– Glenn Beck has now dropped all subtlety in his American fascist shtick and is now promoting a pro-Nazi book from the 1930s. As Dave explains:
Now, we know that Beck bought whole into Jonah Goldberg’s fraudulent Liberal Fascism thesis, and therefore probably believes that these American Nazis were evil “progressives” at heart. So it’s likely he had a huge blind spot about the fact that American fascists of the 1930s were far-right ideologues whose favorite pastime was Red-baiting.
Media Matters has an interview with Alexander Zaitchik, who has just written a book on Beck’s life and career. Zaitchik is correct when he says this:
As for whether the left sweats him too much, time will tell. He may very well flame out, or melt down. But right now he merits concern. As pleasant as it might be to dismiss him, too many people are willing and eager to enter into this bizarre role-play in which Beck is not only their history professor, but also their quasi-prophetic movement leader. While there is an argument to be made against giving him too much of our energy and attention, completely ignoring him and his ilk is one luxury we can’t afford.
When someone like Glenn Beck is openly promoting books written by prominent white supremacists – and still has a popular show on a major cable news network – that’s certainly not something we should be ignoring as a society.
– In Prescott, Arizona, angry townspeople – led by a city councilman and talk radio personality named Steve Blair – successfully pressured the school principal to order that a recently painted mural have the faces of the children be lightened up. Since then, the councilman was fired from his radio gig. All of the recent insanity in Arizona is reminding me that my old boss repeatedly said he wanted to move there “for the politics”. My old boss was this guy. What the hell is going on down there?
– There were two fantastic media pieces this week on the drug war. Evan Wood writes about how the bloodshed in Jamaica is indicative of a massive worldwide policy failure. And Johann Hari draws the parallels between the failed experiment with alcohol prohibition and its modern global reincarnation.
– In collecting signatures for I-1068 last weekend, a woman who signed my petition commented that she was still worried because “stoned driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving.” This is a topic that rarely yields rational discussion, but it’s still worth pointing out that scientific evidence for that belief does not exist. Driving drunk is far worse than driving stoned. That’s not to say that driving stoned is entirely safe. It’s not. It’s just that driving a motor vehicle while drunk is uniquely dangerous. The major difference between drunk driving and stoned driving is that, while both involve an impairment of reaction times, stoned drivers tend to get overly cautious while drunk drivers tend to become more aggressive with their impairment. And the studies that have been done to compare the two have found big differences between the damage caused by drunk drivers and the damage caused by stoned drivers.
You missed Helen Thomas opening her mouth about Jews going “back” to Poland and Germany.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14
Between Bill Maher getting all racist about blacks last week and Helen Thomas getting all anti-semitic this week, you’d think the left has given up complaining about bigotry.
Hypocrites.
FiveThirtyEight to Partner with New York Times
by Nate Silver @ 11:00 AM
Bookmark and Share Share This Content
Some exciting news this morning: We have reached agreement in principle to incorporate FiveThirtyEight’s content into NYTimes.com.
In the near future, the blog will “re-launch” under a NYTimes.com domain. It will retain its own identity (akin to other Times blogs like DealBook), but will be organized under the News:Politics section. Once this occurs, content will no longer be posted at FiveThirtyEight.com on an ongoing basis, and the blog will re-direct to the new URL. In addition, I will be contributing content to the print edition of the New York Times, and to the Sunday Magazine. The partnership agreement, which is structured as a license, has a term of three years.
Look up red herring. A red herring is a attempt to divert attention or an argument away from something else.
Ever hear Goldy or Lee talk about how they think Obama is doing? No. What they do is divert your attention to radio hosts.
Use your brain, sheep.
Ever hear Goldy or Lee talk about how they think Obama is doing? No.
Um, what? I often post about how I think Obama is doing (relative to how little posting I actually do). And in fact, I’m much more likely to be critical of him when I do.
What is life like in your parallel universe?
At least we have Liz, my dad is a War Criminal, Cheney on the teevee to tell us that our NATO ally, Turkey, should be on our hate list.
bible study
thou shalt not criticize democrats from the left.
discuss
notaboomer spews:
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
06/04/2010 at 12:35 pm
“Between Bill Maher getting all racist about blacks last week”
If Maher fries your wingnut mind then you’re probably not quite ready for a dose of Richard Pryor.
Wingnuts and humor. If it isn’t something akin to pulling the wings off a fly and blowing up a frog, say the likes of the collatorally damaged dead, wolves shot from helicopters and oil-soaked birds, they just don’t think it’s funny. Odd, those wingnuts.
And Buzzed drivers tend to be more cautious as well, because they are aware that they are most likely over the legal limit, but don’t feel impaired enough to take a cab or have someone else drive. Stoned drivers most likely would fall into this category and the legalization of marijuana would most likely cause a pretty significant spike in under impairment tickets and accidents. While I am not particularly against the legalization of marijuana, I do question how the police will be able to build a legal case against someone who is involved in an at fault accident with serious injuries. With alcohol, we have the BAC (or Blood Alcohol Content) and a number of recognized legal tests that can determine the level of alcohol in a blood stream. With marijuana that isn’t the case.
