Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza!

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:

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: video platform
video management
video solutions
video player

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:

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”:

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.


  1. 1

    Liberal Scientist is a a dirty fucking hippie spews:

    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.

  2. 2

    Liberal Scientist is a a dirty fucking hippie spews:

    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.

  3. 3

    Liberal Scientist is a a dirty fucking hippie spews:

    Mikey Weinstein, of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, gets email

    Subject: Our Pleasant Prayer
    Date: June 17, 2012 9:06:00 PM MDT
    To: Information Weinstein

    Wepray Thee that our Lord and Savior bursts your aorta vein while you sleep and you wake up in death pain and drown choking in your own kike blood. Then, mickey jewboy you can think in your last moments before you burn in agony hell how you left your liberel black mfrr mark on Christ Jesus’ America’s army. pleasant dreams to you and your satan spawn family from hell.

    What is with these peaceful, loving Christians being driven to violence and hate by horrible horrible atheists?

  4. 5

    Serial Conservative spews:

    Things aren’t looking good for the prosecution when lefties begin defending George Zimmerman:

    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.

  5. 6

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 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.

  6. 7

    Scripture spews:

    Pathetic, far-leftist little children expose their sophomoric sides. And Obama is quick to distance himself from this.

    The White House on Friday rebuked two visitors who were photographed last week at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue flipping the middle finger below a portrait of the late President Ronald Reagan.
    The guests had been invited to a reception last Friday marking gay pride month. The images of them — with both middle fingers raised, pointing up toward Reagan — were first published by Philadelphia Magazine.
    The White House did not approve.
    “While the White House does not control the conduct of guests at receptions, we certainly expect that all attendees conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Most all do,” Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman, said. “These individuals clearly did not. Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all in the White House.”
    Photographer Zoe Strauss and Matty Hart, national director for public engagement at the group Solutions for Progress, had posted the images of themselves to Facebook.
    Hart, under his, wrote simply: “F— Reagan.”
    He later posted a link on his Facebook page to the Philadelphia Magazine piece about their gesture.
    Neither Strauss nor Hart have responded to for comment.
    Hart, though, defended his gesture in the Philadelphia Magazine article. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands,” he said. “The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded.”
    Hart said he doesn’t care if he’s not invited back to the White House.

    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?

  7. 8

    Liberal Scientist is a a dirty fucking hippie spews:

    This kind of behavior hurts Obama because

    … 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.

  8. 9

    Steve spews:

    “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.

  9. 11

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 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. 12

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 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.

  11. 13

    Liberal Scientist is a a dirty fucking hippie spews:

    That’s a really stupid thing to say…

    That’s what we’ve come to expect from our new and very prolific troll.

  12. 14

    Steve spews:

    “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.

  13. 15

    MikeBoyScout spews:

    @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.

  14. 16

    Liberal Scientist is a a dirty fucking hippie spews:

    “a thug in training”

    Racist bullshit.

    That’s exactly what I was thinking.

  15. 18

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 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.

  16. 19

    Deathfrogg spews:

    @ 18

    Multiple school suspensions and a history of assaulting a bus driver, and I’m racist for saying he was becoming a thug?

    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.

    I didn’t create his history out of thin air. I only pointed out that he was growing up a bad kid.

    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.

  17. 20

    Steve spews:

    “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?

  18. 21

    Zotz sez: Summertime... and the livin' is easy. spews:

    @20, Steve: Have “fun”, but recognize that he has no shame, cannot be embarrassed and is probably being paid to waste your time.

  19. 23

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 20

    All I said was multiple suspensions. How many good kids are suspended from school on multiple occasions?

  20. 24

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 22, 20

    My bad. It was on Twitter, not FB:

    As Dan Linehan, a blogger at, 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.

  21. 26

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 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?

  22. 27

    Steve spews:

    “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”

    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.

  23. 28

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 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.

  24. 29

    Steve spews:

    “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?

  25. 31

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 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.

  26. 32

    Michael spews:


    Someone at the White House must know that Obamacare is in seriously deep shit:

    As has been pointed out previously, most of Obamacare will be sticking around even if the whole thing gets thrown out by The Supremes.

  27. 33

    Steve spews:

    “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?

  28. 34

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    30, 32 – We’ll find out Obamacare’s fate this coming week. Until then everything anyone says about it is speculation.

  29. 35

    Steve spews:

    “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.

  30. 36

    Dan Brown spews:

    On 9-11…

    Eventually “we” are going to have to admit the shrub and prick cheney were in on the deal with bin laden…

  31. 37

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    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.

  32. 38

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 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.

  33. 39

    Liberal Scientist is a a dirty fucking hippie spews:

    Thanks Roger.
    I’m sure serialasshole will be along shortly to school you on the finer points of criminal procedure and the like.

  34. 41


    Show me where it’s been discredited.

    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.

  35. 42

    who run Bartertown? spews:

    36. Dan Brown spews:
    On 9-11…

    Eventually “we” are going to have to admit the shrub and prick cheney were in on the deal with bin laden…

    06/23/2012 AT 12:19 PM

    LMFAO….careful, the boogedyman might be under your bed..

