuts (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 10:14:45 PM EST
    will be approx. $168 billion to offset the small spending increases. That sounds like more changes than requiring two doctors to agree that someone is disabled.

    I would link but I have not figured out how to link from the iPad.

    Parent

    Some details (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:44:23 AM EST
    The deal is the most significant fiscal agreement in Congress in two years and would fulfill Boehner's desire to "clean the barn up" for his successor. Meeting demands from Obama and congressional Republicans, spending would increase by an equal amount for defense and domestic programs, relaxing the caps under "sequestration" enacted in 2011. But the deal also pushes harder decisions down the road, since it extends spending limits by another two years until 2025. The spending increases would also be offset by changes to the crop insurance program and by allowing the government to make automated calls to cell phones to collect debts. And it would raise money through the sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The bill cancels $1.5 billion from the Justice Department's crime victims fund and nearly $750 million from the assets forfeiture fund.

    Democrats won changes to Medicare that would protect millions of seniors from premium increases, while Republicans secured changes to the Social Security Disability Insurance program that they say would save $168 billion over 10 years while preventing immediate benefit cuts. That provision is likely to cause concern among liberals who oppose any alteration to Social Security that does not expand benefits for recipients. Seeking to head off those worries, Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, quickly praised the agreement and said it "represents real progress for hard-working families." The changes to Social Security, she said, would "extend the solvency" of the insurance fund. Republicans also secured the repeal of another provision in Obamacare that requires large businesses to automatically re-enroll employees in a healthcare plan.

    Link

    Parent

    There are no cuts (none / 0) (#136)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:36:37 AM EST
    to entitlement benefits.

    Nancy Altman, the president of Social Security Works, a group that strenuously opposes benefits cuts and argues for their expansion..."{it} doesn't actually cut benefits or really hurt beneficiaries who aren't gaming the system."

    Parent

    Here's a pretty good summary/explanation (none / 0) (#155)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 11:53:49 AM EST
    of the agreement that has been reached in principle:

       What Democrats got:

        -- $40 billion in additional non-defense spending, over and above the caps imposed by the sequester, over two years

        -- a debt limit hike through March of 2017, meaning no more conservative-manufactured debt limit extortion through that date

        -- an end to conservative-manufactured government shutdown drama through the election and beyond

        -- a solution to a glitch in cost-of-living calculations that threatened to hike premiums for millions on Medicare Part B

        -- a reallocation of Social Security funds that Dems had sought to keep disability insurance solvent

        What Republicans got:

        -- $40 billion in additional defense spending, over and above the caps imposed by the sequester, over two years, plus an additional chunk of defense spending in a side contingency fund. That is to say, an increase in defense spending overall that is higher than the increase in non-defense spending

        -- Medicare cuts, but (according to reports and experts) only on the provider side

        -- A tightening of eligibility requirements to the Social Security Disability Insurance program that experts say does not equal a benefits cut

        -- a debt limit hike through March of 2017, meaning no more conservative-manufactured debt limit extortion through that date

        -- an end to conservative-manufactured government shutdown drama through the election and beyond

        -- a solution to a glitch in cost-of-living calculations that threatened to hike premiums for millions on Medicare Part B

    He goes on to explain why both parties got some of the same things.

    Parent

    They Basically Took Away... (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    ...republicans ability to shoot themselves in the foot before a lot of elections and certainly gave Ryan a reprieve, if he is the Speaker.

    What is this infatuation with giving the military more money, I am sick of it, more money means more meddling IMO.  We already spend more than all other countries combined.

    Beats cutting SS benefits, but it's nothing to celebrate.

    Parent

    Time to pop this trial balloon. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 04:20:38 PM EST
    Start the emails and calls.....

    Parent
    Watching Hannity (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 26, 2015 at 09:15:39 PM EST
    He sounds depressed.  The conservatives are starting to realize the fix they are in.

    Hannity and Mark Steyn just bash Bush as whiny and entitled and said that Trump may not be stoppable.

    Steyn pointed out that when the Republicans in Iowa looked at someone other than Trump, they did not go to Bush, Rubio, etc--but to Carson who he said has no chance.

    No talk about Hillary.  That shows the extent to which she waxed the GOP at the Benghazi hearing.

    Well (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 06:34:16 AM EST
    I'm glad you could stomach Hannity because even a depressed Hannity would make my stomach churn.

