ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [375] -- Conservatives Are Revolting!

[ Posted Friday, January 22nd, 2016 – 18:07 PST ]

Honestly, how often is it that you get to write such a great headline? In a week that also included a Sarah Palin speech that dominated the news cycle (to say nothing of the late-night comic cycle), writing such snarky headlines is just icing on the cake, really. Good times... yes, good times indeed for Democrats watching the horrorshow that is the Republican presidential nomination process.

Where to begin?

The big news today from Republicanland was the broadside fired by the National Review towards Donald Trump. A full 22 conservative thinkers (although, with the likes of Glenn Beck and William Kristol in the mix, we do of necessity use that term quite broadly) all weighed in on why Donald Trump is a terrible candidate for Republicans to consider making their presidential nominee, and why Trump is an all-around terrible human being. With a little over a week to go before voting begins in Iowa, the phrase "a day late and a dollar short" immediately springs to mind.

The essays were contradictory in their reasons for loathing Trump, and the editor himself was writing supportive words about Trump earlier this year, but never mind. Consistency is the hobgoblin of sane non-conservative pundits, after all.

But wait! Just as this intraparty candidate assassination was being attempted comes news that the Republican establishment is basically decamping from Jeb! Bush and Marco Rubio's campaigns and moving reluctantly over to Trump. The big money men and party regulars, you see, want someone with the best chance of actually winning, and the only real alternative at this point is a man pretty much everyone in Washington hates with a seething passion: Ted Cruz. Rudy Giuliani helpfully explains: "If it came down to Trump or Cruz, there is no question I'd vote for Trump. As a party, we'd have a better chance of winning with him, and I think a lot of Republicans look at it that way." The big GOP donors have also reportedly been trying to suck up to Trump behind the scenes.

It's no wonder they're bailing on Jeb!, when you consider his PAC has such a big bundle of cash left to spend that they are reportedly attacking their cash mountain with flamethrowers -- by spending money to send out (apparently at random) little video players pre-loaded with "The Jeb Story," a 15-minute bio explaining why Jeb is going to be our nation's next president (or something -- we admit that our mini video player has not yet arrived in the mail, so we really can't be sure). One paragraph really leaps out at you, in respect to Jeb! trying to portray himself as the hero of the Common Man:

The PAC declined to say on Monday how much money they were spending to buy the video players and mail them, nor exactly how many people would be receiving copies. One person familiar with the group's plans, who asked for anonymity to speak frankly about the strategy, said that buying and preloading the video players is "amazingly cheap" with the cost per player "far less than a good bottle of Scotch."

You know, sometimes you don't even need to provide a punchline, because it would truly be superfluous... "far less than a good bottle of Scotch"... yes, this is indeed one of those times.

Which brings up the other big Republican news of the week. Sarah Palin, who doesn't just utter classic punchlines but has actually become a walkin', talkin' punchline in the flesh, treated us all to a 20-minute ramble through the poppy fields of her mind. Late-night comedians all but sank to their knees in prayerful thanks for Palin's re-entry to the political scene. In fact, so many others have been taking gleeful shots at Palin's speech (you can read the whole thing here, if you really want to) that we're just going to mention it in passing.

Palin being Palin, her own family undermined her political return, as back in Alaska her son Track -- at almost the same time Sarah appeared on stage -- reportedly hit his girlfriend in the face and then threatened to commit suicide with one of the numerous firearms lying about the Palin residence (he lives with his mom). Palin responded in true pitbull fashion, and blamed Track's troubles on (you betcha!) President Obama. Her reasoning, as always, was insane. Even though the Palin family is wildly wealthy from successfully grifting the rubes for eight solid years, Track's mental problems must be Obama's fault, for not "supporting the veterans" with post-traumatic stress disorder. So Palin is arguing for more government spending for a family that could easily have paid for mental health treatment on its own, but chose not to. Track's 0.189 blood alcohol level wasn't mentioned by mom, of course. Ah, the Palins! How we've all missed you!

We personally have long been predicting a Republican Party major freakout when they all woke up to the fact that Donald Trump has been their party's frontrunner all along. So we have to say that in the past few weeks (since this freakout has begun in earnest), we have been enjoying the fray from the sidelines. We have to confess to feeling almost sorry for Republicans who can still recognize reality when it is repeatedly hitting them in the face, such as Lindsey Graham, who recently summed up his party's chances for victory:

The only way we lose this election is to nominate somebody who cannot grow this party's vote among minorities, young women, and the coalitions we need to win. If you nominate Trump and Cruz I think you'd get the same outcome. Whether it's death by being shot or poisoning, does it really matter? I don't think the outcome will be substantially different.

Wow -- tell us how you really feel, Lindsey. I mean, is there any hope at all the Republican Party could take a different path this year?

So let's just pick somebody out of the phone book if we have to. We can win this election unless we lose it.

That's some top-shelf schadenfreude right there, wouldn't you say? Need another taste of the Republican freakout currently underway? How about this, from an anonymous "somebody" contemplating a race between Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton:

In a contest against Trump, the [establishment Republican] thinking goes, it might be best for Cruz to win the nomination, only to suffer a lopsided general election defeat, proving once and for all the true limits of his appeal. It is taken for granted that the party under Cruz cannot win. And, in Washington, life will go on.

"I'm rooting for Hillary," said one half-joking somebody in the GOP establishment. "She can't win a mandate, so we hold the House and don't get slaughtered in the Senate. We will have a great midterm in 2018 running against her," he said, requesting anonymity for obvious reasons. "We are a great opposition party."

The original story was corrected later (you just can't make this stuff up, folks!) by striking out the term "half-joking" and adding at the bottom of the paragraph: "The somebody in question wanted to clarify that he is not at all joking, not even halfway, and is indeed fully rooting for Hillary Clinton."

With quotes like these from fellow Republicans, Democrats don't even have to lift a finger to showcase the absolute revolt taking place among the Republican Party. For those of you enjoying all of this, here's a fun prediction: Things are going to get even crazier in the next few weeks, as Trump and Cruz obliterate all other GOP candidates in the actual voting. So we've all got that to look forward to.

Let's see, what else? Martin Luther King Day was this week, which uncovered a few folks who still haven't quite wrapped their minds around this whole equality thing. First there was the Air Force holding a Martin Luther King Day "Fun Shoot" where you got served lunch -- and also got to shoot off a few rounds, maybe using the flyer handed out as your target? Whoops! Not exactly an appropriate activity for the day honoring a man who was shot down in cold blood.

Then there was a children's book that had to get pulled off the shelves because of all the drawings of happy, smiling slaves baking a birthday cake for George Washington. Seriously? What century do these people think we're living in? We thought that sort of thing had gone out of style by now, but we guess we were wrong.

And finally (whew!) some news to actually bring a smile to your face. First, for those who are interested in history, the Library of Congress has a collection of historical campaign posters that are worth a look (some are downright beautiful). And an even better item to end on: Congress actually got something positive done! They passed a law which overturned -- just in time for a mondo winter snowstorm in Washington -- the ban on sledding on Capitol Hill. Free the toboggans! Have fun, kids of all ages! Yes, anyone who loves a good time can now quite literally (and legally) slide down a slippery slope, just outside the U.S. Capitol.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

This week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week goes to Senator Barbara Boxer, who showed why she will be so missed when she retires at the end of the year.

Boxer helpfully points out, in a Huffington Post blog, the difference between how Democrats see government's responsibility to clean water and the environment differs from Republicans -- who see clean water as one of those pesky "regulations" that are holding the private sector back from glory. The juxtaposition was missed by pretty much the entire media, leaving it to Boxer to shine some light on. From her article:

After seeing news reports over the past several weeks concerning the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, I was shocked and dismayed at a meeting yesterday of the Environment and Public Works Committee (E.P.W.) to consider S. 659, the so-called "Bipartisan Sportsmen Act," which included an unrelated amendment that weakens our nation's drinking water protections.

We have all seen disturbing reports of children being poisoned by lead in Flint's drinking water supplies. And what message do you think Republicans have taken from these upsetting news stories? At a time when Congress should be doing more to protect the American people from contaminated or polluted water, the Republican majority on the E.P.W. Committee did the exact opposite. They chose to vote for legislation to undermine the federal government's ability to protect drinking water supplies.

Specifically, the legislation as approved by the Republican majority takes away the right of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue permits when pesticides are sprayed over a body of water.

The difference in attitude of the two parties is indeed stark on the issue of clean water. But it took Boxer to point it out in all its ugly detail.

