Obama For America outtakes.
Young Turks: CIA documents show Bin Laden warnings ignored:
Thom: Republicans find another union to bust.
Greenman: Climate crocks…Marc Morano at Heartland.
ONN: The Onion Week in Review.
Thom: The Good, the Bad, and the Very, Very Ugly.
Sam Seder: New 9/11 documents expose Bush admin. lies.
Susie Sampson Tea Party Report: Immigration!
Full of Mitt:
- SlateNews: Mitt to America: Ignore the good news.
- Sam Seder: Mitt talks and talks but won’t answer on immigration.
- Alyona’s Tool Time Award: Mitt Romney wants G.O.P. Govs to lie to Americans.
- Obama on Mitt Romney outsourcing jobs.
- Thom: Mitt wants a 12.5% Tax Break that you pay for.
- Mitt Romeny on immigration reform.
- Maddow: Romney fails to lead on immigration
- Ann Telnaes: Mitt explains his immigration policy.
- Sam Seder: Mitt’s sons on their dad.
- Romney learns about
touchtonetouch screen technology (via Slog). - John King on Romney’s immigration speech
- Mark Fiore: DeficitBots.
- Sam Seder: Mitt to G.O.P. Governors, “Shhhhhhhh”.
Slate News: Springsteen won’t hang with Chris Christie.
Alyona: Romney Doppelganger hates poor people.
Indecision in the park.
A clown answer for Harry Reid:
Sam Seder: Vagina mentioning Rep. like “child who needed a time out”.
Thom: What do Republicans love about rape?
Young Turks: Secret right wing money spent on deceptive ads.
Ann Telnaes: Sheldon Adelson’s gift.
Fast, but mostly Furious:
- Thom and Pap: Ongoing Fast and Furious conspiracy theory.
- Jon attacks the Obama admin over executive privilege.
- Sam Seder: GOP’s sad attempt at finding a scandal.
- Ed and Pap: Darrel Issa’s contempt for democracy
- Maddow: Gun fanatics invent conspiracy, ignore real gun violence.
- Thom: F&F, why didn’t Pelosi arrest Rove?
ONN: Tea Party quiet—too quiet.
Sam Seder and Chris Hayes: Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy.
Young Turks: Poll shows Republicans grossly misinformed on Iran, Iraq.
Alyona: Indiana Wingnut covers his bases on SCOTUS ruling.
Obama in Tampa.
“Joe” the “Historian”:
- Slate News: Joe’s surreal ad
- “Joe” the “Plumber” blames gun control for the Holocaust.
- Sam Seder: Joe’s new bizarre ad.
White House: West Wing Week.
Alyona’s Tool Time Award: Arizona’s Secretary of State Ken Bennett is back with more Birfer insanity.
Anti-Obama teleprompter ad.
Young Turks: 2/3 of Republicans believe Obama was born outside of U.S.
Thom: More Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
Well…
this is interesting. SaltLakeMagazine has an interesting piece on the hagiography of Mitt’s ‘rescue’ of the Olympics, and how it has been essentially VERY overblown for political purposes. Surprise, surprise.
Joe the Plumber also “thinks” that “everything we need to live a great life is right in the Bible”
Ah. I love Bible-thumpers. Those literalists like puddles and Mr. Scripty who are all into blood sacrifice and strict dietary laws and stonings, just like Jesus’ says. Or something. ‘Cause baby Jeebus hates liberals.
Mikey Weinstein, of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, gets email…
What is with these peaceful, loving Christians being driven to violence and hate by horrible horrible atheists?
God answers the Christianists, as discovered by the Hubble.
Things aren’t looking good for the prosecution when lefties begin defending George Zimmerman:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/22/143156/459
I see variations, but I see no significant dissimilarities. I see nothing that amounts to a contradiction or a difference. I see a valid claim of self-defense.
What do you see? And remember to state your opinions as such, and not misrepesent disputed facts as undisputed truths.
@ 1
So Mitt wasn’t awesome, he was merely great:
There’s not a lot of debate about the quality of Romney’s Olympic management. Even former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson—a rival presidential candidate (for the fledgling Justice Party) and polar political opposite of the socially conservative multi-millionaire—said Romney was “a great leader” of the Games.
Bombshell revelation, Lib Sci.
Pathetic, far-leftist little children expose their sophomoric sides. And Obama is quick to distance himself from this.
