by Carl, 09/24/2012, 8:18 AM

- Rapid Ride C and pay as you enter both ways are coming to West Seattle.

- A plurality of Shoreline residents would support a plastic bag ban. So it’s not just the dirty hippies in Seattle.

- We are free to be assholes. But we can never be free to do so without thereby making ourselves assholes.

- Bullshit.

- Now, some health officials and communications experts are saying the symbol for climate impacts should be a child, not a polar bear.

- Only one of these things is a gaff.

- Obama needs to work on being a better antichrist.

85 Responses to “Open Thread 9/24”

1. Serial Conservative spews:

Lib Despair IS the 23 percent.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters feel that the recent embassy protests largely have been planned in advance. Just 23% think they were spontaneous reactions to the anti-Islamic video.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/23_blame_middle_east_protests_on_anti_islamic_video

2. No Time for Fascists spews:

@1. How does that change the fact that republicans have blocked every democratic jobs bill put forth, including the one, just last week, that would have helped veterans?
How does that change the fact that republicans have not put forth a single credible jobs bill?

3. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

Rasmussen Reports

Mmmm-hmmm. Next.

Lib Despair IS the 23 percent.

I have maintained from the beginning that we don’t know all the facts. I have taken issue over and over with you beating the drum of “ACTS OF WAAAARRRRRR!!!11!!!!”

Again with you people, one must confront, “Stupid, or lying?”

Ugh. The straw grasping is only going to get worse over the next few weeks, and soon that stink of flop sweat will permeate the atmosphere…

4. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

@2
Indeed.

I tried to get puddl to take a position on that…of course, to no avail.

How ’bout you, Cap’n? Why don’t Republicans care about veterans? (Especially given your recent cries regarding war) Or do you think the Senate Republicans were wrong last week?

5. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 3

I have taken issue over and over with you beating the drum of “ACTS OF WAAAARRRRRR!!!11!!!!”

One major difference between you and me is that when my error is pointed out, I tend to acknowledge it, as I did in this case.

6. No Time for Fascists spews:

Just wondering….
Why is it easier for conservatives to believe that 150 million Americans are being lazy,
rather than 400 Americans are being greedy?

7. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 6

Interesting thought.

Suppose you tax those 400 greedy Americans at 100%? How much does that close the annual budget gap?

8. No Time for Fascists spews:

@ 7

Interesting thought.

Suppose you tax those lazy greedy Americans at 100%? How much does that close the annual budget gap?

9. Very Severe Conservative spews:

@ 7
Suppose you tax those 400 patriotic red blooded job creating Americans at 0%? Think of how much that does that close the annual budget gap?

10. Serial Conservative spews:

Nondenial denial (instapundit.com):


PELOSI DOESN’T DENY THAT SHE HIT THE MUTE BUTTON ON THE PRESIDENT, as Bob Woodward said she did in his “Price of Politics” book. She’s protesting a Romney ad and she says: “There was absolutely no situation in which either President Bush or President Obama were cut off from speaking.” But what Woodward said was:

Pelosi reached over and pressed the mute button on her phone. They could hear Obama, but now he couldn’t hear them. The president continued speaking, his disembodied voice filling the room, and the two leaders got back to the hard numbers.

Woodward never said she muted the President, and Pelosi doesn’t deny that she hit the mute button on herself.

We know that the congressional leaders asked Obama to leave the room so they could negotiate without him after ne botched the Grand Bargain. We know now that Pelosi cut Obama out of the conversation in this instance.

C’mon, guys, it’s just a little bit telling.

11. rhp6033 spews:

I took one week’s vacation on the Oregon coast, now I’m back. I see nothing much has changed here – Serial is still getting a dime or so per post, mostly by being the top post in each open thread.

I stayed away from politics on purpose while on vacation. I didn’t access the internet, and we didn’t watch TV. Heck, the world could have ended in a mutual exchange of nuclear missles, and I would just have been impressed with the pretty red sunset.

Catching up, it seems that Romney can’t keep out of hot water.

* He speaks to a hispanic group, and praises them for being good gardners.

* He finally, after months of scrubbing, releases his 2011 tax return, and experts quickly point out that he didn’t take all his available deductions so that it conformed to his promise of a couple of months or so ago that he’s always paid at least 14% in federal taxes. Instead of releaseing any more tax returns, he provides a letter from his accountants saying that he’s paid at least 14% in all prior years, and figures that’s “good enough”.

* An older video surfaces showing Romney speaking to rich donars and dismissing the 47% who don’t pay taxes as lazy welfare bums who will always support Democrats, despite the fact that it includes disabled veterans, middle-class workers who’ve slipped below the poverty line when they lost their jobs due to the Bush Great Rescession, cowboys, and rich tax avoiders.

* I don’t know the details, but apparantly Romney pulled a snit and hid in his trailer when some group only gave him 30 minutes time to speak. Some commented that his attitude was that of a petulant child. Previously the President had an hour, and that was the basis for Romney’s complaint. Well, he IS the President, isn’t he? Romney needs to at least acknowledge the difference between the Leader of the Free World and a job applicant.