For showing the deep divide in priorities between Democrats and Republicans in such damning and poignant fashion, Senator Barbara Boxer is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate Senator Barbara Boxer on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Hillary Clinton, far more than Bernie Sanders, has a lot of surrogates who can go out and make her case to various audiences. They can benefit her by improving her image, but they can also attack competitors (so that the candidate herself doesn't have to).

Our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is Clinton ally David Brock, for his recent criticisms of Bernie Sanders's new "America" ad. The ad was shot at Bernie rallies for a state that is over 90 percent white. The images used reflected this reality. Brock called the ad "bizarre" and a "significant slight to the Democratic base." He piled on with the supposedly-damning: "From this ad it seems black lives don't matter much to Bernie Sanders."

A Sanders spokesman shot back, saying the Clinton campaign should be "ashamed" of its surrogate. "Twenty-five years ago it was Brock -- a mud-slinging, right-wing extremist -- who tried to destroy Anita Hill, a distinguished African-American law professor. He later was forced to apologize for his lies about her. Today, he is lying about Senator Sanders."

We couldn't have put it better ourselves. Brock is, easily, our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[David Brock is a private citizen, and our policy is never to provide contact information for candidate web pages, so you'll have to search out the Clinton campaign info on your own to express your disappointment, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 375 (1/22/16)

Our third talking point this week is really non-partisan, because any citizen who understands the Bill of Rights should be outraged by it.

But, other than that one, the whole rest of this section is nothing short of an anti-Republican snarkfest this week, just because things have heated up so much out on the campaign trail. So sit back, pop some corn, and enjoy watching them all tear each other apart. This is so much fun, it really should be illegal (on humanitarian reasons alone).

 

1
   No, it certainly cannot be that the other side is right....

This first talking point comes from a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. Matt Latimer was even a speechwriter for George W. Bush -- probably one of those who truly believed in the concept of "compassionate conservatism." It's always sad when the notions we subscribe to as teenagers get shattered, isn't it? Latimer begins his opinion piece for the New York Times with: "I became a conservative as a teenager growing up in the city of Flint," complete with a firm belief that conservatives actually did care (all evidence to the contrary) about minorities and the poor. His essay is extraordinary, mostly because he correctly points out that the Flint situation is being almost completely ignored by all Republican presidential candidates. He calls it a chance for conservatives to prove their ideas for urban poverty work -- but he also identifies the fact that nobody is taking this chance. But, in the end, he refuses to see the plain truth in front of his face. Give him a few more years, and some more scales might fall from his eyes, we suppose. In any case, here's just part of his extraordinary op-ed:

This is the Republicans' chance to show their worth -- the chance our leaders have said they always wanted. Why haven't they been here over the decades, running serious candidates, supporting federal aid for the city, championing pilot projects that might show what a conservative approach to urban areas might do? Why aren’t they in Flint today, shipping in water bottles and holding fund-raisers for kids now condemned to lowered expectations because their brains were poisoned by lead?

It cannot be, as the left would tell us, because Flint has a large African-American population.

 

2
   The others are not worthy

Nice to know some people in Flint are worthy of Republican attention.

"Ted Cruz has, to date, been just about the only Republican to even utter the name 'Flint,' but one really has to wonder at his priorities. The Cruz campaign is helping to send water bottles only to so-called 'crisis pregnancy centers' -- people who browbeat young women into not having an abortion -- but not to anyone else in Flint. The message is clear: if you are a pregnant woman who chooses not to abort an unwanted baby, you are deserving of clean water. If not, well then, you can just drink the toxic waste coming from the tap because you are simply not worthy enough as a human being to drink uncontaminated water. Just goes to show how Republicans would run the whole country, if they could. If you agree with their agenda, you can live. Otherwise, you're on your own."

 

3
   Highway robbery, plain and simple

This should transcend party lines, really, because it is so outrageous an abuse of government power.

"The Drug Enforcement Agency and the Transportation Security Administration have teamed up to institutionalize what used to be called 'highway robbery.' Think that's too strong a term? I don't. The Justice Department Inspector General just reported that the D.E.A. violated its own policy by recruiting a T.S.A. agent to help it violate the Bill of Rights on an ongoing basis. The scheme was for the T.S.A. agent to search travelers' bags for cash. Then the D.E.A. would swoop in, confiscate the money, and kick back some of the cash to the T.S.A. agent for his or her help. Anyone whose cash was stolen in such a fashion had to file a federal lawsuit to get it back and prove that the money wasn't related to drugs at all. This stands the Fourth and Fifth Amendments on their heads, and is downright un-American. How is shaking down train and airplane passengers for their cash in any way legal under the Bill of Rights? How is this in any way shape or form different than pure highway robbery? Congress needs to pass a law eliminating the concept of 'civil asset forfeiture' for all federal agents, period."

 

4
   Thanks, Dad

This one's gotta hurt. Admittedly, his remark wasn't all that bad, but even so....

"I see that Rand Paul's father Ron seems to be considering giving up on his son's chances to become the Republican nominee. Maybe it's because Ron Paul personally knows a thing or two about losing a Republican nomination fight, but this week in an interview he said 'it certainly is realistic' that Donald Trump was going to be the GOP nominee. You can just picture the awkward phone call after that news broke: 'Aw, c'mon, Dad!' 'Sorry, Son, but I gotta call them like I see them.' It's bad enough to have others toss your chances of winning under a bus, but when it comes from dear old Dad, it's really got to hurt."

 

5
   Who is worthy and who is not

When purity counts, it limits your choices.

"The Republican National Committee had already kicked out NBC from its upcoming debate, because the nasty people at CNBC asked mean questions the Republican candidates didn't want to answer, and now comes news that they've also kicked out the National Review from the debate as well, because they had the temerity to criticize Donald Trump. Boy, if they're insisting on such purity in their debate sponsors, pretty soon they'll be down to having all their candidates appear on an otherwise-empty stage, and just debate each other, freestyle. It's going to be seriously amusing when the primaries are done and the 'kid gloves' Republican debates are over, because sooner or later they're going to have to answer some questions from outside the right-wing echo chamber. For now, they're still able to wrap their debates in cotton batting so nobody gets their feelings hurt, but that won't happen in the general election."

 

6
   Might want to rethink that destination, Bill

Always fun when people don't check their facts. As Salon amusingly pointed out this week.

"Bill O'Reilly has stated that if a Bernie Sanders wins the presidency this November, he's going to move to Ireland rather than pay his taxes to President Sanders. Putting aside the fact that nobody actually pays their taxes to the president himself, I think O'Reilly's in for a shock. Ireland is fairly conservative on some things, like abortion, but it also has higher taxes than America (over fifty percent for the top bracket), extremely strict gun control laws (most police aren't even armed), and -- horror of horrors -- single-payer socialized medicine! So O'Reilly would be escaping from a phantom socialist America for a very real socialist Ireland. Maybe he might want to rethink his post-election travel plans?"

 

7
   Conservatives are revolting

And finally, we end exactly where we began.

"Boy, it's tough to keep track of the revolts going on in the Republican Party these days. Donald Trump is leading a revolt against the establishment Republicans. The National Review is leading a counterrevolt against Trump. The establishment Republicans are actually waving a big white flag and are now revolting against the National Review and sucking up to Trump. Ted Cruz is leading a revolt against pretty much every other Republican in existence, who are quite willing to badmouth Cruz in return. The party's voters are leading a revolt against the big money donors. Pretty much anywhere you look within the Republican Party, things are downright revolting."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

97 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [375] -- Conservatives Are Revolting!”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Brokered convention! (Icing on the cake.)

  2. [2] 
    Osborne Ink wrote:

    "Conservatives are revolting!"

    Sooo what else is new?

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's next?? Lining up Republicans to have them shot?? :D

    The partisanship is just TOO think with this one..

    Gonna have to take a pass... :D

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Brokered convention! (Icing on the cake.)

    Two Words...

    Hillary PerpWalk :D

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    The partisanship is just TOO think with this one..

    Freudian slip?? :D

    That should read "too THICK with this one"... :D

    My bust...

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Friday Talking Points [375] -- Conservatives Are Revolting!

    When you look at it, the exact same thing can be said about the Democrat Party..

    Funny how that is almost ALWAYS the case.. :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's next?? Lining up Republicans to have them shot?? :D

    "I've heard worse ideas."
    -B'Elanna Torres, STAR TREK: VOYAGER

    :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Loved Friday Talking Points this week - very entertaining!

