home

Sunday Open Thread

Last week the Rolling Stones got a stellar review in Pittsburgh. Last night, in Kansas City, more of the same. Check out the accolades in the review in the Wichita Eagle.

Their two-hour performance was about as close to perfect as a stadium rock show can get. The weather was idyllic. The sound was pristine. The production was stunning. The set list was stellar. And the band appeared to be having as much fun as the 50,000-plus fans who filled the stadium with a mix of jubilation and reverence.

Keith Richards to the crowd: ""Good evening Kansas City. It's good to be back. It's good to be anywhere."

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Friday Night Open Thread | ISIS-Inspired Attacks: 3 Hours, 3 Countries, 3 Continents >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What do you call a Republican who owns a suit? (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 07:55:34 PM EST
    A "serious" candidate for the presidency.

    What do you call a republican who owns a suit (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 09:51:15 PM EST
    and still has his hair?

    "Presidential."

    Parent

    What do Republicans really mean when ... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 06:18:08 PM EST
    ... they claim that they're "Standing Tall for America"?

    That they're in favor of firing U.S. workers and outsourcing their jobs to India.

    HISTORY QUIZ: When was Saddam Hussein ever considered a good guy?
    A. When Ronald Reagan armed him.
    B. When Donald Rumsfeld met with him.
    C. When Dick Cheney did business with him.
    D. All of the above.

    Parent

    A statesman (none / 0) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 09:40:08 AM EST
    From Pride NY (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 01:24:32 PM EST
    NBC DUMPS TRUMP (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 01:53:39 PM EST
    LINK

    Including Miss Universe and Celebrity Apprentise

    You know (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 02:22:53 PM EST
    i wonder.
    Whatever else Donald is, he is not stupid.   When he said those awful things I thought, why?  Why would he say such a horrible incendiary thing in what was probably at least somewhat prepared remarks.

    This might be why.

    He has pi$$ed off the Mexicans and the liberals.  How is that bad in a GOP primary?  He gets to be the victim of out of control liberal PC.

    The base will love this.


    Parent

    Yes, Captain (none / 0) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 02:34:49 PM EST
    I believe you are on to something.  Trump is readying his primary check-list of highly desirable attributes.  Not ready to start practicing  saying President Trump, President Trump.  But, Donald Trump, Republican nominee for president,  does not sound as far fetched as it once did.   I think he is just what the Republican voter is looking for, all the qualities of the clown car gaggle wrapped up into one clown suit.

    Parent
    How Trumpish does this sound (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    Donald Trump responds to NBC cutting all ties: 'Whatever they want to do is O.K. with me'

    From FOX, that.

    Wouldn't the expected reaction be-

    I WILL COOK AND EAT THEM IN THE ASHES OF 30 ROCK!!!

    Parent

    Agree with you that the motivation (none / 0) (#97)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 02:52:50 PM EST
    has to do with entrancing the crazy right.  For you and KeysDan, tho, one other fallback for the classic self-promoting Trump would be a big reversal IF his out-crazy-the-crazies plan doesn't work. My guess: As soon as he finds himself failing in this latest joy-ride, Trump maneuvers into throwing support to the likely victor--to the one with the most $$$$ (Bush, Rubio, or Walker) because underneath the unhinged posture is the person who puts $$$$$ acquisition and spotlight first.  In the Repub party, where establishment $$$$ have always mattered, Trump will ultimately align there.

    Parent
    And speaking of clowns, ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 06:36:15 PM EST
    ... can we please send these guys in Texas some new shovels and urge them to continue digging?:

    Christian Science Monitor | June 29, 2015
    Texas attorney general calls court's gay marriage decision 'a lawless ruling' - "Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended the religious liberty of state employees in a statement Sunday, saying they would not have to issue marriage licenses or perform weddings for same-sex couples and called the Supreme Court's Friday decision 'a lawless ruling.' While critics see this as short-lived political posturing, some conservatives see it as the start of a state's rights movement against the US high court's decision on gay marriages."

    ;-D

    Parent

    We can laugh (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 06:42:05 PM EST
    but they are not laughing.  They are serious as a heart attack.
    That is the State AG.

    Do not underestimate the power of the religious liberty kaka.

    I am not saying it won't lose.  I'm just saying it's not over.

    Parent

    Of course it's not over. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:27:16 PM EST
    But I'm betting that the more the general public gets to see God's Chosen Wingbats demonizing entire classes of people and calling for the Lord's wrath to be visited upon [INSERT NAME OF REVILED DEMOGRAPHIC HERE], the more likely it is that most will be repulsed by by such unbridled displays of hard-right nutballery.

    P.S.: That sign is not satire.

    Parent

    The legislature is trying to do the same thing (none / 0) (#130)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:53:15 PM EST
    in Michigan.  There's also a bill rolling around that would force public schools to focus "study of the Constitution" on the 1st, 2nd, and 10th amendments, i.e., God, Guns, and State's Rights.

    Parent
    Arnold at Madame Tussaud's (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 06:31:24 PM EST
    Scaring the sh!t out of the tourists
    very funny

    For charity and to promote the new Terminator movie.  

    Which looks excellent.

    TRAILER

    The Leviathan (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 06:51:52 PM EST
    Teaser looked cool.  Who knows, really, but at least it's a long way from earth.

    Parent
    Two Supreme Court Orders today (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:48:54 PM EST
    addressing additional actions: (1) Court declined to hear challenge from a state requirement that voter ID required for a federal election (upshot: no such requirement allowed.) Again, a 5 to 4 split with the deciding vote being J. Kennedy.  (2) Court stayed the application of a new Texas requirement that abortion providers meet restrictive, very costly hospital standards. The stay should be effective at least until further disposition no earlier than the Fall.  Another 5 to 4 decision with J. Kennedy being the deciding vote.

    Big changes coming in (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by CST on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 09:29:37 AM EST
    On overtime pay.

    "The rule would raise the salary threshold below which workers automatically qualify for time-and-a-half overtime wages to $50,440 a year from $23,660"

    This is huge.  And yes, it could mean cutting hours.  Which will mean more people employed.  But it will also end the scam of working salary employees to the bone without paying them.

    This is especially powerfull (none / 0) (#166)
    by CST on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    With any increase in the minimum wage, and in places where the labor market is tighter but wages haven't changed.

    Parent
    Thank you two gentlemen (5.00 / 6) (#211)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 05:36:52 PM EST
    For finally explaining your knowledge of those two words, that most of us learned in the 7th grade.

    I hope everyone is getting to see... (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by desertswine on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 10:51:57 PM EST
    Venus and Jupiter.  Go look NOW!

    I Need Help With This Comment (4.00 / 3) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 04:28:26 PM EST
    Oh I talk about my past with people I care about and have respect for their positions,

    Outside of kdog I can't think of a single commentator here that meets that requirement.

    So we are graced with someone who doesn't respect anyone here, but one occasional commenter, disagrees with everyone, is pretty much laughed at and not well liked, yet is here everyday because _______.

    I honestly can't fill in the blank and this is not snark, I am truly interested in why a human being would do this.  It makes absolutely no sense to me, Jim views this place like most view a job they hate.

    FYI, the comment is from today, I didn't go back to dig it up.

    job indeed.. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 04:58:16 PM EST
    there's a video online somewhere featuring some weasel from Heritage, or one of it's slimy subsidiaries, instructing obedient little apparatchiks in the art of trolling "liberal" websites and doing things like down-rating books on Amazon..

    Conservative true believers think they're fighting for their very cultural and spiritual lives..this requires that they do unpleasant things at times..for the Greater Good..

       

    Parent

    Doing unpleasant things (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 05:53:05 PM EST
    In no way means that he does not derive a great deal of pleasure from doing them.

    IMO, he has a great deal of fun doing what he does.

    Parent

    bcause he can annoy some liberals (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 05:37:32 PM EST
    That in and of itself seems to be worth his time.

    Parent
    It would be better if Jim (2.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jul 01, 2015 at 06:32:22 AM EST
    didn't just make things up, like how DFH and some others want to take the 1st Amendment rights away from homophobic moral monsters by stating that they shouldn't get any TV coverage of their hate speech.