Your assumption that stoners driver safer and more cautious is based on a belief that you desperately want marijuana legalized. My opinion on the dangers of driving while stoned on marijuana is based on having responded to pretty significant accidents, with injuries, where the driver who caused it lamented that that he was just smoking marijuana. Yes, I have been to more accidents involving alcohol, but that doesn’t make either right!
Re Glen Beck
I would imagine half of Beck’s audience is from the left. Typecasting the whole of a political ideology by the words of one or two extremists is hardly new to either side, and Beck makes a tempting target for the left. Anyway, if I’m hearing a conversation where a person says “Glen Beck said…” it’s almost always from someone on the left of the political spectrum.
Writing a whole book about him? Wow, there’s someone with a lot of time on their hands.
Personally I think his paranoi and pessimism slightly sickening and don’t listen to him. Both on the left and right there are reasonable voices worth listening to, so why waste my time?
@2: Yet again, conservatives equate any criticism of Israel with “anti-Semitism”.
@9: While I am not particularly against the legalization of marijuana, I do question how the police will be able to build a legal case against someone who is involved in an at fault accident with serious injuries.
Go back and read RCW 46.61.502: Driving under the influence. If you’re driving while impaired by ANY drug, you can be arrested and the same penalties for DUI can apply. You don’t have a simple 0.08 BAC threshold to reach, true, which means that a case needs to be built on proving actual impairment.
Does this mean that marijuana shouldn’t be legalized? Hardly. If that’s really the case, you should be outlawing Nyquil, sleeping pills and prescription painkillers too.
Re 11
Yet again, liberals equate any criticism of Obama with racism. Pot, meet kettle.
I think what the fireman was saying is that impairment is more difficult to prove. Were pot legalized, which would be fine with me, I’d bet law enforcement would have a portable testing system for it fairly quickly. I believe that at the moment a blood test can be compelled on reasonable suspicion of intoxication whether by drink or pot anyway, but could be wrong. Frankly, either way I don’t envy an officer or fireman the job of cleaning up after an accident involving either impairment.
While it isn’t one I would agree with or ever bother to defend, it’s pretty certain that Ms. Thomas’ stated views concerning Israel and Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories are legitimately framed in political terms. Her point, as dismal and regrettable as it may be, is certainly a debatable political point of view.
It may well be that beneath it all, Ms. Thomas’ views arise from bigotry. But nothing in her statements at the Jewish Heritage Celebration support or validate that conclusion. She may simply believe as a matter of conscience, if not Arab nationalism, that it was wrong for people of European, and American residency to relocate to the Mandate and establish a Jewish state. Again, I offer absolutely no defense of that point of view. But debates about Zionism have been going on for more than a century. And throughout that time that debate has been engaged on both sides by plenty of intelligent, conscientious people who saw legitimate points of contention worth exploring that had nothing to do with bigotry.
Not every anti-Israeli comment is anti-Semitic, or more precisely, anti-Jewish (Ms. Thomas is herself of Semitic descent). It is quite possible to disagree with the entire concept of modern Zionism without being a bigot. Her comment simply expresses that fundamental disagreement. We can object to her comment without concluding that she is a bigot.
Lee,
Re: 1068 – I think the best response is that: No one should be driving when impaired from any substance. The comparison to alcohol frankly doesn’t seem valuable and seems like a rabbit hole to get pulled down (which one is worse). When I tried chewing tobacco once, ick, it wired me a lot more than a couple beers would. At a minimum I would be distracted. The point is you can get in trouble for driving tired or driving erratically from too much caffeine, etc. The issue is that when used responsibly and potentially legally, marijuana is no more a social harm than than many other legal substances. Making it legal doesn’t mean making it ok to drive under its influence.
@12: Yet again, liberals equate any criticism of Obama with racism. Pot, meet kettle.
Hey, douchebag… there’s a difference between having objections with the policies of the state of Israel, and waving around signs of Obama in a witch-doctor’s costume. Get a fucking clue.
I think what the fireman was saying is that impairment is more difficult to prove.
Which is what I pretty much said. No breathalyzer for pot or meth or whatever else.
Frankly, either way I don’t envy an officer or fireman the job of cleaning up after an accident involving either impairment.
Nor do I… but that’s not the point here. Alcohol is a legal substance, but the penalties for driving while impaired by alcohol are high. If you’re on sleeping pills and you’re driving, you can (and should) be charged under the exact same statute. Raising this as a potential concern for enforcement if legalization passes? Sure. But if someone is pointing towards an expected spike in DUIs involving marijuana as a reason to maintain the ban, I’d say that we should get rid of ANY drug that could have any possible impacts on drivers.
Re 15
The angry liberal shouting obscenities- Always a favorite. At least the ‘kid’ part of your tag is correct.
Anyone who critiques Obama from the right is automatically assumed to be a racist. That’s what I meant. Look at the threads here, the noise from the left wing talk machines and even ‘responsible’ members of Congress. To his credit Obama himself seems not to use this stupid tactic.
To help your rhetoric- Keep the personal insults. I don’t actually care about your opinion, so they’re a waste of typing for you.
Umm, we agree that pot should be legal. I could care less if a pothead fries his brain, provided he gets no government help when he can’t work, and all the rules regarding alchohol apply.
You’re arguing, at a guess, for the same reason people shout abuse at opposing sports teams. You don’t really care about the team, you just something to shout abuse about. Good luck with that.