* On top of it all, Ryan tries to give his standard stump speach at an AARP gathering, and gets booed off the stage.

My prediction? By December, Romney will be hard at work on his next book, where he will talk about how “unfair” it was he wasn’t elected.

12. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 11

I don’t know the details, but apparantly Romney pulled a snit and hid in his trailer when some group only gave him 30 minutes time to speak. Some commented that his attitude was that of a petulant child. Previously the President had an hour, and that was the basis for Romney’s complaint. Well, he IS the President, isn’t he?

Do you have a link to this? No idea what you are talking about.

13. No Time for Fascists spews:

Ryan tries to give his standard stump speech at an AARP gathering, and gets booed off the stage.
He wasn’t speaking to the AARP crowd, he was speaking to his base, who would see him on TV in sound bites. To them, it was great he was getting booed. The conservative talk shows were all a flutter about how he was speaking truth to power.

14. Michael spews:

@10

You should love that, you’re the one that want a president that will hit the mute button on half the country.

15. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 14

You should love that, you’re the one that want a president that will hit the mute button on half the country.

Um, isn’t that what we currently have? There was majority opposition to ACA, which seemed not to have had much deterrence.

Cute retort, tho.

16. Rujax!..."bob", puddypussy, maxeeeee, and the Cyniklown: "The League of Delusionaty Assholes" spews:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/24/1135824/-Mitt-Romney-wants-airplane-windows-to-roll-down-in-case-of-fire-so-people-can-breathe-more-easily

Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 08:57 AM PDT

Mitt Romney wants airplane windows to roll down in case of fire so people can breathe more easily

by Jed LewisonFollow

No wonder Mitt thought Seamus was comfortable
As you may have heard, Ann Romney’s airplane had to make an emergency landing on Friday due to an electrical fire. Fortunately, nobody was hurt. But, via Wonkette, it did give Mitt this great idea:

” When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.”

Yeah, great question Mitt. I mean, wouldn’t it be awesome to be able to crack the window when you’re at 35,000 feet? You know, get a taste of that 500+ mile per hour breeze?

It’d be like the mile-high club for Seamus, with the added benefit of asphyxiation induced by the low oxygen levels at cruising altitude—assuming that you manage to avoid having the plane rip apart due to the sudden loss of cabin pressure.

Brilliant, Mitt. Just brilliant.

THIS is the fucking moron that the Kornflake Klownservative should hold the office of President.

An idiot for an idiot.

Brilliant.

17. Rujax!..."bob", puddypussy, maxeeeee, and the Cyniklown: "The League of Delusionaty Assholes" spews:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-campaign-hits-romney-with-47-percent-ad?ref=fpblg

TPM LiveWire

Obama Campaign Hits Romney With 47 Percent Ad In Ohio

Pema Levy 6:36 AM EDT, Monday September 24, 2012

The Obama campaign attacked Mitt Romney for saying that he doesn’t have to “worry” about 47 percent of Americans in a new ad hitting the airwaves in Ohio Monday. The ad uses Romney’s comments about people who pay no federal income tax, made at a May fundraiser and leaked last week, to go after Mitt Romney’s own taxes. The ad begins running just as the Romney campaign begins a three-day bus tour in the Buckeye State.

The ad begins with the footage of Romney’s 47 percent comments, then transitions to focus on Romney. “Mitt Romney paid just 14.1 percent in taxes last year,” the narrator says. “He keeps millions in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. He won’t release his tax returns before 2010.”

Images of a veteran and the elderly then appear. The narrator finishes: “Maybe instead of attacking others on taxes, Romney should come clean on his.”

More body blows from OFA.

Keep ‘em coming, guys!!!

18. Michael spews:

Um, isn’t that what we currently have? There was majority opposition to ACA,

Nope!

Obama ran for president on getting the ACA passed and won in a landslide. Mitt’s backed away from his statements calling for a total repeal of the law. John Boehner has said that there’s parts of the law that he likes and would keep. The insurance industry has already adopted much of the law and will be keeping it regardless of what the government does. You don’t get those kinds of results without support for your side.

We’ve had a few years of people screaming and making shit up about the ACA (Their gonna kill Sarah Palin’s baby!) and if you do that long enough and loud enough you’ll drive down poll numbers, the last I saw was about 50/50.

But, it’s hard to say that you don’t have support from the other side when John Boehner has said there’s parts of it he’d want to keep and the industry’s already adopted a bunch of it and will be keeping it regardless of what the government does.

19. rhp6033 spews:

# 11: It’s hard to give a link for something you heard on the radio when you didn’t find that channel until the story is half over. If I find out more, I’ll be happy to let you know.

And you will notice I prefaced the comment by pointing out that I didn’t know the details, and pointing out that there was at least a reason for Romney’s display of petulance. I do try to be fair, despite what you might believe.

20. Michael spews:

you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open.

Mitt apparently never listens when the stewardesses explain how the oxygen masks work.

21. rhp6033 spews:

# 16: Really???? Romney actually said that????

If so, that’s a pretty incredible lack of understanding of the basic principles of physics and aviation. I know a bit more than most, but it doesn’t take a genious I know you shouldn’t open an emergency door in flight, much less a window.