    Note to the news media: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 04:02:22 PM EST
    The noxious opinions of professional socio-political provocateurs such as Todd Starnes, Ann Coulter and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz only begin to matter when you grant their poisonous musings the attention that the sources of such bile so obviously and desperately crave, but otherwise surely do not deserve.

    On Friday night, in the immediate wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's historic ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the news director of our local CBS affiliate KGMB-TV somehow saw fit to have his reporters interview the virulently homophobic State Rep. Bob McDermott, who's parlayed his ignorance on almost any subject into a seat in our state legislature, representing an urban district in west Oahu comprised mostly of white military retirees like himself.

    McDermott's hateful reaction to Friday's decision was so entirely predictable that most of us here could likely and correctly sum up that gasbag's remarks, without ever having seen that interview for ourselves. That's because by now, we've heard that sort of inflammatory anti-gay rhetoric ad nauseum, so at least KGMB did everyone a favor by declining to preserve that interview online for posterity.

    We're not going to gain any unique insights from people who thrive upon slander, gossip and innuendo. And further, this is not news but rather, an attempt to generate and perpetuate public controversy merely for its own sake. It's the logical result of journalism that's effectively become personality-driven, rather than issue-oriented. And it increasingly comes at the overall expense of public knowledge regarding the actual story itself.

    So, shame on those in the media who've allowed such bigotry and hatemongering to rain upon this weekend's particularly joyous Pride events across the country. It's all so very unnecessary.

    Aloha.

    Donald, although I would (2.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:10:20 AM EST
    totally disagree with what this Rep. said... Why do you want to shut him up??

    You claim to be a Liberal. Act like one and defend free speech.

    Parent

    free speech is not (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by CST on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:11:29 AM EST
    the same as a free microphone

    Parent
    When you tell a TV station (2.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:20:47 AM EST
    who it can interview then you no longer have free speech.

    What if Dr King had been shut down?

    We should all know that the First Amendment was not written to protect "popular" speech or speech that "we" agree with.

    Parent

    who is "you" (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by CST on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:26:33 AM EST
    The government - I agree.

    A private citizen expressing their opinion on a blog?  I disagree.

    Parent

    I found your mistake (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    When you tell a TV station who it can interview then you no longer have free speech.

    Can you detect the difference between the First Amendment statement, "Congress shall make no law..." and a blog post?  Let me help with a simple question.  Is Congress the same as a blogger, or is it different?

    Take your time.

    An act of Congress would be a law, and a blog post would be an First Amendment protected opinion.  The opinion is protected by the First Amendment, which PREVENTS the government from telling a TV station whom to have on a program, or telling a blogger what he is allowed to post.

    Study this.  There will be a quiz.

    Parent

    What if Dr King had been shut down? (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 02:41:05 PM EST
    He was shut down.

    By another Southern-base-inspired reactionary with a gun.

    Parent

    He was (none / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:26:54 AM EST
    Ypur understanding (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 11:51:00 AM EST
    of the First Amendment is faulty.  Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism, as long as it doesn't blur over into criminal threats or inciting violence against the station in question.

    It's like the old story from the 60s about a Russian Soviet citizen and an American debating the merits of their political,systems:

    American:  "We're guaranteed freedom of speech in this country.  I,can go,onto the steps of the Capitol building, shake my fist, and say. "To hell with Kennedy!'"

    Soviet: "That is true in Soviet Union.  I can go in front of the Kremlin, shake my fist, and say, 'To hell with Kennedy!'"

    Parent

    et al (2.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:06:57 PM EST
    First of all I didn't say that Donald could not support censorship.

    I said that:

    You claim to be a Liberal. Act like one and defend free speech.

    That's called disagreement and guidance.

    Of course the only way Donald could achieve his wishes is for the government to approve who the TV station was going to interview and then approve the content of the interview.

    And the USSC just issued an interesting ruling about public discourse:

    Added Erica Smith, another IJ attorney on the case, "Government cannot suppress speech simply because it doesn't like the topic the speaker is talking about or what the speaker has to say about it."

    Link

    Parent

    no (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by CST on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:19:16 PM EST
    the other way to achieve it is to convince the people airing it that they are making a mistake.

    Like how Walmart and Amazon stopped selling the confederate flag as a business decision - not because the government forced them to.

    Parent

    That's called (2.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    coercion. You want to force a company to do something because of your political beliefs.

    Would you have approved the KKK doing so with MLK?? Would it have been better if no media had reported where he was speaking and what he had said?

    The answer is, of course, no. You would not.

    What you want, and so does Donald, is a politically correct world in which societal pressure keeps people from saying things.

    I am the opposite.  I want the bigots to self identify so we can know who they are and then vote them out.

    Parent

    don't worry (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CST on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:45:29 PM EST
    you're doing a great job of self identification.

    Parent
    Boycotts have a long and honorable (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:50:47 PM EST
    tradition in American history.  You object to customers using the power of the pocketbook at their disposal, you object to one of the foundations of capitalism:The right of free consumers to choose who they spend their money on in he marketplace.

    Parent
    Coercion? (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    One of three words in the English language ending in -cion (scion, suspicion).

    That's called coercion. You want to force a company to do something because of your political beliefs.

    That's called the MARKETPLACE, where businesses are entitled to make decisions about their products and services based on consumer demand.

    "Coercion" implies that the customer can FORCE a business to do its bidding.  A customer can't arrest a business owner for not selling soda pop or whatever. All a CUSTOMER can do is refuse to patronize the business.  How would you characterize the "threat" that a customer might not want to walk through your door?  Is it illegal NOT to walk into a business?

    How would you suggest that the government FORCE Walmart to sell Confederate flags?  Do you believe Walmart has a right to choose what it does and does not sell?  Do you believe Walmart is entitled to take customer preferences into account when deciding what to sell or not sell?

    Careful with your answer.  This will be part of your citizenship test if you want to vote.

    Parent

    -- HINT -- (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 01:32:16 PM EST
    Jim is doing what he does best, blog clogging.  We all know what the first amendment is including Jim.  But instead of talking about the despicable things republicans are saying, we are talking about free speech because Jim doesn't want to talk about how his party is a bunch of hate fueled religious imbeciles who seems to be losing their minds about something that effects them in no meaningful way.

    Blog Clogging, no one does it better than Jim.

    Can we please get back to Jim's party and the vile things coming from just about every one of their 'leaders'.  Jim, can you start acting like a social progressive and not a demented Fox News Viewer given the SCOTUS recent rulings ?  Rhetorical.

    Parent

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    I have had this same argument with many conservative friends over the year. For all their talk about loving capitalism, the basic principles of the marketplace and boycotts seem to elude them.

    Parent
    Thats (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    the way it's supposed to work. Society is supposed to set the limits on speech not government. I believe it is a citizens duty to shun or shout down hateful speech. If citizens are trying to "coerce" a corporation, that is simply the invisible hand of the free market at work. I will admit that PC goes a little overboard at times, but the concept is correct.

    Parent
    et al 1 (2.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 03:02:47 PM EST
    Ah, so much misdirection, so little time

    No, Repack, there is a vast difference between coercion and the marketplace.

    And even though I have no problem with Walmart's response there is zero evidence that  Walmart was doing anything beyond getting out of the way of the potential problem.

    Scott - Ah yes, talking about the First Amendment and how some people want to ignore it is just so out of context for a political blog. ;-)

    BTW. I am a Social Liberal. I am not a Social Progressive.

    Donald:

    Why would I defend either a decision or speech with which I most certainly disagree?

    Uh Donald, there is a difference between defending a speech/interview and attacking the media for allowing them to speak.

    The noxious opinions of professional socio-political provocateurs such as Todd Starnes, Ann Coulter and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz only begin to matter when you grant their poisonous musings the attention that the sources of such bile so obviously and desperately crave, but otherwise surely do not deserve.