Demo kid,
Part of your name is definitely correct, you seem to be very much a Kid!
Your rationalization is lacking a degree of maturity. But I don’t hold that against you. I know what the RCW’s state and once again you are clouding your opinion based on a belief, while mine is based on real world experience. The simple fact is, DUI with alcohol is simply easier to prove. Other drugs such as pain meds and sleeping pills leave amounts in the blood stream that can be used. Because THC stays in the blood stream longer, and the levels vary depending on how much one smokes during any given time (Someone could have have higher THC levels, but not be impaired because he hadn’t smoked anything for 3 hours prior to the accident, but he regularly smokes allot every day). The measurable levels of alcohol in a blood stream decrease over short period of time (relatively) not so with THC.
Another note on RCW’s versus real life, the RCW’s can be written any way you want, but proving in a court of law is something entirely different. Until such a time where a reliable, accurate and legally defensible test can be developed, marijuana should remain illegal.
I knew some guys in Dallas who were stopped by the cops whiole driving stoned. They were going 10 in a 30 mph zone.
Great interview with Thomas Homer-Dixon.
http://www.cbc.ca/mansbridge/2.....xon_1.html
Once again, the underlying substance of right wing paranoid rhetoric consists of something that sounds plausible, while carefully omitting crucial information.
What would this statement look like without those omissions? Let’s see:
Anyone who critiques Obama from a perspective that is fundamentally irrational and irreconcilable is automatically suspected of being a racist. Or crazy. Or both.
You see, when you argue that the dreaded Obama is trying to destroy YOUR COUNTRY™ through “social programs” while simultaneously demanding that “social programs” like Medicare, Social Security, the Export-Import Bank, USDA commodity support, etc. be sacrosanct it appears irrational and irreconcilable. We must therefor assume that the initial claim is false, and intended to conceal some other less palatable objection to Obama’s Presidency.
When you insist that government regulation of private health insurance markets amounts to government TAKE OVER™ of said markets certain to destroy our health care system, while simultaneously giving vehement support to actual government run health care (TRICARE, VA, Medicare, etc.), it appears irrational and irreconcilable. We must therefor assume that the initial claim is false, or born from starkly delusional thinking disqualifying it from serious consideration.
When a small number of our fellow citizens embrace these demonstrably irrational policy positions with unparalleled stridency and emotion we naturally are curious about the true source of those emotions. When public demonstrations in support of these irrational policy positions are consistently accompanied by racist caricature and xenophobia it points to a suspected truth.
What’s up Doc,
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
No political practice matches the ideology. A wide range of people believe themselves to be conservative or liberal or some point between. Are there inconsistencies in what some folks say? Sure. Does this make them racist? Absolutely not.
Social Security and Medicare were paid for by my fathers generation. They have a right to expect to benefit from a careers worth of taxation. For myself, I believe both well out of the scope of Constitutional authority, and would love to see both phased out over 20 years or so.
The VA is a different case. It is a way of saying thank you to men and women who gave a great deal to their country in military service.
I don’t think insurance a good way to pay for medical care. I don’t think the federal government has any right whatever to tell me what financial arrangements I must make, though. That’s my business. Not yours, and not Obamas’.
Odd, many on the left talk about illegal war, and troops overseas and executive power abuses. It doesn’t seem to apply to over-reaching right here at home. Telling me what to buy, whether I can speak on my cell phone in my car, taking my money to give it to the profligate and a host of other abuses seem not to bother you. Interesting.
lost,
diverse, nuanced critical thinking is not exemplary of modern movement conservatism, your protests not withstanding. Today’s GOP exists within confines of political litmus tests, faux populist patriotism, and militaristic jingoism that directly contradicts just about everything you just posted.
When dozens of ‘baggers gather with poorly made signs, bellies bulging over their sweat pants, shrieking about “Kenyans”, it isn’t to engage in subtle debate about defining appropriate limits to government social spending.
Perhaps you’d be happier associating with libertarians. But only so long as you recognize that neither Rand Paul, nor his father Ron can be counted as such. Libertarians wouldn’t use compulsory state power to order a citizen to give birth, or forbid them to smoke a plant, or decide for them who they may or may not marry. If you already happen to be a true libertarian, it’s time you learned that you will never make common cause with movement conservatives or the GOP.
Oh no the great BOOGIE MAN Glenn Beck has all the leftist libtardos scared yet nary a peep on Bill Mahar’s racist rants or Keith Odormann and his antisemitism against the father of a co-worker.!
Steve Steve Steve posits
Richard Pryor was talking about his own people. Bill Mahar is a progressive DUMMCRAPTIC loving racist.
Doc
I’m not a movement conservative or a true libertarian or an anything absolute.
Conservatives have something to add to the national discourse on where this country is and where it is going. So do progressives and liberals. So do libertarians. All are constructs with faults inevitable when men and women theorize about anything as large as how 300 million people are to be governed.
For my part I vote Republican more often than not. Not because I believe them right on all things. Not because if the libertarians proposed a meaningful candidate rather than a buffoon I wouldn’t be tempted to vote for them. It seems to me between liberal and progressive lack of concern for property rights and republican lack of concern for civil rights the latter is a better bet. Soon or late Americans will fight for civil rights. At some point the pendulum will swing.
