ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [376] -- One No Trump

[ Posted Friday, January 29th, 2016 – 17:59 PST ]

That headline is a joke only bridge players will get, so our apologies to everyone else. It refers, of course, to last night's Republican presidential debate, which Donald Trump refused to participate in. But even with no Trump on the stage last night, he seems to have (once again) proved that political gravity simply doesn't apply to him. In fact, we have serious doubts that we'll see Trump at any future debates -- after all, if he can blow them off with impunity, why would he subject himself to them in the first place?

Or maybe he'll just stage his own debates instead, and invite the other candidates to appear in front of his hand-picked panel of sycophants. That'd certainly be amusing! Who wouldn't tune in to see the likes of Gary Busey questioning Ted Cruz?

We did watch most of the GOP debate last night, although by this point these events seem nothing more than an endless loop of blather. Yet again, the evening was an absolute fear-fest of unbridled proportions. We don't think there was a non-ISIS, non-terrorism question until well into the second hour, but then we do admit that watching Republicans debate kind of makes our eyes glaze over (even without hip debate-themed drinking games). None of the obvious, newsworthy questions we wanted to hear were asked (such as: "What do you think about how the F.B.I. handled the situation in Oregon?").

Rather than repeating such a stale performance, we would suggest the next GOP debate open with the following: "As moderator, I'm well aware that every candidate on the stage (with the exception of Rand Paul, of course) would bomb the living daylights out of terrorists everywhere, and then have the American military dance up and down on the rubble, so we're just going to ignore the whole subject since you're all pretty much in agreement -- instead, we're going to be asking questions on how your economic plans would help average families, and many other subjects relevant to the American voters." Hey, we can always dream, right?

Instead, we had a no-Trump debate where everyone beat up on each other, with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio being the favorite punching bags. Oh, and everyone hates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- that pretty much goes without saying. The best debate wrap-up we read was from Digby, in Salon, who went with a great metaphor to describe the night:

Some good news came out of the GOP presidential debates last night. It dawned on everyone watching that in a week or so this field is going to be winnowed considerably and we will never have the thrill of seeing the seven dwarves -- Grumpy Christie, Sneezy Cruz, Happy Kasich, Sleepy Carson, Dopey Rubio, Bashful Bush and Doc Paul -- on a stage together again. (Snow White Trump was pouting across the street, upset over having to take questions from Megyn Kelly.)

Heh. Can't top that one, so we're not even going to try.

What else is going on in the world of politics? Well, Michael Bloomberg seems to be jealous of Donald Trump, so he hinted that maybe America would thrill to see two New York City billionaires in the presidential race. Bloomberg seems to have deluded himself into believing that there is an enormous yearning for a pro-gun-control, pro-stop-and-frisk candidate out there, and apparently all his closest buddies agreed. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, Bloomberg (so far) says he won't run, but if it's Bernie Sanders versus Trump or Cruz then Bloomberg says he'll just have to jump in to save America. So there's that to look forward to, we suppose.

Of course, the biggest news is that Iowa is about to kick off primary season, and all the wonks will finally (finally!) have some solid voting data to pore over, rather than just relying on sheer speculation (as we've all been doing, up to this point). The race is about as close as can be, at least between first and second places in both parties. Will Trump beat Cruz? Will Bernie surprise Hillary? Stay tuned! Monday night will be an exciting moment, no matter what happens.

Team Hillary seems more than a little bit worried at this point. Bill Clinton also seems worried about Hillary's ground game heading into March -- when the first four primary contests are over and when an enormous amount of delegates will be up for grabs. Bernie Sanders met privately with President Obama this week, and then stated that he wasn't worried at all that Obama had somehow endorsed Hillary (the interview in question was actually pretty even-handed and wonky, but the media missed this forest while examining the trees for signs of a secret Hillary endorsement).

Sanders got seriously annoyed with the Washington Post, who (like a lot of media these days) are getting worried that Bernie might actually beat Clinton. The Post editorial board put out the snarkiest of hit pieces on Sanders (titled, with no subtlety whatsoever: "A Campaign Full Of Fiction" and subtitled: "Sen. Sanders is not a brave truth-teller. He's just telling progressives what they want to hear."). Sanders then struck back, but it'll be interesting to see if this sort of thing becomes more common if Clinton loses Iowa and New Hampshire to Sanders. There are many in the Democratic establishment who fear a Sanders nomination just as much as their Republican counterparts fear both Cruz and Trump.

Other campaign odds and ends: Jeb! Bush is actually running an ad featuring Terri Schiavo, because he was at the heart of the mess, arguing strongly that the government should intrude on private medical decisions. We had wondered when the subject was going to come up, but we must admit we never thought Jeb! himself would be the one to bring it up. A senior aide to John McCain pretty much admitted that McCain's pick of Sarah Palin is why we are all being subjected to "Donald Trump, GOP frontrunner" right now, which is an interesting read. More of Hillary Clinton's emails will be released soon, but the State Department is now saying they need an extra month to process the remaining ones (they were all supposed to have been out at the end of January). And, in a bit of good news for progressives, Zephyr Teachout announced she's running for Congress in New York. Go Zephyr!

And we end our weekly wrapup with three "you can't make this stuff up" items. Legislators in Kansas are instituting a prudish dress code for anyone who appears before a committee meeting -- but this dress code only addresses women's clothing. Was there a big problem of women appearing in miniskirts somehow freaking out the tender male lawmakers, or something? Doesn't this belong in a parody of the 1950s? Sheesh.

Up in Maine, the governor wants to execute drug dealers by bringing back the guillotine. No, really. He followed this whopper up with an even-more-insane suggestion: "Everybody in Maine, we have constitutional carry. Load up and get rid of the drug dealers." Um... OK. Let's just announce "open season" and have citizens start blazing away in the streets. That'll solve the problem!

Which is a perfect segue to our final item, which is a headline that (sadly) needs no further explanation: "Man Who Feared Mass Shootings Brings Gun To Movie Theater, Accidentally Shoots Woman." Nothing more really needs be said about that one, except to note it didn't actually take place in Maine.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

We have a special award to hand out this week, rather than our usual Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Instead, we're creating a special award, the Most Impressive Political Protester, which should really end with "For The Past Three Decades" (or, perhaps, "Ever"). Because that's how long one woman's political protest lasted.

Concepcion Picciotto began protesting against nuclear proliferation in 1981, when it was an enormous political issue. For those of you not old enough to remember, just do a web search on "No Nukes Concert" to see how big the movement was, at the time. Picciotto joined a protest across the street from the White House back then, and she essentially never left. Her three-decade long stand is now being called "the longest-running act of political protest in U.S. history."