This kind of behavior hurts Obama because these are his staunchest supporters and they do it so frequently. Right now there is a compilation video being made to show the Voters the type of high-level Obama groupies and how they act. Conservative Democrats are long, long tired of this kind of conduct. You fools probably condone it and get your giggles, huh?
… Blah blah blah blah….
CURTAINS for Obama!! This is a disaster!!! Oh noes!!!
Spare us the concern trolling, it’s really tiresome. And please, AGAIN, post links when you use 7 paragraphs of someone’s work. We like to keep track of where this drivel comes from.
“Things aren’t looking good for the prosecution when lefties begin defending George Zimmerman”
That’s a really stupid thing to say, even dumber than what the lefty blogger wrote. The Talkleft blogger (no bio whatsoever, not even a last name) starts with a statement about the evidence that was just released, “I doubt anyone but true case afficionados have listened to them all. I know I haven’t”, and then expresses an opinion as to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty. The prosecution, who has most certainly examined all of the evidence, thinks otherwise. All this shows is that some progressives can be nearly as stupid as our trolls.
@5 Legal cases are decided by court trials, not bloggers.
@ 9
You’re certainly entitled to your own opinion.
You aren’t entitled to your own facts.
Just about every meme the MSNBC-types have tried has blown up in their faces as more information has been released.
Zimmerman wasn’t injured! That’s not a wound on his head! Oh, wait…..
Zimmerman is a white guy who shot a black boy! ’til it turned out he’s not white and the black boy was not the cute 13-year old in the initial photos but a thug in training.
Zimmerman was beating him before he shot him! If only there wasn’t that MMA-style description of the pounding Martin gave Zimmerman before Zimmerman pulled his weapon.
Need I go on?
@ 10
And here I was thinking all this time that they were decided by juries.
I wonder if the number of RR comments on the Zimmerman thing has exceeded 100, and how many times he’s posted links to blogs.
That’s what we’ve come to expect from our new and very prolific troll.
“You aren’t entitled to your own facts.”
Back that up or STFU. I did not write about any facts of the case nor have I ever expressed any opinion on the facts of the case.
“a thug in training”
Racist bullshit.
@11 Serial D bag,
You asked “Need I go on?”
No. STFU.
Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman are criminals and will be found so in a court of law.
It was “leftie” [sic] liberals who pushed for the murder of Trayvon Martin to be prosecuted, and all the while those who labeled themselves “conservative” wailed about how wrong that was.
In case you missed the answer … SFTU.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
OMG!!! Obama’s gonna take our guns away. And we should be able to shoot “brown people” if we damn well feel like it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=g-user-u
Don’t forget to checkout the comments.
@ 14
Multiple school suspensions and a history of assaulting a bus driver, and I’m racist for saying he was becoming a thug?
I didn’t create his history out of thin air. I only pointed out that he was growing up a bad kid.
@ 18
He was suspended once. For a nonviolent offense: possession of a hash pipe. In a State where 10% of the population is black, the children of that part are subject to 90% of the school suspensions and arrests for the same offenses that white folks do, and do NOT get suspended or arrested for. Florida is an openly white supremacist state, and their law enforcement acts accordingly.
No, you’re a racist because you seem to think that anyone not looking an acting just like Beaver Cleaver is a potential criminal. Your previous posts have made that obvious.
“a history of assaulting a bus driver”
That was a rumor started by right-wing racists in their smear campaign against Trayvon Martin that was accompanied by fake photos of a “thug”. It was stated as the reason for his suspension, which turned out not to be true. But it’s a rumor still kept alive on sites like Stormfront by the most diehard of racists. And here you are, Bob, pushing it here on HA. Geez, how about that, huh?
@20, Steve: Have “fun”, but recognize that he has no shame, cannot be embarrassed and is probably being paid to waste your time.
@ 20
Wasn’t that based on his FB conversation with a friend?
@ 20
All I said was multiple suspensions. How many good kids are suspended from school on multiple occasions?
@ 22, 20
My bad. It was on Twitter, not FB:
As Dan Linehan, a blogger at Wagist.com, pointed out, correspondence with Martin on Twitter before he died alludes to an incident with a bus driver. “Yu ain’t tell me you swung on a bus driver,” Martin’s cousin wrote to him on Feb. 21.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cu.....03647.html
@18, 22, 23 & 24. Serial D Bag,
What part of STFU didn’t you understand?