    Parent
    any wise words (none / 0) (#111)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 07:08:06 AM EST
    any wise words on the officer use of force on the kid in Spring Valley SC.  To me, it looks bad on his part.

    OH MY GOD (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 07:40:34 AM EST
    CARSON AHEAD NATIONALLY

    this is definitely "it" for Donald

    /s

    Let the sh!tshow begin, eh? (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:00:30 AM EST
    It was one thing when it was just Iowa - Trump could put that off to Bloomberg hating him and the Des Moines Register being a "3rd rate newspaper," - but can he expand that and make those excuses work for a national poll?

    The Donald is going to lose his mind, and it's going to make him even crazier as Carson just keeps maintaining that low-energy persona...he's going to look like a raving lunatic.  Sadly, Carson's quiet demeanor disguises his own lunacy, which may be worse.

    Heading into another debate, I think we may have to make a run for more popcorn...that event should be quite something.

    At some point, I think these two end up canceling each other out, setting up for someone like Rubio to fill the vacuum.  Rubio, the guy who's so bored with and frustrated by being a Senator, that he can't be bothered to show up to actually do the job the taxpayers are paying him to do - because, what - being the president is easier, less frustrating, more interesting?

    Jesus God, some days I can't believe this is what the American people have to choose from.

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:12:27 AM EST
    Rubio is going to cut it. From what MKS posted in another thread they have had the choice of Rubio, Jeb etc according to Hannity and when someone falls they never move to those candidates. The Trump people are moving to Carson not lifting any of those other candidates. IMO the likely beneficiary of Trump and Carson failing would be Ted Cruz who "stood up to the establishment". Rubio doesn't fit what they are looking for.

    Parent
    I think I just find Cruz to be so (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:27:41 AM EST
    inherently evil that I'm pretending he can't possibly end up the nominee.

    I can't decide if he's Elmer Gantry or Joe McCarthy - or a combination of both.

    Either way, there's something about him that just makes my blood run cold.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:34:30 AM EST
    And I don't think he will be.   I think he might hope, with the collapse of Jeb and Marco, to be the guy the establishment turns to to save them from Donald.

    And you know what, as much as they hate Ted, I can see the establishment doing that because they hate Donald way more.


    Parent

    I feel (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:12:46 AM EST
    the same way however I'm not part of the GOP base.

    Parent
    More or less (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:16:29 AM EST
    I do agree Cruz deserves more attention.   He is circling like a great white and has LOTS of money.  And organization in Iowa.  I think he might be waiting for Carson to get the hard question and fall so he can rise in Iowa and suddenly be a player.

    Watch Cruz.

    Parent

    Also If, as most suspect, Carson wins Iowa (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:31:10 AM EST
    The question becomes who is second and third.  Cruz supposedly has more organization in Iowa that anyone.   It's a caucus.   That could matter.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:13:18 AM EST
    "Front runner" status brings closer scrutiny.  Carson will not do well with closer scrutiny.   And I suspect he won't do well with follow up questions.  

    My comment was really snark.  I don't at all think this is the end for Donald.   I have no opinion about what happens with Carsons support because I totally don't get it except to say IMO he will not win the nomination.   I still think it could be Donald I have never thought and do not think it will be Carson.

    I disagree about Marco.   I just don't see it.  If there s an establishment war IMO Jeb will win it.  Marco is not up to this.   Just my opinion.  Plus he just wrote a killer ad for his next opponent for his Senate seat.

    I don't get the Marco chatter.  

    Parent

    Rubio doesn't have a next opponent (none / 0) (#122)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:38:08 AM EST
    in a Senate race. He's out (by choice) after this year.

    Parent
    After 2016 that is (none / 0) (#123)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:38:41 AM EST


    Parent
    I forgot about that (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:41:43 AM EST
    Makes the other comment about his job in the senate more understandable.

    Parent
    Tomorrows debate might be interesting (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 07:49:46 AM EST
    Jebs going after Marco and Donald is going after Dr Carson who now gets "front runner" questions.


    Parent
    Another national poll today (none / 0) (#141)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 10:08:18 AM EST
    Gravis, which I really dislike...

    Trump 34.7
    Carson 17.2
    Rubio 10.8
    Fiorina 8.8
    Cruz 7.3

    Which of today's two polls is the outlier? Or are both of them?