    I did wonder though... in talking point 6: what is your definition of single-payer? I ask because I would not call Ireland's socialized medicine single-payer. It's a universal healthcare plan yes, but not single-payer as I understand it. Therefore it must be that we have different ideas about what the term "single-payer" actually describes. I certainly never heard that term used in the Ireland or the UK when I lived there.

    As for Bill O'Reilly's promises, didn't he promise to leave the country if Obama won a second term or something? I can't remember what it was; I just know he didn't leave. I'm quite sure Ireland wouldn't want him anyway. I've always found the Irish to be really lovely people and I wouldn't wish Bill O'Reilly on them.

    The best review of Palin's latest word salad was provided by Jim Wright of Stonekettle Station who looked at every word of her endorsement. He adopted a rigorous approach to his review by first quoting a paragraph from her speech and then commenting on it. The following are two of his comments (which is the maximum allowed under his own strict guidelines for fair use):

    We’re just three paragraphs in and she’s already a selfless martyr. Beat up, chewed up, spit out, quit my job, made eight million dollars, bought a couple of mansions, fly around in a private jet, no one knows the misery I’ve seen.

    Jim Wright is a retired US Navy Chief Warrant Officer and doesn't suffer fools gladly.

    Somebody, anybody, show me how America is weaker than it was eight years ago. Weaker how? Economically? Militarily? Energy? Comic Books? What? [...] Be specific and show your work.

    For the full column, visit stonekettle.com

    Simon Malloy wasn't the only Salon writer to note
    the hilarious contradictions in the National Review edition “Against Trump”. Amanda Marcotte also wrote an even more detailed article on their "everything-and-the-kitchen-sink strategy" which produced criticisms at complete variance with each other. She then delights in giving classic examples where article writers have contradicted the editors and even one instance in which a writer contradicted herself!

    Marcotte then moves onto why NR took this route and the probable consequences:

    It’s tough to say what the National Review expected out of this, besides selling more issues. And even that has a strong possibility of backfiring, as this attack gave Trump an opportunity to imply, with cause, that they are using his name to bolster their declining sales.

    If the idea was to pry base voters off Trump, good luck with that. All this does is confirm base voter suspicions that the conservative establishment sees them as a bunch of useful idiots who are to be slapped down the second they start thinking they have a real voice in the movement.

    I think she's right about Trump's fans. They're finally waking up to how they've been used and they're revolting.

  9. [9] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    no need to line anybody up, they brought their own guns (courtesy of the NRA) and are standing in a circle.

    Count de Monet: It is said that the people are revolting.
    King Louis XVI: You said it! They stink on ice!

    ~mel brooks, history of the world, part 1

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "But just maybe Trump is a double agent for the Left. He is nearly a cartoon version of what a comedian such as Stephen Colbert considers a conservative — the kind of conservative Colbert played on Comedy Central"

    ~john fund, national review

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420093/presidential-candidate-donald-trump-double-agent-for-left

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "But just maybe Trump is a double agent for the Left. He is nearly a cartoon version of what a comedian such as Stephen Colbert considers a conservative — the kind of conservative Colbert played on Comedy Central"

    ~john fund, national review

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    no need to line anybody up, they brought their own guns (courtesy of the NRA) and are standing in a circle.

    Considering that the Democrat Party is putting all their eggs in the Hillary basket, courtesy of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, I would say that the same could be said of the Dems... :D

    Count de Monet: It is said that the people are revolting.
    King Louis XVI: You said it! They stink on ice!

    ~mel brooks, history of the world, part 1

    heh :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    To throw another wrench at the monkey...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html?_r=0

    A Bloomberg run would destroy the Democrat candidate and guarantee a GOP victory...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you haven't seen Steven Colbert on Palin do yourself a favor, watch it ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LPR7DktumA ) - his impression of her speech (after 'tazing' the sentence structure part of his brain) is the funniest thing on TV this year so far.

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Lapfhroig 10 is at the the very least a good Scotch, although most afficiandos would tend towards an excellent rating. You can get it for around $43 a bottle at the liquor store. A VonHaus mini media player costs $33 at Amazon prime (free shipping) and flash drives are about 4 bucks a piece if you buy in bulk. Chip, the intern, can copy the JEB._video to the drives at no cost, but shipping costs are probably goining to even out the difference between the Scotch and the video. Loading the video is the problem. My advice would be to just send the scotch and post the video on YouTube. Burn money and please The Establisment.

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    TheStig [12]:

    I'm hosting a Burn's Supper on Monday night and my friend found a 10-year Glenmorangie in Costco for $60 for 1.75L - an incredible price for a pretty good Whisky (I tried it with him to make sure it was OK. We weren't sure the first time, so we tried it again and again until we decided it was excellent ;).

    We got our haggii from New Jersey (real haggis has been illiegal in the U.S. since 1971). They ship anywhere is frozen wrapping. I'll tell you Tuesday if they are any good.

    http://www.scottishgourmetusa.com

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was up this morning at around 0100 EST and got to work around 0200.. It was 52 degrees....

    It's now 35 degrees....

    Where's Global Warming when ya need it!!!???

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm hosting a Burn's Supper on Monday night and my friend found a 10-year Glenmorangie in Costco for $60 for 1.75L - an incredible price for a pretty good Whisky (I tried it with him to make sure it was OK. We weren't sure the first time, so we tried it again and again until we decided it was excellent ;).

    mmmmmm whiskey..... :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://i.imgur.com/kCkYrCq.png

    hehehehehe

    Not a big fan of Bernie.... But THAT's funny. :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I didn't see a mention of the "openly racist" responses the National Review announced they received from "defenders" of the Trumpon.

    The revolting "conservatives" being surprised by the racism is more surprising than the racism. Have they been huddling under a cone of silence or something?

    The National Review's preference for subtle racism sure makes their dismay over "openly racist" responses an interesting notion.

    Of course, the reason the Trumpon is making such racism seem acceptable to his supporters is a complete mystery that they couldn't be bothered to delve into... because willful ignorance is preferable to admitting the truth in "conservative" circles.

    A

  21. [21] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    The dingo (filter) ate my baby.

    Thanks
    A

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Not to be pedantic, Michale, but it is "Whisky", not "Whiskey".

    Whisky is the water of life

    Whiskey is some sort of strange Irish or American concoction ;)

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Alright, well ... go ahead and make mine a double ...irrespective of how you spell it. Heh.

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, pour one for Al, too, while we're at it. :)

  25. [25] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale

    At least Democrats aren't trying to eliminate every regulation om the books (including the EPA itself) so they can poison off as many opposition voters as possible. Snyder must be congratulating himself on his huge success in Flint. He not only poisoned the current voters but ensured all the children there will be too brain-damaged to vote when/if they grow up.

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mopshell [21]:

    A bit harsh, IMO.

    Please don't interpret the following in any way as an excuse - I want the people who made this decision hounded if there was any culpability (well intentioned stupidity or ignorance doesn't count).

    I was wondering about the lead levels. When I grew up leaded gas was legal, and the lead levels in kids was about the levels in Flint today, I believe:

    http://www.environment.ucla.edu/reportcard/article3772.html

  27. [27] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    neilm [22]

    You think that's harsh? The state government and Emergency Manager of Flint took decisions designed to hurt people in order to save a few bucks. They were told right back in April 2014 that when they switched to river water, they would have to add anti-corrosives to avoid lead contamination. They refused because the cost would have been $100 per day for 3 months.

    So they knew back in April 2014 that they were risking the health of the people of Flint, especially those who lived in older and poorer areas. They did not care. That is NOT "well intentioned stupidity or ignorance".

    Ten people are dead because of the levels of Legionnaires Disease in the water. The number of pets which have died from poisoning has not been counted. Every child exposed to lead levels over 100x the highest "safe" level of 15ppb (up to 1250ppb are still being reported, even after the water source has been returned to lake Huron) will suffer permanent brain and nerve damage. It is irreversible.

    The governor's office and Emergency Manager were warned of this at the outset. They kept telling the people of Flint that the water was okay. In the summer of 2014, the state government issued three "Boil water" advisories - boiling water does not get rid of lead.

    They lied and said they had tested the water and it was safe to drink. All this has been documented.

    Snyder is now trying to pass laws in the state legislature to exempt himself and all others involved from prosecution.

    And you think my attitude is "a bit harsh". In a few years, the death toll from 22 months of continuous poisoning will be greater than 9/11 but you are going to write it off as "well intentioned". Excuse me if I don't share your view.

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mopshell [23]

    I'm genuinely confused - the level measurements for lead in water the CDC work in are µg/dL but you are quoting ppb.