    On Friday night, in the immediate wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's historic ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the news director of our local CBS affiliate KGMB-TV somehow saw fit to have his reporters interview the virulently homophobic State Rep. Bob McDermott.....We're not going to gain any unique insights from people who thrive upon slander, gossip and innuendo. And further, this is not news but rather, an attempt to generate and perpetuate public controversy merely for its own sake.....So, shame on those in the media

    What you are doing is attacking free speech.

    GA, I suspect that you are correct that many in the GOP would like to shut them up. Just as I am sure there are many Democrats who would like to shut these nut cases up.

    FlJoe - The problem is that society is a rather diverse group. What you mean is your piece of society is supposed to run things.

    Mordiggian, again you make things up. No where have I written that I object to boycotts. Although secondary boycotts can be illegal.

     

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 07:36:50 PM EST
    Please don't try to counter my arguments by giving them random meanings.
    What you mean is your piece of society is supposed to run things.
    Trust me if I truly let my free speech fly, the world would be a ruder place.I would definitely be insulting peoples intelligence several times a day.

    When  my parents told me it wasn't polite to say mean,insulting and derogatory things, they were not being anti free speech, they were not trying to "run things", they were merely teaching me the inherent restrictions that society imposes on our speech. Basic human decency in other words.

    These haters have no decency, so  we all want them STFU (sorry Mom, sorry Dad), I mean wash their mouths out with soap.

    Parent

    et al 2 (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:37:03 PM EST
    FlJoe - you didn't make make an argument you made a claim. So I made a claim.

    Mine is based on the fact that the majority of people see the world through their own biases.

    You want something that is not wanted by someone else. That doesn't mean that either of you are right.

    To that end I again quote Lewis Carrol who had a word or two to say about the meaning and use of words.

    And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

    `I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

    `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

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

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

    `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

    Through the Looking Glass

    It ain't about communication. It's about control.

    Mordiggian, this is what you wrote:

    Boycotts have a long and honorable (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 11:50:47 AM CST
    tradition in American history.  You object to customers using the power of the pocketbook at their disposal,....

    Now, I have not written I oppose boycotts. So you just made something up.

    And I didn't say a boycott isn't coercion. What I wrote was:

    And even though I have no problem with Walmart's response there is zero evidence that  Walmart was doing anything beyond getting out of the way of the potential problem.

    They feared loss of business. They were coerced.

    to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition:


    Parent
    The definition of coercion does not include (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:40:46 PM EST
    To judge that your business will suffer if people stop shopping at your store.

    People are free to shop wherever they choose - the desires and volition of the owners of the store is not sometimes I am compelled to regard, beyond observing business hours and paying for goods if I choose to give them my business.

    Parent

    Interesting, ok. I am proud to be coercing (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:43:08 PM EST
    Walmart, in that case. Such power is a beautiful thing.

    Parent
    You win (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 06:03:47 AM EST
    You want something that is not wanted by someone else. That doesn't mean that either of you are right.
    I want to live in a just, sane, polite and compassionate world, the haters don't. How pretentious of me to insist I am right, they are wrong, there is just no way to make that call, right Jim?

    Ps:  Through the Looking Glass is not a textbook on logic.

    Parent

    et al 3 (2.00 / 1) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    Mordiggian - The synonyms of coercion ...

    the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
    synonyms: force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, harassment, intimidation, threats, arm-twisting, pressure

    You will note that boycott is not there.

    BTW - Boycott is a verb. Coercion is a noun.

    And since I haven't opposed a boycott...why are you giving me its definition?

    ruffian:

    The definition of coercion does not include... To judge that your business will suffer if people stop shopping at your store

    Of course it does. The loss of business invokes fear. Fear forces.

    Fear of a  boycott (verb)that would cause loss of business coerced (noun) Walmart into stop selling the CSA flag.

    FlJoe - Nope, didn't say it was wrong for you to express your opinion/belief. I just noted that those you call haters also think they are right.

    And, as I noted to Donald, they have the same right to free speech as you do.

    "Through the Looking Glass" is not about "logic."

    It is about pointing out that making words mean what the "master" wants them to mean the master gains and maintains control.

    As Orwell noted.

    War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

    link

    Parent

    A boycott is nonviolent coercion, (none / 0) (#197)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 02:09:25 PM EST
    As in the original case with Capt Boycott.

    As for your verbal trickery, to boycott is a verb, and that it isn't a synonym for coercion doesn

    Parent

    Btw, Genius (none / 0) (#202)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 03:23:02 PM EST
    "Boycott" can be either a verb or a noun.

    And ants and cows are both still animals, in case you were still wondering.

    Parent

    Here is the definition of boycott (none / 0) (#131)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:13:12 PM EST
    FYI, since you seem to be playing games here today:

    boycott
    [boi-kot]

    verb (used with object)
    1.
    to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion:
    to boycott a store.
    2.
    to abstain from buying or using:
    to boycott foreign products.
    noun
    3.
    the practice of boycotting.
    4.
    an instance of boycotting.
    Origin of boycott Expand
    after Charles C. Boycott (1832-97), English estate manager in Ireland, against whom nonviolent coercive tactics were used in 1880

    A boycott is a form of coercion.

    I rest my case.

    Parent

    What is a boycott but coercion? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 05:06:54 PM EST
    And quit with your stupid habit of saying that people should quit making things up.  

    You accuse others of that when you are caught up in a contradiction, and it is dishonest and stupid.  

    Parent

    That's not "coercion" (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 07:07:21 AM EST
    Free speech can have consequences, but it's their choice.

    Parent
    What he's getting at is that (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 03:28:40 PM EST
    you cogent, civil discourse fanatics are all secretly enemies of the very freedoms the Tea Party and AM talk radio exist to defend.

    Parent
    it's called public pressure (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:53:58 PM EST
    MLK was able to convince people he was worthy of a microphone.  And the KKK tried to silence him through violence, which no one here is advocating.

    Parent
    Oh, honestly, Jim! (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    Why would I defend either a decision or speech with which I most certainly disagree?

    More to the point, why are you attacking -- or at best, conveniently ignoring -- my OWN First Amendment right to free speech, in order to build a straw man argument that nobody here is otherwise offering?

    Look, if the folks running the KGMB-TV News Dept. wants to devote a entire segment on its evening newscast to Bob McDermott and the Westboro Baptist Church men's choir singing a rousing rendition of Monty Python's "The Lumberjack Song," that's entirely their call.

    But your notion that the First Amendment then somehow shields station management from any subsequent public criticism for having made such a silly decision, well, that's so utterly preposterous as to be completely daft.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Because what Bob McDermott said was not news. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    He was first elected to office in 2000 as a vocal opponent of gay marriage, and had won his seat by denouncing the incumbent for her own House vote against the proposed state constitutional amendment limiting the right of marriage to heterosexual couples.

    Rep. McDermott has been saying variations of the same hateful stuff for years now, whether it's been on the floor of the State House, during a press conference or radio / TV interview, at a community forum, or while campaigning for re-election. As I said above, it's nothing that we haven't heard before, ad nauseum.

    Nobody is advocating that McDermott be silenced, Jim, so please stop putting words in my mouth. Rather, I'm simply expressing my own opinion that the KGMB-TV news director should've exercised better professional discretion last Friday after the Obergefell decision was announced, than to offer a microphone and TV forum to a well-known local homophobe and firebrand.

    That decision was likely not made in the interest of enlightening viewers regarding the merits or demerits of the Supreme Court's decision, but to instead spark controversy and prompt a personal public spat between McDermott and his critics. Fortunately, those critics refused to rise to the bait, and pointedly declined to offer any comment to KGMB's reporter when asked to respond to McDermott's predictably intemperate remarks.

    Were voters in Rep. McDermott's district to finally tire of his bluster and toss him from office on his ear in 2016, would you then similarly accuse them of violating his First Amendment free speech rights for having done so?

    Personally, I doubt you'd say any such thing. But the logic of the argument you've offered here screams otherwise.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    That's a very weak response (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:14:52 PM EST
    Were voters in Rep. McDermott's district to finally tire of his bluster and toss him from office on his ear in 2016, would you then similarly accuse them of violating his First Amendment free speech rights for having done so?