@ 25
Ah, right. We mustn’t upset liberal preconceptions about the white man who shot the innocent black child. After all, he’s been indicted for murder.
Duke much, libbies?
“Wasn’t that based on his FB conversation with a friend?”
With this meager grasp of things you decided to post this vicious rumor as fact?? That’s something a racist would do, Bob.
“All I said was multiple suspensions. How many good kids are suspended from school on multiple occasions?”
You ask me? I was a kid who was suspended a couple of times. Today I’m a professional engineering “thug”, for sure, but one with no criminal record whatsoever as well as someone who has obtained top secret government and corporate security clearances. So, no, a single school suspension doesn’t mean a person is “bad”, which is what you infer of Trayvon Martin. A racist would go there, though.
“As Dan Linehan, a blogger at Wagist.com”
And just as real as the fake photographs Linehan posted, in case you ever wondered where the fake “thug” photos of Trayvon Martin that were circulating on right-wing sites at the time came from.
@ 27
I said nothing about photos. I alluded to the twitter message that said he ‘swung on a bus driver’. Screen captures, etc. I haven’t seen retorts that the twitter message was fake.
MJ, suspensions for a pipe with residue aren’t thuggish behavior. Assaulting a bus driver is.
“We mustn’t upset liberal preconceptions about the white man who shot the innocent black child.”
So you resort to pushing right-wing lies as fact. And just how is that supposed to leave you standing on higher ground, Bob?
Someone at the White House must know that Obamacare is in seriously deep shit:
HHS pushes out cash ahead of ruling
http://www.politico.com/news/s.....77752.html
Of course, the White House might just be taking its cues from what the rest of the world has already figured out:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics.....-YGhHBFts0
@ 29
What lie, Doctor Steve? I linked to a Yahoo news piece. That’s not exactly right-wing. No ‘Faux News’ stuff.
Was the bus driver thing false? It’s a little difficult for you to dispute it since it was his relative that wrote the tweet, Doctor Steve.
@30
As has been pointed out previously, most of Obamacare will be sticking around even if the whole thing gets thrown out by The Supremes.
“Assaulting a bus driver is.”
Do you have anything, anything at all other than a fake twit that was posted by Lineham along with his fake Trayvon Martin “thug” photos?
30, 32 – We’ll find out Obamacare’s fate this coming week. Until then everything anyone says about it is speculation.
“I linked to a Yahoo news piece.”
So what? I went to the Yahoo source, Lineham, who is the same guy who pushed the fake “thug” photos in the very same blog post as the twit. The so-called “story” had no legs because it was total bullshit. Only racists like you keep it alive.
On 9-11…
Eventually “we” are going to have to admit the shrub and prick cheney were in on the deal with bin laden…
I’m not addressing this comment to anyone in particular, and specifically not to unteachable trolls who are unqualified to comment on legal issues, but think they know more about the law than lawyers do; I’m simply going to compare two cases to illustrate how self-defense law works.
Texas Case: A father runs out to his barn and finds a stranger raping his 4-year-old daughter. He punches the rapist with his bare fists to stop the rape and disable the attacker, then calls 9-1-1 to send an ambulance and asks them to “hurry because he’s going to die on me.” By the time assistance arrives, the subject has died. Authorities decide not to prosecute.
Florida Case: A private citizen decides to stop and question a juvenile he feels is behaving “suspiciously,” in disregard of the 9-1-1 operator’s instruction to stay in his car. Confronting the juvenile leads to an altercation, and the citizen pulls a gun and shoots the unarmed juvenile in the heart at close range, killing him instantly. Authorities decide to prosecute.
Commentary: The differences between these two cases are stark and obvious. In the Texas case, a stranger trespassed on the citizen’s private farm property and violently assaulted his young daughter. The law allows the father to use reasonable force to stop the attack against his child. The citizen used non-lethal force — his fists — but apparently hit the attacker too hard, resulting in his death. The citizen did not intend to kill him, and did what he could to save him. This death was an accident and occurred in the course of lawful defense of a family member.