Concepcion died this week, so our Most Impressive Political Protester award will be posthumous. For dedicating her life to occupying a vigil in Lafayette Park on a subject she cared deeply about, for her Herculean stamina in continuing to protest long after the issue had dropped off most people's radar, for surviving brutal Washington winters and equally brutal Washington summers, and for refusing to ever give up in her quest for peace, Concepcion Picciotto will always be remembered as the Most Impressive Political Protester of all time in Washington.

[Obviously, we have no contact information for Concepcion Picciotto. Remember her in your prayers, should you feel so inclined.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

This one's beyond disappointing, really. We're not entirely sure he's a Democrat, but since Don Harris was the president of a local N.A.A.C.P. chapter in Maricopa County, Arizona, it's probably a pretty safe bet. Not a guaranteed one, though, because Harris seems to have gotten his position only because nobody else wanted it. Harris, who is white, nominated himself for the job "in hopes it would get others to run for the position." Nobody did, so he got elected.

Harris was in the news in the worst possible way this week, after attending a meeting with the Tempe Union High School District about a group of students who thought it'd be funny to use their school spirit T-shirts to spell out a racist slur ("NI**ER" -- since they didn't have any "G" shirts to work with). The meeting was (you can't make this stuff up) about increasing sensitivity.

Harris, while leaving the meeting, spoke to some reporters. With a microphone on him, Harris said to a male reporter, in reference to a female reporter standing nearby: "Nice tits."

We're not going to repeat what he said afterwards, because he just lapsed into profanity (over and over again) while ham-handedly trying to apologize.

So while we're not entirely sure whether Don Harris is an actual Democrat, we do know he's entirely unsuited to any public position that requires interaction with the public, so we're going to award him the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award anyway.

Harris, to his credit, offered to resign his position. His resignation has just been accepted.

[Contact the Maricopa County N.A.A.C.P. on their contact page, to let them know that they should get a little more serious about choosing a leader, next time around.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 376 (1/29/16)

Republican debates (whether or not Donald Trump shows up) are markedly different than Democratic debates. Today we're devoting the talking points section to highlighting those differences. Because it really needs pointing out how vastly different the priorities of the two parties are, and this is the easiest way to do it. So without further ado, let's examine what the Republicans didn't talk about last night.

 

1
   Give your boss a raise

This is, obviously, the best place to start.

"You know what I didn't hear at the recent Republican debate? A single proposal to make life better for the middle class of this country. Not one candidate had even one policy idea to make lives better for millions of Americans. This is because the GOP has no ideas along these lines. For decades now, their sole answer to all of the problems of the middle class has been to give your boss a raise by cutting his taxes. How has that worked out for people? And yet, the only thing they now have to propose on making life better for the middle class is yet another tax cut for your boss. Because that'll solve everything, right?"

 

2
   Income inequality

Follow this up by connecting these dots.

"Americans more and more are aware of the problems income inequality creates. Poor people don't even get safe water to drink, while rich suburbs don't have such worries. Incomes for middle Americans have been flat, and the only Republican solution to the problem is to give the wealthiest Americans more money back on their taxes -- which will make the problem worse. There's an old saying about getting out of a hole you've dug, but the Republican answer is nothing more than to dig even faster. Democrats want to raise the minimum wage, but according to the leading Republican presidential candidate, workers' wages are already 'too high.' During the Republican debate, none of this was even discussed. That's the difference the American voters are faced with: one party that wants to solve problems like income inequality, and the other party that ignores it (at best) or vows to make it worse. That's a pretty easy choice, really."

 

3
   Make college affordable

Yet another missing subject.

"Another thing I didn't hear a single word spoken about during the GOP debate was how to make college more affordable for all deserving students. Democrats have plans to achieve this worthy goal, although they disagree on how to go about doing it. Republicans have nothing on the subject. Nada. Not one single idea from the entire pack of Republican candidates. According to them, college affordability just isn't a problem. Well, maybe it isn't for their kids, but it sure is for tens of millions of American families. Want to see major reforms to the costs of college? Vote Democratic. Want to see nothing whatsoever get done about this problem crushing students and middle-class families? Vote Republican."

 

4
   Equal pay for women

Another good idea Republicans are blocking.

"I really would have liked to have heard another question last night -- why are all Republicans against equal pay for women? Why is this even a partisan issue at all? Basic fairness demands that women be paid exactly the same as men. Americans understand this. But every time Democrats try to address the problem in Congress, Republicans shoot it down. Why? Why is it such a bad idea for women to make as much as men? I'd really have loved to have heard even one single Republican try to explain that last night, but of course the question was never even asked."

 

5
   Criminal justice reform

This one may actually move forward in Congress this year, so it's a great time to bring it up.

"Republicans are finally waking up to realize that criminal justice reform is absolutely necessary to make our justice system more equitable. America finally seems to be getting over the destructive idea of 'mandatory minimum sentences' for low-level offenders. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the two parties vied with each other to prove who could be 'toughest on crime' by locking up millions of Americans for things like simple possession of drugs. Now, finally, both parties seem to be considering getting rid of the most destructive policies from this era. So I'd like to hear what all the Republicans running for president have to say on the subject. It almost always comes up during Democratic debates, and I really wish it would get more attention at the GOP debates as well, because both parties are going to have to work together to make the necessary reforms."

 

6
   The other domestic terrorists

Kept waiting for this to come up, but of course it didn't.

"I heard a lot of talk from Republicans about how strong they'd be to fight terrorism. But when the subject of domestic terrorism did come up, the only thing addressed was jihadists. This was sort of surprising, because the big domestic terrorism story of the week was how the F.B.I. is bringing an end to the occupation of federal lands by armed resisters. So why didn't it even get mentioned? What do the Republican candidates think of the Oregon situation? We don't know. Do they think the F.B.I. did the right thing, or would they have handled it differently as president? Again, we don't know because nobody thought to even bring the subject up."

 

7
   Beef up the E.P.A.

This subject actually was mentioned, but there was a contradiction at the heart of most of what was said.

"I heard the Republican candidates all try to spread the blame for the situation in Flint, Michigan around, and (as usual) fingers were pointed at the federal government. There was an obvious followup question just begging to be asked, though, that apparently didn't occur to the moderators. Since presidents can only control the federal government (and not the state or local governments), if the feds screwed up in Flint, how would Republicans make the situation better so it never happened again? The obvious answer is to beef up the oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency -- in fact, this is the only answer when you leave the state and local governments out of it. So where were the bold calls from Republicans to improve the E.P.A. so that a city full of American children never get poisoned in such a fashion again?"

