home

March Madness Day 1 Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 11:08:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Brackets are fun. I have a couple. But here are provided my individual game picks ATS for today with outright winners of each game in BOLD:

Northeastern +13½ over Notre Dame; UAB +14 over Iowa State; Baylor -9 over Georgia State; Mississippi +2 over Xavier; Arizona -23 over Texas Southern; SMU -4 over UCLA; Texas -2 over Butler; Va Commonwealth +4 over Ohio State; Stephen Austin +7 over Utah;Villanova -22 over Lafayette; North Carolina -10 over Harvard; Cincinnati -1 over Purdue; Kentucky -34½ over Hampton; Arkansas -7 over Wofford; LSU +2 over North Carolina State; Eastern Washington +8 over Georgetown.

Enjoy your brackets!

< Wednesday Open Thread | $2 Million Bond Set for CO Woman in Womb Cutting Case >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    March Madness Day 1 Open Thread | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What's the over-under... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    on when the massive revenue generators get a real slice of all this action?  2020?

    Insult to injury, the NCAA orders a round of piss tests and St. John's shot-blocker extraordinaire Chris Obekpa gets suspended.  

    Insult to injury to irony...the press calls Obekpa "selfish".  Which may or may not be true...but even if true, he's got nuthin' on the NCAA in the selfish department!

    First Upset: UAB 60, Iowa State 59. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 03:13:38 PM EST
    Apparently, the Cyclones left it all on the floor in Kansas City last weekend. Five days after winning the Big 12 tourney the hard way, they had nothing in the tank to fend off a tough bunch of Blazers, who overcame an early 10-pt. deficit and a late 4-pt. hole to hustle ISU out the door.

    Given their effort today, I won't be surprised if UAB decides to stick around beyond the first weekend. Like Iowa State, the Blazers also got to the Big Dance the hard way. But unlike the Cyclones, they were a much lower seed in CUSA, having finished the regular season at 16-15. They came roaring in out of nowhere, winning the conference tournament and the automatic bid which comes with it. (Of course, it probably helped that the CUSA tourney just so happened to be played this year in Birmingham, AL.)

    UAB is your ideal mid-major bracket-buster, a veteran squad that's gotten hot at the optimum moment. They certainly aren't afraid to pound the boards, especially on the offensive glass. So, the winner of UCLA-SMU best beware.

    ;-D

    Upset No. 2: Georgia State 57, Baylor 56. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 03:32:15 PM EST
    Either The Fates have been very cruel to the Big Dance's No. 3 seeds this afternoon, or the Big 12 looks to have been a bit overrated this year by the NCAA selection committee.

    Or perhaps, a little of both. With 2:54 left in the game, the Bears held a 56-44 lead and never scored another point, as the Panthers forced three successive turnovers and R.J. Hunter scored 9 of his team's final 13 points -- including the game-winning trey with only 2.7 seconds to go.

    :-)

    Parent

    I've watched the Big 12 all year (none / 0) (#4)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 04:26:29 PM EST
      It was  overrated. The depth part is true as 8 of the 10 teams are decent or better, only TTUand TCU are below average power conference teams (but Texas seriously underachieved all season given its talent and probably didn't deserve a bid. I also thought OSU getting a 9 seed was a gift at 18-13 (8-10).

      I didn't think even Kansas was near elite level this year. I only had 1 team even making the Sweet 16 (ISU, so that's not going to happen).

       I think another thing that hurts the Big 12 is conference games are called very tight but in the tournament the refs let the teams play.

    Parent

    Final: Butler 56, Texas 48. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 05:22:28 PM EST
    The Big 12 is now 0-3, and it's not yet 6:00 p.m. on the east coast. And I agree, neither Texas nor Oklahoma State -- both of whom had losing conference records at 8-10 -- should've received tourney bids.

    Looking at their portion of the bracket, Kansas could be ripe for an early exit. If the Jayhawks get by a not-to-be-overlooked New Mexico State team tomorrow, that could set up an intriguing potential matchup with their instate alter egos, Wichita State, a mid-major power which KU has studiously avoided scheduling for years.

    I'd say that the Shockers would prove a very serious test for the Jayhawks, and a Wichita win -- with the accompanying bragging rights in a basketball-crazy state -- would be a landmark moment for that program and a boon to its recruiting. But if the Jayhawks make it past this weekend, watch out.

    MAC champion Buffalo -- who played No. 1 Kentucky very tough in Lexington on opening day of the season -- is the type of team that can give West Virginia fits and send them home. Oklahoma State will have its hands full with Oregon.

    The Big 12 conference got by on its pedigree this season, and it wouldn't be surprising to see all of its entries gone by Sunday.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Well put (none / 0) (#7)
    by Slado on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 12:34:36 AM EST
    Also thought PAC-12 and Big East were over seeded and they both win all of their games.  

    You just never know.
    Also a big gripe I have is with the late games coming on so late.   Take Kentucky.  Best team with the best following and their game doesn't  tip until after 10est.  How's a young fan supposed  to stay up and watch that on a school night?

    I guess it's all about not losing advertising dollars on the West Cost because 10est  is prime time but for me it just sucks for the UK fans.  Especially the little ones.   Living in Southern  IN let's me know they are the most rabid, loyal and insane fans in the country and I'm sure there were a lot of Mommy Daddy talks about how long little Johnny should stay up and watch the Cats.  Might as well take tomorrow off at school as a snow day.  

    Parent

    Move to Hawaii. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 03:45:48 AM EST
    Slado: "Also a big gripe I have is with the late games coming on so late. Take Kentucky. Best team with the best following and their game doesn't  tip until after 10est.  How's a young fan supposed  to stay up and watch that on a school night?"

    The games tip off over here at 7:30 a.m. HST, and conclude about dinnertime. It was a fun day, although I will take some issue with the late goaltending call on that apparent air ball, which ultimately cost SMU the game.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yes Hawaii is truly paradise (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 05:05:53 AM EST
    breakfast with Bball, games all day and then a buzzer beater for your early evening cocktail.  Very jealous.  