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#143)
    by FlJoe on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 10:18:40 AM EST
    have personally peeked at some raw numbers which show Carson surging.

    Parent
    Decide for yourself (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 10:26:17 AM EST
    More polls

    Parent
    Holy good god almighty (none / 0) (#146)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 10:32:41 AM EST
    That new post Benghazi Iowa Dem poll is shocking.

    As for the rest, anything prior to today is old news other than for averaging. We are talking about the 2 completely different GOP National polls that came out today.


    Parent

    Carson picked Trump's (none / 0) (#167)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:49:02 PM EST
    lock ingeniously. He took a leave from his campaign.  Maybe he should extend his book tour for a year or so--for him less is more.

    Parent
    Ha! Carson up! (none / 0) (#113)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 07:43:52 AM EST
    cnn says that Carson is on top in a national poll!

    Ha!  the rep nominee might not be the clown in chief known for insulting women!

    "Carson is lower energy than Bush!  I don't get it!"

    z

    Amazing (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:54:27 AM EST
    Not the onion


    ATKINSON, NH - Businessman Donald Trump told a packed room the United States should not challenge countries that require women to wear burkas as he unleashed a full-throttle criticism of America's current foreign policy.

    "Why are we fighting that?" the presidential candidate asked to cheers in the crowd, and added the United States should "let them" wear what they want.

    Trump, waving a hand across his face, also said women might prefer wearing burkas because it obviates the need for make-up.
    Really, why should we care? (none / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 03:52:35 PM EST
    I mean if we won't intercede to stop the killing of Christians, gays and others why should we get excited about someone's fashion statement??

    Parent
    Just another day (none / 0) (#128)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 08:54:29 AM EST
    In Ukraine

    Ever See Olya Povlatsky Skit... (none / 0) (#197)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 03:45:37 PM EST
    ...on the SNL News, she is always talking about how great the Ukraine is.

    LINK  

    Parent

    re bivens and torture outside the USA (none / 0) (#135)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:34:54 AM EST
    So, can US agents and others capture and torture others and/or US citizens, while doing so outside the USA, and not be subject to criminal or civil liabilities?

    Supposedly some court has ruled that some people can't be sued for their tortious conduct outside of USA borders, especially if we are at war at the time, though I don't recall the declaration of war . . .

    Had Meshal suffered these injuries in the United States, there is no dispute that he could have sought redress under Bivens. If Meshal's tormentors had been foreign officials, he could have sought a remedy under the Torture Victim Protection Act. Yet the majority holds that because of unspecified national security and foreign policy concerns, a United States citizen who was arbitrarily detained, tortured, and threatened with disappearance by United States law enforcement agents in Africa must be denied any remedy whatsoever.--Pillard

    "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

    Oh, well, US torturers immunity . . . immunity for torturers who act outside us soil . . . Oh, boy.

    Judicial scrutiny becomes particularly important when executive officials assert that individual rights must yield to national security and foreign policy imperatives. Presented with cases involving assertions of paramount national interests in apparent tension with individual liberty, the federal courts have proved competent to adjudicate [though they often abdicate their duties]. Removing all consequence for violation of the Constitution treats it as a merely precatory document. . . . We should not do so without more justification than was presented here.

    my next questions 4 the candidates and debates . (none / 0) (#137)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:38:15 AM EST
    What do you folks think of the Meshal court decisions?

    Hey Trump, Rubio, Carson, hrc and Sanders, what about Meshal?

    Hey guys and gals, what about the girl in SC thrown by the police?

    Strike Two... (none / 0) (#138)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:43:43 AM EST
    against the Hillary Clinton campaign...first they red bait Bernie, now they sexist bait Bernie.  

    C'mon Clinton Corp...you're better than this.

    You may wanna talk (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 11:14:36 AM EST
    To Jake Tapper, who framed the question to Sanders.  Her campaign. Nor surrogates, did not.

    Was it a partial response to Sanders in the debate?  Sure, some, but it spoke to much broader problem of how women are perceived (see:  Benghazi hearing, what does it matter, Hillary "loses her cool").  Her line, was, by the way,  fantastic. Brava, Madame Secretary.