-- 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

 

126 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [376] -- One No Trump”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    8 Listen to Michael Moore.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I think that President Obama and his jack-booted thugs deserve the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week for bringing in Yosemite Sam and and the Moocher Militia. Those guys should've packed up their dildos and gone home and they might've gotten away with their pointless little bird sanctuary occupation, but the U S and A will not tolerate terrists forever even if they're white.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think that it may be a good idea to refer to the MDDOTW as DONALD Harris ... you know, to avoid confusion around here.

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Who wouldn't tune in to see the likes of Gary Busey questioning Ted Cruz?"

    If the panel also includes Mike Tyson and Regis Philbin, I'm in.

    BTW - isn't it against the RNC rules to attend an unsanctioned debate? Was Cruz trying to force a debate shutdown?

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Did anyone else see that that Saudi prince that Twitter Troll Trump was trolling is a pretty impressive troll too?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/saudi-prince-alwaleed-donald-trump_us_56aafa72e4b0010e80e99806

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Everybody in Maine, we have constitutional carry. Load up and get rid of the drug dealers." Um... OK. Let's just announce "open season" and have citizens start blazing away in the streets. That'll solve the problem!

    Ever read the Jake Grafton novel, UNDER SIEGE??

    THAT's the best solution for drug dealers.. :D

    Harris, while leaving the meeting, spoke to some reporters. With a microphone on him, Harris said to a male reporter, in reference to a female reporter standing nearby: "Nice tits."

    Were they?? :D

    Sorry.. Just COULDN'T resist.. :D

    Liz,

    I think that it may be a good idea to refer to the MDDOTW as DONALD Harris ... you know, to avoid confusion around here.

    heh Good idea.. I was thinking the exact same thing.. :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Harris, while leaving the meeting, spoke to some reporters. With a microphone on him, Harris said to a male reporter, in reference to a female reporter standing nearby: "Nice tits."

    How is that any different than Obama's booty peek?? :D

    http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-07-10-ObamaReutersOgling.jpg

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Equal pay for women

    Another good idea Republicans are blocking.

    Tell ya what..

    When Obama addresses the issue within his OWN HOUSE, then I'll join you in cajoling the Republicans on the same issue..

    Fair? :D

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    For a comic interlude...

    Super Bowl Field Crew Goofs, Paints Broncos Logo In Both End Zones
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/01/29/super-bowl-field-crew-goofs-paints-broncos-logo-in-both-end-zones/

    Remember that old SNICKERS Super Bowl commercial??

    "Who are the 'CHEFS'??"

    heh

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale is apparently unable to solve the riddle:

    When is true to say "the women are paid the same as the men" and "the women are paid less than the men" at the same time and about the same workforce?

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    When is true to say "the women are paid the same as the men" and "the women are paid less than the men" at the same time and about the same workforce?

    Could you clarify??

    I am not being intentionally dense (it comes naturally :D) but I have NO IDEA what you are trying to say...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Making America White Again

    After President Trump has eliminated the EPA, put tariffs on imported goods, and deported millions of Mexicans, the last of the honey bees will die off and there won't be anybody to pick the produce anyway.

    Won't that be great? We'll have to buy $10 tomatoes from Mexico, but at least we'll be living in White World.

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I appreciate that some of you realized that I am not the Don Harris mentioned in the article. Something tells me this story about another Don Harris will not make it any easier to get people to pay attention to my ideas.
    Although, even though I do like tits I have learned that I should keep my opinions on tits to myself in public.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Although, even though I do like tits I have learned that I should keep my opinions on tits to myself in public.

    Like I said... A kindred spirit.. :D heh

    And for the record, DONALD Harris was NOT lying.. :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Won't that be great? We'll have to buy $10 tomatoes from Mexico, but at least we'll be living in White World.

    Yea, and gas was supposed to be $9/gal and a gallon of milk was supposed to be $15 in 2015...

    Fear mongering... AT.. IT'S.... FINEST....

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Trump: "wages are too high"

    There will be plenty of sub-minimum wage migrant farm work available until the bees die off. Everybody's gonna get so rich they'll get sick of winning.

  18. [18] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    just an article i encountered recently:

    In both the mortgage crisis and the charter industry, these business-model changes essentially transfer the risk to a third party whose incentives don't necessarily align with those of the originator.
    ~Abby Jackson

    http://www.businessinsider.com/are-charter-schools-the-new-mortgage-crisis-2016-1

  19. [19] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey all

    I'm sure I'm missing some dynamic at play here, but when CW justifiably condemns this Don Harris from Arizona and says "Harris, to his credit, offered to resign his position" and our own Don Harris points out the obvious truth that "I have learned that I should keep my opinions on tits to myself in public", there is silence from this community about a certain unenlightened resident joining the fray on the wrong side.

    I would hope that the difference doesn't boil down to the fact that the Don Harris from Arizona made the mistake of (Zephyr would be so proud)failing to donate a few hundred dollars to this website to avoid any condemnation whatsoever?

    Or, is this space somehow not "in public"?

    A

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm sure I'm missing some dynamic at play here, but when CW justifiably condemns this Don Harris from Arizona and says "Harris, to his credit, offered to resign his position" and our own Don Harris points out the obvious truth that "I have learned that I should keep my opinions on tits to myself in public", there is silence from this community about a certain unenlightened resident joining the fray on the wrong side.

    Someone took the PRUDE pills this morning. :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Al!

    Huh?

  22. [22] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "I would hope that the difference doesn't boil down to the fact that the Don Harris from Arizona made the mistake of (Zephyr would be so proud)failing to donate a few hundred dollars to this website to avoid any condemnation whatsoever?"

    Has somebody told you that you're not allowed to respond to the house troll? Nobody's told me that.

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale [8],

    michelle obama's net worth 11.8 million, while her husband's is 7 million. i'd say your conditions are met.

    @alto [19],

    i'm not exactly sure whether or not a web site qualifies as 'in public.' if so, it's still a different kind of 'in public' than in front of a reporter's microphone.

    @liz [21],

    i think it was a criticism of the rest of us for not telling michale off about his views on the MDDOTW don harris.

    JL

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Does everyone around here think I'm an idiot?

    Geesh.

    Thanks for the explanations, anyways ... :)

  25. [25] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    I have NO IDEA what you are trying to say...

    That's obvious. It's also why Republicans erroneously think women in the White House are paid less than the men.

  26. [26] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale quoted:

    Harris, while leaving the meeting, spoke to some reporters. With a microphone on him, Harris said to a male reporter, in reference to a female reporter standing nearby: "Nice tits."

    then added:

    How is that any different than Obama's booty peek??

    As good a demonstration of false equivalence with a lack of basic understanding as you'll ever see.

    Michale then went on to judge Weigantian member Don Harris' declaration "I have learned that I should keep my opinions on tits to myself in public" as:

    Someone took the PRUDE pills this morning.