What a lot of people don’t know is that the larger aircraft have two main cargo bays, one is pressurized and the other isn’t. (If you are planning on sneaking a ride by climbing into an aircraft cargo bay, be sure to choose wisely!) So pets & other animals can be carried in the pressurized bay, but not in the non-pressured bay, where, of course they would die for lack of oxygen. But a pressurized cargo bay creates a couple of problems, the most important of which is the danger of fire. Since no one can access the bay from the passenger compartment or flight deck (despite what you might have seen in some movies), a fire in the pressurized bay can’t be put out by a flight attendent with a fire extinguisher. So most new aircraft have halon fire suppression systems, which work by displacing the air with halon gas and then smothering the fire – and anything else which used to be alive in that bay.

So maybe Romney would have preferred that the passenger compartment of the airplane be outfitted with a halon fire suppression system?

(Before anybody else points this out, the electronics bay is different from the cargo bay, and CAN be accessed through hatches in the floor and on the bottom of the aircraft.)

22. rhp6033 spews:

# 20: I doubt Romney flies commercial aircraft very often. I don’t know much about private aircraft, except that I’ve seen passengers board private aircraft without much of a TSA screening other than a nod and a smile. I expect the pre-flight announcements are probably also abbreviated.

23. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

@11, 12, 19

Here and here are some details of the Romney/Univision manipulation, tantrum, and of course, spray tan.

Did he really have to go for the brownface?

24. ArtFart spews:

@1 No surprise at all that a majority of Americans believe it was all planned. I suspect, however, that you’d find a great deal of disagreement regarding who exactly did said planning.

25. No Time for Fascists spews:

Um, isn’t that what we currently have? There was majority opposition to ACA, which seemed not to have had much deterrence.
It was a huge deterrence, and you know it. It would have been much much better if the democrats had not kept “compromising” with the obstructionist republicans.

It’s like the abortion debate. Contrary to how the republicans paint democrats, we want it safe, legal and as RARE as POSSIBLE. Republicans simply will not accept any position that doesn’t ban abortion outright, in all forms in any circumstances. When the republican are absolutely unwilling to give an inch, to compromise, a well thought out solution that keeps it safe, legal and as RARE as POSSIBLE is seen as the dems not listening because it’s still not illegal.

The ACA was like that. Since any improvement or change to the status quo was the end of the world to republicans, of course you would call it being ignored. You want nothing changed. Because we improved the health care situation a tiny bit, we didn’t “listen” to you.

26. No Time for Fascists spews:

I saw them open the windows in Airplane. That must be where romeny gets his aviation knowledge from.

27. ArtFart spews:

@22 Well, maybe one of Emirites Airways’ super-plush A380′s where he and Ann can share a private stateroom (or maybe have two adjoining ones).

28. YLB spews:

Watching Paul Randroid Ryan getting booed at AARP was just too sweet for words..

When that prevaricator trots out his “Obama cuts Medicare to fund a new entitlement” crap does Ryan mention his crap budget does the exact same thing to fund tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires?

Nope.

29. rhp6033 spews:

# 25: The worst thing for the Republicans is if the Democrats agreed to prohibit abortions. For the Republicans, it’s a “wedge issue” they use to get the Evangelical vote and donations, despite the fact that it would take a remarkable turn-around in the U.S. Supreme Court for this to happen.

In fact, the Republicans have refused to invest any capital in overturning Roe vs. Wade by limiting the jurisdiction of the court by act of Congress, a Constitutional Amendment, or using their majority on the court during the Bush years to overturn Roe vs. Wade. They haven’t done so because it’s more in their interest to keep the issue open, and the dirty little secret is that most Republicans like the idea of allowing their daughters the option of terminating the fruits of their daughter’s “indescretions”.

30. YLB spews:

Dullard (R-Money) is going to raise taxes on the middle class..

The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a very important decision in his paper. He writes, “I think it is very reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’”

And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay, because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class.

And Romney has been all over the place trumpeting this study, saying this study shows his math works out…

So the study Romney is promoting — the one he says is the study you should be looking at — actually shows even under the most favorable assumptions possible, he’s going to have to raise taxes on the people he defines as the middle class. In saying that that study is credible, he has admitted he can’t make his tax promises add up. And yet he constantly, repeatedly says the opposite.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/even-mitt-romney-admits-hell-need-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/

Heh. No wonder Bob loves this guy.. “We” are all going to feel the pain from the Dullard regime. Only thing is that “We” doesn’t include people who are set for life like Dullard.

31. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 30

Er, YLB, you shouldn’t read Ezra Klein’s interpretation of what Feldstein wrote. You should read what Feldstein wrote. Here, let me help you out. Last two paragraphs:

Since broadening the tax base would produce enough revenue to pay for cutting everyone’s tax
rates, it is clear that the proposed Romney cuts wouldn’t require any middle-class tax increase,
nor would they produce a net windfall for high-income taxpayers. The Tax Policy Center and
others are wrong to claim otherwise.
The Romney plan can reduce the current tax system’s distortions, increasing national income in
the short run and economic growth in the years ahead. That was the key to the very successful

Reagan tax cuts of 1986. It was also the tax-reform strategy embraced by the bipartisan Bowles-
Simpson commission in 2010. And it could put the economy back on the right track in 2013.

http://www.nber.org/feldstein/wsj08282012.pdf

I don’t think this is what you meant to be responsible for having posted on HA, YLB. Further, I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean to link to Greg Mankiw. He was chairman of GWB43′s’ CEA for a couple of years, back when the tax cuts stimulated the economy.