    If Bernie's supporters can't handle Jake Tapper daring to question their favored candidate about his own words, then they might need to stop reading or watching TV right now. Sanders handled it just fine,

    And BTW, Bernie's closest Senate ally, Sherrod Brown, just endorsed Hillary.

    Parent

    Tapper? Say no more. He lives to bait. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 11:23:25 AM EST
    He'll do the same to Hillary regarding Sanders at the first opportunity.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    Even Salon, which has never liked Hillary, thinks it's a bunch of nothing.

    Parent
    Not surprising, given that Jake Tapper has ... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 03:47:27 PM EST
    ... earned a bachelor's degree in High Broderism from the Tim Russert School of Gotcha Journalism at Central Beltway State University, where he also minored in false equivalence and manufactured controversy.

    Parent
    I took no issue... (none / 0) (#157)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:02:20 PM EST
    with the framing of the debate question, only on Clinton's interpretation of the context of Bernie's answer, and the subsequent not so subtle digs in her recent comments.  I think Bernie's context was clear, and was referring to the "shouting" that is our never-ending debate on gun policy.

    It's not like she needs to muck it up in the mud and blow sexism dog whistles to get ahead, she's way ahead in all the polls and the 99.9% lock to win the nomination.  And it's twice now she did Bernie dirty like that, while Bernie still refuses to wallow in the muck.

    Though to be fair, it's possible I have misinterpreted her recent remarks as a dig at Bernie, she could have been speaking generally.  A comment from Clinton Corp to clarify can clear it right up.  

    Parent

    Since Bernie is the one always shouting (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:15:50 PM EST
    His original debate comment was, well, silly.

    From my link:

    Okay, so Sanders doesn't have a sexist double standard, just a Bernie-specific double standard, where he gets to shout but the rest of you should lower your damn voices.

    Still, I would ask the people who are getting all bent out of shape over this to put yourself in the shoes of the many women who found the exchange between Sanders and Clinton to be annoying. When a man is condescending to you, it's often hard to tell if that's just how he is to everyone or if it's just women he talks down to. It gets even more complicated when you realize that a lot of men who are condescending to everyone still turn the volume up even more when they're talking to women.

    And that is exactly how the "shouting" exchange felt during the debate. Yes, Sanders used the same general talking point in response to both Clinton and O'Malley. But he was more aggressive about it with Clinton, saying, "All the shouting in the world is not going to do what I would hope all of us want," whereas he merely told O'Malley, "Here is the point, governor. We can raise our voices." His tone and the amount of force he put behind this openly condescending talking point was very different. Telling women they're just imagining things reads, in and of itself, like it's sexist condescension.

    SNIP

    Unfortunately, the Sanders campaign has decided to do the worst possible thing, which is to try crush a cheeky joke by arguing it to death. Tad Devine, the chief strategist for the Sanders campaign, gave an interview to Politico where he accused Clinton of playing dirty. "It's been decided that we're going to talk about differences between the candidates," he said. "But [Clinton] did so aggressively on the gun issue and by implying that somehow Bernie is engaging in implicit sexism."

    Not helping, dude. Your candidate's schtick is aggression and hollering is his natural state. Turning around and accusing Clinton of being too aggressive sounds, well, sexist. Clinton handed the Sanders campaign a shovel and they keep digging. If the Sanders campaign becomes this unnerved because Clinton tweaked his nose a little bit, how on earth will they be able to handle the attacks that a Republican candidate is going to dish out?



    Parent
    I love you, kdog, and I (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    know you are a good guy, but, yeah there's a but here, you sometimes have a blindspot to how the world works for women. Bernie's comment to Hillary about the shouting was condescending and, yes, sexist. He could have challenged her on guns in a respectful way, as he did with the male candidate, but he did not choose to do that.

    All Clinton did was point out the reality that women deal with every single day. And that, IMO, is a valid criticism of Sanders. If he wants to lay claim to being the great liberal hope then he needs to walk it, not just talk it.

    And, geez, Bernie and his staff need to develop some thicker skin.

    Parent

    Funny... (none / 0) (#180)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    I was gonna say the same about Clinton Corp! ;)

    If she was speaking generally, she certainly has a point about double standards.  If she was speaking of Sanders, I think she misinterpreted him.  Has she clarified since the media jumped on it?    