    While it would seem obvious that Michale thinks it's perfectly acceptable for DONALD Harris to make the comment he did to a third person and into a microphone, one can never be sure that he means what he appears to mean. A good example of this is his protestation:

    And for the record, DONALD Harris was NOT lying..

    when no-one accused DONALD Harris of lying.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Michale then went on to judge Weigantian member Don Harris' declaration "I have learned that I should keep my opinions on tits to myself in public" as:

    Someone took the PRUDE pills this morning.

    I'm afraid there was no such judgement. Which you will realize when you re-read the comments.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's obvious. It's also why Republicans erroneously think women in the White House are paid less than the men.

    Really??

    Male-female pay gap remains entrenched at White House
    The White House has not narrowed the gap between the average pay of male and female employees since President Obama’s first year in office, according to a Washington Post analysis of new salary data.

    The average male White House employee currently earns about $88,600, while the average female White House employee earns about $78,400, according to White House data released Tuesday. That is a gap of 13 percent.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/male-female-pay-gap-remains-entrenched-at-white-house/2014/07/01/dbc6c088-0155-11e4-8fd0-3a663dfa68ac_story.html

    As good a demonstration of false equivalence with a lack of basic understanding as you'll ever see.

    Yea.. Just like the White House pays men and women equally.. :D

    While it would seem obvious that Michale thinks it's perfectly acceptable for DONALD Harris to make the comment he did to a third person and into a microphone,

    I do not.. But why let facts intrude on yer little fantasy.. :D

    And for the record, DONALD Harris was NOT lying..

    when no-one accused DONALD Harris of lying.

    Of course, you omit the ':D' which explains the whole "accusation" of lying. :D

    Who pee'ed in your cheerios?? :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    michelle obama's net worth 11.8 million, while her husband's is 7 million. i'd say your conditions are met.

    And, if Michelle Obama was the only staffer in the White House, then you would have a point.

    But she's not, so you don't... :D

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    As good a demonstration of false equivalence with a lack of basic understanding as you'll ever see.

    Once again, you make the claim..

    And once again, absolutely NO FACTS to back it up.. :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    DONALD Harris to make the comment he did to a third person and into a microphone,

    For the record, Donald Harris didn't make the comment into a microphone. He made the comment to another party and the microphone happened to be in proximity..

    A minor, but important, detail...

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    For the record, Donald Harris didn't make the comment into a microphone. He made the comment to another party and the microphone happened to be in proximity..

    EQUIVOCATION

    Donald Harris was speaking to the press. He could hardly fail to notice there was a microphone in front of him. He had to know his comment would be picked up by that microphone but he was unconcerned by the fact.

    A minor detail but one which shows how careless he was in addition to being witless.

  33. [33] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    Once again, you make the claim..

    And once again, absolutely NO FACTS to back it up.

    WRONG (again)

  34. [34] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    And, if Michelle Obama was the only staffer in the White House, then you would have a point.

    But she's not, so you don't...

    Once again, you make the claim...

    And once again, absolutely NO FACTS to back it up.

  35. [35] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    While it would seem obvious that Michale thinks it's perfectly acceptable for DONALD Harris to make the comment he did...

    I do not.. But why let facts intrude on yer little fantasy..

    TOTAL COMPREHENSION FAIL

    For future reference, the clause "it would seem" means "while it appears to be this way, it's possible/likely it was not meant this way."

    But why let facts intrude on your little fantasy?

    Michale wrote:

    Of course, you omit the ':D' which explains the whole "accusation" of lying.

    This is more GOBBLEDEGOOK. If you want your rationalization to be understood, then you need to explain it.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'm not exactly sure whether or not a web site qualifies as 'in public.' if so, it's still a different kind of 'in public' than in front of a reporter's microphone.

    We have been disagreeing much of late so I felt we should agree on SOMETHING... :D

    Yea, a virtually anonymous posting on a 'net forum is hardly the same thing as speaking to a friend in a public place with a microphone in proximity...

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale quotes The Washington Post

    The average male White House employee currently earns about $88,600, while the average female White House employee earns about $78,400, according to White House data released Tuesday. That is a gap of 13 percent.

    TOTAL COMPREHENSION FAIL

    The Washington Post should know why using "average" in this instance is deliberate distortion of statistics, even if it's way over your head.

  38. [38] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    ELIZABETH MILLER wrote:

    I'm afraid there was no such judgement. Which you will realize when you re-read the comments.

    Of course Ms Miller is right - my bad. I apologize for my misunderstanding due to failing to take into account the quote in full prior to the assessment that "Someone took the PRUDE pills this morning."

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Harris was speaking to the press.

    No. Donald Harris was speaking to a third party in a private conversation..

    He could hardly fail to notice there was a microphone in front of him.

    Do you know for a fact that the microphone was right in front of him??

    If so, by all means.. State your facts..

    He had to know his comment would be picked up by that microphone but he was unconcerned by the fact.

    And you know this HOW exactly??

    This is more GOBBLEDEGOOK. If you want your rationalization to be understood, then you need to explain it.

    If a joke has to be explained then it's not really a joke, is it? :D

    The Washington Post should know why using "average" in this instance is deliberate distortion of statistics, even if it's way over your head.

    It's what the Obama Administration does when it disparages the man/woman pay gap in the general population..

    So, you DON'T want to use the averages when it DOESN'T support your ideological agenda, but you DO want to use averages when it DOES support yer ideological agenda..

    Gotcha {wink, wink}

    I'll ask again.. Who pee'ed in yer Cheerios this morning? :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, you make the claim...

    And once again, absolutely NO FACTS to back it up.

    Really??

    You DID read comment #28, right??

    Of course you did. Because you quoted it in comment #37..

    Try and keep up.. :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    WHO was it who said:

    Today the forces of liberalism face a crisis. The people of the United States must make a choice between two ways of living — a decision which will affect us the rest of our lives and our children and our grandchildren after us.

    On the other side, there is the Wall Street way of life and politics. Trust the leader! Let big business take care of prices and profits! Measure all things by money! That is the philosophy of the masters of the Republican Party.

    Well, I have been studying the Republican Party for over 12 years at close hand in the Capital of the United States. And by this time, I have discovered where the Republicans stand on most of the major issues.

    Since they won't tell you themselves, I am going to tell you.

    They approve of the American farmer — but they are willing to help him go broke.

    They stand four-square for the American home — but not for housing.

    They are strong for labor — but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights.

    They favor a minimum wage — the smaller the minimum the better.

    They endorse educational opportunity for all — but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools.

    They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine — for people who can afford them.

    They approve of Social Security benefits — so much so that they took them away from almost a million people.

    They favor the admission of displaced persons — but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.

    They consider electric power a great blessing — but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.

    They condemn "cruelly high prices" — but fight to the death every effort to bring them down.