Call this the HA Own Goal of the Day.

Thanks, YLB!!!

33. YLB spews:

The Randroid puts his foot in his mouth again:

“A, we still have a ways to go. We still have a lot left that we’re planning on doing,” he said. “B, I think that’s just what conservatives do by nature. I think that’s just the nature of conservative punditry is to do that — to kind of complain — about any imperfection they might see.

It was a less harsh rebuke than that by Ann Romney, who told critics to “stop it,” but the criticism was still striking for the Wisconsin congressman, who has cultivated strong relationships with conservative pundits.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/paul-ryan-conservative-criticism-mitt-romney_n_1909355.html

What a meltdown.. This clown has over the years carefully build up an image that sets him above the miserable loons in the House like King, Gohmert, Bachmann, etc.

The truth of course is that he is no different. In many way he is worse. Those freaks wear their insanity on their sleeves. He hides it behind these fake green shades.

34. Herb Pease spews:

Romney, among other lunatic actions, would take away your deduction on the interest that you pay on your mortgage.

35. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 34

Your comment is contradicted by Romney’s Time magazine interview, here:

“I know our Democrat friends would love to have me specify one or two so they could amass the special interest to fight that effort,” Romney told managing editor Richard Stengel when asked to specify which deductions he would eliminate. He then launched into a general discussion about ways to limit deductions, saying the choice would be made “in consultation with Congress” — in other words, after the election.

He added that he would maintain the mortgage-interest deduction, health care and charitable contribution deductions, the first two of which are the most expensive. All three deductions are popular.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/mitt-romney-tax-deductions_n_1824410.html

36. YLB spews:

LMAO!! Old Bob is looking a lot like Rudy Giuliani these days:

NOUN – VERB – OWN GOAL!

Also from the Feldstein piece:

The IRS data show that taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes over $100,000 (the top 21% of all
taxpayers) made itemized deductions totaling $636 billion in 2009. Those high-income taxpayers paid marginal tax rates of 25% to 35%, with most $200,000-plus earners paying marginal rates of 33% or 35%.

And what do we get when we apply a 30% marginal tax rate to the $636 billion in itemized deductions? Extra revenue of $191 billion—more than enough to offset the revenue losses from
the individual income tax cuts proposed by Gov. Romney.

Extra revenue! How refreshing to hear this from a right winger. So two school teachers married to each other, been teaching for 20 years or so, each bringing home a low 50k/yr paycheck can look forward to higher taxes under Dullard.. Not so refreshing..

“Own goal” indeed. Thanks Bob.

Greg Mankiw??? Nope didn’t link to him. I hear he has some aggressive monetary stimulus ideas.

37. rhp6033 spews:

It’s been over a week since I heard this, but on NPR there was an interview with some folks who had written an incredibly complicated computer program which would show the effects of various changes to assumptions and policies and the effect that would have on the unemployment rate.

They tried a number of possibilities. They tried putting in a ambitious calculation of European recovery from it’s current economic crisis. Barely a budge in the unemployement rate. They tried boosting consumer confidence. Again, barely a budge in unemployment. The tried cutting taxes across the board. Again, barely a budge in the unemployment rate. They tried any of the “shovel-ready” stimulus programs which the President proposed, but the Republicans in Congress killed. A slight decrease, but only about 1/10 of a percent.

They even tried what David Stockman would call the “rosiest scenario” imaginable: Ecomonic recovery in Europe and China, double-digit increases in consumer confidence, triple the infrastructure spending, and GDP growth of 6% to 10% per annum. This time, the unemployment rate dropped – but only to 8%.

The conclusion by the economists participating in the project was that when you have a rescession which lasts this long, and is this deep, it will take years, if not decades, to see a significant decrease in unemployment. It will take years to resume previous hiring levels, and in the meantime you have years of compounded unemployment by spouses and high school graduates who simply quit looking for work. As the economy improves, H.S. graduates will finish their college educations, spouses will re-enter the job market, and those getting by on multiple low-wage jobs will seek to resume better employment – all resulting in an unemployment rate which stays at the 8% level or so.

Added to this is the problem that despite assuming GDP gains at unimaginable levels, much of the consumer spending would still flow overseas as there are fewer U.S. manufacturers who can meet U.S. demand.

My own take: We need to go to the heart of the problem: unemployment. We need to institute job corps programs like F.D.R. did, putting young people to work on public projects in parks, highways, etc. instead of continuing to use the “we don’t have money for that” excuse for not doing anything, as the Republicans have been doing for decades.

38. No Time for Fascists spews:

Romney also has said:
“I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.”
And then he changed his mind.