    Point taken on my blindspot, though I like to think I'm more aware than I used to be, though on my best day I still won't be confused with a politically correct person or a sensitivity expert:)  In this case though, I think Bernie was clearly misinterpreted...I think the contest is clear, he was talking about the state of the gun policy debate at large, not Hillary Clinton.  And he's right, and about more than just guns...we scream and shout and demonize and don't make an enough effort to try to find common ground and solve problems.  And it's not all the GOP's fault, we (or at least I) am guilty of it too.

    Parent

    That's exactly how I heard it (none / 0) (#194)
    by sj on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 03:16:16 PM EST
    I think the contest is clear, he was talking about the state of the gun policy debate at large, not Hillary Clinton.  
    He was a bit clumsy about it, for sure, but I took his ... sort of stuttering moment ... to mean he realized he might be offending a lot of people who are proud to be "shouters".

    Just my $.02.

    Parent

    Sorry, kdog, but your candidate Bernie ... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    ... led with his chin on both counts. To mix my sports metaphors, when you throw a fat, slow pitch over the middle of the plate like that, you can't fault the batter for ignoring the take sign and teeing off at the pitcher's expense.

    Parent
    On court decisions and candidates (none / 0) (#139)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:46:25 AM EST
    So, in these presidential debates, how come the question-askers almost never ask about bad or poor court decisions and how the various candidates would like to see them reversed?  Or, do they do so and I am not aware of it, cause I have only watched the 2nd Rep debate and not the first and not the Dem debate?

    It seems to me as if there is often a batch of 3 to a 12 badly decided court cases-- and it is reasonable to ask pres candidates their views on them and how to reverse a series of bad decisions . . .

    though I do realize that HRC is saying she wants citizens united reversed . . .

    On the right the concern is over roe or marriage equality and on the left the concern is over money in campaigns . . . why not be concerned with people who have been tortured by US operatives and sue and have their case dismissed foolishly?

    re cause of action & 5th Amendment (none / 0) (#140)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:48:46 AM EST
    So, supposedly in the meshal case, the court dismissed the case based on their not being a cause of action specified by Congress.

    Why would a court not simply state that the 5th Amendment to the Constitution creates a "cause of action" for Meshal?

    If the Iowa Dem poll today is accurate (none / 0) (#147)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 10:41:42 AM EST
    They can probably cancel the rest of the Dem debates.

    From the last pre-Benghazi poll to 1st post-Benghazi poll, Clinton pulled 19 points from Sanders putting Clinton at +41.

    There has been some info on a post-Benghazi North Carolina poll soon to be released that also has Clinton in the area of +40

    I clicked (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 11:30:59 AM EST
    from the link JB had above. You are not kidding. I still think Bernie will take NH though.

    Parent
    See Armando at (none / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:00:41 PM EST
    DK.

    Parent
    The only problem with that (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by sj on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:03:58 PM EST
    is I would have to go to DK.

    Parent
    Monmouth (none / 0) (#164)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:36:54 PM EST
    gets an A- from FiveThirtyEight's Pollster Ratings. Monmouth obviously didn't fudge their poll to play the averages. Always better to see 2 or 3 polls before declaring a trend but still I'll take Monmouth's poll over BTD's gut.

    Parent
    Do you bet on sports? (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:44:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Wait til BTD sees this (none / 0) (#176)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:30:32 PM EST
    Another Iowa poll today.

    Clinton +38

    And pre-retirement I was in the gambling industry but never a gambler. I like investments :)

    Parent

    Hot dogs (none / 0) (#163)
    by desertswine on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 12:30:53 PM EST
    are people. They're grosser than I thought.

    First checked piece of luggage - $25. (none / 0) (#171)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    Want that piece of luggage to arrive on the same plane as you? That'll be an additional $25.

    Okay, I made that last part up. But still, American Airlines is now officially making a play for worst. Airline. EVAH!

    What I sense, (none / 0) (#173)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:20:01 PM EST
    is that the media is moving to resurrect Jeb!'s campaign.

    They really want a Bush-Clinton show come November '16.

    Trump was useful for awhile, but they're not really comfortable with him, and so it is time to bring back a Bush.

    Carson is only a means of pushing Trump aside to grease the runway for the latest incarnation of that horrid family.

    Let's trot out old man son-of-nazi GHWB. What a sympathetic soul. And his wife Barbara - who charmed us all.

    It's doable.