    Can you point me to your numbers?

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    At least Democrats aren't trying to eliminate every regulation om the books (including the EPA itself) so they can poison off as many opposition voters as possible.

    Yea... Republicans want to poison all Americans. :^/

    Do you hear yourself??

    You think that's harsh? The state government and Emergency Manager of Flint took decisions designed to hurt people in order to save a few bucks.

    So, the Manager wanted to hurt people or wanted to save a few bucks...

    Which is it??

    And why is it ALL Republicans' fault??

    Put another way... If the Manager was a black person, would ALL black people be to blame???

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not to be pedantic, Michale, but it is "Whisky", not "Whiskey".

    Whisky is the water of life

    Whiskey is some sort of strange Irish or American concoction ;)

    I stand corrected.. :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whiskey is some sort of strange Irish or American concoction ;)

    And don't forget Canadian!! :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:


    Highway robbery, plain and simple

    This should transcend party lines, really, because it is so outrageous an abuse of government power.

    It's called Asset Forfeiture..

    While not created under the Obama Administration, it's reached new heights under The Messiah's watch...

    Forfeiture dollars have skyrocketed under Obama. Funny how we don't see anyone from the Left Wingery (Grand Poobah excepted, of course) say BOO about it...

    Funny, iddn't it?? :^/

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    neilm [24]

    I can only give you one link because more than one will send this comment to the spam filter. This link is to the Flint Water Study: http://flintwaterstudy.org/information-for-flint-residents/results-for-citizen-testing-for-lead-300-kits/
    Earlier tests show up to 1250ppb (parts per billion). The CDC sets the upper limit at 15ppb.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clarence Page opinion editor for the Chicago Tribune stated on the McLaughlin Group that it is all but assured that the FBI will recommend that Hillary be prosecuted for the national security crimes she committed...

    It doesn't look good for the Democrat Party...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [25]

    Yea... Republicans want to poison all Americans.

    You said it; I didn't. And I disagree with you. Republicans don't want to poison all Americans. They know there has to be some people around to man the workforce to make money for their plutocrats. But beyond those who are useful to them, they couldn't give a damn. They certainly demonstrated that in what they did to the people of Flint.

    So, the Manager wanted to hurt people or wanted to save a few bucks...

    Which is it??

    The Emergency Manager didn't care who his decision harmed as long as he saved a few bucks which amounted to $100 a day for three months for non-corrosive additives. So the answer is yes to both. He was told what would happen and he chose to save money rather than prevent lead contamination.

    And why is it ALL Republicans' fault??

    Because this was a Republican decision, made only by Republicans, based on long-standing and well-known Republican policy; ie to eliminate regulations.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    You said it; I didn't. And I disagree with you. Republicans don't want to poison all Americans. They know there has to be some people around to man the workforce to make money for their plutocrats. But beyond those who are useful to them, they couldn't give a damn. They certainly demonstrated that in what they did to the people of Flint.

    Then, naturally, ALL Democrats (including you) are to blame for what Rahm is doing in Chicago and what Democrats did to Detroit..

    See where the Bigotry Roads leads??

    :D

    Because this was a Republican decision, made only by Republicans, based on long-standing and well-known Republican policy; ie to eliminate regulations.

    Eliminate RIDICULOUS regulations.. Like having the EPA regulate mud puddles...

    Michale..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    he Emergency Manager didn't care who his decision harmed as long as he saved a few bucks which amounted to $100 a day for three months for non-corrosive additives.

    But that's not what you said..

    You said that he did it "BY DESIGN"....

    Meaning his GOAL was to poison people...

    In other words, if anyone has died, then you want the manager charged with Capital Murder..

    That about sum up your hysteria?? :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since you are on an Law And Order bender, you (of course) want to see Hillary Clinton prosecuted to hell and back for HER crimes...

    Right??? :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    dsws wrote:

    The Republicans are not imploding or falling apart. They're having a primary campaign. They will unite behind the nominee-to-be, as soon as one candidate secures a majority of delegates. Some groups will be tepid in their support -- quite possibly enough to make the difference in this particular election -- and some individuals will defect. But the Party will not suffer for it in the long run. Donald Trump has brought some of his formerly-nonvoting fans into the electorate as Republicans, and the conversion of non-voters into voters is what actually affects the electoral balance between the two major parties.

  40. [40] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [32]

    Wow Michale, you're really jumping the shark this time. Try to come back to earth for a moment. And since you have such difficulty understanding my statements, I'll lay it out step by step for you:

    1. I disagree with your statement that Republicans want to poison all Americans.

    2. Yes I know you were trying to use satire. It misfired since I wasn't claiming that Republicans were trying to poison all Americans. Sheesh.

    3. As for Republican policy, I was referring to those Republicans who have the power to set policy and formulate legislation.

    4. These Republicans are first and foremost the wealthiest donors who set and control policy via such instruments as the Heritage Foundation and ALEC (which writes the majority of bills for Republican state legislatures).

    5. It also includes the leaders among elected Republicans who are charged with carrying out these policies and passing the legislation they are given.

    6. To make it perfectly clear for you, I'll refer to this group as the elected Republican leaders and wealthiest Republican donors. This obviously does not include all other donors and voters.

    7. In the case of Flint, the responsible Republicans referred to are the governor, the Emergency Manager and all other parties with an official capacity in the decision-making that directly involved the contamination (and subsequent cover-up attempts) of Flint's drinking water. (I believe there are seven defendants named in the class action lawsuit.)

    8. The elected Republican leaders and wealthiest Republican donors group set the GOP agenda which is focussed primarily on further enriching the wealthiest of the wealthy.

    9. To achieve this, they know they need a work force in America but also know that these people will be easier to manage if they are limited in their resources.

    10. Therefore the elected Republican leaders and wealthiest Republican donors group are against raising wages, paid sick leave, paid holiday leave and any other kind of paid leave. They also want to eliminate the minimum wage so they can pay as little as possible.

    11. They therefore have an interest in thinning the herd. Obviously the first to go are those who do not support them and top of that list is all Democratic voters.

    12. Therefore, when saving money puts the health of largely Democratic voters at risk, the decision-makers just consult Republican policy...

    13. Obviously in the GOP platform, money is more important than people, especially if the majority of those people are likely to be Democratic voters.

    14. The decision is therefore just as obvious: save money not people.

    15. This quote:
    Because this was a Republican decision, made only by Republicans, based on long-standing and well-known Republican policy; ie to eliminate regulations.
    references the decision-makers who are responsible for:
    *switching the water of Flint from Lake Huron to the Flint River,
    *choosing not to add anti-corrosive additives to the Flint River water in order to save money,
    *ignoring the initial complaints from Flint residents and medical staff,
    *lying about the safety of the water and issuing useless advisories
    *covering up their culpability when they were exposed
    *failing to respond adequately to the disaster,
    *delaying the call to declare Flint a disaster zone.

    16. Rahm Emanuel is a weasel and should be drummed out of office BUT just as you are not in any way responsible for Flint, nor am I nor most Democrats responsible for what the POS Rahm did.

    You have an extraordinary knack for misconstruing most of what is said. It isn't your fault but everything has to be super simplified and detailed for you or you rush off into fantasyland. It will be interesting to see how you manage to misconstrue most of this as well.

  41. [41] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [33]

    The Emergency Manager didn't care who his decision harmed as long as he saved a few bucks which amounted to $100 a day for three months for non-corrosive additives.

    But that's not what you said..

    That's because I tried rephrasing it so you could understand. Instead it seems to have just confused you more. So I'll try again for the third time.

    Let's try step-by step again and see if that works for you:

    1. The emergency manager was told that the Flint River water was highly corrosive.

    2. He was told that, if not treated, the Flint River water would corrode the pipes which meant lead would be released into the water.

    3. He was told that the water needed to be treated with anti-corrosive agents to prevent this happening.

    4. He was also told that the treatment would cost about $100 per day for three months.

    5. Armed with all this information, the emergency manager chose not to treat the water, thereby allowing the water to become contaminated with lead.

    6. That he made this decision in full knowledge of the effects of not treating the water means he allowed Flint residents to be poisoned by lead. That is what I meant by "by design".

    7. His motivation was primarily to save money. He didn't care that people would be poisoned. He knew they would be but he didn't care, he was indifferent to them.

    8. When it became obvious that the water was responsible for a number of severe reactions and illnesses, the emergency manager and the governor both chose to do nothing about it.