Once you establish a right to the contents of another mans pockets in the population that is impossible to eradicate though, and this is the real substance of democrat policies.
And when Lee runs with half-baked truths we all know what a moronic twit is and how we should be ignoring Lee in northwest society!
Elizabeth Dilling was a PROGRESSIVE!
@26
Your previous comment was so incoherent, it was marked as Spam (and I still have it in case anyone wants to question that). That’s why it’s no longer visible.
For your comments to be left up here, they have to be at least semi-coherent. Completely incoherent ones will be marked as Spam – because they’re no different than the ones created by bots.
My previous comment was personally marked as SPAM by Lee?
Well Lee here is the original link with Glenn’s whole commentary. Compare what Glenn said vs the rip out of context you threw up there from above… Here’s Lee’s link with “blessings from Lee”
Lee, do you actually listen to Glenn or do you take a moronic fool’s word for it? Don’t answer that because your flotilla thread provides the correct answer. The boat commentary containing peace activists was PRICELESS after the actual YouTube’s were available!
It reminds Puddy of how the lefties ran with Media Morons Barack The Magin Negro was Rush Limbaugh’s creation. When the truth was told and Media Morons was made to look foolish when it was determined Barack the Magic Negro came from a black LA Times commentator!
BTW Elizabeth Dilling was a PROGRESSIVE!
@28
BTW Elizabeth Dilling was a PROGRESSIVE!
No, not even close.
I’m not sure what planet you reside on, but on planet Earth, someone who considered FDR a Communist is not a Progressive.
My god, don’t you have any shame about how much of an ass you’re making here?
In Lee’s World this is true.
Hey Goldy–
No comment about a Republican leading in the polls in your home state of Pennsylvania?
Seems like Philly and the whole dang State needs you man.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Oh so now Lee visits the leftist leaning WikiPedia since Puddy put to rest Media Morons?
Elizabeth Dilling was a progressive nazi sympathizer just like HG Wells and George Orwell and many US professors on college campuses. Or better yet Lee here are more stories of your progressive history…The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses By Stephen H. Norwood Cambridge University Press, 350 pages Read all about them Lee.
Or Lee you could have read this too…” During World War II, Roosevelt never spoke out against the Holocaust. The Venerable Pius XII, who has been criticized for not denouncing the Holocaust, presided over the rescue of over 750,000 Jews; this rescue would have been jeopardized if he had spoken out too forcefully. Roosevelt had no such excuse. He never even bombed the rail lines to the death camps. No one knows why Roosevelt never took any steps to save Europe’s Jews. Although sophisticated Americans in some of our big cities were aware of the Holocaust, this horror was never given a place in our war propaganda, and small town America did not hear about it until the liberation of the death camps.”
Didn’t Lee recently say he jock straps Odumba but he doesn’t always agree with his decisions. Yet, in his argument above he can’t accept Dilling being a progressive because she disagreed with Roosevelt.!
Lack of concern for civil rights is a better bet than lack of concern for property rights.
The modern movement conservative stance nicely summed. A stance I simply can’t agree with, on purely pragmatic grounds.
So long as my government is formed to vigorously defend my civil rights, I retain the prospect of defending my legitimate private property rights (Oh, how promising were the “property rights” of slaves). But a government that sets aside my civil rights has effectively foreclosed the legal process for asserting my private property rights.
You propose a false dichotomy. Like so many aspects of modern movement conservatism it is contradictory, laden with confusion, and brilliantly manipulated to serve only the interests of the very wealthy who have little need of these protections. We need only study the many examples from around the world. Wherever civil rights have failed or been set aside, private property rights have collapsed, leaving a handful of elite wealthy oligarchs in control of all the resources. But in order for a self governing people to create and maintain a legal system that effectively asserts civil rights on behalf of all the governed (and thereby secure private property rights) it must be supported by resources that include the contents of every person’s pockets. If you deny self governing citizens the resources to establish and defend basic civil rights, you doom private property rights.
@16: And the idiot conservative that can’t seem to make a point. Seems dreadfully common.
First, not everyone who critiques Obama from the right is racist. Few people would say that, really. On the other hand, if you have a party whose members include folks that believe that calling a fellow candidate a “fucking raghead” is reasonable in any circumstance… I’d say that was racist. If you have a party with members that throw around the word “macaca”, I’d say that was racist.
Umm, we agree that pot should be legal. I could care less if a pothead fries his brain, provided he gets no government help when he can’t work, and all the rules regarding alchohol apply.
The penalties for injuring someone else while under the influence are clear. However, unlike you, I don’t believe in an effective death penalty for people who don’t necessarily have the same lifestyle I do.
You’re arguing, at a guess, for the same reason people shout abuse at opposing sports teams. You don’t really care about the team, you just something to shout abuse about. Good luck with that.
I care about the teams, and I care about the fact that know-nothing conservatives like to open up their damn fool mouths on issues that they can’t seem to express a coherent opinion about.
From Lee’s WikiPedia link:
Exactly as you progressives do today Lee. You progressives attack Israel today. Did you forget your flotilla link already?
@17: Part of your name is definitely correct, you seem to be very much a Kid!
Please. Don’t let the name distract you from making an argument… like it seemed to do here.