    They think the American standard of living is a fine thing — so long as it doesn't spread to all the people.

    And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.

  42. [42] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    Donald Harris was speaking to the press.

    No. Donald Harris was speaking to a third party in a private conversation..

    Quote from Friday Talking Points [376] -- One No Trump:

    Harris, while leaving the meeting, spoke to some reporters. With a microphone on him, Harris said to a male reporter, in reference to a female reporter standing nearby: "Nice tits."

    We're not going to repeat what he said afterwards, because he just lapsed into profanity (over and over again) while ham-handedly trying to apologize.

    So while we're not entirely sure whether Don Harris is an actual Democrat, we do know he's entirely unsuited to any public position that requires interaction with the public, so we're going to award him the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award anyway.

    Michale wrote:

    Do you know for a fact that the microphone was right in front of him??

    If so, by all means.. State your facts.

    I suggest you take it up with with your friend, CW.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    WHO was it who said:

    Harry Truman... The POTUS who dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan...

    And he said it in 1948... Do you know who was the racist Party in 1948?? The Party of the KKK??

    The Democrat Party..

    Are you SURE you want to go there??

    I'll be HAPPY to follow you down that road, but I don't think you will like where it leads.. :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    It's what the Obama Administration does when it disparages the man/woman pay gap in the general population..

    STAND-ALONE STATEMENT - NO FACTS IN EVIDENCE, NO SOURCES PROVIDED

    So, you DON'T want to use the averages when it DOESN'T support your ideological agenda, but you DO want to use averages when it DOES support yer ideological agenda..

    AD HOMINEM ATTACK

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Harris, while leaving the meeting, spoke to some reporters. With a microphone on him, Harris said to a male reporter, in reference to a female reporter standing nearby: "Nice tits."

    I stand corrected. The microphone was ON him.. Not in front of him..

    I suggest you take it up with with your friend, CW.

    "May I get you a saucer of milk, meow..??"
    -Jack Tripper, THREES COMPANY

    :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    "May I get you a saucer of milk, meow..??"
    -Jack Tripper, THREES COMPANY

    Or would that be THREE'S COMPANY?? :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since we're playing WHO SAID THAT, let's play.. :D

    “The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs.”

    “The Jews, I find are very, very selfish.”

    “I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman.”

    I'll give you 3 guesses as to who said that but you should only need 1...

    I'll give you a hint. It was the "hero" of the Left you quoted in comment #41... :^/

    I told you that you would not like where the road your on leads...

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    Harry Truman... The POTUS who dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan...

    And he said it in 1948... Do you know who was the racist Party in 1948?? The Party of the KKK??

    The Democrat Party..

    Are you SURE you want to go there??

    I'll be HAPPY to follow you down that road, but I don't think you will like where it leads.. :D

    AVOIDANCE AND DISTRACTION - TOTAL FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE POINTS PRESENTED WITH INTRODUCTION OF TWO NEW POINTS

  49. [49] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    Try and keep up.

    AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    AVOIDANCE AND DISTRACTION - TOTAL FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE POINTS PRESENTED WITH INTRODUCTION OF TWO NEW POINTS

    You didn't MAKE any points..

    You quoted a racist POTUS from 50 years ago and assumed it had some reference to the discussion in here and now.

    If you want me to address yer point, then for christ's sake, MAKE ONE.. :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    altohone wrote:

    Yeah, well.
    I didn't exactly see any condemnations, but at least there was a response.

    It seems Donald Harris would be welcomed with open arms if he were to join this "private" space that is open to all... and without a peep to be heard unless goaded. In the meantime, we have said resident who was caught crawling into the gutter and belittling harassment and objectification, and rather than embarrassment or apology, he chooses to rationalize his behavior by labeling the only one willing to point it out a prude. And the inured remain unfazed.

    Unfortunately, I later had the displeasure of stumbling upon an even more disgusting occurrence.
    Namely, a comparison of state sanctioned torture to fraternity hazing under a recent column.
    A comparison meant to downplay the extreme barbarity and immorality, not to mention criminality.

    Never mind that numbskulls who willingly submit to idiotic initiations bears no relation to forced subjection to war crimes outlawed by treaty, because a further difference jumps right out at you... or, at least should.

    While formerly tolerated and even glorified, hazing is now officially and widely banned, and fraternities face consequences when caught. And, in the case of bodily harm or death, individual members have been prosecuted.

    In the case of state sanctioned torture by Americans, only a few low level scapegoats faced minor punishment, while the authorizers and organizers who are responsible for 136 deaths in US custody, and mass degradations, and untold damage to our reputation, and the endangerment of any future US prisoners, and all without a single shred of evidence about effectiveness... faced no prosecutions whatsoever.

    And, of course, the psychopathic rationalizations and justifications (and lack of prosecutions by our current neolibcon "leader") have left the door open for the current crop of Repub wannabe's to raise the possibility of openly embracing and returning to a policy of committing war crimes in the name of national security.

    No word from neolibcon Hillary if she too would join that parade, because our coopted fourth estate can't muster the courage to ask such questions. For that matter, I'm not aware of the democratic socialist Bernie even being asked about it.

    I'll just shuffle my prudish self along now.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you got something to say, Biga, then say it...

    This catty beating around the bush like yer afraid of yer own shadow is very unbecoming...

    Torture worked.. This is well-documented both by the current administration and my own personal experiences in the field.

    Now, you can armchair quarterback from the safety and sanctity of your basement dwelling all you want.. But have no fear. You are made free and kept free, not to mention kept alive, by people who are better than you... People in the circles that I ran around in back in the day.....

    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. "
    -John Stuart Mills

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Of course Ms Miller is right - my bad. I apologize for my misunderstanding due to failing to take into account the quote in full prior to the assessment that "Someone took the PRUDE pills this morning."

    Well, you've been around here long enough to know that Ms. Miller is always right but, I'm still not sure you understand who said what. :)

    By the way ... Ms. Miller? That's what they call me at some whole other blog. Of course, over there, it's used as a sign of respect. Heh.

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll just shuffle my prudish self along now.

    Don't let the door hit ya on the way out. :)

    Sorry, Al - that was far too hard for me to resist.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, you've been around here long enough to know that Ms. Miller is always right

    heh

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    You forgot the quotes...

    "Indeed..."
    -T'ealc, STARGATE SG1

    :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    ELIZABETH MILLER wrote:

    Well, you've been around here long enough to know that Ms. Miller is always right but, I'm still not sure you understand who said what.

    I was under the impression that altotone said in [19]:

    I'm sure I'm missing some dynamic at play here, but when CW justifiably condemns this Don Harris from Arizona and says "Harris, to his credit, offered to resign his position" and our own Don Harris points out the obvious truth that "I have learned that I should keep my opinions on tits to myself in public", there is silence from this community about a certain unenlightened resident joining the fray on the wrong side.