    9. They lied to the Flint people and told them the water was safe. They knew it wasn't.

    10. At that point, they were knowingly facilitating the continued poisoning of Flint residents. "By design" wasn't the best phrase to use but it wasn't exactly inaccurate either. Their goals had became (i) save money, (ii) allow the continued poisoning of Flint residents in order to (iii) save themselves by not admitting culpability.

    Their goal, therefore, was to allow the poisoning of people in order to save themselves.

    In other words, if anyone has died, then you want the manager charged with Capital Murder..

    You can relax, Mr Drama Queen. The governor is busy pushing legislation through to exempt himself and the emergency manager being prosecuted or held accountable in any way. They will all get off scot free. The image of America overseas is that it is not a country that places much importance on justice.

    That about sum up your hysteria??

    And you finish off with an insult. How thoughtful of you.

  42. [42] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [32]

    Eliminate RIDICULOUS regulations.. Like having the EPA regulate mud puddles...

    The Republican policy is to eliminate the EPA along with all of its regulations. That has been Republican policy for a number of years now so I'm surprised you don't seem to know about it. Ted Cruz even mentioned it in one of the debates.

    You might want to interpret it as "ridiculous" regulations but the fact is it is all EPA regulations along with the EPA itself. The Republicans have been gradually reducing the funding to the EPA (and other agencies like the IRS) and restricting their activity so that they are incapable of doing the job now anyway which was the goal all along of course.

    Heavy industry in particular is anxious to get rid of the EPA so that can operate their waste elimination processes by dumping it in the nearest water course. That would save them a lot of money rather than having to treat the waste and dispose of it safely.

    Of course the Republicans can't come right out and say this to their voters so their propaganda machine spins it so you hear "ridiculous regulations" even though they are up front about getting rid of the EPA.

    Some Republican voters are feeling that they've been had by the GOP but I have every confidence that you will not be one of them, Michale.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    2. Yes I know you were trying to use satire. It misfired since I wasn't claiming that Republicans were trying to poison all Americans. Sheesh.

    By invoking "Democrats", yes.. You were claiming that Republicans are trying to poison all Americans...

    3. As for Republican policy, I was referring to those Republicans who have the power to set policy and formulate legislation.

    Yet, you didn't make ANY distinction between THOSE Republicans and all the other Republicans... To give you an example, it would be as if a racist were to claim "BLACK PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS!!!" and then, when called on the obviously bigoted statement, he/she responds with, "I was only referring to those black people who break the law...

    16. Rahm Emanuel is a weasel and should be drummed out of office BUT just as you are not in any way responsible for Flint, nor am I nor most Democrats responsible for what the POS Rahm did.

    Nor are the vast majority of Republicans responsible for what occurred in Flint, MI..

    THAT's the point I was trying to make..

    OK, so we agree..

    This manager is the one responsible..

    NOT the entirety of the Republican Party...

    And you finish off with an insult. How thoughtful of you.

    You are right. That was uncalled for. My sincerest apologies...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Republican policy is to eliminate the EPA along with all of its regulations.

    And yet, it was Republican policy that CREATED the EPA...

    Funny how that's always forgotten amongst the hyperbole... :D

    Some Republican voters are feeling that they've been had by the GOP but I have every confidence that you will not be one of them, Michale.

    And yet, in the last election the vast majority of the American people felt that the GOP was the best Party to be in power and handed the Democrat Party a nuclear shellacking...

    Again, something that's always forgotten amongst the hyperbole...

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    To put this into context for you, it would be as if a Republican blamed the entirety of the Democrat Party for the EPA's totally bonehead screw-up at the King Gold Mine...

    Same kind of hyperbole...

    Although I am sure you will claim that it's different...

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [39]

    2. Yes I know you were trying to use satire. It misfired since I wasn't claiming that Republicans were trying to poison all Americans. Sheesh.

    By invoking "Democrats", yes.. You were claiming that Republicans are trying to poison all Americans...

    No, Michale I was not claiming that. It is not remotely logical to claim that I was. At no time did I say that Republicans were poisoning all Americans - you did but you meant it satirically so it doesn't count as being something you meant. You see? I can work out what you mean from context; why can't you do the same?

    There is no way any logical or reasonable person would claim that "opposition voters" is exactly the same as "all Americans". I find it inexplicable that you insist on claiming that you confused the two.

    3. As for Republican policy, I was referring to those Republicans who have the power to set policy and formulate legislation.

    Yet, you didn't make ANY distinction between THOSE Republicans and all the other Republicans... To give you an example, it would be as if a racist were to claim "BLACK PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS!!!" and then, when called on the obviously bigoted statement, he/she responds with, "I was only referring to those black people who break the law...

    I shouldn't have to spell out every little thing for you Michale when it's obvious that the qualifying statement "They certainly demonstrated that in what they did to the people of Flint" could only refer to those Republicans who were the decision-makers. Any other interpretation would be ludicrous. But the ludicrous interpretation is the one you chose. Now why is that, Michale? No-one can possibly be so thick as to not understand the context of what I was saying - and you're not thick so what is it with you that you choose to take it out of context when it was obvious what I meant?

    Nevertheless I went to all the effort to make it as clear as possible but no, again you insist on your misinterpretation. I really do wonder what your motives could possibly be.

    16. Rahm Emanuel is a weasel and should be drummed out of office BUT just as you are not in any way responsible for Flint, nor am I nor most Democrats responsible for what the POS Rahm did.

    Nor are the vast majority of Republicans responsible for what occurred in Flint, MI..

    At no time was I claiming anything so utterly illogical and idiotic. I cannot understand your motive in inferring that I am that stupid. Frankly, it's insulting.

    The emergency manager was not alone in the decision-making nor the cover-up that followed. Most of that was in the governor's lap. It was Gov Snyder who told the people of Flint that their water was safe. He deliberately lied to them. He is also responsible.

    But nothing will happen to either of them. The Michigan AG says he's investigating the case and he will certainly exonerate all concerned.

  47. [47] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [40]

    The Republican policy is to eliminate the EPA along with all of its regulations.

    And yet, it was Republican policy that CREATED the EPA...

    That's common knowledge that the EPA was created by President Nixon, a fact not forgotten by Democrats who are wondering why Republicans now want to tear it down. It was created to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. It's a great Republican legacy yet all that will be eliminated if/when the agency is scrapped by Republicans.

    To put this into context for you, it would be as if a Republican blamed the entirety of the Democrat Party for the EPA's totally bonehead screw-up at the King Gold Mine...

    Same kind of hyperbole...

    Although I am sure you will claim that it's different...

    I've gone to extraordinary lengths and detail to explain to you as simply as I can why it is different. You insist on choosing a ludicrous interpretation for reasons known only to yourself.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's common knowledge that the EPA was created by President Nixon, a fact not forgotten by Democrats who are wondering why Republicans now want to tear it down.

    So, you are unequivocally and without reservation willing to give the Republican Party full and complete un-modified credit for creating the EPA...

    Right? :D

    I've gone to extraordinary lengths and detail to explain to you as simply as I can why it is different. You insist on choosing a ludicrous interpretation for reasons known only to yourself.

    The only difference that matters is the '-D'/'-R' that is in play...

    The EPA's fault and incompetence on the Gold King mine is well documented. The EPA's cutting corners and saving costs that directly lead to the disaster is also well-documented..

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Drinks all around ... and they're on me!

  50. [50] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [44]

    So, you are unequivocally and without reservation willing to give the Republican Party full and complete un-modified credit for creating the EPA...

    Right? :D

    Yes, of course! Absolutely 100%. That's why it's so odd that Republicans are now so desperate to tear it down.

    The EPA's cutting corners and saving costs that directly lead to the disaster is also well-documented..

    Of course the obvious answer to this is: fund the agency fully so they can do their job properly. But since the Republicans have deliberately starved them of funds, it's no surprise they should have to cut corners.

    Republicans promised to "starve the beast". This is what happens when you underfund an agency.

    And before you get your knickers in a twist again, of course the agency itself has to shoulder responsibility for the mine disaster, as indeed they have done. They probably had to fire a few people in order to scrounge up the money to try to manage the disaster as best they could because there's no way the House Republicans would have given them the funds to do that.

    It should never have been the EPA's responsibility in the first place but stupid laws made it that way - and that little fact is on the heads of ALL Congress, not just one party.

    And if you think that the Gold King mine is sufficient reason to wipe out an entire agency, then what, in your opinion, should happen to those responsible for poisoning Flint's water?

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course the obvious answer to this is: fund the agency fully so they can do their job properly. But since the Republicans have deliberately starved them of funds, it's no surprise they should have to cut corners.