    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 02:08:36 PM EST
    is Jeb is such a bad candidate. I frankly would rather have Hillary wipe out Trump, Carson or Cruz than Jeb because the tea partiers will continue to lie to themselves with Jeb and say he wasn't conservative enough to win.

    Parent
    Before the thread fills... (none / 0) (#174)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    we need a LETS GO METS!!!!

    Harvey gets the nod from Terry Collins, while Yost goes with Volquez in Game 1.  Bush league park so the DH is in play, Mets expected to use "Has Anybody Here Seen" Kelly Johnson as the DH with rookie Michael Conforto in Left. Yost will have to wait till Game 3 to see if he remembers how the big boys manage from his days as skipper of the Brewers. Juan Uribe is on the active roster for the first time in the postseason, ready to pinch hit in a big spot.  

    Certainly the toughest opponent of the postseason for the Metropolitans...contact hitters who feast on fastballs and the best bullpen in baseball.  If our starters keep doing their thing and we can get to their starters for some runs, I think we'll be in great shape.  Let's just hope the rain passes, 6 days waiting is long enough, I can't deal with no rain delays.

     

    GO, METS! (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    I wish it was my Cubbies, but the Mets are the NL team. So, win this, New York boys.

    Parent
    That's the plan... (none / 0) (#183)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 01:47:22 PM EST
    for New York, for the National League, for real baseball!!!

    Parent
    For you, kdog (none / 0) (#185)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 02:01:15 PM EST
    Behind "Let's Go, Mets!"

    Parent
    As Mex would say... (none / 0) (#190)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    "Good Lord"...29 years feels really long ago when you get a load of that totally 80's video.

    Parent
    For my pal Oculus... (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 02:42:01 PM EST
    Here's members of the Metropolitan Opera & Chorus performing "Meet The Mets", with special guest conductor Mr. Met.

    Parent
    E85 - 85% Ethanol Gas (none / 0) (#195)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 03:22:30 PM EST
    Anyone using this fuel, I noticed at a new gas station a couple months ago and didn't think much of it.  But now I am looking at a vehicle that can use it.  The price is right at $1.29/gal, but mileage is lower.

    News to me.  I ran across this, a gallon of fuel is around 7.5 pounds.

    How much carbon dioxide is produced by burning gasoline and diesel fuel?

    About 19.64 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced from burning a gallon of gasoline that does not contain ethanol. About 22.38 pounds of CO2 are produced by burning a gallon of diesel fuel.

    That doesn't even compute, more weight after it's burned, nearly triple.

    E85 is a little less, but big in that corn removes CO2 while growing, so the net is close to zero.

    I use it (none / 0) (#202)
    by sj on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 03:57:51 PM EST
    in my 2009 Nissan Altima. CarMax said it takes Regular octane, so Regular I give it.

    I get about 30 mpg with mixed highway and surface streets driving.

    Parent

    Scott, yes it does compute (none / 0) (#205)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 04:14:06 PM EST
    The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that is produced from burning a fuel weighs more than the amount of the fuel itself because during complete combustion each carbon atom in the fuel combines with two oxygen atoms in the air to make CO2. The addition of two oxygen atoms to each carbon atom forms CO2, which has an atomic weight of 44 -- roughly 3.6667 times the atomic weight of the carbon (12).

    Link

    Our Democratic Party in Action: (none / 0) (#207)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Oct 27, 2015 at 09:17:04 PM EST
    Controversial cybersecurity bill passed with resounding Senate support

    In spite of calls to amend certain portions of CISA, senators like co-[Fascista] Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the legislation is not a surveillance bill and does not unduly intrude on public privacy. Still, Feinstein urged constituents to vote against proposed amendments backed by Ron Wyden (D-OR), Al Franken (D-MN), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Dean Heller (R-NV) and Chris Coons (D-DE) addressing what those senators considered unreasonable invasions of privacy. Each proposals was struck down.

    Today's Guardian article.

    Thanks Jim... (none / 0) (#208)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 09:01:15 AM EST
    ...for stating the obvious, but I do love getting scientific explanations from the guy who is science impaired.  

    One day you are down with it, the next day not so much.  You understand that more CO2 is put into the air after combustion, but you just can't wrap your head around the science of CO2 being a greenhouse gas.

    Sunday Open Thread | 208 comments (208 topical)