Your rationalization is lacking a degree of maturity. But I don’t hold that against you. I know what the RCW’s state and once again you are clouding your opinion based on a belief, while mine is based on real world experience.
I’m at a loss as to how you can explain my argument as a “lack of maturity”, or how my argument is based on an “opinion” while yours is based on “real world experience”. I’m making a case here, and you just seem to be dancing around it.
The simple fact is, DUI with alcohol is simply easier to prove.
Agreed.
Other drugs such as pain meds and sleeping pills leave amounts in the blood stream that can be used.
Agreed.
Because THC stays in the blood stream longer, and the levels vary depending on how much one smokes during any given time (Someone could have have higher THC levels, but not be impaired because he hadn’t smoked anything for 3 hours prior to the accident, but he regularly smokes allot every day). The measurable levels of alcohol in a blood stream decrease over short period of time (relatively) not so with THC.
If someone appears to be driving impaired, gets into an accident, and their blood is tested and comes up positive for THC, they can be arrested for DUI or negligent driving. Nothing that you’ve said contradicts this.
Another note on RCW’s versus real life, the RCW’s can be written any way you want, but proving in a court of law is something entirely different. Until such a time where a reliable, accurate and legally defensible test can be developed, marijuana should remain illegal.
You’re arguing that something should be illegal because it is difficult to prove in court. (Difficult… but not impossible, since marijuana DUI convictions exist!) I don’t buy that.
Tell me… levels of impairment being equal, would someone be less likely to be charged with negligent driving for being stoned versus being incredibly tired?
I think everyone can pretty much agree that Puddy is off his meds.
Demo Kid,
You’re doing a little better. Congratulations. Still conflating personal abuse with coherent arguments, but that will pass with maturity.
Your logical construct appears to be as follows. Person A uses hateful racist speech and is in fact a racist. Person A is a Republican. Therefore all Republicans use hateful racist speech and are in fact racist. You do understand the problem here, don’t you?
” However, unlike you, I don’t believe in an effective death penalty for people who don’t necessarily have the same lifestyle I do.” Huh! So telling someone they will work in a tire shop or a Walmart because they made themselves so stupid they couldn’t hold real work is a death sentence. Who knew? Try to follow this like a laser beam. If a person through personal choice damages their own future this is not societies problem. This is the problem of the pothead who can’t hold a job because of what the did to themselves.
As far as the last paragraph goes I think calling someone else out on coherence might be a poor strategy for you…
Re 33
You misunderstand me in part, and in part I disagree with your contentions.
I DO NOT endorse the damage to civil rights done in the name of national security or for any other reason. Neither do I endorse taking money I earned to pay for the life necesssities of neighbors too lazy or profligate to do this for themselves. I have no objection to paying my share of the lawfully and constitutionally mandated activities of government. A national defense, roads, police, education and so on are communally enjoyed and ought to be communally paid for. My neighbors food, housing, clothing and so are enjoyed by my neighbor and he or she ought to pay for them.
Of the two Americans historically will fight for our civil rights. It may take time and it may be an issue of waiting for a straw to break the camels back, but they will.
When you establish a ‘right’ to the provision of things any sane person would consider personal responsibility this is trickier. First, a majority of the people in this country will likely benefit from such policies. A voting block for manifest injustice is built into that system. Second, people will rationalize a reason that they in fact have a right to my money, or that of Bill Gates because ‘we can afford it’ (though at vastly different levels!) Once this moral cancer is introduced into a society no surgery will cure it.
Property rights are the fundamental reason for civil and other rights. We accept the constraints of society for variants of 2 reasons. First, personal safety and security. I accept that I can’t hurt my neighbor in anger becuase it establishes a principle that he can’t do so to me. Second we want security of our property. My neighbors property is safe from me, but so his is from me. Once you establish certain classes exempt from this protection, the rich for instance in progressive thought, you begin to weaken society as a whole.
Well, that’s all for me. I’ve got stuff to do. Have a pleasant night.
Re 39
Sorry, the edit function appears not to be working. Last paragraph should have read “My neighbors property is safe from me taking it, but so mine is from his taking it.”
Drunk drivers run stop signs. Stoned drivers stop and wait for them to turn green.
My BlackHawks are trouncing the Flyers 3-0 after the 1st period.
Being a BlackHawk & Cubs fan over the past 50 years could be viewed as a challenge by the feint of heart. But not for me! I love those teams. I am a true fan.
I saw my 1st BlackHawk game in 1960. They won their last Stanley Cup in 1961. I remember Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita and the enforcer…Reggie Fleming. In later years the had Pit Martin, Tony Esposito, Keith Magnuson, Dennis Hull, Jim Pappin. They didn’t win…but were exciting. Same with the late 60’s Cubs.
Great time to grow up in the Midwest.
Also a Celtics Fan for life.
They are beating the Lakers by 11 with 2 minutes to go in the half.
Ray Allen is 7-7 on 3’s with 27 points.
Smokin’ hot.
Mrs. C is in Southern Cal for a week.
Going to my neighbors for the 2nd half and a 2″ thick tenderloin.
I’ve never felt we can afford to ignore Coulter, Malkin, Beck, Bachmann, and their ilk. Back in the 1920s too many people ignored a loudmouthed paperhanger with a funny mustache and look what that cost humanity.