In the Florida case, a vigilante attempted to exercise police powers he did not have by stopping and questioning a stranger who was engaged in perfectly lawful activity that is not a basis for reasonable suspicion — he was walking home from a store. He disobeyed a police dispatcher’s instruction to stay in his car and not confront the subject. Confronting the subject resisted led to a scuffle, and the vigilante then used lethal force to stop a fist fight. Under the laws of any state, this is an unlawful homicide, because the shooter (1) had no legal authority to stop and question the victim, (2) instigated the altercation, and (3) used an unreasonable degree of force. Basically, the shooter lost his self-defense claim when he initiated the confrontation; under the laws of most states, a self-defense claim is not available to one who initiates the conflict.
In many cases, the devil is in the details, but in the Trayvon Martin case, it is the big-picture facts that will control the legal outcome and the details probably are not going to alter that outcome. Martin’s past behavior is irrelevant; if you are the victim of a violent crime, your past record does not justify the crime committed against you.
It should be noted that in both of these cases, whether the deceased victim had a record of truancy, drug or alcohol use, criminal record, etc., is irrelevant. A person’s past behavior does not have any bearing on the legal question of whether a homicide is justified or excused in the eyes of the law. That depends solely on the facts of the incident and the self-defense laws of the jurisdiction where it occurred.
@ 33
Nothing other than the screen-grabbed tweet. I have no information that it’s fake. Googled and didn’t come up with anything alleging it’s fake but I didn’t look thoroughly.
Show me where it’s been discredited.
@37
Thanks Roger.
I’m sure serialasshole will be along shortly to school you on the finer points of criminal procedure and the like.
@37
Thanks, Rog.
Bzzzzzt… Wrong.. Burden of proof is on you to show it’s “credited” otherwise you’re throwing crap against a wall and hoping it sticks.
LMFAO….careful, the boogedyman might be under your bed..
Engineers doing awesome things..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzqdoXwLBT8&feature=player_embedded
One day private treasure hunters will use this knowledge to enrich themselves beyond all imagining.
But don’t raise taxes! Dat will hurt the jawb cweatohs…
As the world changes under the dwindling bigots’ feet of clay:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47.....york_times
USELESS PIECE OF MITT
Must watch video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=g-user-u
@ 41
YLB, I didn’t even find any links to people claiming the tweets were forged. The source account has been taken down. It’s a little difficult to argue for or against the validity of something that doesn’t exist online in the original form anymore, but unless there’s serious argument that the screengrabbed image is forged, there’s no reason I should try to prove otherwise. So far we have Doctor Steve saying the source is from someone whom he thinks distorted something else.
Kind of a non-denial denial.
@ 37
Since state law controls, and since FL and TX are different states, your whole concept of drawing distinctions between cases in two different states is idiotic. Further, you yourself state that the distinctions between the two cases are ‘stark and obvious’.
You, yourself, reinforce that your whole comment is crap. Different scenarios in different states. Period. Why even bring it up unless to prove yourself an idiot?
@46 After you finish lecturing a retired judge about law, what will you do for an encore, offer to perform brain surgery on your doctor?
Smart people usually know when they’re in over their heads. Dumb ones never do; they just sink deeper and deeper.
@ 47
Make your argument to Dershowitz, who also seems to think Zimmerman has a case. Anna Diggs Taylor is a judge as well. She made an idiotic argument once and got her ass handed to her by her higher-ups. Being a ‘judge’ means nothing.
I’ve seen the worst decisions by lower-level judges. Opinions are reversed all the time.
Too much stupid shit comes out of you for me to have any respect for whatever your background might be, RR. Way too much stupid shit.
@49 See #39.
A poignant quote by Lawrence O’Donnell on the history of conservatism and liberalism in America:
@ 51
Liberals, maybe.
Democrats, not so much (Wiki):
Passage in the Senate
Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland’s firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself.
The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the “Southern Bloc” of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[9] Said Russell: “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.”[10]
The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): “This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.”[11]
After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[12]
On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill’s manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[13]
On June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 71–29, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.[14]
@49 (continued) Dershowitz hasn’t said Zimmerman is innocent. He criticized the prosecutor for “overcharging,” i.e., he doesn’t think the facts support Murder Two.
This is a bit surprising, because as one of the nation’s leading academic experts on criminal law, Dershowitz knows the distinction between murder and manslaughter is intent. Murder is intentional unlawful homicide, and manslaughter is accidental unlawful homicide.