Romney also has said he was in favor of “gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly” in the military
And then he changed his mind.

Romney also has said “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won’t chip away at them.”
And then he changed his mind.

Romney also has said “I like mandates. Mandates work.” “I’m proud of what we’ve done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing [Romneycare], then that will be a model for the nation.”

Romney said “he would maintain the mortgage-interest deduction, health care and charitable contribution deductions.”
And NOW you don’t think he will change his mind?

I would enjoy your reasoning on this.

39. YLB spews:

The joke that is Dullard (R-Money) just rolls right along:

http://www.americablog.com/2012/09/romney-slams-california-as-socialist.html

He calls California “socialist” while campaigning in California… Oh excuse me, he wasn’t “campaigning”, he was merely relieving rich right wingers of their cash.

40. No Time for Fascists spews:

#37. Great idea. But how do we make it happen?

41. Herb Pease spews:

Wasn’t 2009 the year that the government offered amnesty to people who were cheating on their taxes with Swiss bank accounts?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/17/romney_s_tax_returns_is_the_2009_swiss_bank_account_amnesty_what_he_doesn_t_want_us_to_see_.html

If that’s true, maybe Mitt’s a tax felon.

42. Herb Pease spews:

re 38: Exactly. I even believe that Romney is duplicitous enough to preserve the tax benefits of houses, for example, worth over 1 million dollars, but revoke it for everyone else.

43. Herb Pease spews:

I may be a pie in the sky unrealistic liberal, but I still think a living wage just might restore ‘consumer confidence’.

What good is a vast surplus of consumer confidence if there’s no money available?

44. rhp6033 spews:

During the great depression, young people had few options (farm prices through the floor, topsoil blown away by dust storms, unemployment in cities at sky-high levels). The Republicans liked it that way – there are even stories of them attacking charity soup kitchens and bread lines in rural areas because they wanted the poor to be close enough to starvation so they would work for pennies a day. No national welfare system, no food stamps, no unemployment insurance, no minimum wage laws, no Social Security Retirement Act to give seniors some relief of trying to compete for jobs against the young people – nothing to soften the blow.

So this was the situation inherited by F.D.R. He tried quite a few things, some which worked, some which were overturned by the Supreme Court, and some which didn’t work. But for the most part, his programs gave workers a living wage again, and enabled them to put a roof over the heads of their families and food on the table every day.

The various job programs, including the CCC which still has improvements you can see in the National Parks, provided young men with a job, a roof over their heads (in barracks-style housing), and three square meals a day. All but a small portion of their wages were sent home to support their families, which aided the families and prevented the young people from losing their wages due to theft, gambling enterprises, etc. which might spring up in the barracks.

Of course, the situation is quite different now. With welfare, unemployment benefits (albeit limited in time), etc., the families are not necessarily in quite the dire straights they might otherwise experience – no thanks to the Republicans, who would be happy to remove the safety net. To get young people to leave their homes to work hard in projects all over the country would require a reasonable wage and perhaps something more – like apprenticeship programs which would qualify them for high-demand jobs when they leave the program. It will take a bit of imagination and a lot of ground-level spadework, but we can do it.

Of course, the job programs instituted by F.D.R. ended when labor became in short supply due to WWII (as well as the invitations from the President which started with the word “Greetings…”. These programs may need an end-date built in, perhaps tied to the unemployment rate or some other outside measure.

45. rhp6033 spews:

Sorry, that’s about all the posting by me for the day. Tonight I have to supervise the shipment of several million dollars of (mostly) U.S. made products overseas.

Romney, in contrast, has his money working for him overseas – like the Caymen Islands.

46. rhp6033 spews:

Oops, before I leave, I almost forgot:

Obama’s New Campaign Strategy

47. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

Yes, as Rujax! notes above @16, Willard said…

…and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that.

Let the tweeting begin!!

A screen door in every submarine! -President Romney, probably
— @jess_mc via web

Mitt Romney’s first act as president: Air Force One turned into a convertible.
— @EricKleefeld via web

If you’re sucked out of an open airplane window, just go to the emergency room. #romneymemesunited
— @drgrist via TweetDeck

Lots of tweeting bout this. #RomneyPlaneFeatures

49. don spews:

@1

You seem so hung up on the fact that the Libya attack was planned. But why have you not been hung up on the perpetrator? Could it be that it’s because he was released back in 2007?

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2012/09/20/report-ex-gitmo-detainee-linked-to-libya-attack-against-us-consulate

50. YLB spews:

49 – Yet another terrorist manufactured by Bush’s glorious war on terror…

51. YLB spews:

Hmmm.. Great throw..

52. YLB spews:

There is no government program or policy I can think of that has failed in such a unique way as marijuana prohibition.

LOL! Wow Tom not even the failed billion dollar plus phony fences on the brown-skinned border?

Maybe it works better on the fair-skinned border on the north…

This is weird.. Like wtf?? Must have a stake in a medical mj outfit.

53. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 4

Why don’t Republicans care about veterans? (Especially given your recent cries regarding war) Or do you think the Senate Republicans were wrong last week?