    That Michale quoted this then wrote in [20]:

    Someone took the PRUDE pills this morning.

    I trust I can count on being corrected if this is wrong and/or I failed to understand the context, connotation, implication, intention and/or semantics.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    I trust I can count on being corrected if this is wrong and/or I failed to understand the context, connotation, implication, intention and/or semantics.

    You can count on being corrected if you actually STATE a position or an opinion...

    But you sound like you swallowed a thesaurus..

    "Don't you EVER call me a thesaurus!"
    -Drax The Destroyer, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

    :D

    What's with all of this tiptoeing around on eggshells?? Did I suddenly acquire some god-awful destructive power whereas people are afraid to say "MICHALE IS BEING A PRICK AGAIN!!!"???

    I mean, honestly. I have been called very mean things in my day.. But.. "a certain unenlightened resident "...???

    THAT really hurts!!! :D heh

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    You quoted a racist POTUS from 50 years ago and assumed it had some reference to the discussion in here and now.

    If you want me to address yer point, then for christ's sake, MAKE ONE..

    More AVOIDANCE AND DISTRACTION.

    Correction 1: The quote is from almost 68 years ago so your guesstimation of 50 years is 18 years out.

    Correction 2: The refusal to see points is not the same as there being no points.

    To make it easier, let's narrow Truman's assertions down to one:

    "They consider electric power a great blessing — but only when the private power companies get their rake-off."

  61. [61] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    You can count on being corrected if you actually STATE a position or an opinion...

    IRRELEVANT TO CONTEXT

  62. [62] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”

    ~John Stuart Mill

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Correction 1: The quote is from almost 68 years ago so your guesstimation of 50 years is 18 years out.

    Oh my god.. REALLY?? :^/

    The refusal to see points is not the same as there being no points.

    Then state the point that I am refusing to see...

    You can't because you have no point..

    "She has no point. She often has no point. That's part of her charm.."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    To make it easier, let's narrow Truman's assertions down to one:

    OK. Fine... Lets narrow Truman's assertions down to one:

    “I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman.”

    Again, I ask..

    What is your point??

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can play TRUMAN quotes all day long.. But the point is Truman was a racist...

    So, why should ANYONE take ANYTHING he says as gospel??

    Oh yea.. That's right. Because it agrees with your political ideology..

    Which simply shows that you will embrace even a racist if he or she agrees with your politics..

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    The weather report looks good for Trump's and Sanders' fortunes in Iowa....

    Low to mid 40s, no snow til early evening..

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    TheStig wrote:

    For what it's worth, as of Sunday morning, Betfair is giving Trump a bit less than a 60% chance of winning the Iowa caucus, Cruz a bit less than 40%. Rubio is 5% -ish. Nobody else worth mentioning in the GOP field.

    Clinton is given a bit less than a 70% of winning Iowa, Sanders a bit under 30%

    The Betfair Iowa Caucus markets are small, only 1/10th the size of the Republican nomination markets.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie posted a twit on twitter with a picture of his latest rally and there was another pic of Hillary's reaction to it..

    http://sjfm.us/temp/BernieClinton.jpg

    :D

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    Then state the point that I am refusing to see...

    You can't because you have no point..

    DEEP DENIAL

    OK. Fine... Lets narrow Truman's assertions down to one:

    “I think one man is just as good as another...

    AVOIDANCE
    DISTRACTION - ATTEMPT TO GAIN UPPER HAND FROM EXTREMELY WEAK POSITION
    FALSE EQUIVALENCE

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    AVOIDANCE
    DISTRACTION - ATTEMPT TO GAIN UPPER HAND FROM EXTREMELY WEAK POSITION
    FALSE EQUIVALENCE

    No more than you yelling to avoid making a point.. :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    I was under the impression that altotone said in [19]:

    Altotone?

    When you're in a hole ... :)

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    No more than you yelling to avoid making a point.. :D

    AND quoting a racist.. :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    ELIZABETH MILLER wrote:

    Correction: altohone [19] not altotone [19].

    When you're in a hole

    What hole?

  73. [73] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    No more than you yelling to avoid making a point

    ad hominem attack

  74. [74] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Correction 3:

    altohone quotes CW and then Weigantian Don Harris in this first paragraph from comment [19]:

    I'm sure I'm missing some dynamic at play here, but when CW justifiably condemns this Don Harris from Arizona and says "Harris, to his credit, offered to resign his position" and our own Don Harris points out the obvious truth that "I have learned that I should keep my opinions on tits to myself in public", there is silence from this community about a certain unenlightened resident joining the fray on the wrong side.

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    What hole?

    That wasn't a hole, it was an ad hominem attack. Heh.

    You're slippin'. Oh, I guess that was another one!

    I better stop while you're behind. Oh, no!

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ELIZABETH MILLER wrote: Correction: altohone [19] not altotone [19].

    Actually, I never wrote that.

    The hole is getting deeper and deeper ... are you okay, Mopshell?

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    The hole is getting deeper and deeper ... are you okay, Mopshell?

    I have given up trying to keep up... :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have given up trying to keep up... :D

    If she doesn't want to discuss why she would quote a racist to make a point she doesn't want to make.....

    ....well I have better things to do..

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    HA! Who am I kidding!? :D

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another front,

    It's CAUCUS DAY!!! :D

    Anyone going to be glued to their computers today?? :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    And getting back to Donald Harris, ya gotta admire the headline from The American Mirror...

    OMG: NAACP leader uses F-word to apologize for using T-word after N-word meeting
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/omg-naacp-leader-uses-f-word-to-apologize-for-using-t-word-after-n-word-meeting/

    This whole thing is making mountains out of molehills..

    heh :D

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ELIZABETH MILLER wrote: Correction: altohone [19] not altotone [19].

    Actually, I never wrote that.

    That's true. You didn't write that. I failed to delete the "Elizabeth Miller wrote:" part before posting. Again, my bad.

    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That wasn't a hole, it was an ad hominem attack. Heh.

    You're slippin'. Oh, I guess that was another one!

    I better stop while you're behind. Oh, no!

    Oh I see.
    Thank you for the explanation.
    I was being dense. At those times an explanation in the form of a demonstration is effective and appreciated.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a world that prized truth, Hillary Clinton couldn’t be dog-catcher. In our world, she could be president.
    -Michael Goodwin, Democrat

    So dead on ballz accurate, it's scary..

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh I see.

    Excellent!

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I keep saying ad nasuem...

    The rise of Trump, the downfall of the ‘experts’

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/31/charles-hurt-the-rise-of-donald-trump-the-downfall/

    The WHY of Donald Trump is the ONLY thing that matters...