    Maybe the city of Flint ALSO had financial issues that required the cost-cutting..

    Ever think of that???

    And if you think that the Gold King mine is sufficient reason to wipe out an entire agency, then what, in your opinion, should happen to those responsible for poisoning Flint's water?

    Of course I am not saying that, because of the incompetence of Obama's EPA, the agency should be closed..

    I am simply pointing out that the "cost-cutting" incompetence of the Flint manager (a Republican) is absolutely and 1000% NO DIFFERENT than the cost-cutting incompetence of the EPA...

    But you don't get yer "knickers in a twist" :D about the EPA because it's a Democrat organization...

    That's all I am saying..

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    So...

    https://next.ft.com/content/e25f28d6-c0f8-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2

    No one wants to talk about a Bloomberg 3rd Party candidacy???

    I can see why.. It must be very depressing for ya'all.. :D

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's a person that gets it..

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/01/22/national-review-disses-donald-trump-why-magazines-plan-wont-work.html?intcmp=hphz06

    Establishement Republicans (and incidentially, every Weigantian) concentrate on the Trump phenomena as it pertains to the person that Trump is..

    By far, the most important factor in play is not the WHAT, but rather the WHY...

    Until everyone understands that, there will be no stopping Trump as he goes all the way to the White House...

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's a person that gets it..

    http://tinyurl.com/hfrg6w4

    Establishement Republicans (and incidentially, every Weigantian) concentrate on the Trump phenomena as it pertains to the person that Trump is..

    By far, the most important factor in play is not the WHAT, but rather the WHY...

    Until everyone understands that, there will be no stopping Trump as he goes all the way to the White House...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy crap!!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/01/24/paltry-national-airport-snowfall-total-raises-questions-about-observing-standards/

    These clowns in the weather service can't even measure SNOW right!!!

    How much intelligence does it take to take a long stick, find a place in the snow that's level, stick the stick into the snow till it hits the ground and then measure...

    Jeeezus H Chreest!!

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Thanks for the drink offer, but it's not my thing no matter how you spell it.

    I'd rather have my comment show up if you want to be helpful... nothing like a three day delay to encourage debate on (formerly) current events.

    A

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    This may come as a shock but I am sure that, unlike me (heh :D ), CW has a life outside of Weigantia... :D

    He is usually good about rescuing comments from the NNL filter, but it WAS the weekend, after all..

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Got a question for anyone who wants to answer..

    As far as I know, Bernie Sanders is still a registered Independent. He hasn't changed his Party Affiliation to DEMOCRAT..

    How can he run in the Democrat Party Primary if he is not even a Democrat???

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [47]

    I have to say, you're good at distracting yourself from the real issues. As soon as it gets difficult for you, you just veer down another side track.

    Maybe the city of Flint ALSO had financial issues that required the cost-cutting..

    Ever think of that???

    This sounds like you are in favor of their cost-cutting, that you approve of the emergency manager and governor prioritizing profit over people. It's very sad, Michale, that you would think to excuse their decisions, made in full knowledge of what it would do to the people of Flint, just to save money.

    But as we now know from the documentation released in the FOI, the city of Flint would have saved $800 million had they accepted a new 30 year contract with the Detroit Water Authority. The emergency manager, under the direction of the governor, turned that offer down.

    That offer represented a 48% saving which is a far greater saving than the alternative they opted for. Why did they do that, Michale? Why choose an option that they knew would cost more and poison the people of Flint?

    Your desperation to find a way to excuse the Republicans involved also begs the question: why choose an option which could open them up to billions in reparations? The repair bill for the damaged water pipes is already nudging $2 billion.

    That's not taking into account the pressing need now for special education teachers in all their schools at all grades.

    The cost of their decision - and their further decision to cover it up - far outweigh the cost of the alternative water option they chose.

    Also, why did Gov Snyder insist on appointing an emergency manager when the voters of Michigan specifically voted against it?

    And if you think that the Gold King mine is sufficient reason to wipe out an entire agency, then what, in your opinion, should happen to those responsible for poisoning Flint's water?

    Of course I am not saying that, because of the incompetence of Obama's EPA, the agency should be closed..

    How about answering this question then: what, in your opinion, should happen to those responsible for poisoning Flint's water?

    I am simply pointing out that the "cost-cutting" incompetence of the Flint manager (a Republican) is absolutely and 1000% NO DIFFERENT than the cost-cutting incompetence of the EPA...

    There is, of course, one glaring difference: the emergency manager and the governor who gave him this specific assignment, chose to make their so-called cost-cutting decisions; the EPA had their cost- cutting thrust upon them by the US House.

    But you don't get yer "knickers in a twist" :D about the EPA because it's a Democrat organization...

    No, Michale, the EPA is a Republican organization. It was created by Republican President Nixon. As long as it is fully funded, it does a great job of protecting the health of Americans. It remains a Republican legacy, a jewel in their crown, yet they chose to gradually cripple it by cutting its funding year after year. Why did they do that, Michale?

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to say, you're good at distracting yourself from the real issues. As soon as it gets difficult for you, you just veer down another side track.

    It's not a difficult issue..

    It's as simple an issue as is possible to be..

    You hate Republicans...

    This sounds like you are in favor of their cost-cutting, that you approve of the emergency manager and governor prioritizing profit over people.

    Not at all...

    I simply castigate it when it occurs from BOTH Partys...

    You only castigate it when a Republican does it..

    Prove me wrong.. Point to your plethora of posts castigating the Democrat Party because of what the EPA did..

    No, Michale, the EPA is a Republican organization.

    It's a Democrat organization when a Democrat is POTUS... It's a Republican organization when it's a Republican POTUS...

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    The Republicans are not imploding or falling apart. They're having a primary campaign. They will unite behind the nominee-to-be, as soon as one candidate secures a majority of delegates. Some groups will be tepid in their support -- quite possibly enough to make the difference in this particular election -- and some individuals will defect. But the Party will not suffer for it in the long run. Donald Trump has brought some of his formerly-nonvoting fans into the electorate as Republicans, and the conversion of non-voters into voters is what actually affects the electoral balance between the two major parties.

    Well said...

    VERY well said...

    Kudos...

    Especially this part..

    Donald Trump has brought some of his formerly-nonvoting fans into the electorate as Republicans,

    And bringing non-voters into the realm of being voters is a GOOD thing...

    Right everybody?? :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    A Sanders spokesman shot back, saying the Clinton campaign should be "ashamed" of its surrogate. "Twenty-five years ago it was Brock -- a mud-slinging, right-wing extremist -- who tried to destroy Anita Hill, a distinguished African-American law professor. He later was forced to apologize for his lies about her. Today, he is lying about Senator Sanders."

    We couldn't have put it better ourselves. Brock is, easily, our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

    I have to admit....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nwRiuh1Cug

    It's a pretty good ad....

    And Brock is a prick for his attack on it...

    Just shows ta go ya what kind of arseholes Hillary has working for her...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    neilm wrote:

    And bringing non-voters into the realm of being voters is a GOOD thing...

    If they vote.

    Iowa is going to be interesting. At Trump rallies in Iowa the boosters go round the audience and ask if anybody is going to caucus - the response is lukewarm, and of even more concern is the lack of people willing to be local leaders.

    Trump might discover that he is the most popular Republican on stage, because he is great entertainment, but not the most popular in caucuses where it takes a lot of time and effort to participate.

    N.H. should be a safer environment for him.

    I think the Republicans are really going to freak if Cruz wins Iowa in a canter.

  64. [64] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    neil,

    Trump might discover that he is the most popular Republican on stage, because he is great entertainment, but not the most popular in caucuses where it takes a lot of time and effort to participate.

    N.H. should be a safer environment for him.

    polling now has trump narrowly ahead in iowa caucuses. even if he underperforms there, it's unlikely that he'll lose by enough to seriously impair his performance in NH, SC & FL. anything is possible, and a close race would certainly be more entertaining, but it looks extremely likely that trump will be the GOP candidate by a landslide. Paleo-conservatives may wax apoplectic now, but i tend to agree with dan on the ultimate outcome, especially when the alternative is a clinton. they'll grit their teeth and fall in line.

    honestly, as scary as the prospect of a president trump with his finger on the red button may be, i think we need to re-examine some of the potential benefits. for starters, he has expressed some very liberal views on income tax, weapons restrictions, affirmative action, entitlements, and a number of other issues. furthermore, there'd be a lefty backlash in congress in '18. it's not unthinkable that a president trump might impart some of the benefits of a democratic president without some of the drawbacks.