If there’s one overarching trait of the contemporary American right, it’s that they’re all pathological liars. They abuse free speech. They make shit up. They treat history, facts, and logic with contempt. They put stupidity and ignorance on a pedestal. But, above all, they LIE about every fucking thing under the sun. Which makes me suspect they’re all mentally ill.
Practically on the day he was elected you said that you HATED him.
Who in their right mind would take any “criticism” of Obama coming from you seriously?
And your reasons for “hating” him amounted to guilt by association and that’s putting it politely.
Obama won the election. He out-campaigned an established political machine in his own party and ran rings around the hapless Republican who was the nominee only by dint of being the last man standing. All other dwarves having exhausted themselves with tired right wing propaganda that the rest of the country had long since stopped buying.
Highest
Not ‘practically on’ but on the day Obama was elected I said I hated him.
Guilt by association? You mean his mentor Heremiah Wright who hates America? Or the terrorists who helped launch his political career? Maybe the socialists with whom he surrounds himself? His wife who made a number of scurrilous comments about this country? Guilt by association only works if all your associations aren’t anti-American in thought word and, when they have the guts, deed.
I hate that Obama is president. I always will. Call me crazy, but I want an American president to love his country. I want an American president to love the American way of doing things, not the European. I want an American president to represent his country, not go around the world apologizing for it a few weeks after his election.
I also apologized for saying that I hated the man. My political passions got the better of me. But to say that he is among the worst and least American presidents, for that I will never apologize.
And I note that you don’t, because you can’t refute the actual argument that the left has been using a cheap diversionary tactic to discredit people with whom they disagree on policy grounds, calling them racist.
@46, Gimli wouldn’t appreciate that.
Additionally I’ve critiqued Obama for lacking any real world experience in, well, anything. He was an attorney for less than a year. A professor for a little while. A ‘Community Activist’ whatever the heck that is as long as it suited his ambition…
He held elected offices. He didn’t actually do the work of the office and represent those who elected him. No, he used them only as a springboard for the next office. As a senator he had an appalling voting record being both the most liberal and the most absent with regard to votes.
See, you guys might have a short memory. Some of us who pay attention don’t.
@47, Boo fuckin’ hoo. I’m crying crocodile tears here. Fuck you. You’re a pathetic clown. Go fuck yourself. What’s the American way? Money lust? Cancerous greed? Megolomania? Might over right? The loudest wins? Money talks, the Supreme Court walks? Bomb now, ask questions later? God’s chosen land mass (and the two-legged creatures therein who believe the same bullshit you do)?
You need to lay off the Beck. You’ve obviously gone soft between the ears. Put your fuckin’ boots on and take a look around.
Wow Puddy, you have completely and totally lost whatever mind you may have once had.
To actually believe that Elizabeth Dilling was a Progressive is akin to believing that Stalin was a pacifist or that William F Buckley was a liberal. It’s engaging in a level of historical ignorance that is breathtaking.
The fact that you actually take yourself seriously is well beyond my comprehension. It’s totally inexplicable. You have become the man who stands on the street corner downtown with five jackets on in summertime yelling out loud about the voices in your head.
Please – for your mental health – see a therapist. You need help.
@50
Prick Alert!
Demo Kid,
If someone is involved in an accident and their blood is tested they may be found to be driving under the influence because they have THC in their system. This would mean if Marijuana was legal, anyone who smoked it an drove within 20 to 30 days would be driving under the influence, since THC stays with your body for about that long (Body weight, metabolism, and other illnesses notwithstanding). There is NO EFFECTIVE method of determining whether or not someone is under the influence of marijuana at a specific period. There is ONLY an officers determination by experience. I base my opinion on the fact that I have responded to many accidents for individuals under the influence of alcohol, cocaine, meth and yes marijuana (responded as a fireman and treated patients within the EMS system). THAT is my life experience. I have treated patients who have been injured (severely) by someone who stated yes, I smoked a little dope. What do you base yours on?
And yes, there is a difference between being stoned and extremely tired. One is illegal, one is tragic. One requires a person to commit an act that is common knowledge as slowing reflexes and impairing their ability to react while operating a motor vehicle. Being extremely tired can happen over a long period of time (driving) and requires a person to be irresponsible, but not engage in a specific act.
As far as the case you are making… It’s weak. Outlawing everything is like saying “I’m taking my ball and going home” It’s a straw unrealistic argument. Not being able to legally determine if someone is under the influence of Marijuana (unless the admit to it) is a pretty valid public safety argument. Once again, try to engage in a discourse, rather than a tantrum
@51 I beg to differ Lee, there is NO WAY Puddy can fit five jackets on.
@47: Once again Lost shows how shallow, insipid and painfully ignorant he/she is.
The only people who call Obama a socialist are the totally ignorant rightwingnut fools. I guess you are in that category.
But you loved the idiot Bush who turned the largest budget surplus in history into the largest deficit in history.
And managed to foster the largest economic meltdown since the great depression. Along with bailing out certain banks and not others.
You reasoning is faulty (by the way did you ever verify your “quote”) or do you just make up stuff in your total ignorance?
@53: IAFF conservative
Your logic is flawed. Driving while extremely tired is a voluntary act. If a person is so unaware that they are over-tired…then they already should not be driving.
They can act – and pull over and sleep or change drivers before they are a danger. that is only common sense.