    One of those calls were a ref should be absolutely sure before calling it.  I've always preferred they swallow the whistle on those then decide they game.  

    "Experts" seemed spli on it.  I think he might have technically broken the rule but the ball was never going in.   No call.

    Parent

    I thought my brother would (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 07:28:40 PM EST
    be devastated. However, he opted for Spring Training game. Grapefruit league.

    Parent
    My favorite little school (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 07:37:22 AM EST
    the Wofford Terriers put a scare into Arkansas losing by 3 after missing three 3 pointers in the final minute. Would have loved to see the reaction had they pulled it off after 18 lead changes and ten ties during the game. They do like to beat the spread though and BTD loses that one.

    Hillary has to take a stand now (none / 0) (#11)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 09:18:44 AM EST
    link

    "Everyone is now going to have to pick a side," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, a liberal Jewish lobby that has supported Mr. Obama's positions on Israel and is hosting its annual conference this weekend. That included the woman at "the forefront" of the Democratic Party, he said, who would undergo "more and more pressure."

    Until this point, Mrs. Clinton has essentially shrugged off the anguish of liberal supporters of Israel who are appalled by Mr. Netanyahu's right-wing government, and ignored the emboldened fringe of progressive Jews who have advocated boycotting Israel to protest its settlement growth and wars in Gaza.

    Still, Jewish elected officials in the Democratic Party describe a nightmare scenario in which traditional supporters of Israel will receive primary challenges from candidates now openly critical of the Israeli government. Polls show that Israel is increasingly unpopular with African-American, Latino and young voters -- a key portion of the Democratic base."

    I really don't like the implication (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by CST on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 09:25:18 AM EST
    that being anti-Netanyahu is anti-Israel.  In fact, I'd say it's pro-Israel because one of the fears is that he is bad for Israel as well as everyone else.

    It's like saying being anti-Bush is anti-American.  Personally I felt very pro-American opposing Bush.

    Parent

    And Why Do I have to Be Either... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    ...Israel to me, is like any other country.  I am pro-America only, the rest ebb and flow with the political tide.

    Right now, Israel is not good for America in dealing with the middle East.  We are allies, which means if they are wronged we got their backs, it does not mean they can do whatever the frick they want and we will join them in the insanity, which seems to be the republican rational, currently.

    Parent

    true (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 10:52:27 AM EST
    although personally I like to think of myself as pro-humanity, regardless of nationality.

    Parent
    OK... (none / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 11:23:23 AM EST
    ...not sure what that has to do with Israel, but I concur.

    Parent
    I guess I just meant (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 01:16:40 PM EST
    that I would consider myself pro-Israel the way I'd consider myself pro-Iran or pro-Palestine or whatever - in that I'm pro-economic development, political freedom, and peace for people who live in those countries.

    I didn't mean to imply that you didn't feel that way too just that that's what I meant by being pro-Israel in the first place.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#13)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 10:12:39 AM EST
    We need a progressive Israel to sustain a progressive America and vice versa. Netanyahu is suffocating Israel in the same way that Bush-Cheney tried to suffocate America.

    Progressives in Israel need our support. Majority of Jewish-Americans are progressive, this is the reason that the majority have always supported the Democratic party since the time of FDR. However, some billionaires are driving the United States and Israel to the ground with their big money and cynical politics.

    The Democratic Party has to be on the tight side of history as we have always been since the time of FDR. If we lose some big donors, let it be.

    We also need to serve notice to Saudi Arabia and other regressive monarchies and dictatorships that we will not tolerate human rights abuses. They have to moderate their practices or they are on their own.

    In other words, we should really try to practice what we preach about democracy and human rights.

    Parent

    When do you anticipate (4.25 / 4) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 11:33:46 AM EST
    Obama, as the current Democratic president, will serve notice to Saudi Arabia and other regressive monarchies and dictators that the U.S. will tolerate human rights abuses and if they do not moderate their practices they are on their own?

    At this point in time, Obama is in the best position to start implementing the policies you prefer. Have you started a petition to him or written to him demanding he implement your policies?

    Parent

    Should read (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    the  U.S. will NOT tolerate human rights abuses.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#26)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 11:52:01 AM EST
    has moved moving US policy towards Saudi Arabia from being "all weather" support to  "transactional" support. The Saudis were vehemently against Obama (1) removing support from Mubarak in Egypt (2)not involving US military in the war in Syria and (3) negotiations with Iran.

    The President is trying to bring a sea change in policies in the ME. He is already implementing the policies I prefer. The Saudis think that the President is letting them twist in the wind and are trying to push back through the Republicans (hopefully not Hillary whose foreign policy is very similar to Republicans).

    Parent

    Business as usual (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    2010 - 2013

    WASHINGTON -- The Defense Department is expected to finalize a $10 billion arms deal with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates next week that will provide missiles, warplanes and troop transports to help them counter any future threat from Iran.

    A weeklong visit to the region by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will culminate a year of secret negotiations on a deal that Congressional officials said will be second only to the $29.5 billion sale of F-15 aircraft to Saudi Arabia announced in 2010. But the delicate balancing act that was necessary in weighing the differing interests of each nation made it among the most complex ever negotiated. Link

    2015

    The $20 billion dollar recapitalization of Saudi Arabia's eastern fleet is beginning to pick up steam again after several years of being a dormant U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, several U.S. shipbuilding industry officials have told USNI News.

    The FMS case for the replacement of the Royal Saudi Navy's Eastern Fleet of aging American warships - Saudi Naval Expansion Program II (SNEP II) - has been languishing for years as the Saudis and Americans negotiate the requirements for the ships.
    ...

    Potential movement on the FMS case follows a December contract award for Lockheed Martin MK-41 Vertical Launch Systems (VLS) that included a set-aside for Saudi Arabia in the amount of approximately $93.8 million. The launchers are used to fire missiles from U.S. guided missile cruisers and destroyers, the new Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense (BMD) installations and in U.S. allied navy ships.

    The Saudi's currently do not use the MK-41 systems in any of their ships.