It’s not that the GOP doesn’t care about veterans. In fact, veterans prefer Romney by an increasing percentage over Obama:

Navigate:
POLITICOVeterans retreating from Barack Obama
Veterans retreating from Barack Obama

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81616.html#ixzz27RX8NFMg

I suspect that the GOP just doesn’t feel the desperation to buy their support in an election year, Lib Despair.

Rather than a naked attempt to kiss veteran ass by throwing them a little cash, as the Dems tried to do, the GOP is focusing on what’s important to veterans over the long term, which is making sure their service hasn’t been in vain:

Ryan Williams, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the Republican’s lead among veterans comes from their resistance to the looming potential defense cuts under the budget sequester, problems with Obama’s foreign policy positions and the backdrop of the stagnant economy that’s left the post-Sept. 11 generation of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with a difficult time finding work when they return home.

I think that most veterans would prefer an economy healthy enough for them to get jobs, rather than a temporary government handout that looks good right up until November 6th, at which point Obama and Co. won’t give a shit about them any more.

55. Puddybud spews:

Green Bay was jobbed! Go Seahawks!

56. Puddybud spews:

How does that change the fact that republicans have blocked every democratic jobs bill put forth, including the one, just last week, that would have helped veterans?

Because fascist libtard forgets all money bills BEGIN in the house! Puddy said this to Lib da dunce and he forgets it, as always!

57. Puddybud spews:

Er, YLB, you shouldn’t read Ezra Klein’s interpretation of what Feldstein wrote.

HA’s buttspigot is enamored with Ezra Klein. All the time. Just like americablog… leftist to the crap filled diarrhea stain floor!

58. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

@53
Wow, Cap’n, didn’t expect to see you so soon, after how you disappeared earlier after smack down. That is your MO, however, disappearing when you’re taking big hits, reappearing later on another thread with another bogus line. Are you standing while you type that drivel?

Later on, in the Politico article you link to above, it says:

Ray Kelley, national legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said he expects Obama will have some success this fall with the post-Sept. 11 generation of veterans because of the Iraq War and his programs for returning troops. But older veterans — the majority conservative white males — will probably stick with Romney, and that’s despite Obama’s work on many of their issues.

“President Obama has done great things for vets. The budget nearly doubled the last four to five years. Services are better. There’s more access. But that isn’t necessarily translating,” Kelley said. “We still have veterans who are waiting for their disability claims. They’re feeling disenchanted and that somehow the current administration must be at fault even though it’s a long, systemic problem.”

“I think just [Romney’s] strong rhetoric: ‘We’re going to keep a strong national defense. We want to make sure troops have what they want.’ For some reason, that outweighs that the current administration has done a lot for veterans,” Kelley added.

Seems to me that Obama is doing the right thing for vets, particularly the young and unemployed, particularly the post-9/11 cadre. and you could argue he’s doing the right thing despite not making political hay out of it. Moreover, your stats, if we can even call them that, and your analysis, provided by a Romney flack, are all about old white working-class men, and we’ve discussed them – you’ve likely oversampled those from the South, but Willard is going to win there anyway.

Yawn.

59. Puddybud spews:

Now

this

is great!

Any donations made to this blog between now and the election would go toward a trip back to Massachusetts so that I can try to educate the public about who we Cherokees are, the truth about her history and why Ms. Warren is not one of us.

60. Puddybud spews:

Oh yeah, seems Ms Harvard could be an unlicensed legal practitioner!

61. Puddybud spews:

DUMMOCRAPTS are low information voters!

62. YLB spews:

enamored with Ezra Klein

Huh?

Yes that will bring down the deficit. Ezra Klein said it won’t.

And Jesse Jackson said…
And Lee said… (you’re the stupidest person)
And SJ said…
And Darryl said… (you’re a pathological liar)

And a right wing idiot said.. pffft.. Moronic lie after lie and many other assorted idiocies..

63. Rujax!..."bob", puddypussy, maxeeeee, and the Cyniklown: "The League of Delusionaty Assholes" spews:

The puddypussypissypants is the Phil Luckett of blog commenters.

64. Herb Pease spews:

@59-60-61 — Send in the klowns….

65. Michael spews:

@60

Or maybe not. From the article you linked to:

The post indicates that this is a federal case. You do not need to be licensed to practice law in Massachusetts to practice law in federal courts located in Massachusetts or anywhere else. Federal courts decide who can practice before them, and individual states can’t tell federal courts that an attorney cannot practice before them. It’s that whole supremacy clause thing. Constitution 101 and all that.

It is really well established that a federal district court can admit an attorney to practice before it even if the attorney is not licensed in that state. You most certainly do not need to be licensed in the state where a federal court of appeals sits to appear before the federal court of appeals. I am clearly practicing law when I argue before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. It does not matter that I am not licensed in Ohio.

66. Michael spews:

@60

Also, in the comments section:

19-year law veteran here. This story seems way wide of the mark. This isn’t a Massachusetts case. It started in bankruptcy court in New York, then went up to the Second Circuit, then on to the Supreme Court.