Re 50
Masterful elocution using all the majesty of English, or at least the profane bits of it. I would place you with exponents of language from Seneca to Churchill in this well reasoned and beautifully argued point by point refutation of my argument. Bravo.
Re 55
Actually what I go by is the speeches, writings (that can be found) and other expressions of Obama himself, before he bacame a politician and began to pretend to be a centrist. I go by what the website of his church said before they pulled it in concert with the Obama run for president. I go by the friends he has. So try knowing of what you write before writing.
With regard to Bush you’re either ignorant or being disengenous. I’ve frequently written, in the context of this post itself, of my dissatisfaction with the Bush presidency. Does that mean I want European Socialism in the US? Hell no.
Blaming the economic problems on Bush alone is stupid, ignorant and partisan. Try being intellectually honest, at least with yourself.
BTW, the worst and least loyal president was FDR. The man bought into every socialistic BS theory lock stock and barrel and ruined this great country. He should have been tried for treason for violating his oath to uphold a Constitution he shredded. He was a political ideologue of the worst kind using the Depression as a way to push totally unworkable concepts of governance and economics down the throats of the voters.
Obama at least has none of FDR’s negative greatness, so will likely do less damage.
Lost: First, if you go by the website of a church that someone attends- then you are a total fool and an intellectually dishonest MIDGET.
Second, your definition is socialist puts all of europe in that category. People who ignorantly throw around the word socialist are just showing how pathetically ignorant they are.
Third, blaming the deficit on Bush and the republicans after 8 years…well, that is neither stupid or ignorant. Those are the facts. who would you hold accountable. Bush had a republican majority or vetoe power the entire 8 years and chose to lie and pursue an unnecessary war in Iraq that did not help our security and cost over 1 trillion dollars.
Did you protest the war? I doubt it. You are a know-nothing third-grade level hypocrite.
Once again, you shift the topic and fail to adress the real questions.
Did you ever get a citation for the Patty murray quote? Or do you just make stuff up?
@58: Lost once again shows true ignorance of history. I love the revisionists.
FDR was the worst….why? Because he actually brought this country out of the great depression that Hoover got us into?
Lost – you are so biased you can’t even fathom history. Try reading about the grreat depression – it was the conservatives on the “gold standard” who screwed things up. It was tight monetary policy. It was unfettered wall street speculation.
The same thing just happened with the banks – deregulation, credit-default swaps and lack of goverment control.
But lost wants LESS regulation. It is amazing that the same fools who got us into this mess (Phil Gramm and the “unregulators) think that more of the same will fix things.
No – you fools were wrong during the depression and wrong during the banking crisis and wrong now.
@60
correction time:
Hitler and Tojo did more to bring the US out of the depression than FDR did.
FDR was merely a hanger-on and along for the ride of world events.
@47 “Not ‘practically on’ but on the day Obama was elected I said I hated him.”
Hmmm, not real open-minded, are you? Reasonable people take a wait-and-see attitude toward a new president, hoping for the best, and there’s a sort of built-in cultural expectation that we’ll all support a new president until he gives us a reason not to. But not you, no, you prejudge, your mind snaps shut like one of those old-fashioned spring rat traps, no matter what Obama does in office you’re agin’ ‘im. And you dare to call yourself an American? Fuck you.
@47 Hey, I’ll tell you somethin’, Wonder Boy, Obama has done a damn sight better in office than your frat chump ever did. Obama saved the world from Great Depression 2.0, for starters. And he passed health care reform, a legislative goal that eluded Republican and Democratic presidents alike for half a century. Not bad for his first 2 years in office; this stuff alone assures him a place in history as one of our better, if not great, presidents. So shut your stupid piehole until you have something intelligent to say! There are few things in this world more annoying than people who carp just to hear themselves talk. You’re one of ’em.
@61 “Hitler and Tojo did more to bring the US out of the depression than FDR did.”
In the same sense that Gary Ridgeway provided job security to Dave Reichert.
Rabbi Nessenoff: Any comments on Israel? We’re asking everybody today, any comments on Israel?
Helen Thomas: Tell em to get the hell out of Palestine.
Nessenoff: Oh. Any better comments on Israel?
Thomas: Remember, these people are occupied, and it’s their land. It’s not German, and it’s not Poland.
Nessenoff: So where should they go and what should they do?
Thomas: They should go home!
Nessenoff: Where’s their home?
Thomas: Poland. Germany.
Nessenoff: So you’re saying the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?
Thomas: And America and everywhere else.
@11
Substitute “blacks” and “Africa” and try and tell me it’s not racist.
That woman is vile.
@38: Your logical construct appears to be as follows. Person A uses hateful racist speech and is in fact a racist. Person A is a Republican. Therefore all Republicans use hateful racist speech and are in fact racist. You do understand the problem here, don’t you?
Wrong. At no point did I say that all Republicans were racists. You’re just babbling.
Huh! So telling someone they will work in a tire shop or a Walmart because they made themselves so stupid they couldn’t hold real work is a death sentence. Who knew? Try to follow this like a laser beam. If a person through personal choice damages their own future this is not societies problem. This is the problem of the pothead who can’t hold a job because of what the did to themselves.