    The U.S. Navy International Program Office (NIPO) did not provide details on the MK-41 sale to USNI News saying the office wouldn't comment on ongoing FMS cases.
    Link

    Doesn't seem that Obama is sending Saudo Arabia messages that they will be on their own. While Obama has taken a few steps contrary to the wishes of Saudi Arabia, he has continued military aid to that country and other countries who are known for human rights abuses.

    Parent

    That is unfortunate (none / 0) (#31)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 01:29:24 PM EST
    I get that. Judged from a view of decades old US policy and political opposition (not just total opposition from the GOP but among a lot of influential Democrats also) that exists currently to reverse long held US foreign policy, that is however not too surprising.

    Unfortunately, I cannot even expect HRC to continue the gains that have been made under BHO. Sadly, I expect her to reverse course from BHO's policies even where we have made some gains, if she becomes the President.

    If you are really interested in policy changes, you should not make it about HRC and BHO as you are doing. Many of BHO's supporters have pushed petitions about the Badawi case or arms sales to Saudi Arabia or Israel in the Orange site. I have however never seen you do anything like that when it comes to HRC. The present article was about HRC, however you seem to be hell bent on changing the subject by slyly picking up some lines that I wrote instead of addressing any issue that was raised in the original NY Times article.

    Parent

    BTW, you might want to (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 02:49:34 PM EST
    try and abide by Jeralyn's policies. She has stated on numerous occasions that troll ratings (1 ratings) are not to be given for differences on policy issues or differences in opinions.

    Parent
    Not a difference of opinion (none / 0) (#41)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 03:20:56 PM EST
    You have made false statements about what I have said. That calls for a troll rating.

    Parent
    No where have i made any false (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 03:49:12 PM EST
    statements. I have quoted you accurately in all of my comments. You, not I, engage in interjecting unfounded accusations and insults in your comments to me.

    I do understand why you have to resort to those tactics. It is impossible for you to present facts to support your unfounded speculations and crystal ball pronouncements.  

    Parent

    Oh ... my ... God (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 03:55:57 PM EST
    This:

    Judged from a view of decades old US policy and political opposition (not just total opposition from the GOP but among a lot of influential Democrats also) that exists currently to reverse long held US foreign policy, that is however not too surprising.

    Unfortunately, I cannot even expect HRC to continue the gains that have been made under BHO. Sadly, I expect her to reverse course from BHO's policies even where we have made some gains, if she becomes the President.

    Followed by THIS:

    If you are really interested in policy changes, you should not make it about HRC and BHO as you are doing
    .

    Wow ... you think MOBlue is the one doing that?    Heh, heh, heh ...the hypocrisy (on so many levels) hurts, huh?

    But the attempt to move the goalposts from policy positions of the leaders to polls on Kos was pretty funny.

    Parent

    Who can implement policy now? (4.00 / 4) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 02:33:57 PM EST
    Hillary is not president. Petitioning her about arms sales to Saudi Arabia or Israel now would be a complete waste of time since she has no control over those sales. Obama does have that control.  

    There is nothing sly about my comment. I replied to your comment #13 which was not linked to any article. The NYT article dealt solely with Israel. In your comment #13, you choose to veer away from the article and "interject the need to serve notice to Saudi Arabia and other regressive monarchies and dictatorships that we will not tolerate human rights abuses. They have to moderate their practices or they are on their own." into the discussion. I choose to address that aspect of your comment.

    If you wanted to talk only about the contents of the NYT article, you could have remained on that topic. You choose not to do so.

    I am not debating an issue with "Many of BHO's supporters...on the Orange site." I am debating an issue with you here on TL. So the question remains, since Obama, as president, continues to maintain control on the policy, have you personally started a petition to him or written to him demanding he "serve notice to Saudi Arabia and other regressive monarchies and dictatorships that we will not tolerate human rights abuses. They have to moderate their practices or they are on their own."

    You don't really have a crystal ball. You don't know if Hillary will ever become president let alone what her policies will be. If you want Saudi Arabia to be served notice to comply or they are on their own, your best bet would be to make your expectations known to a person who can do what you want, Obama.
     

    Parent

    President Obama on Saudia Arabia (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    The United States cares about human and civil rights issues in Saudi Arabia, President Obama said Tuesday, but U.S.-Saudi cooperation on security often takes precedence.

    "We have strategic interests in common with Saudi Arabia," Obama said in an interview with CNN. "And that even as we work on those common interests -- for example, countering terrorist organizations -- that we are also encouraging them to move in new directions, not just for our sake but more importantly for their sake."
    ...
    In his CNN interview, Obama said: "Sometimes we have to balance our need to speak to them about human rights issues with immediate concerns that we have in terms of countering terrorism or dealing with regional stability." Link

    Parent

    Link to above comment (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    Saudi Arabia and Israel (none / 0) (#33)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 01:42:11 PM EST
    Israel-We have a democracy in Israel where the opposition is more progressive than Netanyahu.

    Saudi Arabia-It is a monarchy where the people trying to overthrow the monarchy are even more conservative and crazy than the monarchy which carries out unbelievable human rights abuses.

    We have more choices in Israel than in Saudi Arabia. I am hundred percent certain that if there was an opposition in Saudi Arabia that was less conservative and crazy than the monarchy, the President would change his policies towards Saudi Arabia even more drastically than he has done so far.

    Parent

    Israel is a Democracy (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by CST on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 01:45:25 PM EST
    The way America was a democracy before women had the right to vote.

    Parent
    This (none / 0) (#36)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 02:31:34 PM EST
    makes it even more important for us and our leaders to stand up for civil rights in Israel and be on the correct side of history and prevent it from sliding towards apartheid era South Africa.

    Parent
    You set up qualifiers (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 02:44:35 PM EST
    to justify Obama's current policies. Qualifiers that you appear not to extend to Hillary.

    Are you 100% certain that there will be an opposition in Saudi Arabia that is less conservative and crazy than the monarchy in 2016 or are you just setting up impossible demands in your zeal to reduce Hillary's chances in 2016.