67. Puddybud spews:

IMichael, R U a low information voter? Puddy purposely used this article vs. others because the article concluded…

There would still need to be an attorney licensed in Mass. who moved for Ms. Warren to be admitted pro hac vice for the case at hand. Such a document would have to be in the docket of the case as to which she was representing her client.

There was no document in the docket!

When asked about it in the debate she deflected BIG TIME!

68. Puddybud spews:

Wow buttspigot, stung over Ezra Klein?

HA’s ylbuttspigot arschloch farted something from these two leftist clowns…

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Todd Lindeman and Ezra Jounolist Klein

As Puddy wrote and you can’t deny buttpigot, you drop diarrhea everywhere when you see a negative Ezra Klein post about conservatives!

BITCHSLAPPED ylbitchslapped! More crazed databaze EPIC FAYLES! Closing in on 90 EPIC FAYLES! Will you hit 100 before 2013? Puddy calls it early!

69. Puddybud spews:

Obummer on 3600 seconds!

Well, I’d said even at the time that this is going to be a rocky path. The question presumes that somehow we could have stopped this wave of change. I think it was absolutely the right thing for us to do to align ourselves with democracy, universal rights– a notion that– people have- to be able to– participate– in– their own governance. But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because– you know, in a lot of these places– the one organizing principle– has been Islam. The one part of society that hasn’t been controlled completely by the government. There are strains of extremism, and anti-Americanism, and anti-Western sentiment. And you know can be tapped into by demagogues. There will probably be some times where we bump up against some of these countries and have strong disagreements, but I do think that over the long term, we are more likely to get a Middle East and North Africa that is more peaceful, more prosperous and more aligned with our interests.

Yep, a dead ambassador and three other Americans, and a burned out consulate are “bumps in the road”.

Amateur!

70. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 49

You seem so hung up on the fact that the Libya attack was planned. But why have you not been hung up on the perpetrator? Could it be that it’s because he was released back in 2007?

I think that if the guy in question was involved, then it calls into question the wisdom of releasing those detainees in a sensitive period. No idea how that dovetails into the current news item (no link) of an impending release of about a third of those still at Gitmo.

Here’s a news item in which a ‘top Dem’ says there is no evidence the guy in question was involved:

The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee said Monday that the Obama administration has not found any evidence that a former Guantánamo Bay inmate was involved in the Sept. 11 attack on the Benghazi consulate that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) emerged from a classified briefing with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Sept. 21 saying that administration officials had discussed Sufyan Ben Qumu, who was released from Guantánamo into Libyan custody in 2007, as a “person of interest” in the Benghazi investigation. But today in a conference call organized by the left-leaning National Security Network, Smith clarified that he had heard nothing directly tying Ben Qumu to the Benghazi attack.

“All I meant was that the person I mentioned has known al Qaeda affiliations and was in Libya. And really, that’s it,” Smith said. “Whether or not he was directly involved with the people engaged in the attack, there’s no evidence of that.”

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/24/top_dem_no_evidence_former_gitmo_detainee_was_involved_in_benghazi_attack

Maybe you could ask him yourself. It’s Rep Smith of the South Sound area.

71. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 49 @ 70

On a related manner, it seems that the 2007-released Gitmo detainee possibility, even if it turns out the guy WAS involved, isn’t helpful to the Dems and HA would be best keeping mum on it.

From the link @ 70:

But he slammed Republicans for referencing the Ben Qumu rumor and other reporting about the attack to criticize the administration’s handling of the crisis.

“It is fairly disturbing the number of Republicans who have leapt to erroneous conclusions about what this means and have missed no opportunity to bash on the president rather than try to find a common approach to this,” he said. “That has been extremely unhelpful.”

I think I’m reading this correctly by inferring that Smith meant that the Gitmo link, if being used by the GOP, means it’s useful to the GOP and harmful to the Dems. Not sure why although I suspect that ANY news about this is bad news for Dems, particularly Hillary, and by extension for Obama. Shhhhhhhhh!

72. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

@71
Are you still having to stand while you type?

What about this don’t you understand?

By law, the board must be convened within 60 days of the incident. Such panels typically take an average of 65 days to complete their work, and Clinton must submit the findings to Congress within 90 days of receiving them. According to that timeline, the board would issue its report in January and Congress could receive it as late as next April.

As you quote, Adam Smith had this to say…

“It is fairly disturbing the number of Republicans who have leapt to erroneous conclusions about what this means and have missed no opportunity to bash on the president rather than try to find a common approach to this,” he said. “That has been extremely unhelpful.

You don’t know anything. Smith is referring to baseless, self-serving speculation that you and your kind are engaging in for purely political purposes – when the shoe was on the other foot, say, 2001, you ilk were calling people traitors for any questioning of Idiot Prince George and his manifest failings.

The bodies are barely in the ground and you’re making shameless attacks on the present administration based on tissue-paper-thin speculation with one and only one purpose – more political power.

…I suspect that ANY news about this is bad news for Dems, particularly Hillary, and by extension for Obama.

More good news for McCain? Keep telling yourself that. Nov 7 can’t come too soon – you’ve grown profoundly tiresome. Putz.

73. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 72

You don’t know anything.