Try following this argument: everyone is society’s “problem”. I’m not advocating for a coddled life for everyone, or even a comfortable one. Conservatives, however, seem to get their jollies from being the judge, jury and executioner, and denying folks the right to live simply because of their own sense of vengeance.
I don’t buy it. I may not like certain people, but to think that they should be denied the basic care needed to survive, just because I personally don’t like them or think that they are unworthy? It’s an arbitrary system, built on nothing but spite.
@47: I hate that Obama is president. I always will. Call me crazy, but I want an American president to love his country. I want an American president to love the American way of doing things, not the European. I want an American president to represent his country, not go around the world apologizing for it a few weeks after his election.
How vile. Someone disagrees with your own personal opinion of America, and what happens? You denounce them as anti-American.
And I note that you don’t, because you can’t refute the actual argument that the left has been using a cheap diversionary tactic to discredit people with whom they disagree on policy grounds, calling them racist.
So let me get this straight… you whine and moan about “cheap diversionary tactics” about discrediting people, yet you spit out the whole “I’m a patriot, anyone who disagrees with me isn’t” card? Puleeze.
You’re really nothing more than a rabid partisan, eh?
@66: Ummm… if Africans had colonized the US, forced the people already living there onto reservations, and limited their rights, that might be an accurate comparison.
Oh, wait.
@68
//sigh// Must be a public school student…
Simple question: Where did Jewish people originally come from?
Here’s the answer, but no peeking until you’ve tried really hard to answer the question, OK?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora
@69: Great! Then in that case, maybe we should all just move back to the savannas of Africa!
Why don’t you read up on the modern aliyah and get back to me.
THC does not stay in the bloodstream longer.
What stays is metabolite by products that don’t show impairment in any way shape or form. Actually, from everything I’ve read, THC actually leaves the bloodstream relatively fast, about the same rate as coming down from the high. So a couple of hours. It stays in the bloodstream shorter than alcohol does.
A urine test is worthless for showing impairment on any drug. A blood test is OK.
@70
If you want to go back voluntarily, fine. Go.
Forcing someone else to leave has a name. Ethnic Cleansing.
Bigot.
And, breaking news, your girl Helen got her ass fired from her speaker’s bureau. And she was forced to retire from Hearst. You’re defending the indefensible. Hang it up.
10. lostinaseaofblue
And I would imagine that you’re just imagining that.
@18 My in-laws were pulled over by a cop in Tenino for “impeding the flow of traffic”. They were going the speed limit.
What was their real offense? Being old and funny-looking and driving a beat-up truck.
@72: Forcing someone else to leave has a name. Ethnic Cleansing.
I’d be extremely amused to see the day when Helen Thomas could ethnically cleanse a country.
Bigot.
Douchenozzle.
And, breaking news, your girl Helen got her ass fired from her speaker’s bureau. And she was forced to retire from Hearst. You’re defending the indefensible. Hang it up.
Do I think her word choice was awful? Definitely. But the main sentiment is still relevant: Israeli settlers have wrongfully stolen land from the Palestinians.
@53: If someone is involved in an accident and their blood is tested they may be found to be driving under the influence because they have THC in their system. This would mean if Marijuana was legal, anyone who smoked it an drove within 20 to 30 days would be driving under the influence, since THC stays with your body for about that long (Body weight, metabolism, and other illnesses notwithstanding). There is NO EFFECTIVE method of determining whether or not someone is under the influence of marijuana at a specific period. There is ONLY an officers determination by experience. I base my opinion on the fact that I have responded to many accidents for individuals under the influence of alcohol, cocaine, meth and yes marijuana (responded as a fireman and treated patients within the EMS system). THAT is my life experience. I have treated patients who have been injured (severely) by someone who stated yes, I smoked a little dope. What do you base yours on?
I base my opinion on facts.
Blood tests are effective in gauging THC levels, and police testimony about determinations at the scene are important parts of marijuana DUI cases. Given that marijuana DUI cases exist (and have resulted in convictions), this indicates that people are being convicted of driving while under the influence of marijuana.
What is questionable is the thresholds put in place for a determination of “impairment”. A law like Arizona’s, which means that any trace of THC in the blood is enough for a DUI, is far too draconian and unrealistic. I’ll agree that testing can be difficult, but it is not impossible, and it is not a reason to take away a broad right.
And yes, there is a difference between being stoned and extremely tired. One is illegal, one is tragic. One requires a person to commit an act that is common knowledge as slowing reflexes and impairing their ability to react while operating a motor vehicle. Being extremely tired can happen over a long period of time (driving) and requires a person to be irresponsible, but not engage in a specific act.
If someone who is tired is getting behind the wheel, they are committing an intentional act and are culpable. They can be convicted of reckless driving if they cause an accident.
As far as the case you are making… It’s weak. Outlawing everything is like saying “I’m taking my ball and going home” It’s a straw unrealistic argument. Not being able to legally determine if someone is under the influence of Marijuana (unless the admit to it) is a pretty valid public safety argument. Once again, try to engage in a discourse, rather than a tantrum
No, what you’re saying is unrealistic because, if applied in any other situation, it would make no sense. Marijuana DUI convictions exist, and can rely on blood tests to prove that THC is in a suspect’s system. Therefore, if you were to argue that marijuana should be banned because of its impairing effects alone, you should be banning far more than just pot.