    Parent

    I have said many times (none / 0) (#40)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 03:14:25 PM EST
    that I will be OK if HRC just does not revert BHO's foreign policy. I have not set any high goals for her. You are intentionally making up strawman arguments to obfuscate issues, so that HRC does not have to take any stand. This is a very cynical ploy from someone who pretends to care about "issues". This is why I find your posts so deceitful and sly-it is a problem that I do not have with jondee or anne (and even given the fact that I have clashed with anne many times in the past).  

    At this time I am just concerned that the forces that are opposing BHO want to do an end run around the President thinking that he will not be in office after 2 years and HRC's views (if Republicans lose) about ME policy is more in line with their own.

    Parent

    Yes, you have said various things (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 03:42:47 PM EST
    in your ongoing posts like you "will be OK if HRC just does not revert BHO's foreign policy." You says these things after you have set up conditions that Hillary must meet on foreign policy that are not now or never have been Obama's positions. So in reality you are not wanting her to maintain BHO's foreign policy but meet demands that you have never made on Obama.

    I am talking issues. Issues like arm sales, complete with links that document what actions are currently being taken and what Obama has actually said on the subject, "cooperation on security often takes precedence" over human rights.

    You OTOH can only come back with various strawmen and personal insults. You have this ongoing tendency to project your actions onto others.

    Parent

    Many times, indeed (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 04:35:49 PM EST
    And it never ceases to be funny no matter how many times you repeat it.

    Parent
    That's the best thing ... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 04:38:29 PM EST
    ... about "faith" - the adherents are so certain of what would be true in an alternate reality, despite all evidence to the contrary.

    BTW - What are the impressive changes Obama has made so far?

    (crickets)

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 04:50:16 PM EST
    is a blank slate that people assign views to whether or not he actually holds those views.

    Parent
    Such silly, evidence-free claims (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 04:45:10 PM EST
    Amusing, but sooooo transparent.

    Parent
    Some of the words are nice, politalkix (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 04:40:26 PM EST
    But--unless & until there is a real and noticeable distinction between the President's positioning on recent issues with Israel and HRC, you might want to rein in your now very obvious ABC (aka anybody-but-Clinton) comments.  Your level of persuasiveness diminishes all the more as the pretense to unemotional evaluation diminishes.

    BTW, how we Democrats move through this newest "transition" that Netanyahu has set up is a challenging one ... because every word has more intense meaning to the tea leave readers now.  I like President Obama's initial inclination to be both supportive of the state of Israel, as we surely must be for historical and ethical reasons, without the rubber stamp for the individual's (Bibi's) unrelentingly strident approach ... as Obama has observed, additional coordination with the UN can/should occur ... I suspect Hillary Clinton will use a very similar approach.  

    After the initial period of Netanyahu's victory lap, he cannot avoid the pressing domestic concerns (read: the economy) that seemed to suggest his undoing before the final two days of the campaign.  For that reason, it would be wise, I would think, for all candidates to play their cards & their comments very cautiously in the most diplomatic-speak there is ... the media may think one thing right now, but the rifts occasioned by Netanyahu's 'burning bridges" among key segments of the Israeli populace and among some in the American-Jewish community are in flux.  

    Parent

    All I need to know are in these links (none / 0) (#88)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 08:08:47 PM EST
    But--unless & until there is a real and noticeable distinction between the President's positioning on recent issues with Israel and HRC, you might want to rein in your now very obvious ABC (aka anybody-but-Clinton) comments.

    Here are the links. All I need to know are in them...

    link

    link

    link

    and watch her deranged laughter after Jim Baker says "We ought to take them out" if we don't get the deal we want from Iran
    link

    Parent

    That is "deranged" (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 08:45:20 PM EST
    Not her response to Baker where she's laughing at his proposition that we "take them out", but your categorization of it.  She's taking the position you want - on behalf of the One you worship - but you call her response "deranged".

    It borders on a psychosis.  Actually, that's wrong ...

    It's way over the border.

    BTW - Your link about Haim Saban was particularly funny.  A major donor to Obama and big supporter of his - Obama even named his wife to be a US rep to the UN.  even did an op-ed letter to the LA Times endorsing him.  But suddenly you think it's a problem for HC.  Still have a bitter taste from 2008, huh?

    Oops.

    Your hypocrisy is showing, again ...

    Parent

    deranged laugh (none / 0) (#89)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 08:28:24 PM EST


    Parent
    In all honesty, I don't understand (none / 0) (#91)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 11:27:52 PM EST
    what is driving you, politalkix.  In matters these days involving HRC, your responses are veering over the cliff. It almost seems as if it is extremely personal...e.g., having been employed & fired by the person, having worked closely with the opposition earlier and not being able to let go, or having personalized it so much that each writing appears angrier and angrier.  

    I've known lots of campaigners at all kinds of levels.  IMHO, this move to an almost she-is-the-devil-incarnate, undergirded by increasing emotion without more, does not compute.  Nicely put, the sheer level of anger--at this stage--has an off-key flavor ... in this type of race, there are and should be genuine disagreements.  But, you seem to be off there as a kind of Cassandra by yourself ... as if you have suffered a unique personal offense.

    To each his/her own.

    Parent

    In all honesty, your post indicates (none / 0) (#92)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 07:45:07 AM EST
    everything wrong in our politics. It is likely that you do not understand it because everything in your life may revolve around "personal gains".
    Your comment appears almost soulless to me.

    In my personal life I do something only when I believe in something. The same is true in my politics.

    Our politics will improve only when people take "personal offence" to politicians making statements about obliterating or bombing countries for personal gains.  

    Parent

    This is delusional (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 10:56:32 AM EST
    Our politics will improve only when people take "personal offence" to politicians making statements about obliterating or bombing countries for personal gains.

    Completely and utterly specious and evidence-free as usual, but this takes the usual ranting deep into tin-foil territory.

    Parent

    No need to attack my belief system (none / 0) (#94)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 11:29:44 AM EST
    To begin: I understand a lot more than you claim. I have no need nor desire to be defensive.  Nor do I require puffed-up righteousness to assert my beliefs.