Professor Dershowitz also knows the element of intent doesn’t have to be established by an admission from Zimmerman of deliberate intent; it can be inferred from other evidence. Whether Zimmerman intended to kill Martin is therefore a question of fact for the jury to determine. Dershowitz said the prosecutor was “irresponsible” to charge Zimmerman with murder, but this would be true only if there is no evidence from which a jury could draw an inference tat Zimmerman intended to kill Martin when he pulled the trigger. If there is any evidence that makes that question debatable, it’s an appropriate issue to submit to the jury for determination. From what’s been reported in the media, I don’t see a strong case for murder, but I’m curious why Dershowitz thinks there’s NO basis for a murder charge, as he can’t get there except by concluding there’s no possibility that Martin’s death was anything other than an accident.
I suspect one of two things, or perhaps both, are going on here. First, Dershowitz isn’t just a law professor, he’s also been a practicing lawyer who has represented some high-profile defendants, and he may be bringing a defense attorney bias or orientation to the argument. Second, he may be commenting on the case from a practical instead of theoretical perspective; that is, based on his courtroom experience and his knowledge of actual verdicts in other cases, it may be his opinion that legal theory aside as a practical matter the prosecutor won’t be able to get the jury to convict on a charge higher than manslaughter.
That’s where my thinking is — I don’t necessarily agree with Dershowitz that the prosecutor had no basis to charge Murder Two, but I’m expecting a manslaughter conviction.
Dershowitz claims the prosecutor charged Murder Two with little or no expectation of securing a conviction on that charge for political reasons, i.e. to pacify an outraged black community and forestall potential riots, and I think he may be right about that. His argument then is, if you know you’re not going to get a Murder Two verdict from the jury, why charge it? He’s got something of a point there. I really didn’t expect the prosecutor to charge Zimmerman with murder, and was surprised by that headline; I thought he would be charged with manslaughter, and I still think he’ll be convicted of manslaughter.
The argument for Murder Two is that Zimmerman deliberately pointed the gun at Martin’s heart with thought in mind, “I’m gonna kill this guy.” If I’m the defense attorney, I’ll try to convince the jury my client was actually thinking, “I have to shoot this guy to get him off me, or I’m going to get badly hurt or killed,” and the bullet hit Martin in the heart by happenstance. If I’m on the jury and I conclude the latter is what happened I’ll find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter but not second degree murder. On the other hand, if I’m a juror and I read from the evidence that Zimmerman was enraged because Martin was beating him up and deliberately pointed the gun at Martin’s heart, I’ll convict him of second degree murder. From what I know about the case so far, I’m not prepared to say the prosecutor did anything unethical by charging Zimmerman with murder, there appears to be enough basis to give that question to a jury for decision.
Yes, Serial “Ridicule the looks of the president’s daughter and proud of it!” Conservative, the post is about liberals.
At one time, the Republican party was the party of the liberals and progressives, but not any more.
You can try to muddy the waters and bring up the racist, obstructionist Democrats that opposed Civil Rights, but they were conservatives. You know, like you.
“Democrats, not so much”
I take it that your point is that all the racists like yourself are now Republicans.
“unless there’s serious argument that the screengrabbed image is forged, there’s no reason I should try to prove otherwise”
Yeah, especially since it supports your racist beliefs. The tweet source, Lineham, was outed for posting fake photos. The only people talking about Lineham’s fake tweet are you and your racist friends over at Stormfront. Apparently, for racists like you, fake tweets are real until proven otherwise, and yet a very real Obama birth certificate will always be considered fake. It doesn’t make any sense, of course, but reason can be easily abandoned when your race hate requires justification, right, Bob?
Yes, Serial “Ridicule the looks of the president’s daughter and proud of it!” Conservative, the post is about liberals.
At one time, the Republican party was the party of the liberals and progressives, but not any more.
You can try to muddy the waters and bring up the racist, obstructionist Democrats that opposed Civil Rights, but they were conservatives. You know, like you.
“After you finish lecturing a retired judge about law, what will you do for an encore, offer to perform brain surgery on your doctor?”
He already went there with Dr. Lib Sci. I suppose he’ll next be lecturing me on engineering.
“Smart people usually know when they’re in over their heads. Dumb ones never do; they just sink deeper and deeper.”
I’ve known many truly intelligent and educated people and not one of them had to “act” smart like our dumbfuck racist friend, Bob. That he feels the need to do so is for him to practically scream out his insecurities.