I know what I read:

The U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was operating under a lower security standard than a typical consulate when it was attacked this month, according to State Department officials.

The mission was a rented villa and considered a temporary facility by the agency, which allowed a waiver that permitted fewer guards and security measures than a standard embassy or consulate, according to the officials.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/24/u-s-post-in-benghazi-had-less-than-standard-security-before-attack/

This might have come from a State Department official who wasn’t telling journalists to fuck off. Or maybe CNN just didn’t report on that.

I know you’re just fine waiting until April to learn why we decided to have our Ambassador in an unsecured villa guarded by British private security without bullets in their guns.

I know you don’t see it a problem that the intel we lost there was considered to be a major deal by the CIA (NYT report, yesterday).

None of that is convenient heading into the debates, after all, and some of the news media are actually behaving like news media rather than Obama lapdogs.

I think that’s what’s so disturbing to you. Team Obama is being questioned and it’s response is something between Shut Up and Fuck Off.

74. rhp6033 spews:

“Rather than a naked attempt to kiss veteran ass by throwing them a little cash, as the Dems tried to do, the GOP is focusing on what’s important to veterans over the long term,…”

Gee, like proper body armor, helmets, up-armored vehicles, long-term health care, jobs when they return home?

By the way, a friend of mine has been in the Reserves for years. Beginning in 2001 he was called up for tours of six to nine months, almost every year. And every year when he returned home, his employer (a huge cable TV company) would try to put him on part-time status at reduced pay and no benefits, working second or third shift at times “until a job opened up”. It took a lawyer each time to remind them that he was entitled to his old job back at full pay and benefits without loss of seniority. Suddenly when he was called up again in the fall of 2009, and returned in the winter of 2010, they couldn’t have been more helpful. It seems that they knew there was a new sheriff in town, and an actual enforcement budget and prosecutors willing to seek big fines and civil penalties against employers engaged in such conduct.

75. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

@73
You are unbelievably dishonest.

From your own fucking link:

“Someone made the decision that the mission in Benghazi was so critical that they waived the standard security requirements, which presents unique challenges to the diplomatic security service as you can imagine,” said Fred Burton, vice president for Intelligence at STRATFOR, an intelligence analysis group.

While standards were lower at the compound, security had been enhanced at the post after a number of incidents this year that included a failed bombing attempt against the compound in June, according to sources.

and…

“We took the place and made improvements to it in a continued fashion,” one official said, adding that a pre-September 11 review of base security deemed the post to be adequately secured given the threat.

From your bleating, one can only conclude that you insist that the US build impregnable fortresses in any city where our diplomats might operate. Bristling with guns, ready to shoot at any crowd that might gather – that will advance our foreign policy goals, sure.

I know you’re just fine waiting until April to learn why we decided…

I’m good waiting for FACTS. Something you have vanishingly little of.

Your FUD isn’t really working – have you considered another line of work? Have you been able to sit down yet?

76. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

@74
Yes, indeed.

Cap’n Crunch gives us this:

Rather than a naked attempt to kiss veteran ass by throwing them a little cash, as the Dems tried to do, the GOP is focusing on what’s important to veterans over the long term, which is making sure their service hasn’t been in vain:

Ryan Williams, a Romney campaign spokesman

’nuff said.

Cap’n still hasn’t explained why Republican senators don’t want to try to reduce the horrific unemployment rate among post-9/11 vets.

He and Willard seem to think that giving Lockheed billions more dollars is preferable to helping an American vet get a job.

Shameful.

77. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 75

one can only conclude that you insist that the US build impregnable fortresses in any city where our diplomats might operate.

Or, one might conclude that if there a safe embassy in Tripoli and an unsafe facility in Benghazi, perhaps the place for our diplomats to be on the anniversary of 9/11 is in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

78. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 76

Your comment was cut-and-pasted in a misleading way.

The text in light gray was by me. The next paragraph began with the name of a campaign spokesman.

The way it reads implies that the text is attributed to that spokesman, which is not correct.

79. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

This made me think of our own troll, Cap’n Crunch.

We really do pity you, in so many ways….

80. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

@78
I can see your point about the blockquote. My intent was to highlight the idiocy you wrote, followed by your ‘supporting’ quote by a Romney flack, who we all know inherently has no credibility.

Does this work better?

Rather than a naked attempt to kiss veteran ass by throwing them a little cash, as the Dems tried to do, the GOP is focusing on what’s important to veterans over the long term, which is making sure their service hasn’t been in vain:

>Ryan Williams, a Romney campaign spokesman…[Ed: blah, blah, blah]

81. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 79

If penis size is shrinking maybe it’s because more and more women look like Janeane Garofalo.

82. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 80

Thank you.

Yes, I used a quote from a Romney campaign spokesman.

I assume you similarly get your hackles raised anything someone on HA quotes or links to David Axelrod, correct?

83. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

If penis size is shrinking…

I was unaware that it was. It was Rush that was howling about this. Must be a Republican thingy.

84. No Time for Fascists spews:

@81 A woman who reminded you of Janeane Garofalo dumped a drink on you I bet.

85. No Time for Fascists spews:

Never mind, I moved to the newer thread.