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's CAUCUS DAY!!! :D

    Anyone going to be glued to their computers today?? :D

    For me, here's the headline I want to see..

    SANDERS DEMOLISHES CLINTON!!

    :D

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting factoids from Iowa...

    The record caucus attendance for Republicans was set in 2012 at 122,000.. Predictions are that there will be a possible 160,000 today... If that holds true, it will be Trump by a landslide... Less attendance, considerably below 140,000, will benefit Cruz..

    On the Democrat side, the record attendance was set in 2008 (no surprise there) at 240,000... predictions today are a high of 240,000... If that holds true, then it's a major Sanders win...

    It's funny.. Clinton is hoping and praying for LESS turnout..

    That's a pretty good indication of how bad Clinton is... :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy Crap!!!

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    Sanders is really really kicking ass!!!

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic operative David Brock continues to draw a salary from a group legally prohibited from coordinating with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign even as he runs a group that is working directly with her campaign to fend off Clinton’s many critics.

    Experts say that the arrangement is legal, but demonstrates how Clinton’s political machine is circumventing campaign finance restrictions even as Clinton decries the corrosive influence of money in the American political system.

    Ya see what I mean???

    No difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to money in campaigns...

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I have a prediction. Ahem.

    The people of Iowa are playing the pollsters and media for fools.

    And, yes, this does indeed mean that I have finally gotten over the 2008 Fiasco in Iowa - which has noting to do, by the way, with Obama's win but with Biden's less than one percent.

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, yes, this does indeed mean that I have finally gotten over the 2008 Fiasco in Iowa - which has noting to do, by the way, with Obama's win but with Biden's less than one percent.

    Well, that's assuming, of course, that my prediction comes true. Heh.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, yes, this does indeed mean that I have finally gotten over the 2008 Fiasco in Iowa - which has noting to do, by the way, with Obama's win but with Biden's less than one percent.

    Well, I dunno if your prediction came true or not, but I DO know that I am very disappointed..

    No BERNIE BERNS HILLARY headline for me.. :(

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It didn't come true enough, Michale. :(

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not when 67% of Iowans think Trump tells it like it is.

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    To be fair Trump DOES tell it like it is...

    Well, at least he tells it like HE thinks it is..

    Apparently, 67% of Iowans agree with him..

    That's what makes democracy so frakin' awesome.. Even an arrogant prick can have a following.. :D

    We're still talking about Trump, right?? heh

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My longstanding belief in the promise of America is beginning to wane, Michale.

    I may have to figure out a way to drink whiskey all night without passing out.

    Got any tips?

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    I may have to figure out a way to drink whiskey all night without passing out.

    Olive Oil...

    HAPPY DAYS
    S01E03- Richie's Cup Runneth Over (1/29/74)

    Potsie takes Richie to a wild bachelor party.

    Richie and Ralph set up a mannequin in Bert's car and scare a waitress. The waitress goes to the car and the mannequin's head falls off. Richie is invited to Potsie's cousin's, Arnold Drysdale who is in the Marines and is returning from Korea, bachelor/stag party at the Crystal Hotel. Richie and Potsie are given some adult playing cards by Duke. They drink some olive oil, imported from Spain and that Potsie got from the kitchen, to get ready for the drinking games. The drinking game is called "Sloppy Sixty". Verna LaVerne comes out of a cake and entertains. Verna gives Richie a ride home in her pickup truck (with the cake in the back of the truck). Howard comes down and meets Verna. Richie invites Verna over for dinner Sunday night at 8 o'clock. Richie comes home with a hangover after having 72 teenie-weenie glasses of beer.

    :D

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    altohone wrote:

    Wow Liz

    Still holding a grudge?

    I appreciate the response you gave to my comments... oh, wait.

    A

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Give 'er a break...

    She's in mourning.. :D

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    "Beating around the bush"?
    You clearly knew you were the subject and you know what I said.
    But I'll summarize for you.
    You're disgusting for minimizing both sexual harassment and torture.

    Not the least bit surprised you gleefully admit to personal experience torturing people.
    Just another disgrace to the uniform.

    Please do share some of that "well documented" proof of the effectiveness of torture.
    Nobody else ever has.
    And specifically "the current administration" is included in that "nobody".

    You always resort to lying when cornered.
    Pathetic.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Biga....

    What's yer thoughts on WEEKEND AT BERNIES.... that was on Monday?? :D

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    Wimping out as usual by trying to change the subject... your favorite trollery tactic.

  103. [103] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Sorry.
    That last comment should have read-
    "Still holding a grudge, eh?"
    Get it?
    The great white north...

    I recently read that the neoliberal wing of the neolibcon establishment takes particular offense to criticism from the left, but given even their (sometimes grudging) admission that sexual harassment and torture are unacceptable, I had hoped you might be able to summon a tsk-tsk or something.

    My comments were, after all, directed toward the non-hopeless members of this community... particularly those who value being right.

    A

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wimping out as usual by trying to change the subject... your favorite trollery tactic

    Actually, I wasn't "wimping out".. It's just that I hadn't read it at the time I asked about your totally WRONG prediction about Bernie...

    Irregardless, even if I HAD read it, my response would be the same..

    Thank you for your concession that you have absolutely NO rational response to my points. As is evidence by your stooping to childish personal attacks and immature name-calling.

    Your concession of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant...

    Have a happy... :D

    I recently read that the neoliberal wing of the neolibcon establishment takes particular offense to criticism from the left, but given even their (sometimes grudging) admission that sexual harassment and torture are unacceptable, I had hoped you might be able to summon a tsk-tsk or something.

    There was none because they acknowledge how full of shit you really are... :D

    Respectfully speaking, of course. :D

    heh

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    I recently read that the neoliberal wing of the neolibcon establishment takes particular offense to criticism from the left, but given even their (sometimes grudging) admission that sexual harassment and torture are unacceptable, I had hoped you might be able to summon a tsk-tsk or something.

    There was none because they acknowledge how full of shit you really are... :D

    I mean, after all..

    Wasn't it you who agreed with me when I said, SILENCE GIVES ASSENT??? :D

    Well, there ya go... :D

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe the phrase you are looking for is HOISTED BY HIS OWN PICARD

    :D

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe the phrase you are looking for is HOISTED BY HIS OWN PICARD

    "The words I am looking for, I can't say in front of pre-school toys"
    -Woody, TOY STORY

    :D

    Sorry, RD... Could NOT find an appropriate GroundHog Day quote.. :D

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wow Liz ... Still holding a grudge?

    About what?

  109. [109] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    In other words, you have zero documentation to prove the effectiveness of torture, AND you're delusional.

    Back to trying to change the subject too.

    A

  110. [110] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Good question.
    Hence my inquiry.