@56 Is “Serial Conservative” the same troll as “Bob”?
@57
Yeah, I think so.
@57 Yes, Serial Conservative is Bob. I’d guess he’s a low level GOP staffer with time on his hands. Besides lecturing professionals about their professions, he tells us that he’s one of the 1
@58,59 I wondered if maybe we had two fifty-year-old juveniles here. It’s somewhat a relief to know there’s only one.
Anyways, Bob says he’s one of the 1%. He also told us that he owns a large service company. Then he started talking about a three-year residency, but when Dr. Lib Sci asked specific questions, he shut the fuck up, obviously caught in another lie. Bob is a real know-it-all, which is to say that he’s dumber than a stump.
He’s probably just some low level, low pay, low intelligence GOP staffer hired for the political season and given the green light to post stupid wingnut comments on a local progressive blog. I’d bet the same is likely true for a couple of other new and prolific trolls.
Rmoney has flip-flopped again — this time on immigration:
“Mitt Romney struck a far more conciliatory tone on immigration this week than he’s taken in a long time. Referring to reform of the immigration system as ‘not just a moral imperative, but an economic necessity,’ Romney told a group of Latino elected officials: ‘We owe it to ourselves as Americans to ensure that our country remains a land of opportunity — both for those who were born here and for those who share our values, respect our laws, and want to come to our shores.’ The speech has raised some eyebrows because during the GOP primary season … Romney took the hardest line on immigration.”
http://www.businessweek.com/ar.....mmigration
Roger Rabbit Commentary: This is classic Mitt Romney: Tell audiences what they want to hear. In this case, he’s talking to Hispanics. So his speech is different from the one he gave to Tea Party crowds. The question is, should either Hispanics or Tea Partiers trust him? And which of these groups will he screw if he gets in office? My guess is both.
@61 “I’d bet the same is likely true for a couple of other new and prolific trolls.”
Are they “Bob” too?
This blog was more fun when Mr. Cynical was shilling for BIAW. He wasn’t tedious like this guy.
@63 I don’t think so. I’m suggesting that the new trolls showing up this campaign season are possibly low level state GOP party or candidate campaign staff with permission to post blog comments.
Two Headlines
“Utah, Colo. fires keep thousands from homes”
“Firefighters struggled on Saturday to contain … wildfires that forced the evacuation of more than 2,000 people in Utah and 1,000 more in Colorado.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47926409/ns/weather/
“Utah governor: Gun shooters cause too many wildfires”
“Some of the wildfires scorching the West this year were sparked by … gun shooters.
“As with the Dump fire in Utah, which … force[d] the evacuation of 1,500 homes and 9,000 people, nearly two dozen conflagrations … have started accidentally by careless target shooters ….
“While authorities can ban certain fire-related activities when fire risks are high, that’s not true with guns …. In Utah, for example, a state law prohibits the state from enacting emergency bans on guns …. In North Carolina, gun rights activists have successfully fought legal battles to make sure governors can’t ban guns during emergencies.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47.....e_monitor/
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Does anyone see a problem with this? What will gun owners want next — legislation that says you can’t sue a negligent gun owner who burns your house down or puts a bullet in your kid’s head? Do you get the feeling so-called “gun rights” are spiraling out of control?
Maybe the 2nd Amendment should be amended to say, “The keeping and bearing of arms is a privilege that may be granted only to individuals who demonstrate sufficient maturity, judgment, training, knowledge, and responsibility that their possession and use
of guns will not put innocent persons or property at risk.”
I’m not saying I support this; I’m just putting it out there for discussion.
@67
I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to take a safety class and sending a few rounds down range before buying a gun. You have to take class before going hunting and in some states (even righty ones) before being issued a concealed carry permit.
Ah… But, it doesn’t matter what Romney says, because the insurance industry has already said it’s keeping a large swath of the reforms. Republicans in congress have also been looking at keeping some of the reforms. So this is just a bunch of nonsense.
Props to Congressman John Dingell of Michigan..
and..
and..
good old Congressman “No” Ron Paul (R-Texas)..
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/azhar2.1.1.html
Jacobo Timmerman, the old Argentine newspaperman, long ago said to Mike Wallace or someone else on 60 Minutes that the U.S. treated Israel as their “girlfriend”, spoiling her with gifts and favors.. With this bill it’s more like a kept woman and the lady has the cheating husband totally wrapped around her little finger. The bill amounts to a blank check that can only bring us closer to another war in the Middle East.
Thanks to Dingell and Paul for voting NO.. Heh. Some even voted “present”. No, wingnuts, Obama serves in the White House not the other House where the inmates have taken over the asylum. See the roll call:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll225.xml
The wingnuts say it’s all natural. It’s the sun’s fault..
http://www.motherjones.com/blu.....fire-flood
Steady as she goes. No need to do anything but more of the same.
@71 Maybe the sun shoots tracers.
In wingnut paradise South Carolina taxes are never ever raised but when the bills come due???
Just hand the bill to the one who’ll suffer the MOST to pay it. I mean what are they going to do? Fight back?:
http://www.wyff4.com/news/loca.....index.html
It’s the wingnut way.. How dare you get killed by a drunk driver and expect the rest of us to pay to clean up the mess? I bet the next thing you’re going to ask us is to tax job creators!
Wolverines!
Roger, and other – how are the target shooters starting fires?
Just the hot metal into brush? Are are there more exotic ammo that’s doing it?
WRT your proposed amendments to the 2nd, I’ve always wondered how they got around the whole “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” thing.
It says right there “well regulated” – why has that not been enough to allow all sorts of regulations to stand?
I’d be curious about an experienced lawyer‘s perspective. (Um, that would mean, uh, not you, bub)
Speaking of Wolverines ….
How’s that privatized spirits initiative treating you?
Seems there’s some confusion about the “although no single sale may exceed twenty-four liters” language.
Those that inserted the language (which a majority of WA voters approved!) in to the initiative now say
“The I-1183 coalition contends that these rules violate statutory rulemaking requirements, and represent action beyond and contrary to the LCB’s authority.
As written, none of these rules relate to the protection of public health and safety- a fact even the LCB does not dispute. Additionally, the coalition believes this rulemaking violates the Supremacy and Commerce clauses, as well as the Washington State Constitution.”
Well, maybe. Then again, those that wrote this rule into the initiative placed this nebulous 24 liter restriction an initiative which promised more regulation by the LCB.
“Get the state government out of the commercial business of distributing, selling, and promoting the sale of liquor, allowing the
state to focus on the more appropriate government role of enforcing liquor laws and protecting public health and safety concerning all alcoholic beverages;”
Rather funny.
The stacked deck.
WaPo’s got an investigative piece on Members of Congress trade in companies while making laws that affect those same firms
Of course, there’s a WA angle
yet trust in elites has never been lower…
@73. That is a logical result of a Pay as You Go society where nothing is socialized. Pay for everything ala carte baby!
This the republican world, get used to it.
@66 What does it tell you about American society where property damage has more traction on influencing gun control laws than out and murder does?
If only the victims of Stand your Ground, Shoot at Will laws could set fire to the nearby property while being murdered, THEN we might see the police investigate the murders.
I think that liquor prices will come down as different stores try to get a bigger slice of the pie.
With the state stores, if you tried to order something online that was not in the state stores, they would not sell it to you.
That’s an infringement.
It’s official: Middle class suburbia is sliding into poverty, and we’re becoming Food Stamp Nation.
http://insidedateline.msnbc.ms.....verty?lite
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Having looted the middle class, Republicans now want to take away their food stamps. That seems just plain mean, like a schoolyard bully kicking a kid on the playground after taking his lunch money.
Marco Rubio accuses both Republicans and Democrats of not wanting to resolve the immigration issue so they can keep exploiting it for electoral gain. He’s half right.
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.c.....tions?lite
Apple’s booming sales are creating lots of low-paying jobs.
“About 30,000 of the 43,000 Apple employees in this country work in Apple Stores … and many of them earn about $25,000 a year.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47935459
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Considering that Apple averages $473,000 of revenue per retail store employee, and its CEO earns $570 million a year, you’d think they could pay their salespeople above poverty rate.
@75 “Roger, and other – how are the target shooters starting fires? Just the hot metal into brush? Are are there more exotic ammo that’s doing it?”
News stories say recreational shooters start dozens of wildfires every year. My guess is they’re shooting tracer rounds. When I was in Vietnam, I’d see whole hillsides burned away after being raked by Quad 50s, which fire numerous tracers.
“WRT your proposed amendments to the 2nd, I’ve always wondered how they got around the whole ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state’ thing.”