  36. 46

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 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?

  37. 47

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @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?

  38. 48

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Smart people usually know when they’re in over their heads. Dumb ones never do; they just sink deeper and deeper.

  39. 49

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 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.

  40. 51

    No Time for Fascicts spews:

    A poignant quote by Lawrence O’Donnell on the history of conservatism and liberalism in America:

    What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
    I’ll tell you what they did.
    Liberals got women the right to vote.
    Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
    Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty.
    Liberals ended segregation.
    Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
    Liberals created Medicare.
    Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.

    What did conservatives do?
    They opposed them on every one of those things ­ every one.

  41. 52

    Serial Conservative spews:

    @ 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]

  42. 53

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @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.

  43. 55

    Steve spews:

    “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?

  44. 56

    No Time for Fascicts spews:

    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.

  45. 57

    Steve spews:

    “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.

  46. 60

    Steve spews:

    @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

  47. 61

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @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.

  48. 62

    Steve spews:

    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.

  49. 63

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    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.”

    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.

  50. 64

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @61 “I’d bet the same is likely true for a couple of other new and prolific trolls.”

    Are they “Bob” too?

  51. 65

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    This blog was more fun when Mr. Cynical was shilling for BIAW. He wasn’t tedious like this guy.

  52. 66

    Steve spews:

    @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.

  53. 67

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    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.”

    “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.”

    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?

  54. 68

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    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.

  55. 69

    Michael spews:

    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.

  56. 70

    Michael spews:

    In the event the Supreme Court does not put Obamacare out of our misery next week, Mitt Romney ought be ready to roll with the punches and come out at once with Plan B. Plan A was to have the Court sever it neatly with one swing of the axe, but there was always the possibility the Court would not follow the returns of the recent elections. Plan B should be the political process, which involves not the minds of nine, but the intent of millions, expressed in the usual ways. Thus, Plan B should be to elect politicians who will undo Obamacare with the tools given their branches of government. And so, Romney ought to say this:

    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.

  57. 71


    Props to Congressman John Dingell of Michigan..



    good old Congressman “No” Ron Paul (R-Texas)..

    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:

  58. 74


    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?:

    A coroner called Loretta Robinson last June and told her that her oldest son, Justin Walker, died when his car was struck by a drunken driver on White Horse Road…

    The grieving mother then showed the judge the many bills she’s had to pay, even though her son was not at fault.

    Robinson said she paid to have the wrecked car stored for months, in case there was a trial.

    “I had to pay to have the vehicle towed,” she said. “I had to pay for the vehicle removed and to clean up the street from Justin’s blood on the ground.”

    Robinson said that was the bill that stung the most – paying $50 to have the street cleaned.

    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!

  59. 76

    Liberal Scientist is a a dirty fucking hippie spews:

    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)

  60. 77

    MikeBoyScout spews:

    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.

  61. 78

    MikeBoyScout spews:

    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

    Former representative Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who co-authored the original, unsuccessful version of the Stock Act in 2006, said members of Congress and their staffs do not understand that public trust is eroded when people see lawmakers take actions that have the potential to benefit themselves.

    “They don’t get it, but they need to,” Baird said. “Why? Because people who are taking actions for venal and nefarious purposes might make the same argument you’re making about your innocence. That’s why if there is an appearance of an impropriety, there just might be an impropriety. Members need to bend over backwards to show people they are there for the good of the country.”

    yet trust in elites has never been lower…

  62. 79

    Randroid spews:

    @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.

  63. 80

    No Time for Fascicts spews:

    @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.

  64. 81

    Dorky Dorkman spews:

    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.

  65. 82

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    It’s official: Middle class suburbia is sliding into poverty, and we’re becoming Food Stamp Nation.

    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.

  66. 84

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    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.”

    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.

  67. 85

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @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.

  68. 86


    81 – From that article:

    The Brookings Institute study examined the percentage change of suburban poor populations between 2000 and 2010 in the 95 largest metro areas in the US. It found that in 16 of them the suburban poor population more than doubled during that time. The Denver metro area which includes some Boulder suburbs saw an increase of 96.4%. And while many of the suburban poor are newly arrived immigrants or transplants from the inner cities, a significant number are formerly middle class families who have fallen victim to the most recent recession.

    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.

  69. 88

    Steve spews:

    “Boulder suburbs”

    Huh? Suburbs? I obviously haven’t been to Boulder in a very long time.

  70. 89

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    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.”


  71. 90

    who run Bartertown? spews:

    85. YLB spews:

    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.

    06/24/2012 AT 10:52 AM

    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….

  72. 92

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @90 Seems to me people who can afford handgun ammo costing a buck a shot should be able to pay for gas.

  73. 93

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    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.”

    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.

  74. 94

    Michael spews:

    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:

    Driscoll is the rare Republican who favors both, saying the government should stay out of those personal decisions.

    Read more here:

    See, the culture war’s over and we’ve won.