    JL

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    And bringing non-voters into the realm of being voters is a GOOD thing...

    If they vote.

    Uhhh... My implication was that if the non-voters are being brought into the realm of being voters, that they ARE "voters"... IE They vote..

    Apologies for the confusion.. :D

    Iowa is going to be interesting. At Trump rallies in Iowa the boosters go round the audience and ask if anybody is going to caucus - the response is lukewarm, and of even more concern is the lack of people willing to be local leaders.

    From all reports, Trump is bringing out the caucus goers left and right...

    True, we won't know until after the caucus if they actually show up..

    But, from all reports, this is going to be a banner turn-out for Iowa...

    I think the Republicans are really going to freak if Cruz wins Iowa in a canter.

    Mebbe.. But who really cares?? Not me.. :D

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other news..

    Mizzou Media Professor Melissa Click Charged With Siccing 'Muscle' On Reporter
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mizzou-media-professor-melissa-click-charged-siccing-muscle-reporter-n503871

    Ahhhh, the respect and tolerance of the Left Wingery.... :D

    Remind me again how the Left is so much better than the Right is accused of being??

    In all these FACTS, I seem to have forgotten... :D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I've got some headline suggestions for your next piece-

    OBAMA JUMPS ON HILLARY'S "INSPIRATIONAL" NO WE CAN'T BANDWAGON

    or

    OBAMA 180- NO WE CAN'T

    or

    IS THAT THE SOUND OF THIN ICE BREAKING?

    or

    OBAMA STILL DOESN'T RECOGNIZE HIS WALL STREET CODDLING WAS A MISTAKE

    or

    OBAMA CHANNELS RAHM TO ENSURE FUTURE SPEAKING FEES

    or

    OBAMA STABS HIS BASE IN THE BACK

    or

    OBAMA SUBMITS BERNIE PROPOSALS TO WALL STREET FOR VETTING

    or

    OBAMA'S CRITICS ON THE LEFT VINDICATED

    or

    OBAMA PUTS THUMB ON SCALE FOR ESTABLISHMENT

    or

    OBAMA WAGON JOINS ESTABLISHMENT CIRCLE

    or

    CAN OBAMA SAVE HILLARY?

    or

    OBAMA ADMITS ORIGINAL CAMPAIGN PLATFORM UNVETTED

    or

    SHEPARD FAIREY SUMMUNED TO WHITE HOUSE TO UPDATE POSTER

    Feel free to use as you see fit.

    A

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    If they vote.

    But hay... I'll be yer huckleberry.. :D

    If Trump brings new voters into the arena, voters that actually VOTE, then that's a good thing, right??

    Even if those voters vote Republican...

    Right??? :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've got some headline suggestions for your next piece-

    Wow....

    Who pee'ed in YOUR Cheerios this morning??? :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news...

    The world will end on February 14th 2016...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYndBvhz8hU

    "Valentine's Day. Bummer.."
    -Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS II

    :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [55]

    It's not a difficult issue..

    It's as simple an issue as is possible to be.

    Apparently it's far too difficult for you to deal with since you avoid answering any questions about it. If it's so simple, then why do you not answer questions like: what, in your opinion, should happen to those responsible for poisoning Flint's water?

    You hate Republicans...

    ROFLMAO! That's so typical of your answer to everything you can't handle with a reasoned, fact-based argument - everyone else must be wrong because "they hate Republicans!" Oh that takes the cake for simplistic non-answers and sweeping generalizations! As it happens, I'm particularly enamoured of the Florida Republicans in the state Senate. There are two in particular whom I wouldn't hesitate to vote for if I was in their electorate.

    As for yourself, you've made no secret of the fact that you so loathe some Democrats that you readily believe every crackpot nonsense written about them. However, I doubt you hate all Democrats. Human beings are generally more complex than that.

    I simply castigate it when it occurs from BOTH Partys...

    Oh I doubt you'd ever castigate cost-cutting, Michale, since it's a Republican policy you've supported on many occasions. I'm glad you think you don't prioritize profits over people but I find it disturbing that you don't call out Republicans for doing it.

    As for the EPA's cost-cutting, that was thrust upon them by the Republican majority in the US House. Just to remind you, it is the House which is responsible for appropriations; the Republicans have held the majority in the House since 2011 and it was 2011 when the cost-cutting began for the EPA as recommended by the House Republican Appropriations Committee. The House Republicans have continued to further cut the agency's funding every year since. You can check out the figures for yourself if you don't believe me.

    So it is, once again, the Republicans who underfunded the agency their party created. It is they who starved their beast and put them in a vulnerable position and it is both parties who are to blame for not making the mining company culpable and accountable for its own mess.

    Prove me wrong.. Point to your plethora of posts castigating the Democrat Party because of what the EPA did..

    How about you point to the plethora of comments blaming the Republican Party because of what the EPA did. It happened under their watch. In setting up the EPA, President Nixon was very specific that the agency answered to Congress, not the President so it was under the Republicans' majorities in Congress that the King gold mine disaster happened.

    That being said, I have never seen any article or comment which blamed either party for the disaster, nor did anyone point fingers at Congress so the question is moot. Neither party was blamed.

    It's a Democrat organization when a Democrat is POTUS... It's a Republican organization when it's a Republican POTUS...

    But that isn't what you said, Michale. To quote you exactly:

    Michale [47]

    ...the EPA because it's a Democrat organization...

    You did not specify that you considered the political ownership of the agency to change with the POTUS. In any case, as I've pointed out to you, the EPA answers to Congress not the President. Because I know this, I did not guess that you didn't know it.

    Michale [60]

    Remind me again how the Left is so much better than the Right is accused of being??

    Because Democrats haven't knowingly poisoned tens of thousands of Americans and thrown American troops into a war based on falsified reports.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Leo DiCaprio is just another climate hypocrite

    Could it be that we are hearing the hysterical pleas of “environmental activists” to change our ways or face doom and noticing that not only are they not changing their ways, but that their ways are far worse than our own? The loudest, most obnoxious and aggressive voices telling us the world is about to end plain old don’t act like it.

    Who can forget Al Gore predicting the North Pole would be ice-free by 2014, and starring in the environmental catastrophe film “An Inconvenient Truth,” all while racking up an electric bill 20 times the national average for his 20-room house and pool house?

    We’re willing to believe the science we don’t fully understand, but it would help if the actions of the lecturing class caught up with their alarmist rhetoric.

    We abandon ship when we see rats making a run for it, but these rats are lounging by the heated pool and playing shuffleboard on the Lido deck. When Leo heads for a lifeboat (admittedly his track record isn’t great on that score), the masses might follow.

    http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/why-leo-dicaprio-is-just-another-climate-hypocrite/

    Exactly.... :D

    Global Warming is nothing to worry about... That's what the Hysterical Left Wingery tells us...

    By their ACTIONS.....

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently it's far too difficult for you to deal with since you avoid answering any questions about it. If it's so simple, then why do you not answer questions like: what, in your opinion, should happen to those responsible for poisoning Flint's water?

    I don't know enough about it to form an opinion on the actual incident..

    I am sure if I DID research the incident, I would know the OTHER side of the story which, in all likelyhood would be quite different from YOUR side..

    But what would that change?? If I came up with facts that were markedly different from what you claim, would it change your mind??

    If I uncovered bona fide and unequivocal PROOF that you were absolutely and 1000% wrong in your assertions, would you calmly respond, "I apologize Michale.. You were right and I was wrong."??

    Of course you wouldn't... So, any research is futile because you are not interested in the actual facts of the incident..

    You simply want to use the incident as a blunt-force weapon to be the Republican Party over the head with..

    ROFLMAO! That's so typical of your answer to everything you can't handle with a reasoned, fact-based argument - everyone else must be wrong because "they hate Republicans!"

    You don't HAVE a reasoned, fact-based argument.. All you have is political bigotry..

    And no amount of facts that dispute your claims will change your mind..

    So, this begs the question..

    Why should I even bother trying??

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I did anyways..

    And do you know what I discovered??

    Obama's EPA has as much culpability in the Flint water crisis as the Republicans in Michigan...

    Funny how no one here mentioned that...

    But it does prove my point perfectly..

    For EVERY complaint ya'all have, it's the Republicans who are at fault.. Republicans are liars... Republicans are terrorists... Republicans are criminals..

    Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    “The EPA’s previous response to Flint was, frankly, part of the problem. This new, more urgent approach shows different thinking from the top, reflects an awareness that the situation in Flint is just unacceptable, and it points the Agency in the right direction. However, we remain very concerned that the people of Flint cannot simply rely on agencies that have to date utterly failed them.”
    -Henry Henderson, Natural Resources Defense Council

    Remind me again how it's the REPUBLICANS who are completely at fault??

    I seem to have forgotten what with the facts to the contrary...

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a January 12 Detroit News report, EPA Region 5 Administrator Susan Hedman—the top agency official in the Midwest—admitted that she knew as early as last April that Flint’s water supply lacked corrosion controls. This is significant because, when the city changed its water source from the Detroit water supply in April of 2014, it began to draw its water from the notoriously polluted to the Flint River. The change was made as a cost-saving measure seven months after Flint came under the control of state-appointed emergency manager Darnell Earley. Earley’s team estimated the switch to the Flint River would save the city $5 million over two years, money that would ultimately flow to the city’s Wall Street creditors.
    http://www.legalreader.com/epa-implicated-in-coverup-of-flint-water-crisis/

    So.....

    Still want to talk about the Flint Michigan water issue???

    I got tons more links that put Obama's EPA right in the cross-hairs...

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, before you ask.. I am not holding the Republicans blameless.. Yes, the manager who ordered the cost-cutting measure really scrooed the pooch..

    But let me ask you a sincere and honest question...

    If Manager Darnell Earley knew for an absolutely fact that his cost-cutting plan would put people's lives at risk.. If he knew it for an ABSOLUTE FACT...

    Do you honestly believe he would have gone thru with the plan???

    I bet I know your answer, but I just want to hear you say it..

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    While the Republican governor played a leading role in this crime, he was not alone. According to one email, former Democratic State Treasurer Andy Dillon made the “ultimate decision” to permit the city of Flint to leave the Detroit water system and begin drawing from the polluted Flint River. This proved to be a catastrophe for the city’s residents, with the corrosive river water causing lead to leach from the city’s antiquated pipes, poisoning the city’s residents, including highly vulnerable children.
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/01/25/flin-j25.html

    You see, Mopshell???

    The facts come out and they are considerably different than the story of a REPUBLICAN FRAK UP all up and down the line...

    Democrats all up and down the line played a part in this tragedy...

    Funny how you didn't mention ANY of that in your initial comments...

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that Detroit played a BIG part in Flint water issue..

    And, as has been WELL DOCUMENTED, Detroit is a DEMOCRAT frak up of the highest order..

    NO ONE can blame the Republicans for ANY part or parcel of the hellhole that is Detroit..

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    But what the hell... It's no biggie.. I still like ya!! :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    re-63

    As usual, you completely missed the point.

    I was celebrating.

    Obama attacking Bernie just put his right wing, neoliberal, corporatist economic views on display for all to see.
    And, he made it clear that when he was running on the EXACT SAME platform, he was lying to Dem voters.

    Just like Hillary, when it comes to what the Left wants, he is a No You Can't Wall Street coddler.

    That's why all your whining about the "Left Wingery" is utter and complete nonsense.

    There's nothing leftist about the right wing Heritage Foundation written ACA.
    There's nothing leftist about Obama's neolibcon foreign policy.
    There's nothing leftist about the kid glove, weak regulation of Wall Street where none of the banksters who committed massive fraud went to jail, and the Too Big To Fail banks all got BIGGER.

    Even your "debate" with Mopshell is a farce because Wall Street coddling Democrats have weakened the EPA at the request of their Big Money donors... in collaboration with Repubs...

    ... not to mention attacking unions, underfunding pensions and infrastructure, and allowing corporate raiders to destroy Detroit, and if you look at what Rahm is doing, Chicago too.

    There is a left/right divide in this country, but the Big Lie is that the Democratic Party actually represents the Left, because they don't.
    Right wing corporatists dominate the Republican Party, and are the majority in the Democratic party.

    And Obama just made it crystal clear.

    Exposing that truth is a victory for the Left, and loss for all the reality deniers like you.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    So...

    We both don't like Obama... :D

    Got it...

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another Active Shooter situation on a military installation...

    NRMC Balboa, San Diego (my hometown) reports an active shooter..

    I have to hand it to the Navy.. Their advice to anyone in the vicinity??

    RUN, HIDE or FIGHT!

    Ooooaaaaaaaaaa

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    this seems like a good place to continue a prior discussion that i had lost track of:

    Most questions that question one's political ideology usually are.. [the dumbest poll question ever]

    so are most questions that actually are poorly constructed.

    i'm not criticizing the veracity of other polls which in fact reflected even more negative views toward the country's direction. the data suggest that almost 80% of the country think the USA is headed the wrong way. the president as leader must accept responsibility for that perception, regardless of party.

    however, the data also suggest that this perception is at odds with the reality of people's lives. people now rate their quality of life higher than they did four or eight years ago. the president must get credit for that perception, regardless of party.

    my personal ideology is irrelevant to my rating of a poll question's validity. i'd cede the point if i thought it were a better question, as in fact i DID cede the point when i thought it WAS a better question.

    JL

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    My opinion on polls is well known...

    Polls, by virtue of the spin of the questions, usually indicate more of the bias of the poll takers than of the poll'ees...

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michale [79],

    i agree with you that no poll is free from bias, which is frequently reflected in a poll's results. however, some poll questions are more valid (they measure what they claim to measure better) than others. asserting complete subjectivity on the part of the person who writes the poll or the person who interprets the poll is denying this basic reality.

    JL

  87. [87] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    Way to wimp out by generalizing and avoiding the content.

    But yes and no.

    The things I don't like about Obama are very different than you, and there are things I do like about Obama.

    What I don't like is that he's too much like YOU.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    The things I don't like about Obama are very different than you,

    Regardless of the WHY, we are in complete agreement about Obama..

    And that just chaps yer arse, don't it?? :D

    and there are things I do like about Obama.

    Of course... The '-D' after his name... :D

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [79]

    I am also constrained to point out that Detroit played a BIG part in Flint water issue..

    And, as has been WELL DOCUMENTED, Detroit is a DEMOCRAT frak up of the highest order..

    NO ONE can blame the Republicans for ANY part or parcel of the hellhole that is Detroit..

    Exactly how is Detroit responsible and what documentation are referring to?

  90. [90] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Micyhale [73]

    So, any research is futile because you are not interested in the actual facts of the incident..

    That is a malicious accusation, Michale. You must be extremely desperate to LIE like that. I

    I have stuck rigidly to the truth, to verifiable facts, in everything I said. You refuse to accept reality, to accept honest-to-God facts because you refuse to accept the truth.

    Sinking to the despicable depths of slandering me is really low even for you.

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have stuck rigidly to the truth, to verifiable facts, in everything I said. You refuse to accept reality, to accept honest-to-God facts because you refuse to accept the truth.

    I am not talking about truth..

    I am talking about FACTS...

    And yes, you have stuck to the facts.. But ONLY the facts that support your ideology..

    As I have posted, there are a PLETHORA of facts that ALSO show that Democrats had a HUGE hand in the Flint water mess up to, AND INCLUDING, Obama's EPA..

    Obama's EPA knew back in April of 2015, that the Flint water was dangerous...

    It was a Democrat who lied to officials about having top of the line corrosion protection...

    Yes, you stuck to the facts..

    But like with every other Democrat agenda (Global Warming, etc etc) you only acknowledge the facts that support the agenda...

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where we disagree, Mopshell, is that you claim that Republicans own the Flint water debacle...

    The facts clearly show that Democrats are up to their asses in it as well..

    That's all I am saying...

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    altohone wrote:

    No Micha

    You are hopelessly delusional if you think my comments said anything close to-
    "we are in complete agreement about Obama".

    And, no, falsely assuming you have any idea about what I do like about Obama just makes you an ass.

    But, I suspect you know both of those things dang well and are just too dishonest (like Hillary and Trump) to admit it.

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is a malicious accusation, Michale. You must be extremely desperate to LIE like that.

    It's only a lie if it's not factual and I know it's not factual.....

    Since you completely ignore the Democrat Party's contribution to the Flint water fiasco, the factuality of my claim is not in dispute..

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    the factuality of my claim is not in dispute..

    An old word that I just made up... :D

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    How the FBI Could Force DOJ to Prosecute Hillary Clinton
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430343/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-fbi-director-james-comey-resign-protest

    Hillary is toast... It's THAT simple...

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    How the FBI Could Force DOJ to Prosecute Hillary Clinton
    http://tinyurl.com/zotk7sn

    Hillary is toast... It's THAT simple...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.