By pretending it isn’t there.
“It says right there ‘well regulated’ – why has that not been enough to allow all sorts of regulations to stand? I’d be curious about an experienced lawyer’s perspective.”
It’s easy. All you need is a partisan court. To get partisan courts all you have to do is appoint political judges.
81 – From that article:
Wait a minute. I thought the asshat troll little maxie told us that the burbs are paradise. How can this be happening where asshats live? There goes the neighborhood. Time to move on I guess. Even somewhere farther away from “those people”.. Better living through burning more gas.
@75, 84
Shooting steel cored ammo (cheap military surplus from eastern europe) at steel targets and rocks creates sparks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=g-user-u
“Boulder suburbs”
Huh? Suburbs? I obviously haven’t been to Boulder in a very long time.
Issa Admits GOP Has No Evidence Of White House Coverup
“The congressman heading an investigation into a botched gun-trafficking case said on Sunday he had no evidence the White House was involved in a cover-up about the operation or in providing misleading information to Congress.”
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.c.....-case?lite
Looks pretty much like paradise from where I am sitting – great view of the mountains surrounded by acres of trees and privacy..yep, woe is me….
a little extra cash for gas? big fucking deal – its well worth it.
@90 Seems to me people who can afford handgun ammo costing a buck a shot should be able to pay for gas.
Handicapping SCOTUS Health Care Ruling
We may be less than 24 hours away from a SCOTUS decision on Romneycare, so let’s have some fun. Let’s pretend we’re bookies giving odds on the outcome. But first, a cheat sheet — this conservative opponent of Romneycare thinks SCOTUS will uphold it by a vote of 7-2 or 6-3:
“I happen to believe that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act … is a very bad law. … But I don’t think the law is unconstitutional, and I don’t think the Supreme Court … will strike it down. … I doubt more than two or three justices will seek to overturn it.”
Here’s his reasoning:
“Those who consider the law unconstitutional call this an unprecedented intrusion into the private sphere. Never before, they say, has the government told people how they must spend their own money. The problem with this line of argument is that it’s not true. …
“You have no choice but to feed, clothe and shelter your children … The government requires me to buy seat belts as part of the price of a new car. It prohibits me from buying medications not deemed safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration …. It prevents adults under age 21 from purchasing and consuming alcoholic beverages …. It prohibits selling cigarettes to minors and advertising cigarettes on television. All of these intrusions either require a purchase or prohibit a purchase. All are constitutionally allowed.
“There also is not much difference between the insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act and the theoretical operation of Social Security. In each instance individuals are required to pay for some benefit … in order to avoid ending up in a situation of such misery that the government would be forced to provide for them. …
“And most Republicans would argue that it would also be legal … for Social Security to require investment in privately run accounts …. This is hardly different from the health care insurance mandate.”
http://wallstreetpit.com/90610.....titutional
Roger Rabbit Commentary: This feels a bit like trying to emulate Babe Ruth’s called home run — you’ll feel like a fool if you call the shot and then strike out. As I’ve previously posted in these threads, the CW on Wall Street and among the Bar is PPACA will be upheld.
I think even the conservative justices will hesitate to strike it down, because doing so could open up a colossal can of worms. SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the constitutionality of Social Security and Medicare. It’s hard to distinguish mandatory participation in those programs, and payment of the payroll taxes that support them, from the individual mandate in PPACA. If the latter is struck down, that likely will encourage constitutional challenges to the federal government’s other mandatory social welfare programs, and I don’t think the justices want to deal with that.
OTOH, the court’s conservatives might see this as an opportunity to gut the New Deal by opening the door for constitutional attacks on Social Security and Medicare. That would be rash, and I doubt they’ll go that route, but they just might.
I’m not expecting a unanimous decision, but I think there’s at least 5 votes on the Court to uphold PPACA in entirety. If I’m wrong, I think the odds are low the whole law falls; I don’t think the Court will throw out anything except the individual mandate.
We’ll know soon, because the Court’s announcement of its decision could come tomorrow, but certainly no later than this Thursday.
Saw a little bit of good news in the Tacoma paper this morning. The race in the 6th CD is probably going to come down to Derek Kilmer (D) who supports gay marriage and is pro-choice and Bill Driscoll (R) who thinks:
See, the culture war’s over and we’ve won.
The problem with wars is they don’t stay won.