    And not very logical, either.

    The voters would be expressing their disapproval of what he said, not his right to say it by voting him out of office. Which is their right.

    So no one's rights would be violated.

    As for screaming, otherwise... I wrote:

    Donald, although I would (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:10:20 AM CST
    totally disagree with what this Rep. said... Why do you want to shut him up??

    Why do you find opposition to bigoted speech and support for free speech mutually exclusive?


    Parent

    ... to express my own personal opinion, by reframing that opinion in completely nonsensical fashion, so that you might then misrepresent it as some sort of attempt on my part at public coercion.

    You quite obviously haven't a clue as to how the First Amendment properly functions in a free society. Rather, you prefer to wield its existence irresponsibly as a rhetorical cudgel, in order to make a totally fallacious and idiotic assertion.

    You make my head hurt. I'm through here. Good day.

    Parent

    Those Aren't the Words... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 01:33:23 PM EST
    ...of a social progressive.  I guess you are a republican first.

    Parent
    I'm thinking (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by sj on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    that you just take it personally when anyone tells anyone else to "shut up".
    You claim to be a Liberal. Act like one and defend free speech.

    But then, I can see why. Apparently, you think anyone should be allowed to yammer any sort of nonsense all day long without any consequences. Apparently.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:45:49 PM EST
    Republicans think they out to scream out hate speech all day every day and then if you call them on it they play the PC card. It's so ridiculous. However I think these psychos should be given a large microphone, so much in fact I think they should be given honored positions at the GOP convention much like Pat Roberston and Pat Buchanan were in 1992. Can't you just hear them screaming about how gays being able to get married are going to bring God's wrath down on America? I think they should be out front and center so they can horrify about 60% of the population and there's no question what the GOP stands for.

    Parent
    Yes sj (2.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    I believe in free speech. And there are all kinds of consequences from being sued for slander and libel to being fired for bad mouthing the company.

    One is political free speech, the other is commercial. One is protected, the other is not.

    Parent

    Yes sj (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 03:31:35 PM EST
    He believes in free speech. And he believes that man made greenhouse gases are a hoax and that there are "no go zones" in Paris.

    You decide whether the two realities may or may not cancel each other out

    Parent

    jondee, I try to ignore you (2.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:44:45 PM EST
    But I have never said that greenhouse gases are a hoax.

    What I have written time and again that there is no evidence that meets the requirement to be a Scientific Theory and that there many people who are pushing MMGW and that is a hoax.

    Even Dr Jones, in what he thought was a private email, admitted that it hadn't happened.

    And yes, there are zones in Paris where non-Muslims would be fools to go.

    Such places also exist in Memphis, LA, East St Louis...and most, if not all, large cities... that tourist should not go.

    Parent

    Meh (none / 0) (#141)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:12:44 PM EST
    Jim, I try to teach you.. (none / 0) (#201)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 03:17:24 PM EST
    But yes, you've said in-effect and indirectly that man made greenhouse gases are hoax whenever you've claimed that human-influenced climate change is a "hoax".

    Never mind the paranoid/conspiratorial  implications involved in using the word "hoax"..we'll save that for the qualified mental health professionals.

    "Where non-Muslims would be fools to go" according to who? You and the Fox News analysts who were forced to apologize for making wild, irresponsible claims?    

    Parent

    Wrong again - as usual (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 07:05:57 AM EST
    While different standards apply, political speech and commercial speech are both protected.

    Parent
    BS (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 07:01:19 AM EST
    Donald never said he didn't have the right to say what he said.  Criticizing someone for their own bigotry is not censorship.  It's exercising one's own right to free speech.  Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

    Parent
    Some posters (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 07:27:07 AM EST
    here don't understand that the first amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you say.

    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 07:48:11 AM EST
    no no

    The first amendment makes it my consitutional right to say whatever I want however uninformed or insensitive or just plain stupid it is.  IT DOES NOT give anyone else the right to criticize what I said and certainly not the right to criticize me for saying it.

    This has been CLEARLY explained to me on FOX noose many times.

    I don't understand why people can't understand this.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Truly (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 06:28:26 PM EST
    they contribute nothing to the national discussion but I have to say that the GOP should be the ones trying to shut them up. All in all people like Starnes and Coulter are very damaging to the GOP.

    Parent
    I Agree... (none / 0) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:22:22 AM EST
    ...the notion that they are going to get some sort of amendment to the Constitution to declare what marriage is, or as of this morning via Cruz, to make the SCOTUS justices campaign to keep their appointments, is only making the GOP look like the party of petty and unrealistic goals.

    If the goal is push people away from the GOP, these blowhards are 'winning'.  I say let them all have 30 mins specials and call it breaking news.

    Parent

    True (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:32:02 AM EST
    but IMO it won't stop them.  This issue could not be hotter with the republican base.  I'm talking the classic rural low information fox viewing Christian base.  They are being whipped up by TV Christians and they are going to want to hear their politicians on this.  And I think they will.  
    I agree this is a problem for the party.  It's a problem for sane seekers of the presidential nomination.
    There will be candidates pushing an amendment.  The sane ones are already trying to explain how pointless this is but if you think the sane are running the Republican Party you have not been paying attention.

    Parent
    The Base... (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:51:02 AM EST
    ...is what is killing the GOP.  If there is an opposite term for synergy, that is the current GOP base.

    I agree, they are not going to stop, which is fine at this point since they can't do much but talk the talk.

    Parent

    Note to the news media, Part II: (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 02:42:12 AM EST
    Yes, by all means, let Bristol Palin have a sex life. But please, just spare us any more of your chatter about it.

    The fact that the Palin family offers this stuff themselves to the media, hardly requires an in-kind response from mainstream pundits like Ana Marie Cox, who really should have known better than to draw a silly parallel between Bristol getting knocked up (again) and gay marriage.

    Rather than elevating Ms. Palin's profile, while inadvertently trivializing gay marriage with an inappropriate comparison, Ms. Cox might have instead considered that actually, some things really are none of our business.

    And personally speaking, I like it that way -- especially when it comes to all things Palin.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Ana Marie has really been phoning itb (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 07:24:39 AM EST
    In lately.  Is she to be her generation's Maureen Dowd?

    Parent
    I sure hope not. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:15:27 PM EST
    She's usually so much better than this. I hope the old Ana Marie is enjoying her hiatus, and returns to the job refreshed. Because the recent stuff we've been seeing under the Cox byline has often been sophomoric and mediocre, at best.

    Parent
    The Palins Prove... (none / 0) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:28:39 AM EST
    ...the GOP loves to tell people what to do but just can't quite turn the corner on doing it themselves.

    In Bristol's defense, nothing would cheapen the term 'marriage' more than her getting a 18 month marriage just for the sake of being married during child birth.  It takes a lot of courage to call off a doomed wedding, if she could show such leadership in directing others how to behave.

    Parent

    Who says she called the marriage off? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Palli on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:54:49 AM EST
    she called the marriage off?

    Parent
    Really, You Don't Know How Google Works (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 01:16:21 PM EST
    Sorry, thought my comment was obvious (none / 0) (#149)
    by Palli on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 07:16:07 AM EST
    Consider the source.

    WHO: Sarah Palin told the "public" after Bristol told her she called it off.
    Why do you believe her?

    Parent

    Talked to a couple in the park that saw (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 05:50:14 PM EST
    the Stones here a couple of weeks ago. I am so mad I didn't go. I'm an idiot.

    But you got to hear Ratdog. (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 08:36:49 PM EST
    I thought of you and kdog when I read the SF Chronicle review of the Grateful Dead concert in Santa Clara.

    Parent
    That's right! I'll always have Ratdog! (none / 0) (#124)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:19:49 PM EST
    I saw someone a little closer to earth tonight: (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 11:43:40 PM EST
    Robert Randolph and the Family Band.  He really knows his way around a pedal steel.

    Parent
    Awesome band (none / 0) (#188)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 11:48:54 AM EST
    Heavy metal pedal steel.  You gotta love it!

    Parent
    My favorite Robert Randolph moment... (none / 0) (#198)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 02:09:33 PM EST
    has gotta be when he jammed out "Cripple Creek" with Joe Walsh at the "Love for Levon" concert back in 2012.  

    What a show that was, and most fitting tribute to the late great Levon.

    Parent

    Are you up on Penny Dreadful? (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 07:19:10 AM EST
    i watched it when I hit home last night.  Great.  Looks like a killer finale.

    Parent
    Did not see last night's yet (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:12:48 PM EST
    but otherwise up to date. Looking forward to it tonight? And I see there is a Nurse Jackie thread I am resolved to ignore until I watch the finale. I do agree with the headline though - time for that show to be over.

    You watching True Detective? Have to say it is literally putting me to sleep so far..maybe I just tried to watch it too late last night. Colin Farrell is good though -adding multiple dimensions to what I at first thought was going to be a stock burnout character.

    I am all caught up on Hannibal! Let the chase begin!

    Parent

    True Detective (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:20:38 PM EST
    is a promis yet unkept.  But I am hopeful.  I am behind you on Hannibal because I am doing DVDs.  But catching up.

    I really love this season of PD.   the writing acting and staging have just been off the charts.   I decided I disagree about Josh Hartness.  I think he is perfect.  There is a self contained part of him that's perfect.  And his eyes.  Smallish and deep set and already a bit evil looking makes the makeup work beautifully.  I love that they didn't go the whole CG transformation route.  
    And he's hot :)
    I love the way the series is taking established mythology - there is a wonderful example of this in the new episode, a reference to classic horror - and reworking it.  Giving it new life and new possibilities.
    Look forward to discussing the new episode.

    Consider giving HUMANS a look.

    Parent

    Will give Humans a try! (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 02:50:04 PM EST
    Not in the Hannibal sense however...

    I go back and forth on Hartnett. Honestly I was overall fine with him until the mostly one-on-one episode last week. He kind of lost me a little in his scenes with Green, which by all rights should have had me melted in a little puddle on my couch. But didn't. Close though....

    Parent

    I just noticed that on the town seal (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:16:58 PM EST
    of the town in True Detective the slogan is

    Towards Tomorrow

    Parent

    Just watched HUMANS (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 11:22:57 AM EST
    the premier of the new AMC series which attempts to explore the can of worms that IMO artificial intelligence wil inevitably become.
    If you read what people who actually understand or at least begin to understand - I recall a futurist in the 70s speculating that only a few powerful computers would ever be needed to do everything the world needed them to do - the actual implications of true true AI it's not all rosy.  As once was said, it's not more complicated that we imagine, it's more complicated than we CAN imagine.

    Promising start.  I'm hooked.

    Parent

    Excellent AVClub review (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:43:28 PM EST
    PS (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    They don't like it as much as I do and I believe the reviewer misinterpreted the ending in a very important way.

    Still.  Interesting.

    Parent

    I saw Linda Ronstadt once (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 06:07:22 PM EST
    and The Grateful Dead twice, the second time at the
    Oakland Colisium with Bob Dylan, who did "I'll be your baby tonight" as one of his numbers.

    Speaking of The Grateful Dead, ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 06:40:09 PM EST
    ... they just kicked off their "Fare Thee Well" mini-tour last night at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, fifty years and one month after they commenced their long, strange trip as The Warlocks in nearby San Jose. The band insists that that next Saturday's concert at Chicago's Soldier Field will be the last time they play together.

    Parent
    I'll drink your health/share your wealth (none / 0) (#16)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 02:25:01 AM EST
    Run your life Steal your wife!

    There is a great YouTube video of US Blues set to a government sponsored propaganda animation from the 76 bicentennial.

    Some old friends asked me if I wanted to get tickets for Chicago but for me the dead died with Jerry.


    Parent

    There was only one Jerry Garcia, for sure. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 03:06:43 AM EST
    But to be fair, Bob Weir & Co. do a good job of channeling his spirit on stage. The Chicago concert next Saturday would be worth attending, if only for its potential historical significance as marking the end of an era.

    And since you mentioned the bicentennial, I remember the "Bicentennial Minute," in which a different celebrity or other person of significance would appear each night on our TVs, and relate to us a story which occurred 200 years ago that day.

    I always thought those were cool. But then, I was a huge history buff even back then. That's why I pursued it in college, and eventually got my master's degree in the field.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You need a second mortgage... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 01:56:32 PM EST
    for a ticket to Chicago...and it's probably worth it!  

    Jerry may be gone, but the spirit and the tunes live on.  Check out Phil Lesh & Friends if you ever get the chance...trust me.

    Parent

    I was a rock band roadie (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 07:24:19 PM EST
    ... for a San Francisco band from 1968 until 2010.  I had one of the best R&R adventures of the 20th Century.

    Saw The Stones in 1972 at Winterland.  Bill Graham's people called our people and asked how many tix we wanted.  None of the band members wanted to go, so I went with all he wives and girlfriends.  My brother was not happy, because he stood in line for ten hours to get a ticket and didn't get one, but I didn't even go looking for one and had it anyway.

    Went with the Grateful Dead roadies in a chartered bus for a 1982 show, once again got the tix through Graham.

    Did a few shows with Linda Ronstadt in the '70s, awesome.  One of my friends owned the studio where she recorded.

    A few of the other bands on shows I worked on would include Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead, Credence Clearwater Revival, Santana, Byrds, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Fleetwood Mac, Jethro Tull, Eagles, Lynyrd Skynyrd, The Band, Three Dog Night, Average White Band, Sly and the Family Stone, Canned Heat, Steve Miller Band, Hot Tuna, Huey Lewis and The News, Marshall Tucker Band, The Allman Brothers Band, Kansas, Booker T and the M.G.s, Taj Mahal, Chambers Brothers, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Leon Russell, Donovan, Van Morrison, Boz Scaggs, Doobie Brothers, The Everly Brothers, Albert King, Ike and Tina Turner, Country Joe and the Fish, to name but a few you may have heard of.

    Parent

    Some resume bro... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 02:05:02 PM EST
    hot damn!  Are your aural memories available for download? ;)

    Just saw Van The Man two weeks ago...took a song or two for him to get the voice going, but when he did it was angelic still.

    Much to my pleasant surprise, he played some old Them stuff too...Gloria and Baby Please Don't Go.  Taj was supposed to open, but cancelled citing touring fatigue.  Hope he rests up and is playing again soon.  

    After The Dead simulcast this weekend, Jorma & Hot Tuna roll onto my island to headline the Great South Bay Music Festival 7/19.  Love the Hot Tuna.

    Parent

    Well, maybe Van Morrison did better ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 05:34:07 PM EST
    ... at your concert. When he played at the Maui Arts & Cultural Center two years ago, he often sounded throughout the evening like he was singing with a mouth full of cotton balls. That said, the band was otherwise very tight, and it was still a most entertaining concert.

    While we're on the subject of Van Morrison, while I'm generally not too big on covers -- with a few notable exceptions, like Heart's work with various Led Zeppelin tunes -- I found this Allman Brothers cover of "Into the Mystic" to be hauntingly faithful to its composer's original vision, and yet they made it uniquely their own as well. I hope that you'll enjoy it, too.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Here's the Allman Brother (Gregg) (none / 0) (#136)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:35:16 PM EST
    with that Van Morrison cover. You're right; it's a great cut.  Warren Haynes is the singer.  Derek Trucks is the other guitarist.

    This link was tucked in beside the page of the link you posted.

    Parent

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#208)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 04:11:01 PM EST
    The Allman Brothers are going to be another band that we'll miss. I'm so glad I got to see them during their extended run at New York's Beacon Theatre in 2009.

    Does anyone remember Gregg Allman in Lili Zanuck's underrated 1991 film noir, "Rush"? He was terrific as Will Gaines, a menacing Texas nightclub owner / drug lord who was ultimately brought up on false charges, thanks to bogus evidence planted by two undercover cops (Jason Patric and Jennifer Jason Leigh) who were themselves drug addicts, and had been assigned that task by an ambitious D.A. (Dennis Letts) and their own corrupt police captain (Sam Elliot).

    That film was loosely based upon the real-life scandal that enveloped the Tyler, TX police department in 1977-78, which ruined the lives of everyone involved and ultimately led to its court-ordered dismantling and reorganization.

    Eric Clapton both composed and performed the movie's original score, which is worthy of note because one of the tracks, "Tears in Heaven," subsequently became his biggest hit and won the Grammy that year for Best Song. Personally, I like his closing track from that score, "Help Me Up," much better.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I had albums by (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 10:42:18 PM EST
    every single one of the groups you mention except Kansas and the Average White Band (but I do know who they are.) Your website shows what a great time you had all those years. Thanks for sharing it.

    Parent
    Repak, we probably saw each other (none / 0) (#19)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 06:19:08 AM EST
    at several of those concerts.  From 1969 through 1972 I was editing ski films in SF, and making a film for the Frisco chapter of the Hells Angels.  They guarded all the music venues around that area of California.  Since I knew and rode with them, I was always whisked in the back stage door and got to meet many of the groups you mention.  Great times.

    Parent
    Did you ever do a Bowie show? (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 11:15:01 PM EST
    I used to hang at Winterland all the time when I was younger (starting in HS), such a deal to see great bands/shows.

    Parent
    Speaking of Bowie & the Stones... (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:40:04 AM EST
    ...this is a video the Family Guy aired randomly.  After the video, Peter said, "That happened, and we let it happen."

    I absolutely love Bowie and like the Stones, but this is the 80's I remember in a nutshell having graduated in '88.

    LINK

    I would go as far as saying it is THE worse video every produced by rock legends.

    Parent

    Got Another Great 80's Song (none / 0) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 10:03:00 AM EST
    THIS was actually on XM on my way to work.

    After some investigation, turns out this Hollywood powerhouse actually put out to albums in the 80's, where was I because I don't remember it, must have been moonlighting somewhere.

    Parent

    You guys are making me feel real old ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:09:46 AM EST
    ... for knowing all those bands, and real young because I was in elementary and junior high during the period you're talking about, and not quite old enough yet to go to rock concerts on a regular basis.

    As a 15th birthday present to me, my older sister and her husband prevailed upon my mother to allow me to accompany them to San Francisco in late March 1976 to see The Who at Winterland. (They weren't playing L.A. that tour, hence our road trip.) The show opened with "I Can't Explain" and closed with "Won't Get Fooled Again." There was no encore.

    I had to stay at my aunt's and uncle's place in Oakland while I was in the Bay Area, because my mother said that I was too young to party with my sister, et al., and she made that a condition of the road trip. But that was a small price to pay, because that concert was totally awesome. And that's also the only time I ever went to Winterland.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Ha ha (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:16:37 AM EST
    I'm feeling too young for this conversation, the concerts I went to in high school and college did not include any of the above mentioned groups!

    Parent
    If you are not (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    at least of Medicare age, then you are still a mere baby.  Enjoy your youth.    ;-)

    Parent
    Funny, in That I Bet in the Past 5 Years... (none / 0) (#199)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 02:14:40 PM EST
    ...one could have seen 90% of these bands, or some amalgamation of the original, live.  These old rockers just keep going.

    My first real concert, without parents and being driven by a friend out of the city was Dokken & Krokus. And like above they are still playing which surprised me when I Googled it.

    I can't bring myself to go to old timer concerts no matter how great.  I don't want to see Pink Floyd, I want to see Pink Floyd and I refuse to cheapen the grandeur in my mind by going to see Waters or Jagger or Hynde shake it like they are on social security.

    People who got to see legends in their heyday were truly given a gift or greatness.  Now it's going through your stuff, metal detectors, and $10 beers, and $100+ tickets, for a venue that hosts Monster Trucks and somehow thinking a band's last concert is it's best.  It's not.

    Parent

    I was at that show. (none / 0) (#45)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:20:09 AM EST
    Saw many great shows at Winterland.

    Parent
    What a week (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 07:16:03 AM EST
    what a weekend.  One fer the history books.  Haven't seen that much optimism in one place since the era of some of those concerts guys were talking about unthread.  Those days, late 60s early 70s, were the most optimistic time if my life.  The last couple of days took me back to them a bit.

    It really is the best of times.  The worst of times.

    An interesting proposal (none / 0) (#23)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 07:34:56 AM EST
    all flavors of rights groups should find easy to get behind:  requiring cops to identify themselves and get proof of consent before searching people without probable cause.

    Naturally, the police are against it.

    Likely to be (none / 0) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:32:24 AM EST
    three more opinions from the SCOTUS at 10ET this morning. Some form of  Clean Air, Re-districting, and Lethal injection are still pending.

    I'd think there is a solid chance of all three going against my preference, but with the vitriol of Scalia last week it keeps the hopes high that his anger was from more than just the high profile cases.

    I hope you are wrong (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:34:29 AM EST
    maybe I am still just optimized by the last two days but for some reason I think there might be surprises.

    Parent
    I'm pulling for a Meatloaf song (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:53:12 AM EST
    if we can't have a sweep of anti-Scalia

    Parent
    No one expected (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:57:42 AM EST
    the housing ruling

    Parent
    Lethal Injection (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:04:31 AM EST
    stays the same (not surprising)

    Parent
    Not a good start (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:04:33 AM EST
    Written by Alito (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:08:58 AM EST
    That takes Sotomayor and Kagan out of the mix today

    Parent
    RBG on Re-districting (none / 0) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:30:58 AM EST
    Meatloaf for my aide is still alive.

    Probably have to hope for Kennedy on Clean Air.

    Parent

    my side (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:31:22 AM EST
    And today I lose 2 out of 3 (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:42:42 AM EST
    Still one more victory than expected.

    Parent
    Could be an important victory (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:00:10 AM EST
    very important (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    still bummed about the EPA though.

    Lethal injection - it is what it is.  If we're gonna have the death penalty, I'm not really convinced there's a "humane" answer to that.  Obviously we don't go to ISIS levels of killing and torture, but death is death.

    Parent

    The EPA ruling isn't important in the long run (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:17:35 AM EST
    as solar and other renewable forms of energy increase their market share over time, muscling out coal and other hydrocarbon-based fuels.

    Parent
    it's extremely important (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CST on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:24:44 AM EST
    we don't really have much time to waste.

    Parent
    That means making it (none / 0) (#50)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:36:36 AM EST
    part of the 2016 elections, IMHO.  The Chinese are eating our lunch with solar power and the water crisis in the western United States both can only be ignored at our own peril.

    Parent
    Re:jim (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 11:32:30 AM EST
    BTW - I have posted much more about me than you have about you.

    Since you already stated that kdog is the only commentator here you respect, what do you think I could tell you about my life that would put me on the level as them?

    Why are you (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 11:55:27 AM EST
    going there? Did you miss the time Howdy quote his mama talking about wrestling with a pig?

    Parent
    With all due respect, Mordiggian, ... (4.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:05:48 PM EST
    ... this is how these Open Threads so frequently get clogged. Please respect Jeralyn's previous requests and even occasional admonitions to that effect, and resist the urge to continue your personal spat here.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Jim actually asked Mordiggian (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:11:18 PM EST
    to bring this up in an open thread. Perhaps all would be better served by giving the two of them their own thread in the same way as he who shall not be named was limited to a particular thread.

    Parent
    Well, since we are objecting (2.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:35:54 PM EST
    is it okay if I note how dull and boring I find you folks's comments re the various rock bands you love and had experience with "back in the day?"

    Very dull and very uninteresting.

    But you know what I do?? Instead of complaining I scan and skip the ones I'm not interested in. Seems to be the polite and civilized thing to do.

    As for "personal," in one discussion a few days ago I counted around 6 or so commentators joining in.

    Parent

    Our occasional reminiscences about rock concerts -- past, present and future -- are still a helluva lot more interesting than watching you deny, over and again for weeks and months on end, long-since-settled matters of science.

    Now, please excuse me, but talking to you today has given me the urge to listen to "Weasels Ripped My Flesh" by Frank Zappa and The Mothers of Invention.

    :-|

    Parent

    You are using (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 06:01:53 PM EST
    my favorite Zappa as a weapon.

    Well, maybe second favorite after Burnt Weenie Sandwich.

    He would probably be pleased.

    Parent

    Burnt Weenie Sandwich (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    Btw (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:26:53 AM EST
    in keeping with the concert thread

    The 18 minutes of music linked above, IMO among the most spectacular ever recorded, becomes even more so the end when you learn you have been listening to a live performance.

    Zappa is the only artist I can think of that I have no idea how many times I saw him live.  I even saw them do the above with Sugar Cane Harris on violin.  No matter how many time I saw them it was a religious experience.

    Parent

    I can't really say that I was ever really totally into Zappa as he was, because there are many times when I just never quite understood him, period. Nevertheless, the man was obviously operating at a higher plateau of consciousness, and he was no doubt a genius, plain and simple. So, whenever I do listen to him, the experience can often be revelatory.

    Parent
    He's just mad (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 06:07:55 PM EST
    because he didn't make it to the Who @ Winterland ;)

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:33:45 PM EST
    He was probably a Keith Moon groupie back in the day.
    ;-D

    Parent
    Donald, don't be so thin skinned (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    I was just pointing out that when I find something that I have no interest in I just scan and skip on.

    It seems to be the polite and adult thing to do. You should try it.

    BTW - Being a full grown adult of the Silent Generation I never was any band's groupie...although I admit that I was fascinated by Marilyn Monroe.

    ;-)

    BTW - Settled aint what you think it is.

    Do I expect you to publicly denounce the hockey stick as obvious drivel? Well, yes.
    Jonathan Jones, Professor of Atomic and Laser Physics, University of Oxford

    Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred ...because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
    Eduardo Zorita, Senior Scientist at Germany's Institute for Coastal Research

    Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong.
    Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh

    Link

    Parent

    Oh, Christ! (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 01:34:05 PM EST
    Can't you take a hint? Nobody's really interested in the bunkum and hokum you're peddling. Give it up already, and stop treating everyone here like we're all a bunch of effin morons.

    Parent
    This is What I Hear (none / 0) (#200)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 02:19:30 PM EST
    Oh, yeah... (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    That make it more palatable.
    Jim actually asked Mordiggian (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 11:11:18 AM MDT

    to bring this up in an open thread

    They don't need an open thread to themselves. There is such a thing as email.

    Parent
    Jim, have a good life. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    If only you would leave it at that. (4.25 / 4) (#103)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    Thanks for blog-clogging (2.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 05:08:25 PM EST
    You just can't help yourself, can you? (4.00 / 3) (#107)
    by sj on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 05:26:25 PM EST
    You have to respond to everything.

    Especially when it is pointed out how you have to respond to everything.

    Parent

    Neither, it seems, (2.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:15:01 PM EST
    can oculus.  

    I

    Parent

    oculus has no such problem (3.67 / 3) (#133)
    by sj on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:25:11 PM EST
    I disagree. (2.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:39:04 PM EST
    Nothing (2.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:36:59 PM EST
    Then (none / 0) (#144)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 12:54:59 AM EST
    I'll leave you to your screaming at clouds, along withaccusing people of makings things up when you've been caught out in one of your more ridiculous, idiotic, ignorant theories that don't make sense.

    Parent
    In a now time honored tradition (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:16:52 PM EST
    Kasich officially announced today that he will officially announce on July 21.

    The Kasich Campaign slogan (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 11:45:49 AM EST
    "You never heard of the other guys either."

    Parent
    Kasich said, previously, (none / 0) (#90)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    that he was waiting for God to tell him to run.  Interested in knowing if God is texting these days, or still using that old-fashioned anthropomorphic zap.

    Parent
    In keeping with tradition (none / 0) (#95)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    maybe the produce aisle at Food World

    Parent
    Gotta love it (none / 0) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 03:45:39 PM EST
    NBC to Trump, "You're fired!"

    they keep playing Obama bursting into song (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 05:49:36 PM EST
    which I truly love.  More every time I see it.  IMO it was inspired and inspirational.

    That said, the day it happened I was in another room and not really paying attention to the TV.  I heard that and thought, WTF.   Whoever they got to sing really sucks.

    have you seen the rest of it? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by CST on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:57:41 AM EST
    The theme of the whole speech was Amazing Grace.  When it happened it certainly wasn't random.  And he's clearly choking up.

    I've never seen the 2008 convention speech, and I never really got into Obama the public speaker.  But this was something special and different and I think he knew it.  I feel like it was almost a glimpse of the post-president Obama, and I liked it.  I don't think he's going to disappear from the public sphere like W.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 05:56:24 PM EST
    I thought the singing was not all that great on the merits but it was heartfelt. Perhaps no music made it easier to sing off key like he did because we know he CAN sing.

    Parent
    He really does have a nice voice (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:28:37 PM EST
    He did wander off key, but found it again when people joined him. I don't think would have expected him to do any better than that.

    I hadn't heard about it before I saw the clip, and when he started talking about grace I was thinking  'omg, please don't try to sing right now'...but then he went for it and I thought it was really a beautiful moment.

    Parent

    the whole speech used (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by CST on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 09:00:22 AM EST
    the Amazing Grace theme, so when he finally went for it, it wasn't as oddly placed as it may seem in a clip.

    I highly recommend watching the entire speech if you have the time.

    Parent

    So Nathan (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 08:22:12 PM EST
    Deal is saying that in Georgia they are going to have to follow the law of the supreme court and issue marriage licenses to gay people. I don't think the GOP can win no matter what they do on this issue. Now the Republicans here in the state are hopping mad at him and say he needs to go. Sam Olens who is this really creepy fundamentalist is even saying that he's going to go along with the law even though he has been preaching about how evil gays are. Deal must have come down on his head and told him to STFU. Frankly he must have told the entire GOP to STFU here in GA because I am hearing zero wailing it's the end of the world here. The only people wailing are the voters.

    Donald Trump Refuses to Release (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:03:37 PM EST
    his Birth Certificate and Passport Records.

    In October 2012, Trump, a prominent figure in the "birther movement" - a loose affiliation of people who claimed Obama was born outside the US - accused Obama of being "the least transparent president in the history of this country" for refusing to release the very details Trump is now refusing to publish.


    The Guardian needs to stick with present news (none / 0) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 10:54:44 PM EST
    rather than publishing something last Friday that was relevant in 2012.

    Parent
    If you'd read the article you'd have noticed (none / 0) (#143)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 12:39:31 AM EST
    that they contacted Trump twice about the issue.  First when he wasn't a candidate, in 2012.  Second, when he was, which is now, and they contacted his "campaign."

    Parent
    I read it (none / 0) (#157)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:42:28 AM EST
    But also have changed my opinion a bit. It wasn't valid in 2012 and not valid now. A British newspaper has zero standing to ask the question.

    Parent
    That story is in their American edition, CG. (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 10:10:02 AM EST
    They sited one here because they felt sorry for us and our servile press.

    Parent
    Or our press would be inteligent enough (none / 0) (#196)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 01:58:03 PM EST
    not to ask such a silly question.

    But if you think questioning things the way Trump does is good, well have at it. It strikes me a bit like crawling into the gutter with rats and claiming the high ground.

    Parent

    I woke up early today (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:11:21 AM EST
    specifically to catch Ted Cruz on Squint & The Meat Puppet.

    I was not disappointed.  He explained at length how anyone who chooses to ignore the marriage decision has that right.  It include a lengthy explanation of the (unknown to me) fact that a court decision has no meaning whatever to any one other than the parties involved in the case.   Also that this is the first time on our history that the court has ever taken a decision about the state of marriage away from the states.

    Surprisingly none of this was questioned and Loving V Vriginia was not mentioned.

    If you put your head out your window at the time you could probably have heard people screaming at their TV.

    Technically, (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:23:55 AM EST
    He's right.  This decision  only applies to the Sixth Circuit cases, and Texas can wait for the Fifth Circuit toniddue a ruling that comports with the Supreme Court's decision.  But it's a matter of a week or two, and some Clerks Offices across the south have just started issuing licenses anyway.

    Parent
    Grr. (none / 0) (#155)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:25:03 AM EST
    Texas can wait for the 5th Circuit to issue a ruling...

    Parent
    That's actually not what he said (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:47:14 AM EST
    watch the video tell me if I'm wrong.   He clearly said only the plaintiffs and no one else, in any circuit, was effected.

    I'm sure it was clever lawyer wording that could be interpreted as you say, but that's not what he said.  

    Parent

    Actually, no (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:56:07 AM EST
    He said only the parties are bound to the decision.  In these cases, "the parties" includes the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee - in other words, the Sixth Circuit.

    Parent
    So essentially (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:58:56 AM EST
    he is saying that every gay person who got married in one state and resides in another is going to have to take their case to the supreme court or maybe just a judge to "approve" their marriage?

    Parent
    Yes and No (none / 0) (#164)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 09:10:47 AM EST
    It will hold everywhere, but yes other states can wait until all the paperwork is complete which takes up to 2 weeks.

    As for Cruz, well he's just an idiot, but it's not idiocy if a state should choose to wait for all the paperwork to be finalized.

    Parent

    For the Record... (none / 0) (#168)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 09:47:08 AM EST
    ...people in Houston were married Friday, hours after the decision.

    Question, the city passed a law at least a year back, that prevented businesses from discrimination based on "race, sex, color, sexual orientation and gender identity, among other categories."  It's been in the courts since, will this ruling have any effect in settling the matter ?  

    IOW, does giving people equal rights in marriage extend beyond marriage ?

    Parent

    Link to Law Passed... (none / 0) (#169)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 09:48:12 AM EST
    ...HERE.

    Parent
    Short answer (none / 0) (#170)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 09:51:31 AM EST
    Just watch the video (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 10:00:58 AM EST
    anyone who is interested.  That is not what he said.  He even used the example of a at the table suing b at the table and settling their dispute not settling the same dispute between him and either a or b.
    Since in this case b is the state, I pretty sure that's incorrect.

    Parent
    Your example didn't make any sense (none / 0) (#179)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 10:14:20 AM EST
    What is "a at the table"?  And no one settled here.

    Maybe he's changing his tune (and since you didn't post a link, I have no idea what interview you are referring to), but he was interviewed by NPR yesterday and said, "The parties to a case cannot ignore a direct judicial order.  But it does not mean that those who are not parties to a case are bound by a judicial order."

    That's true.  But since the SC ruled that this is a sweeping decision, it's just a matter of days for the 5th Circuit (where Texas and Louisiana are) to rule and sign the papers making it official. So as I said, his statement is technically true, but isn't going to mean anything, since it's a political statement made to play to primary voters.

    Parent

    Do you have fingers (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 10:18:26 AM EST
    MSNBC has a website

    Parent
    It does (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by sj on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 11:39:49 AM EST
    But like most "news" websites, it's horrible. Way too much junk on it.

    Just sayin'

    Parent

    Word (none / 0) (#181)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 10:35:24 AM EST
    Btw (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    would you like to talk about the part about the court never getting involved in the definition of marriage before?


    Parent
    Captain... (none / 0) (#174)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 10:06:58 AM EST
    ...I am shocked that the world foremost 'expert' on the Constitution doesn't know what he is talking about and/or has such respect for it that he wants SCOTUS to have get re-elected to keep their appointments.

    I would actually be shocked if he made one appearance and everything out of his mouth was the truth.  This is just Cruz doing what he does to get votes.  And he ain't the only one.

    Parent

    Ya (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    he very artfully said and VERY clearly implied for his fans that the ONLY people now legally able to marry as a result of the decision was the plaintiffs in that particular case.

    Watch it.  If you can.

    Parent

    I Can't... (none / 0) (#189)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 12:09:35 PM EST
    ...and I am guessing that not too many folks want to get married by homophobic 'man/woman of god', so the entire argument is bunk, IMO.  Plenty of open door churches to accommodate, so the close minded can put the fainting couch back in the closet.

    Parent
    Idiocy (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:43:35 AM EST
    to do that though.

    I guess I should be thankful for small miracles that so far we have not had any problems here in GA. There were people waiting in line in Fulton County for the decision to come down and the minute it did couples went and got their marriage license without a hitch.

    Parent

    So It's Official... (none / 0) (#175)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 10:09:54 AM EST
    ... the clown car had room for another, and I assume it's a hybrid running on the fumes of gas bags.

    Chris Christie to Supporters: I'm Running for President

    You know (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 10:13:49 AM EST
    i don't really like the fat jokes.

    That said,  I think the fact that he has so little self control that he has to have his body altered to stop himself from eating might legitimately be an issue for someone wanting the most difficult job on earth.

    Parent

    We skinny Minnie's (none / 0) (#182)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15:34 AM EST
    Don't like skinny jokes either.  Actually , now I don't mind them much, but back in school I had about ten different skinny names.

    Boney Maroney . . . (none / 0) (#183)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 11:32:17 AM EST
    I'm sure I spelled that wrong, but I was stuck with that for awhile. Now, I am proudly the same weight I was in HS :D

    Parent
    Never had that problem (none / 0) (#187)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 11:48:33 AM EST
    fat kid.

    Then I discovered amphetamines!

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#184)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 11:34:22 AM EST
    at least he's not a Clinton, "Jeb Bush dogged by decades of questions about business deals"

    All the Republicans need to put this:

    "The only documented allegations come down to the fact that he did business with people that later turned out to be deadbeats and crooks," said Tom Feeney, who was on the ticket as lieutenant governor during Bush's 1994 campaign
    . On their resume. IOKIYAR.

    Willin' (none / 0) (#191)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    Capt (none / 0) (#204)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    Since I gave no idea what "Squint &the Meat Puppet is" and since you would not/ could not provide a link, then it was YOUR responsibility to inform people if you want them to go watch the video.

    And since MSNBC is a garbage network, combined with what you say Yes Cruz said, then I wouldn't bother watching it anyway.

    Here's some back-up (none / 0) (#205)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 03:41:27 PM EST
    to prove that somebody here doesn't know what they are talking about:

    boycott
    [boi-kot]

    Examples

    verb (used with object)
    1.
    to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion:
    to boycott a store.
    2.
    to abstain from buying or using:
    to boycott foreign products
    .


    noun
    3.
    the practice of boycotting.
    4.
    an instance of boycotting.

    Noun and a verb, Brainiac.

    Home work (none / 0) (#206)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    try typing "squint and". In Google

    Oh, and Capt. (none / 0) (#207)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 04:03:57 PM EST
    YOU may want to watch the Ted Cruz video again.  He never ONCE mentioned the word "plaintiffs" or said it only applied to them- he said "parties", which as I said above was technically correct. He also said, "Now, will other courts treat the decision as binding precedent?  Yes."

    And before the usual parties jump in, no this isn't a defense of Ted Cruz and his policies.  I think his overall analysis about the ability for states to decide the marriage question for themselves is a load of hooey.


    Try reading what I wrote. (none / 0) (#209)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    BTW - Boycott is a verb. Coercion is a noun.

    "Fear of a boycott (verb)that would cause loss of business coerced (noun) Walmart into stop selling the CSA flag."

    And since I haven't opposed a boycott...why are you giving me its definition?

    boycott to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion:

    You all have a nice day now, you hear!?

    And boycott is also a noun like (none / 0) (#210)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 04:59:57 PM EST
    Coercion, and the event that lead to Captain Boycott's name coming to have a new meaning was because of organized nonviolent coercion.

    But hey, keep digging the hole you're in, Jim. You want to live in a fantasy world where people can say anything, and they be protected from criticism or economic nonviolent coercion(I.e., boycott) because of freedom of speech whatever.

    Keep waving your arms, Jim.   And quit making things up.