    Second: Your insult found in the first paragraph seeming to ascribe "personal gains" as the prime reason for my statement is nothing more than a petty find-any-word-or-phrase and sling it.  If one is to deliver an insult at least take the time to figure out how to deliver one, politalkix.

    The real problem for me in the latest interchanges with you on the subject of the 2016 election really doesn't have much to do with the fact that you are looking for someone other than Hillary.  Heck, I've been around long enough and seen enough politics up close that the reality that people who might otherwise be friends or friendly acquaintance can disagree is the norm ... and should be accepted and worked with in respect. The words "in respect" are important in this whole matter; and, imo, should not be easily cast aside ... because, when one gets lost in one's own anger and--without basis--even suggests that another is without soul not only does the possibility of respect get frayed on all sides, but nothing productive can come of it.

    Sometime back, I and others here, pushed back on some of your assertions about what HRC might or might not do in certain foreign policy situations. The response to your concern that HRC would be substantially more militaristic/hawk-ish than President Obama was legitimate in that you were asked, essentially, to provide some basis in fact for your surmise.  That is the present issue: We seem to be dealing in speculation ... a speculation based on the AUMF that was later employed to invade Iraq in 2003 ... a speculation that seems to admit of no other fact, that is frozen in time.  If that is the case, politalkix--i.e., that you cannot forgive nor trust HRC ever again because of that vote--it would be helpful simply to state that ...because, in areas of war & peace, it is not unusual for any of us to hold to a fact as the principal, governing fact.  I might question the wisdom of holding so tight, but I would not deny that is a legitimate approach.  

    I believe that people (including politicians) can evolve in their positions.  Over the years, some of our most able leaders (along with many Americans) have evolved in their beliefs & positions as to "social issues" (see the almost-settled matter of gay marriage, especially), immigration from our neighbor to the south, foreign policy intervention standards, working wage, etc.  To not evolve is to be dead or politically stuck, in many ways ... and, it could be said, that to close the door to the possibility of that maturation process for yourself or others is not only sadly unforgiving but also counterproductive.

    Again, facts to support conclusions about how & why two now very similar leaders--President Obama and former SOS Clinton--would or could differ would be helpful in pinpointing the nature of this debate.  I think my position is reasonable.

    Good luck to you, politalkix. Peace.

    Parent

    Then (none / 0) (#95)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 12:40:38 PM EST
    don't post condescending comments that my opinions are "veering over the cliff", "ungirded by emotion" while throwing the innuendo that I may be motivated by "personal" reasons.

    Parent
    The truth (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    It can hurt, huh?

    Parent
    No one ever said (none / 0) (#106)
    by sj on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 03:54:29 PM EST
    that "Teh Crazy" was the exclusive province of the RW. Just sayin'

    Parent
    Nothing (2.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 06:43:10 PM EST
    scalds skins of fake liberals and sycophants like a little Clinton criticism. They get boiled together because of the closeness of their hug.

    Parent
    Silly fantasies of a true sycophant (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 23, 2015 at 08:28:09 PM EST
    Was that even English?

    Parent
    And, the persistent ? about (none / 0) (#97)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    underlying supporting facts that would indicate present or future daylight between President Obama & former SOS Clinton? Are there present supporting facts?  

    Parent
    The burden (none / 0) (#98)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 05:31:55 PM EST
    is on HRC to prove that there will is no present or possible future daylight between a President Obama and a future President Clinton after her (1)terrible Iraq War vote (2) interview with J. Goldberg where she said she disagreed with the President's Syria policy and (more worryingly)expressed her dissatisfaction with the "don't do stupid stuff" doctrine and (3)very close association with a billionaire donor that has promised he would do anything to get HRC elected and also wants the US President to "bomb the daylight out of the sons of bi*ches" if Netanyahu is not satisfied with the P6 deal with Iram.

    The burden on me is to open up a vigorous and hostile line of questioning that can be used to scrutinize the candidate and see if she can be made to move to the left.

    Parent

    I find (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 05:37:05 PM EST
    it interesting that you still talk about that vote when anyone who has watched Obama over the last few years knows that he would have voted for either in the name of being "bipartisan" or because he's folded like a cheap lawn chair so many times. I believe Dick Durbin voted for it so I'm pretty sure Obama would have too.

    And obsession with that vote has gotten us inaction on the economy and a lot of other things. Obama wasted so much time it's really sad.

    Parent

    No burden at all - good riddens (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 06:03:47 PM EST
    It's not like she's going to get the vote of a few CDS Dead-enders who contort themselves trying to justify their irrational theories with these silly, hypocritical metrics, anyway.

    Don't let the door hit'cha ...!

    BTW - Wooried about that "billionaire donor"?  The same one who donated heavily to Obama and wrote an op-ed in the LA Times supporting him?

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    I am already outside the door (2.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 06:18:58 PM EST
    Can't stand the stench of people like you that are inside. Cantcha undertsnad?

    Talking about my burden as a citizen...

    Parent

    The only "stench" ... (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 07:17:08 PM EST
    ... is the smell of your hypocrisy.

    Overpowering, at this point.

    Parent

    Lather, rinse, repeat (2.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 07:31:12 PM EST
    CDS, Media conspiracy, But but but Obama....
    You will be very busy for the next 2 years and then you can go back to Kim Jong Un's public relations team. LOL.

    Parent
    You can't pass off ... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 07:47:03 PM EST
    ... specious, deranged rantings and blatant hypocrisy as humor by adding "LOL" at the end - particularly when you're caught red-handed.

    Just ask Jim.

    Parent

    You mischaracterize the burden (none / 0) (#105)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 22, 2015 at 09:25:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Ironies (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 11:03:50 AM EST
    of ironies you sound just like George W. Bush you're either with me or you're against me. Everything isn't black and white and sometimes you have to deal with people you don't like. You sound like the GOP who is screeching Obama is a communist because he's opened up some things with Cuba. How well do you think isolating Cuba has worked? I would say not too well in most cases.

    Parent
    FDR wasn't always on the right side of history (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 10:26:02 AM EST
    And the unfortunate reality is that we can't afford to isolate every country with human rights abuses.  Because that list includes China, and frankly, in some cases America.  