    A

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I see.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, you have zero documentation to prove the effectiveness of torture, AND you're delusional.

    I have the Obama Administration's own words and my own personal experiences.

    What do you have??

    Nothing.. Zero... Zilch... Nada...

    Run along and play, sunshine. You are WAY outclassed here.. :D

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, my good friend Biga...

    You swallow the whole "torture doesn't work" BS because you have not a clue what REAL enhanced interrogations are all about.. You just swallow the Hysterical Left Wingery's namby-pamby politically correct crap without a single thought to reality...

    The people who have been there and done that from lil ole me on up to AND INCLUDING the Obama Administration knows for a fact that torture works..

    It's been responsible for MANY intelligence and CT coups up to, AND INCLUDING, the taking down of Osama Bin Laden..

    So, go spew yer whiny, "OHMYGOD IT'S SOOO HORRIBLE!!! TORTURE DOESN'T WORK!!!" hysteria to the uninformed masses...

    People around here are smarter than that...

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    Your existence and lying is sad.

    You claimed documentation.
    Put up or shut up.

    Empty assertion is all we got from Cheney too... another proven liar.

  115. [115] 
    altohone wrote:

    Just what I thought troll.
    All you've got is empty assertion with NOTHING to back it up in a futile attempt to justify the MASSIVE failure of the neolibcon ideology.

    Now, check out the CIA terrorism fact sheets for the last 16 years, and you will see that they have actually documented that the number of terrorists (including just al Qaida alone) have massively increased not decreased during those years.

    Our policies of torture, invasions, regime changes and drone warfare that have cost Americans over $5 trillion dollars have NOT made us "safer".

    The policies that killed thousands of American soldiers have NOT made us "safer".

    The killing of hundreds of thousands of people has NOT made us "safer".

    The creation of millions of refugees from our wars has not made us "safer".

    The destruction of our reputation that reduced our ability to use soft power has NOT made us "safer".

    Instead, those failed policies have created more enemies than we've killed.

    So, no, your deluded claims are not facts.
    They're lies.
    Big, ugly, stupid lies.

    And, btw. Zero Dark Thirty was a piece of Hollywood fiction, NOT a documentary.
    Torture was not responsible for the "taking down of Bin Laden" either.

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    What IS it about you Left Wingers that you have to make up arguments just so you can refute them??

    No one said that torture was "responsible" for the taking down of Obama bin Laden...

    But torture DID get us intel that lead us to Bin Laden..

    This is documented as fact..

    You have nothing, Biga..

    I have documented fact and personal experience..

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have nothing, Biga..

    The problem here, Biga, is that you haven't a CLUE what you are talking about.. You do nothing but bloviate HuffPoop pieces and Left Wingery bullshit and think you actually KNOW something about the issue...

    When you have over 2 and a half decades in the field, then come talk to me..

    Until then, what you have is nothing more than hysterical clap-trap...

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    Still waiting for that documentation liar.

    Go ahead and include the supposed Bin Laden documentation too liar.

    Seems to me like you're the one who's got nothing.
    Anybody reading this would have to agree.

    And, BTW, the CIA website that actually substantiates what I wrote is open for perusal by anyone.
    You know, officially documented facts.

    Truly pathetic.
    All that "experience" and no integrity.

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, BTW, the CIA website that actually substantiates what I wrote is open for perusal by anyone.

    And YOU believe Obama's CIA!???

    Only when it says what you want to hear..

    Leon Panetta is quoted many times stating that torture got them the intel that got them Bin Laden.. DYOFR... :D

    Like I said, you are clueless about the issue and only spout off Left Wingery talking points..

    In other words, you say what you say because you read it somewhere..

    I say what I say because I have been there, done that and got the T-shirt...

    All you have is childish name-calling and immature personal attacks..

    You call me a troll..

    If true, that makes you a moron for BEING trolled.. :D heh

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, like you said...

    SILENCE GIVES ASSENT

    :D

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, technically...

    *I* said it.. You just agreed with me..

    Hurts, don't it? heh :D

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    Calling you a lying troll is simply factual accuracy. Only wingnuts think that is "childish".

    But you keep forgetting that my comments to and about you are not for you.

    Back to the issue at hand.

    Once again you offer empty assertion after claiming documentation about the effectiveness of torture.

    Apparently, you can't even offer actual quotes of such assertions.

    You just continue to wimp out on backing up your lying claims.

    Moving on...

    Amazing that you bash the CIA.
    Also amazing that you bash the CIA while presenting Panetta as a credible (though unquoted) source of assertion and don't recognize how foolish that makes you look.

    Now, there are many reasons to doubt the CIA... particularly their politically appointed leadership.
    However, since the facts they publicly present on their website contradict the desired narrative of the neolibcon establishment that you are trying and failing to defend (that the War on Terror is making us safer when they're actually creating more terrorists than they kill), the burden remains on you to prove that the facts they present are inaccurate.

    Also, given that the facts they present are indeed public, and people far more knowledgeable than you haven't challenged them, I'm confident that you've still got nothing and are just trying to distract from the fact that you can't present any documentation to support your lies about the effectiveness of torture... because you're a lying troll and that's what lying trolls do.

    And, just for the record genius, when two people are presenting contradictory arguments, silence from others can't logically be giving assent to both of them.

  123. [123] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    Do you need more time to come up with this supposed documentation?

    I can check back in a week or so...

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't bother.

    You have no facts, just childish and immature name calling..

    In other words, you are beginning to bore me.. :D

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The real story is that in order to put the puzzle of intelligence together that led us to bin Laden, there was a lot of intelligence. There were a lot of pieces out there that were part of that puzzle. Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used."
    -Leon Panetta

    Do you ever get tired of being wrong, Biga??

    Once again, you have proven how outclassed you are, my little ray of ugliness and pettiness.. :D

    OK.. NOW I am done. :D

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll

    So, let me get this straight.

    Obama announced he ended torture as a US policy upon assuming the presidency, and three years later Obama and his gang take down Bin Laden, and years after that, his political appointee Panetta makes a reference to "interrogation tactics used at that time"... when torture was no longer being used...

    ... and you conclude that his assertion amounts to documentation that torture was partially responsible for information leading to Bin Laden?

    Do you have any quotes that actually substantiate your claim or is this what you're going with as proof of how classy you are?

    Because, that doesn't amount to "well documented" by any definition I've ever seen... and there are all sorts of interrogation tactics that aren't torture... which someone with your "experience" should know.

    And, frankly, the "trust me" argument you reverted to after lying repeatedly isn't believable either.

    I see you're also officially wimping out on trying to disprove the facts on the CIA website about there being more terrorists now than when we began the GWOT.

    Yup, you're just oozing class.

Comments for this article are closed.