    I do agree that we need to put more pressure on Saudi Arabia and our allies across the world, but I think economic isolationism is extremely dangerous and should be a last resort.  Far better is to keep lines of cultural communication as open as possible.  Rub shoulders as much as possible, get to know each other.  Win on ideas.

    For all that Republicans want a war with Iran - I have no fear of Iran.  Why?  Because most Iranians like Americans.

    That being said - I do not think we should not be providing military aid to repressive regimes.  That is the muscle we should be flexing with Israel and our other allies.

    Parent

    oy (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 10:27:04 AM EST
    I do not think we should be providing military aid

    PROOF READ CST

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#16)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 10:47:41 AM EST
    I did not say that we are in a position to isolate every country with human rights abuses. However, we should always push them to do better. While pressuring a country about human rights abuses, a "one size fits all" (eg: economic sanctions)approach will never work.

    Too often we just turn a blind eye or in some cases even support such abuses for economic and geopolitical expediency. We have to coax, cajole, apply pressure through various means, keep lines of communcations open, win on ideas, talk directly to the people there, etc.

    Parent

    Another (none / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 10:56:45 AM EST
    implication I don't care for is that "Israel" and "Jews" are synonymous.

    At the bottom of it all, I think, is a question posed by Lenny Bruce: "What is a Jew?"

    His answer, the one he felt was a consensus expressed by most of the world, was, "The ones who killed The Lord".

    He went on to say that, "You would think that there would be a statute of limitations with that crime..." Apparently, there is not.

    Does being Jewish mean that one believes in a certain religious doctrine, or does it mean that one is a member of a race?

    To be sure, Jews have been persecuted as members of a race. Jews who are non-believers or who have converted to another religion are still considered to be Jews - and persecuted accordingly.

    The assumption being expressed at the moment, as in today's NYTimes, is that Jewish people, when push comes to shove, will be put off or offended by any criticism of Netanyahu.

    I do not believe that to be the case.

    What I do believe is that the NYTimes is out to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

    I also believe that they are out, ultimately, to support Netanyahu no matter what he says or does, and is shunting the rationale for doing so onto Jewish people.


    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    "What I do believe is that the NYTimes is out to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy."

    Are you saying that the NYTimes wants a Republican to win? Just a few days ago, there was a diatribe in this blog against NYTimes, Washington Post, Atlantic and many other publications in a way that one would imagine that these were just right wing rags. A quick examination of articles that they have published so far on candidates from both parties should quickly prove the allegations to be wrong.

    Parent

    Should it? (4.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 04:05:44 PM EST
    That wasn't what lentinel said, and your repeated attempts to move the goalposts are transparent.

    And yes, that is precisely what the NYT is doing.

    Parent

    Thanks for (none / 0) (#32)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    ignoring just about everything I wrote above...

    However, as to Hillary:

    All I am seeing is daily things on the front page of the Times about Hillary's email, that American Jews might turn against her if she were to be critical of Netanyahu-- and a front page portrait of Monica Lewinsky to remind us all of a "scandal" of which we do not need to be reminded.

    How do I know what they want?

    Parent

    If you care to look (none / 0) (#35)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    they are also writing about charter school scandals involving Jeb Bush and how lines are blurred for his super PACS at donor events, etc.

    Parent
    Not to mention a front page article re the (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 09:25:05 PM EST
    importance of Christianity, i.e., Catholicism, to Jeb Bush.

    Parent
    Pssst... (none / 0) (#77)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 05:11:20 AM EST
    Undermining Hillary's about to be announced candidacy does not preclude comparatively tepid comments about Jebbyboy.

    Todays episode opens with:

    Hillary's Eternal Quest for Relatability
    The Clintons may be the last people to realize that Hillary's desire to appear average has become a punch line.

    Let's see how soon they refer to anything about Prince Jeb as a punch line.

    Parent

    Different things about her are popping up (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 09:16:16 PM EST
    in many publications. Seems rather coordinated . . .   timing . . . rumor has it she's announcing in April what her plans are . . .

    Who me, jaded?  ;)

    Parent

    Today's latest (none / 0) (#76)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 05:07:40 AM EST
    episode - via the NYTimes:

    Hillary's Eternal Quest for Relatability
    The Clintons may be the last people to realize that Hillary's desire to appear average has become a punch line.

    Punch line Hillary.

    Parent

    nycstray: Not "jaded" so much as (none / 0) (#87)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    having seen this "coincidental" approach to which you refer before ... in the 1990s with HRC.  My take: It didn't work then; and, undoubtedly, it will backfire again.

     As for the NYTimes, specifically, there always has been a little "there there" with the nature of the stories in the early stages of a campaign ... my unfavorite one was Zelleny's piece several years back that purported to analyze the number of nights that the Clintons spent under their Chappaqua roof together. Who knows why? Maybe it is similar to whatever the reason said paper, in very recent years, dispensed with its female managing editor so quickly. Or it's an anomaly? Or I'm overreacting?  Bottom line: NYT will try to rough her candidacy up a bit--par for the course--and it will all work out ok for her.  

    Parent

    She does? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 04:41:57 PM EST
    You mean she might not get your vote if she doesn't!!!

    Heh, heh ...

    Parent

    That is correct (none / 0) (#52)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 06:16:14 PM EST
    The Green Party is looking better every day. The Supreme Court appointments are the only thing that made me think that probably I should hold my nose and vote for her if it came to stopping the barbarians ay the gates.

    Unfortunately, the stench is just getting so overpowering and the way her supporters are trying to bully other people to prevent any discussion of issues is getting so slimy that holding the nose and voting may not be enough any more for me.

    Parent

    Somebody needs a mirror . . . (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 07:19:04 PM EST


    Parent
    The media is providing a mirror (none / 0) (#55)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 07:30:57 PM EST
    and all you can do is whine....

    Parent
    Not a mirror ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 07:38:34 PM EST
    ... for hypocritical Obama supporters.

    Parent
    I dare you to find one comment (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 09:06:36 PM EST
    where I am whining . . .  just one. Good luck, lol!~

    Parent
    You continue to substitute (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 09:24:23 PM EST
    insults and troll ratings for facts. But then, that is your SOP.

    Parent
    Seems to me you are (4.20 / 5) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 08:08:09 PM EST
    The one doing all the whining about bullying preventing the discussion of issues.

    What is preventing the discussion of issues is your reliance on specious claims rather than facts.

    What is preventing the discussion of issues is your habit of resorting to insults when facts are presented that point out the double standards you regularly employ or disbute your unfounded claims.

    Parent

    ooh that smell (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 07:37:01 PM EST
     stench, bully, slimy. Go ahead and vote with your "nose", it looks like your willing to cut it of to spite your face.  

    Parent
    Since you seem to be inside the room (none / 0) (#59)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 08:00:51 PM EST
    why don't you make an effort to clean it instead of complaining about people outside the door that can't stand the smell?

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 08:44:51 PM EST
    you are the one with the bloodhound smell,

    are the one with olfactory problems. You keep telling us something is rotten, but you never pin it down.

    Parent

    This thread started with a NY Times (1.50 / 2) (#65)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 09:06:12 PM EST
    article and I posted that HRC needs to take a stand regarding Netanyahu and Israel's policies. The people who were interested in the issue commented and left. The rabid and crazed HRC supporters (Yman, Ga6th, nystray) and the one with a particularly virulent strain of ODS (MO Blue) decided that they would not comment anything about the article that was posted but make it about BHO to obfuscate things so that HRC does not have to take any stand.

    This is a fact, please follow the thread. Obama's most ardent supporters are the ones who were mad with HRC about her Iraq war vote and foreign policy is extremely important to them. Yet, the only thing that HRC said so far about her differences with BHO relate to differences with him on foreign policy-an issue that they had considerable problems with her in the first place. BHO's supporters are being consistent, but HRC's supporters here are being total hypocrites.

    Parent

    Sorry, you have me wrong (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 09:12:46 PM EST
    The rabid and crazed HRC supporters

    I actually don't know who I am supporting at this point. I just like to call you out on your BS on occasion. I do appreciate you giving the exclamation point a break though  :)

    Parent

    I know you have a real hard time dealing (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 10:51:09 PM EST
    with facts. But let's look at the actual facts. In your comment #11, you "posted that HRC needs to take a stand regarding Netanyahu and Israel's policies."

    The people who were interested in the issue of Israel made a couple of replies to your comment #11.

    You decided that you did not want to just discuss what was contained in the NYT's article that dealt with Israel but wanted to interject the subject of the "need to serve notice to Saudi Arabia and other regressive monarchies and dictatorships that we will not tolerate human rights abuses. They have to moderate their practices or they are on their own." and you did so in your comment #13. I replied to your comment #13 and not to your comment that dealt only with Israel.

    Let me repeat that for you in case you missed it once again. YOU changed the subject from Israel to "Saudi Arabia and other regressive monarchies and dictatorships." in your comment #13.YOU introduced the subject of serving notice on them "that we will not tolerate human rights abuses." That, "They have to moderate their practices or they are on their own." in your comment #13. I replied to your comment #13.

    When it was pointed out to you that Obama did not have the foreign policy you wanted, you justified his actions. When facts were presented to show that rather than serving them notice, Obama was  continuing to sell them large qualities of military equipment, you justified his actions. When direct quotes from Obama were produced showing that rather than serving them notice that they would be on their own if they did not modify their practices, Obama has said that U.S.-Saudi cooperation on security often takes precedence over human rights issues, you justified his actions while predicting that HRC would fail to maintain his policy gains. As usual, you are completely misstating the facts as well being a complete hypocrite when you set up foreign policy requirements for other candidates while cheering or rationalizing Obama's policies that come no where near fulfilling those requirements.

    Parent

    Complete and utter BS (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 06:40:32 AM EST
    1.  You are the one who - as always - brought up HC and with your latest silly theories about what she "must do."

    2.  Your hypocrisy is naked and obvious for all to see.  You demand she do things as a candidate that you never demand of Obama as POTUS - like a pledge to avoid a war in the ME under all circumstances.

    3.  Your double standards for HC and Obama is laughable.  You praise Obama's imaginary gains in a relationship with Saudi Arabia and talk about HC's secret relationship with them - all without the slightest bit of evidence, as usual.

    4)You call HC a "hawk" and aggressive on Syria for suggesting we should have armed moderate Syrian rebels in their efforts to stop Assad, while praising Obama's adoption of the same.

    As always - the silliest claims offered without the slightest bit of evidence and with the most hypocritical logic and double-standards.  As if your bare opinion should carry any kind of weight.

    Parent

    BTW - One more LIE (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 06:45:35 AM EST
    The rabid and crazed HRC supporters (Yman, Ga6th, nystray) ...

    We'll need to add on to that clause - perhaps "as imagined by the most rabid and delusional Obama worshiper and CDSer Politalkix"

    Hate to pop another one of your fantasy bubbles, but poking holes in your silly, specious, obsessive, hypocritical HC fantasies does not mean someone is a supporter.  Personally, I'm leaning toward O'Malley if he enters the race - not that it even matters for purposes of debunking your fairy tales.

    Parent

    Your meme of Crazed HRC supporters (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 08:14:13 AM EST
    Is just another figment of your CDS imagination. Pointing  out where your talking points are fact free and actually counter to existing facts in no way indicates support for Hillary. I would vote for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren if either chooses to run.

    As to my case of ODS, it is true I disagree with Obama on many, many issues and also how he has interacted with the GOP. When I disagree on an issue, I bring facts to substantiate my points of disagreement. You might want to try using facts sometime.

    Obama, IMO, is also doing some things right and I totally support him in his efforts in those areas. To list a few:

    His eventual "evolution" on LGBT rights.
    His veto of the Keystone Pipeline.
    His executive orders on immigration.
    His rhetoric on the Muslim religion.
    His executive actions on Cuba.
    His multinational negotiations with Iran.

    As you can see, I do support some of Obama's foreign policy decisions. But support of some of his ACTUAL decisions is far different than accepting the meme that Obama has served notice to Saudi and others that they are on their own if they continue their humane rights abuses.  The facts are that he continues to provide them with large quantities of military equipment and has actually said that contrary to cutting them lose,  security concerns take precedence over humane rights issues and require maintaining the relationship. Nor does support of his ACTUAL decisions mean that he at any time pledged to avoid war in the M.E. under all circumstances.

    I know it must be frustrating for you to have me and others provide facts that disprove your various erroneous claims and shine a light on your double standards. Rationalizing your own behavior by responding with insults and troll ratings must seem to be your only available option since you dont have facts.

    Your ongoing crusade to set up impossible or unreasonable criteria for HRC is the reason for people calling BS on your comments and not a sign of support for Hillary.

    Parent

    Oh, good lord (4.20 / 5) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 09:19:20 PM EST
    Saying that article makes it sound like that progressives are going to have large problems is crazed? If you don't want an article discussed don't link to it or bring up the subject. If you want an Obama is a Jesus situation where you decide what can be said then you are at the wrong place. But as a matter of fact I'm not even sure there are any Obama is Lord and Savior blogs any more. Even the posters at the GOS are largely over him at this point.

    Parent
    So it seems it is a deliberate strategy (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 10:36:51 PM EST
    "If you don't want an article discussed don't link to it or bring up the subject"

    I will not engage with you, yman, nystray, mblue any further but will not stop posting articles that you would not like posted. All of you can write all you want about Obama. BHO will not be on the ballot in 2016 but HRC will be. We will see how your deliberate strategy of not discussing issues play out.

    Parent

    If you want to restrict the discussions, (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 11:03:34 PM EST
    to only what is contained in a particular article (i.e. Israel) it would be advantageous for you to stay on that topic in your subsequent comments rather than introduce another topic (i.e. Saudi etal) especially when the facts do not support your claims.

     

    Parent

    Of course you won't stop (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 06:47:51 AM EST
    And I won't stop pointing out your silly, fact-free claims and hypocritical standards.

    But I understand why you'd prefer to scurry away and hide.

    Parent

    Don't let the door hit you ... (4.20 / 5) (#54)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 07:23:58 PM EST
    No one is "bullying" or preventing a discussion of the issues - just pointing out your hypocritical, double standards for Obama/Clinton and poking fun at your silly, specious claims.  If you want to discuss the issues, you need to bring some facts and evidence, not just silly CDS opinions.

    Parent
    Fun (none / 0) (#58)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 07:55:33 PM EST
    link

    to watch how the candidate that was touted to have the steel you-know-what by her supporters turned into a shrinking violet on "unsafe issues" by the same people who now just want her to hide behind the President's pants.

    Yes, it is a lot easier and even fun (when you are in the mood) to watch it from outside the door. She is surrounded by people inside the room that make people throw up. Read the link and hold a mirror on your selves.

    I am beginning to think that I cannot take six more years of this any more. The fatigue has started to set in. If we reach rock bottom in 2016, I will hope that 2020 comes to resemble 2006 or 2008.


    Parent

    How ironic (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 08:29:55 PM EST
    Many of Obama's advisors and campaign staff have become part of Ready for Hillary or are preparing to serve in senior roles in her likely 2016 campaign.

    Do they make you want to throw up? Just now or were they vomit inducing when they worked for Obama?

    Parent

    I have to see how they operate (none / 0) (#68)
    by Politalkix on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 09:13:13 PM EST
    Not all of HRC's staff were vomit inducing. Eg: Mook is not as far as I know. But if the people among BHO's start operating in the way Lanny Davis or Carville or Penn or Brock operate, I will call them vomit inducing also.

    Parent
    "Vomit inducing" - heh (none / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 06:27:57 AM EST
    We can only hope.

    A little icing on top of the cake ...

    Parent

    "Fun"? No, ... just funny (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 08:19:44 PM EST
    I have no idea what convoluted argument you're trying now ... not that it matters.  When you can't come up with facts to support your fantasies, you try moving the goalposts again.

    Same specious, fact-free, CDS opinions.  Same hypocritical, O-worshiping, double standards.

    Yawn.

    Parent

    Yea (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 08:47:28 PM EST
    don't worry. The whole statement is lost on me too.

    Parent
    The problem (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 11:07:37 AM EST
    with that article is it ignores the fact that Hillary hasn't had a problem with Jewish voters but it sounds like it poses more problems for progressives than anything and especially if you go with the "you're either with me or against me" mindset you seem to be shopping.

    I mean what is going to happen if there are a lot of anti Isreal candidates? Who does that really hurt? I doubt it hurts Hillary but it's going to come down on somebody for sure.

    Parent

    Jim, Jim, Jim (none / 0) (#43)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    You claim to be ignorant of the video of the construction workers. It leads me to think that

    A. you are lying
    B. you saw it and preferred to forget
    C. you failed to do due diligence before you            bloviated about this case.

     I will give you the benefit of the doubt and choose C.
    So here it is    , next time try to be a bit better informed.

    1 perfect bracket (none / 0) (#83)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 11:04:20 AM EST
     left in the ESPN contest.

     Link

     You can't really calculate the probability on this because it's not random selection but if it was random it would be 2³². My calculator tells me that's a one in 2,147,483,648 chance.

     You'd have to have a ton of data and do all sorts of fancy regressions to come up with valid assumptions on which to base an estimate of the "real world" odds of pulling that off.

    Depsite having virtually 0% chance (none / 0) (#84)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 11:13:36 AM EST
    of winning,  I'm feeling pretty good about my bracket

    PCT 98.7%
    Rank 146,823
    Points 270  (27 of 32 correct)
    PPR 1560

    14 of my Sweet 16 picks are still alive (ISU and Providence gone) and all of my higher picks are still around.

    Parent

    No matter (none / 0) (#85)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 21, 2015 at 02:24:38 PM EST
      how easy a chance to prove he isn't a crazy and/or irresponsible demagogue Santorum is handed he won't take it.

    March Madness Day 1 Open Thread | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment