ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [386] -- Marijuana Policy Questions For The Candidates

[ Posted Friday, April 8th, 2016 – 17:26 PDT ]

There was some good news and some bad news on marijuana this week, which got us thinking about how the subject of federal marijuana policy relates to the presidential nomination race. So while we'll take care of the news (good and bad) in the awards section, we're going to also devote the talking points section to a list of questions we would love to hear answered by all the candidates. Obviously, the answers from Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are the most important, since they'd be the only ones who might actually try to improve the current situation, but it really shouldn't excuse the Republicans from having to answer them as well. Rather than just a quick "Do you support medical marijuana?" question, we really think the issue needs to be addressed in a little more depth.

In non-marijuana news, the presidential campaign just keeps chugging along. This week was a good one for the underdogs, as both Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz won big in the Wisconsin primaries. Of course, this sent all the political pundits into a tizzy, all but declaring Donald Trump's campaign dead in the water. They seemed to collectively forget that the next big state to vote is New York, where Trump will quite likely crush the competition (Ted Cruz is already regretting that "New York values" dig he made toward Trump in an earlier debate). But until then, expect lots and lots of rampant speculation about an open Republican convention. Earlier this week, Salon pointed out that things could get quite ugly if the GOP does manage to wrest the nomination away from Trump (which led me to write about how the "days of rage" might actually come to pass). Short answer: Trump followers aren't just going to quietly accept Paul Ryan as the nominee. Far from it.

On the Democratic side of things, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are getting a little more feisty in how they're referring to each other. The media is trying to turn this into some sort of "open warfare," but what is really happening is they are both vying for New York voters. New Yorkers are a pretty brash and outspoken lot, so all we see is the candidates using rhetoric the crowd wants to hear, really. The New York contest is an interesting one because both Democrats can claim "home state" status here -- Bernie was born in New York City, and Hillary was the state's senator for eight years. Hillary has already won the other two states she can claim (Illinois and Arkansas) and Bernie won Vermont, so now New York will get to vote for either a "favorite son" or a "favorite daughter." So far, Hillary has the polling lead, but that could change after next week's debate, so stay tuned!

Hillary tried to stage a photo op to tease Bernie about not knowing how to ride the subway in New York City (Bernie's "you buy a token" was a wee bit out of date), but she kind of blew it when she obviously didn't know how to use the farecard herself. This led to an amusing dig at Hillary from none other than Michele Bachmann.

The other embarrassing news for Hillary this week came from her husband. Bill was interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters at a campaign event, and he tried to argue them into submission. This didn't work out as well as he might have planned, however. Bill tried to defend his own record as president, which is obviously personal to him, but in doing so he sounded rather dismissive of the opinions he was disagreeing with. This is not exactly helpful to Hillary right now, since any drop in African-American support for her could be disastrous in the next states to hold primaries. We'll have to wait and see just how big an impact Bill's back-and-forth with Black Lives Matter winds up having.

And finally, in the most appropriate inadvertent acronym since George Bush wanted to call his invasion "Operation Iraq Liberation," George Mason University announced last week that it was going to change the name of its law school to the "Antonin Scalia School Of Law." Because ASSOL (or even ASSLAW) is the perfect way to remember Scalia!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Bernie Sanders deserves at least an Honorable Mention for chalking up an impressive 14 percent victory over Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin on Tuesday night, which was a much larger margin than anyone was predicting. This continues a winning streak for Bernie, and (importantly, for him) this was the first primary (as opposed to caucus) that Bernie won in that streak. He's now won seven of the last eight contests (six states plus Democrats Abroad), and if he wins again tomorrow night in Wyoming, this will improve to eight out of nine.

[Program Note: For those playing along with our "predict the primaries" series of columns, this counts as my prediction: Bernie will indeed handily win the Wyoming caucuses tomorrow night.]

At the end of the week, Bernie announced he'd be taking a day off the campaign trail to accept an invitation to address the Vatican on income inequality, also a favorite subject of Pope Francis. That's a pretty impressive way to cap off a pretty good week, we have to admit.

But this week the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to eight Democrats in the Senate who sent a letter to the Drug Enforcement Agency posing some rather important questions about federal marijuana policy. These senators are: Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden, Barbara Mikulski, Ed Markey, Barbara Boxer, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand. All of them (except Warren) are also co-sponsors of a bill introduced last year "designed to drastically reduce the federal government's ability to crack down on state-legal medical marijuana programs while also encouraging more research into the substance."

This effort was in the news because the D.E.A. finally responded in a 25-page letter of their own. The D.E.A. revealed that they were going to try (there were some weasel words used) to complete a review of the possibility of rescheduling marijuana on the federal list of controlled substances "in the first half of 2016." This means the law could change as early as this summer. They also revealed that they have already received a recommendation from the F.D.A. on the matter, but they did not reveal what it said.

This is the key issue in ending the federal War On Weed (which I explained in detail yesterday, if anyone's interested). Take out this one stumbling block, and the rest of federal marijuana policy can start to change to a realistic and sane approach, in other words. So it's a big deal.

For a long time, the D.E.A. under the Obama administration refused to face the new reality of states legalizing both medical and recreational marijuana. Finally, to the vast relief of drug policy advocates everywhere, last year Michele Leonhart stepped down from leading the agency. The decision on rescheduling marijuana simply would not have been possible under Leonhart, but there is hope with new leadership that the agency will finally move beyond the worst attitudes of the War On Drugs and start to help craft a new federal legal policy. It's too early to celebrate -- in their letter, the D.E.A. gave absolutely no hint which way it is going to act.

But for spurring this process along, and for writing legislation to end some of the worst excesses from the past, we have to award the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to the eight senators who are showing real leadership on the issue.

[Congratulate Senator Cory Booker on his Senate contact page, Senator Barbara Boxer on her Senate contact page, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on her Senate contact page, Senator Edward Markey on his Senate contact page, Senator Jeff Merkley on his Senate contact page, Senator Barbara Mikulski on her Senate contact page, Senator Elizabeth Warren on her Senate contact page, and Senator Ron Wyden on his Senate contact page, to let them all know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

There was a Senate hearing on marijuana this week. It was a complete sham -- one of those hearings where only one viewpoint is even allowed in the room, where all the witnesses are selected so they can echo back the opinions the senators already hold. In this case, the opinion (as espoused by Jeff Sessions): "that good people don't smoke marijuana."

The four witnesses called were: a critic of the Obama marijuana policy, a prosecutor "who led raids on pot farms in California," a state attorney general who had sued Colorado over legalization, and a board member of an organization dedicated to stopping the legalization movement. Pretty fair and balanced, eh?

Michael Collins of the Drug Policy Alliance doesn't think so, and doesn't mince words:

These hearings are a one-sided sham with the deck stacked with witnesses who have a track record of vehemently opposing marijuana legalization. An honest evaluation of marijuana legalization would include the undeniable benefits of legalization, like the massive drop in marijuana arrests, the billions in taxes, and the transition from an underground market to a regulated one.

But, of course, the senators weren't after any sort of honest evaluation -- they just wanted to hear the "Drugs are bad... mmm'kay?" refrain that has been soothing them since the 1980s. Sessions even spoke favorably about Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign, to provide a nostalgic glow.

However, we expect this sort of thing from Republicans. They've been making political hay over the Drug War (and over law-and-order issues generally) for decades now. People like Chuck Grassley, who co-chairs the committee, are probably never going to change. They're permanently stuck in the past, where if we just throw another few million people in jail, the problem will be solved!

What we find massively disappointing, though, is to see one of California's own senators enthusiastically joining in. Because Grassley's co-chair is none other than Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is described as being one of "the Senate's most strident anti-drug crusaders," along with Grassley.

DiFi has long been anti-weed. She actually led the effort against the previous legalization ballot measure in her state (Proposition 19, which failed back in 2010). If, as expected, Californians get another chance to vote on legalizing recreational marijuana this year, it wouldn't surprise us in the least to see "vote no" ads featuring DiFi.

Feinstein is fighting a losing battle. History is moving in the exact opposite direction she is heading, in fact. Feinstein and her Republican buddies want to take America backwards, and return to an era of complete denial of reality. For enthusiastically participating in such a sham hearing, and for refusing to allow any witnesses who might have held a different opinion from her own, Dianne Feinstein is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Contact Senator Dianne Feinstein on her Senate contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 386 (4/8/16)

If the Drug Enforcement Agency does follow through and issue a decision on rescheduling marijuana by summertime, it almost guarantees it will become a hot topic in the presidential race. Whether the D.E.A. decides to reschedule or not, the incoming president is going to have a big influence on federal marijuana policy for the next four years.

But by summer, we should have a Democratic nominee. So it'll be too late for the issue to mean anything in the nomination race currently underway. So instead of talking points this week designed for Democrats to raise issues effectively, we are going to ask seven questions that we would sincerely like to hear both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton answer. Whenever the subject arises in a question to a candidate, it is often either posed or answered in very general terms ("Do you support legalization?" for instance). We think this is a shame, because there are nuances and technical legalisms that really bear closer examination. If the next president is going to lead on the issue (rather than reluctantly follow the will of the people), they should really have thought about these things, and have answers for what they would do as president. So here are our questions for both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to answer.

 

1
   What would your administration policy be?

First, a generic question. Depending on the answer to this, some of the other questions may not be necessary.

"By the time you are sworn into office, over 10 states may have legalized recreational use of marijuana for all their adult citizens. However, federal law supercedes all of these new state laws. So far, the Obama administration has taken a somewhat hands-off attitude, but that could change under a new administration. So how would you deal with the new reality of perhaps one-fifth of the United States allowing legal recreational marijuana? As president, how exactly would you change federal law and Justice Department policy?"

 

2
   Reschedule?

The next two questions are really the most important, because they'd have the greatest effect on overall policy.

"Currently, marijuana is listed as a Schedule I controlled substance. This classification means the federal government believes that marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine, PCP, crystal meth, and opium. Richard Nixon's administration made this classification, and it has never changed since. If the D.E.A. refuses to reschedule marijuana this summer, would you guarantee that you would do so as president? Which schedule would you move it to? Schedule II? Schedule III? Or even lower?"

 

3
   Or deschedule?

The commonsense solution needs to be asked about, as well.

"There is already a federal bureau which has the responsibility of overseeing alcohol and tobacco. Wouldn't it make more sense to completely deschedule marijuana and hand off oversight of marijuana issues to the A.T.F.? Especially considering that the number of states where recreational marijuana is fully legal can only be expected to grow, over time?"

 

4
   Freedom to travel

Prohibition didn't completely end, but local bans can only go so far.

"When Prohibition ended, some states and counties refused to condone the sale of alcohol. There are still many of these 'dry' counties left, in fact. But a key point is that while it may be illegal to buy alcohol in any given county, it cannot be illegal there to possess or even consume alcohol (in the privacy of one's own home). A person can legally drive through a 'dry' county with a sixpack of beer in the car, and if they stopped at a hotel there they could legally drink that alcohol in their room. Would you support changing federal law so that no state can criminalize either simple possession or private use of marijuana, so that it would be treated the same way that alcohol is now treated under the law?"

 

5
   Free the doctors!

Don't let candidates get away with just a generic "I support more research" answer, here.

"Currently, anyone applying to conduct marijuana research has to jump through all kinds of legal hoops that other medical researchers do not have to, which wastes an enormous amount of time and effort. Would you support removing all unreasonable barriers to medical marijuana research that still exist? Would you support changing the application process for doctors wanted to conduct research so that it is the same process as for any other drug undergoing study?"

 

6
   Free the accountants!

This is only going to become a bigger and bigger issue, as more states legalize marijuana.

"Marijuana businesses that are fully in compliance with their state's laws still cannot use banking services that any other business is able to. Bankers are afraid they'll be charged as accessories to drug trafficking, so they refuse to do business with marijuana companies. Would you support changing federal law so that it is clear that banks will not have to worry about criminal charges for conducting business with marijuana companies that follow state law? Also, would you support changing federal tax law so that marijuana businesses could deduct the common business expenses that every other business is allowed to write off on their taxes?"

 

7
   Free the prisoners!

Obama got this ball rolling, but a lot more needs to be done.

"President Obama has been pardoning or commuting long jail terms for people sentenced under the worst of the War On Drugs 'lock them all up' laws. Would you continue these amnesty efforts, to give relief to prisoners who are serving sentences that they likely would not receive today?"

-- 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

 

160 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [386] -- Marijuana Policy Questions For The Candidates”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Today's anecdote:

    White man with long white hair in ponytail -- late 60's. In grocery store. What does he think of the election season to date?

    He was delighted to be asked and spoke for awhile.

    "I am completely shocked and horrified that Donald Trump has gotten this far. He said all kinds of terrible things for months but the Democrats didn't take him seriously and didn't push back. My wife and kids and I are scared and unhappy. What is this country coming to that so many people would support someone like him?"

    "I like Hillary and Bernie. I lean towards Hillary because of her experience and because we'll get two for one. I didn't like some of the things Bill did but he's smart. I love what Bernie stands for, especially socialized medicine. I just don't think he can pull if off. But I'll vote for either one."

    "I have friends in England who say socialized medicine is a dream come true. They tell me the U.S. is a laughingstock around the world right now because of Donald Trump. Have you noticed that if you ask someone about Trump they drop their voices when they reply? Like they're afraid you might like him? It's very Hitler-like. It's all very Hitler-like."

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    It would be nice if candidates were asked, not just top-level questions, but drill-down questions such as you outlined.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    They tell me the U.S. is a laughingstock around the world right now because of Donald Trump.

    I spent last week in the U.K. and your interviewee is absolutely right. Trump even exceeds Reagan and Bush 2 in disgust and ridicule.

    Just to show what an achievement Trump has pulled off, let me remind you that a Reagan puppet had a spot on a weekly satirical show in the 1980's in Britain called "The President's Brain is Missing", and Bush was regarded as achieving the impossible - making Reagan look smart and competent.

  4. [4] 
    Paula wrote:

    [3] Yep.

    One of the guys I talked to last week said he had friends in Germany saying the same thing.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    The President's Brain is Missing:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FaH7ATXkWg

    You gotta love youtube! Everything is there.

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    A U.S. appeals court says that the federal law protecting religious liberty doesn't shield a Hawaiian church that uses cannabis in its rituals.

    I wonder if NC politicians will leap in to defend these religious right ;)

    Source:
    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-07/read-the-law-judge-pot-is-a-sacrament

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    Looks like Maine is going to get to vote on marijuana in November after all ...

    A judge on Friday delivered a victory to supporters of a referendum aimed at legalizing marijuana by overturning the rejection of thousands of signatures by state election officials.

    Source:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/maine-judge-revives-referendum-on-legalizing-marijuana/2016/04/08/c245bbda-fdcc-11e5-813a-90ab563f0dde_story.html

  8. [8] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Totally off topic and from an earlier column and comments section this week (I'm a bit behind):

    CW: "Italian Cheese Toast"? Don't even! Seriously: Don't!

  9. [9] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Two comments on yesterday's column (I'm really catching up).

    1. Starting with Nixon is too late. Nothing you wrote is incorrect, but this goes back nearly a century. It was some natural resource interests beating other natural resource interests politically. Hemp lost, wood/paper won, cotton won, wool won.

    2. Their is the court question. The SC ruled in the '70s calling the War on Drugs a compelling gov't interest. We couldn't beat that with Scalia on the court. Perhaps moving forward, and with so many states legalizing medical (and a few awesomely cool states legalizing rec), the SC can rule that it is no longer a compelling gov't interest (they don't even have to admit they were wrong, they just have to say it once was but isn't today (like their statements about the voting rights act and affirmative action)).

  10. [10] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Last comment concerns today's column (yaay, finally caught up).

    Point 6 is the most important. Cash-only business is bad, especially with drugs. Tax law is brutal.

    The Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon weekly alt paper) recently did a piece comparing the business models of two generic businesses, one that did brownies and one that did pot brownies and the results were staggering in terms of profitability.

    http://www.wweek.com/2015/10/07/marijuana-businesses-are-raking-in-money-and-the-irs-will-take-most-of-it/

  11. [11] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Hey, the greatest snark I've heard recently came from Kos (OK, one more post).

    To paraphrase: This column was produced in a factory that also contained articles about Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. If you are allergic to nuts ....

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    This is most especially for you ...

    Because, you like to believe that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, one group of pols is as bad as the other, etc. etc. etc.

    You are wrong on so many levels but here are a bunch of nasty facts and inconvenient truths that even you cannot dismiss ...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/a-mason-dixon-line-of-progress.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are wrong on so many levels but here are a bunch of nasty facts and inconvenient truths that even you cannot dismiss ...

    Wanna bet I can find similar "nasty facts and inconvenient truths that can't be dismissed" that "proves" that Republicans are as pure as the driven snow and Democrats are evil incarnate??

    Claiming that Democrats are better than Republicans is not only bigoted (think black people are better than white people) it's categorically and demonstrably false...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Claiming that Democrats are better than Republicans is not only bigoted (think black people are better than white people) it's categorically and demonstrably false...

    I hope you take that in the spirit it was intended.. As I have said many times, we're all bigots. We all have our prejudices and our preconceived notions and our bigotries...

    Don't think I am singling out you in this..

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Colorado Republicans don't care what Trumpthugs want. They don't even bother to let the voters make their irrelevant preferences known. Cheaters!

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/colorado-bad-omen-donald-trump-ted-cruz

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Apparently, you don't know the difference between bigoted and good policy.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I will never claim that Democrats are better people than Republicans. They just have better policies.

  18. [18] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, maybe it's that you can't separate policies from the people that develop and implement them?

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Bruuuuuuuuuuuce!

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Fictional account of Jerry Seinfeld riding in a car with Willie Nelson:
    Jerry: Did you ever notice how when you don't have any weed every article you read, news program, show or movie on TV or song on the radio is about weed?
    Willie: No.

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Alaska Republican Chairman Peter Goldberg said his party would normally strip Rubio of his delegates—in fact, it had already made plans to divvy them up between Trump and Ted Cruz. He decided to reverse course, though, under the premise that Rubio has been careful to say only that he has “suspended” his campaign as opposed to “dropped out,” a semantic difference the state chairman admitted had made no difference in the past.

    Louisiana, Colorado, now Alaska - Trump is getting sucker-punched. I don't like the man or what he stands for, but this is fundamentally wrong. Mind you, it is to be expected from the crowd that brought us Voter-Id laws and gerrymandering.

    I think there is likely to be some pretty targeted rule changes just before the convention.

    Source:
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/30/marco_rubio_s_plan_to_keep_his_delegates_from_donald_trump.html

  23. [23] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    . . . not to mention Bush v Gore.

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm presuming at this point that the Republican leaderships plan is the following:

    1. Hillary will win the White House - neither Trump or Cruz can beat her, and if we put Ryan up Trump and Cruz will spoil his chances.

    2. Thus we have to choose who is going to lose in November - Trump or Cruz.

    3.a If Trump, the RWNJs who told us that McCain and Romney weren't true conservatives and didn't fire up the base will just say that Trump was another impure conservative and we will have this nonsense all over again in 2020

    3.b It Trump, we may also lose a lot of down ticket races because he will keep a lot of Republicans away from the polls and motivate a lot of people to come out to vote against him

    4.a If Cruz loses in November we put the Romney/McCain 'lost because they were to wishy-washy' argument out of the way in 2016, and get the Trump out of the picture in one election cycle.

    4.b Cruz will have less impact on the down ticket races because even though he is a 'whacky bird' the Republican leadership hates him more than the general public

    Thus:

    #NeverTrump

    #UseCruz

  25. [25] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    #LoseWithCruz

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Typos abound (should read "leadership's plan", "3.b If Trump", "too wishy-washy") - sorry.

    Also:

    4.c We defang the Tea Party and get rid of them too.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I will never claim that Democrats are better people than Republicans. They just have better policies.

    So, you would agree that morally and ethically Democrats and Republicans are the same??

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm curious as to what ya'all think about Bill Clinton slapping down the BLM movement??

    I found myself in a unique position of actually agreeing with everything Clinton said on the matter...

    The simple fact is that the Crime bill and the harsh incarceration penalties were DEMANDED by black leaders in Congress because gangs of black thugs, predators and "super-predators" where victimizing and murdering black people on a massive scale...

    Bill Clinton has absolutely NOTHING to apologize for over the crime bill...

    Of course, the BLM racists/terrorists can't see anything beyond their own racist beliefs...

    Michale..

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    All Americans — be they black or white — ought to lament the spectacle of an ex-president being forced to walk back a bout of truth-telling about the last moment in our political history when bipartisanship triumphed. At a time when both Republicans and Democrats ought to be telling off the worst elements of their coalitions, Bill Clinton’s humiliation is a sign that common sense is in full retreat on the American public square.
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/farewell-to-sister-souljah-moments-bill-clinton/

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    We may look back on the late 1980's and early to mid-1990's as a nadir of gang violence in poor communities the same way that we look back on the Chicago gangsters of the 1920's and 1930's.

    There are similarities: the Italian community was the victim of a lot of prejudice at the time including the lynchings of over 50 Italian immigrants between 1885 and 1915, with tension simmering through the 1927 sentencing of Sacco and Vanzetti, and of course Al Capone etc.

    The heavy handed tactics of the time have now been glossed over, but the same hysteria was whipped up in the mid-1990's with terms like 'super-predator' etc.

    Of course, the black community has been on the wrong side of a lot of prejudice, so this is seen in two ways:

    1. The Clinton crime bill was necessary to address a specific scourge of the time

    2. The Clinton crime bill was part of the larger suppression and incarceration of the black community

    If you look at the people and the motives, here are a few of my take-aways (Michale will almost certainly disagree, but we need some real evidence, not innuendo please):

    1. Bill Clinton has been a good friend to the black community, and is, to this day, well respected for the most part, reflected in the overwhelming support Hillary has got so far

    2. The Crime bill was a compromise with the Republicans who were demanding tougher sentencing, and this was a compromise acceptable at the time because, as Michale points out, black leaders were asking for help from Clinton, and to get the 100,000 police on the streets and the other measures required compromises needed to be made with the Gingrich congress

    3. The unforeseen or unintended outcome several decades later is way too high incarceration rates, spurred on by a for profit prison system and the inevitable lobbying for more 'customers'

    4. People who don't read their history in detail see a crime bill signed in by Clinton resulting in a disproportionately large black prison population and project today's situation and attitudes on the population and leaders for 20+ years ago

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Regardless of the intentions, if the crime bill only did what Clinton said no one would be complaining about it.
    And Bipartisanship, along with it's symbiotic cousin Buypartisanship, has been triumphing for as long as I have been voting at making sure there is no viable third party competition or anything but illusory representation for average citizens.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    2. The Clinton crime bill was part of the larger suppression and incarceration of the black community

    BBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    WRONG....

    The crime bill was part of a larger suppression and incarceration of CRIMINALS in the black community...

    It's quite a simple concept..

    DON'T COMMIT CRIMES....

    And you won't get incarcerated..

    DUUUHHHHHH

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I fully agree with everything in this column.

    Bernie's poll-defying victory in Wisconsin was indeed impressive.

    Perhaps a column or paragraph snuck in somewhere on a comparison of the historical record of the "front-runner" losing 8 of 9 contests at this point in the primary season would be useful?
    Hillary's weakness on full display is an astounding thing, and such a turn of events occurring in the past doesn't come to mind... but maybe you are aware of it happening?

    Maybe a bit on the majestic failures of the pollsters recently would be informative too?
    The influence of pollsters on the narrative has been skewing things rather badly, and it may well be doing so intentionally.

    DiFi needs to feel a major backlash for her complicity with the drug warriors.
    It's hard to believe she still represents CA.

    The questions you posed need to be answered, but the pundit in you should have noted that some already have been.

    Bernie wants to deschedule.
    Hillary was wishy-washy on rescheduling.

    I also think you left out a major aspect of the medical and recreational debate.

    The implementation or proposed implementation by certain states has been painfully uneven and anti-capitalistic.

    Crony capitalism, the corruption of capitalism, by attempting to limit sourcing and distribution has reared its' ugly head.

    The limits are utter bull, and a comparison to other legal drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, shows how glaringly ridiculous many of the proposal are.

    Not only are some states not following Colorado's lead with the so-called hippy-rule, where individuals can legally grow some of their own like tobacco and home brewed alcohol... many are limiting the number of growers to an oligopoly which eliminates competition and can be easily abused to favor connected growers in the licensing process.

    The establishment ceding to the will of the people is good, but rigging the system so their friends reap the profits should be criminal.

    I believe Maryland is limiting distribution of medical to hospitals and such... which makes no sense for convenience, or given that Oxycodone can be had at every drugstore.
    The profits going to a sector that has lobbyists greasing the wheels raises questions.

    I think several other states are engaging in similar shenanigans worthy of your input.

    A

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's quite a simple concept..

    DON'T COMMIT CRIMES....

    And you won't get incarcerated..

    DUUUHHHHHH

    Neal, that wasn't directed at you specifically but rather at those who feel that the former is not a component of the latter...

    I tend to lash out on this subject (as you may have noticed) without properly directing the lash.. :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale [13]-

    So you've now changed the definition of the word "bigot" in order to make it mean what you want it to mean. That's very convenient for you but it makes communication extremely difficult if you're not prepared to use the accepted definitions of words.

    Under your redefinition of the word, not only Democrats and Republicans are bigots but so are all football fans and baseball fans as is every American who roots for the USA in the Olympics. But that's a definition that no lexicographer would ever accept.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you've now changed the definition of the word "bigot" in order to make it mean what you want it to mean. That's very convenient for you but it makes communication extremely difficult if you're not prepared to use the accepted definitions of words.

    The definition of the word 'bigot' has been constant. *I* had nothing to do with the definition...

    If you would like to explain how "my" definition is not THE definition... Well, as Ross Perot said in 1992..

    "I am all ears"

    :D

    Under your redefinition of the word, not only Democrats and Republicans are bigots but so are all football fans and baseball fans as is every American who roots for the USA in the Olympics. But that's a definition that no lexicographer would ever accept.

    big·ot
    ?bi??t/
    noun
    a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

    The key point there is NOT "holding different opinions" but rather the word INTOLERANT

    If a Steelers fan is INTOLERANT of Jaguars fans, then the label "bigot" surely applies..

    If a Democrat is INTOLERANT of Republicans, then the label "bigot" surely applies...

    While a case can be made that it's ACCEPTABLE bigotry (as CW has done in the past), it's bigotry nonetheless..

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    @altohone [33]

    I believe Maryland is limiting distribution of medical to hospitals and such... which makes no sense for convenience, or given that Oxycodone can be had at every drugstore.
    The profits going to a sector that has lobbyists greasing the wheels raises questions.

    This is a key point. I'm wondering when the drug or alcohol companies are going to read the writing on the wall and realize that they should be getting in on the action. Obviously, like banks, they don't want to mess about with a Schedule 1 drug, but if they could knock it down to Schedule 3 or more, then they could twist some more arms around financial laws and they are off to the races.

    I mean, one of the beer companies even has the perfect brand name: Bud Bud

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    @Michale [36]

    This convoluted dictionary torturing has gone far enough. What say we just call Trump an arsehole instead of a bigot and be done with it?

    ;)

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    This convoluted dictionary torturing has gone far enough.

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=bigot+definition

    THAT's convoluted??? :D

    What say we just call Trump an arsehole instead of a bigot and be done with it?

    ;)

    I don't have a problem with EITHER... :D

    All I am saying is that the definition applies to so many more people than just Trump...

    In other words, if ya'all want to point out Trump's bigotries or Cruz's bigotries or anyone else bigotries, have a ball...

    Just be prepare to acknowledge ya'all's bigotries as well... :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/08/27/embracing-bigotry/

    Just so'se ya'all know I am not just pulling this outta my arse.. :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just to show what an achievement Trump has pulled off, let me remind you that a Reagan puppet had a spot on a weekly satirical show in the 1980's in Britain called "The President's Brain is Missing",

    Considering what a great POTUS Reagan was, I guess the jokes on the morons in the UK, eh? :D

    But I am glad ta see ya'all coming around to the idea that Trump = Reagan.... :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, if ya'all want to point out Trump's bigotries or Cruz's bigotries or anyone else bigotries, have a ball...

    Just be prepare to acknowledge ya'all's bigotries as well... :D

    Cuz ya'all just HAVE ta know that I am going to be there to point them out... :D

    "Just a fly in the ointment, Hans. The monkey in the wrench. The pain in the ass."
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfoEVL3UMAAHjIX.jpg

    Get used ta it, Weigantians.. :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    Considering what a great POTUS Reagan was

    St. Ronnie was a great President in Republican circles only. Elsewhere he was regarded as a right wing loon who we can't believe escaped impeachment for Iran-Contra.

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    So, you would agree that morally and ethically Democrats and Republicans are the same??

    I wouldn't be caught dead agreeing with such a generalized statement as that. I will, instead, assess people individually, regardless of what party they happen to be associated with.

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    reagan was seriously problematic policy-wise, but brilliant at PR. he was a fortunate recipient and quick to capitalize on richard nixon's long term foreign policy plans. nixon had turned the tide of the cold war twenty years prior and reagan reaped the credit.

    iran-contra was problematic, but reagan's longest lasting legacies were the national debt, homelessness, violence and the dismemberment of public treatment of the mentally ill. George HW Bush was not a bad president at all, but got stuck with both the thankless job of cleaning up the ginormous messes reagan had left in his wake, as well as the blame for their ill effects on society.

    JL

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/4810/mark-levin-announces-hes-now-nevertrump-heres-why-james-barrett

    Roger Stone is my new antihero. Trump has run roughshod* all over the Republican Party. What an amazing act of destruction.

    Poor little Mark Levin - can hand it out, but can't take it.

    If Trump's thugs keep this up Lindsay Graham will be endorsing Bernie by July ;)

    * So I've used the term 'run roughshod' for years and just decided to check out its origin. It is putting horseshoes on warhorses that have spikes in the bottom to make them more deadly if they stamp on somebody. Pretty apt in this case, in a metaphorical sense of course.

  48. [48] 
    neilm wrote:

    @nypoet22 [46]

    Can't disagree with any of that. Did you watch the 'Spitting Image' youtube video I posted? The Brits really hated Reagan - his PR didn't extend beyond the U.S.

  49. [49] 
    altohone wrote:

    neilm (37)

    Big money interests are already involved, just not the existing sin sector corporations.

    Can't say I'd buy anything from Budweiser though.

    I believe the previous ballot attempt in Florida would have had the whole state supplied by 8 companies... whereas there are probably 800 growers in CO.
    It's a Big Business mentality.
    But quality is king, and quality decreases with quantity.

    Limiting options and competition also suppresses the economic benefits.
    800 small growers is better than 8 big company CEO's paying crap wages and dodging taxes.

    In any case, my complaints on this matter do not belong in the "questions for the candidates" list... these are state issues that the next president really won't have any influence over.

    So, while it should be lambasted, I should have encouraged CW to do it elsewhere.

    A

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @neil,

    i always favored this poem by dean blehert:

    Lest We Forget

    By Dean Blehert

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    An elephant never forgets, but this is
    personal, not political. We must make that distinction
    or all our politicians would be institutionalized
    for forgetting their promises.

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    In his day he was called "Teflon" because
    nothing stuck to him; now even memory
    turns slippery.

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    Nancy went to his birthday party without him.
    Was he missed? Probably not - so many people
    know how to "do" Ronald Reagan...

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    What was it he said about the dead storm troopers?
    That they, like those they killed, were victims?
    Was that a remembering or a forgetting?

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    He said Americans should be proud of being
    American. Was that a remembering or a
    forgetting?

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    He used to know a great many things by rote -
    that is, by heart, such as movie scripts, the
    speech he took on tour - who knows how much
    else he was or seemed to be was memorized,
    is now forgotten or comes back only
    in random bits?

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    He's forgotten about sending arms to Iran
    for hostages - if he ever knew. If he ever
    knew, he's forgotten he knew. He does not
    at this time recall. He may have been an
    honest man. If not, he is becoming one.

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    Nancy is taking good care of him. If he were
    still President, probably we wouldn't be told.
    Would we notice?

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    He used to be a spokesman for General Electric:
    "Progress is our most important product!" - can
    you still say that? Come on...Progress...? Progress...?

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    He is - has always been - such an easy target.
    Now he's a sitting duck. It's not sporting to say
    these things. He suffers from a disease. It could
    happen to anyone. It could start at the top of
    our nation and trickle down to the rest of us.
    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    It's not so bad: He can still play golf with
    Hope. And now even his own children
    speak well of him.

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    He is loved and hated for wanting to shrink
    government, for failing to shrink government,
    for forgetting the poor, for remembering the
    rich, etc. He is loathed and adored for saying
    it is not evil for a person or nation to prosper
    and be strong. Now here's the odd thing: Nearly
    everyone hates or loves Ronald Reagan for something
    he said or is said to have said, and everyone
    is certain that somehow events have justified
    this love or hatred, but hardly anyone remembers
    (or ever knew) just what Reagan did or what
    came of it or how much of what has happened since
    came of it. Today's newspapers are already a gray
    blur. Tell me, who are these candidates really?
    Even our pain becomes unreal the moment our
    President feels it. What is the difference
    between such knowing and forgetting?

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    He proved that an actor playing the role
    of a political leader is impossible to
    distinguish from a political leader. Is this
    something we should remember or forget?

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    His baiting the Evil Empire and his "Star Wars" plan
    were so stupid that maybe they ended the Cold War.
    Lebanon, Libya, Grenada... His idiotic economics
    brought us huge economic expansion - or was it
    ruin? Or was that because of the liberal congress?
    O listen, I can't think with such stuff. I remember
    only "Doonesbury" and that full forelock awaft on
    helicopter wash that drowns out his smiling voice.
    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    Does he still have a full head of hair? Does
    Nancy tint it? Does he stammer more now, quaver,
    jowls shaking? Can he still grin that grin?
    Is there anything he must forget to be able to grin
    that grin? Is he cheerful about forgetting?
    Can he joke about it? Isn't Ronald Reagan
    a pretty good guy? Nicer than Nixon, anyway?

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    Even as we speak Ronald Reagan is forgetting
    things. There is so MUCH to forget! He has
    just this moment forgotten "Where's the
    rest of me?" and now he's forgotten preferring
    to be in Philadelphia...and there goes "There
    you go again!" But there is more -
    so much more to forget.

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    We, too, are alive but forgetting things.
    "Surveys show that 60% of those under 18
    don't know..." - that we fought in Vietnam,
    that we didn't win in Vietnam, who Roosevelt
    was or Truman or Ike (Does anyone remember
    Gerald Ford?) - and one-year-olds have
    forgotten almost everything, though some
    have remembered how to grin that grin.

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    And us? With each new miracle drug, we forget
    all the earlier miracle drugs that are now
    called evil drugs. We all know that things
    have always been the way things are and so
    must always be so.

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    If we can forget fast enough, we will, at last,
    be able to live in the eternal present, having
    no past nor future - 100% guilt-free,
    without plans, budgets, debts or regrets.
    Someone will take care of us - maybe the Government,
    for hasn't the Government always taken care
    of the People? Ronald Reagan, of course, preached
    self-reliance, but Ronald Reagan probably
    isn't allowed to go for a walk alone now
    lest he get confused - all those Pacific Palisades
    mansions look pretty much alike.

    Ronald Reagan is alive but forgetting things.
    Soon we will forget Ronald Reagan. It is said
    that what we forget we must repeat. We will
    forget Vietnam (he helped us) and have to do it
    again. We will forget the Holocaust and have
    to do it again. We will forget slavery and
    have to do it again. We will forget religious
    intolerance and racism and ignorance and greed
    and cruelty and have to do them again. We will
    forget ourselves and have to do them again.
    We will even forget forgetting and have to
    forget again. And so we will have to do
    Ronald Reagan again. He will die and be forgotten,
    but when we need him, once again Ronald Reagan
    will be alive for us, forgetting things.

  51. [51] 
    Paula wrote:

    [5] Just watched. Oh my god! Grossly appropriate.

    [50] Good.

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    @NYPoet22 [50] Wow!

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    St. Ronnie was a great President in Republican circles only. Elsewhere he was regarded as a right wing loon who we can't believe escaped impeachment for Iran-Contra.

    Of course you would say that.. :D

    But it was Reagan that ended the Cold War and brought down the Soviet Union...

    Of course, it's Obama who brought BACK the Cold War..

    Howz THAT for irony...

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I wouldn't be caught dead agreeing with such a generalized statement as that.

    I'll rephrase..

    Would you agree that a person's morality or ethics have NOTHING to do with whether or not they are Democrat or Republican?

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    St. Ronnie was a great President in Republican circles only. Elsewhere he was regarded as a right wing loon who we can't believe escaped impeachment for Iran-Contra.

    I guess that means ya'all believe that a man is as bad as the worst thing he has ever done..

    Using that reasoning, that means FDR was a horrible horrible monster...

    Ironic, iddn't it? :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie wins again!! :D

    Ya know, one of the good things about Bernie winning all these states is that it forever neuters the Left Wing Establishment's complaint that "Al Gore won the 2000 election"...

    Always looking for the silver lining.. :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/04/09/you-don-rent-criminals-are-you-racist/PoPt0m36oQA3Nh7YOngA4L/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline&s_campaign=

    It's crap like this coming from the Obama Administration that makes a Donald Trump presidency all but assured...

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But it was Reagan that ended the Cold War and brought down the Soviet Union...

    NIXON won the cold war and brought down the soviet union. it just took most people until reagan for people to realize that's what had happened.

    putin, former KGB, STILL doesn't realize that's what happened, and is acting as if he hadn't lost by trying to colonize crimea. in syria, putin is supporting a dictator western countries opposed in a civil war. but the power of the west isn't just the US anymore. cue panama papers.

    JL

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    then again, who the heck knows what obama really thinks about it or is doing about it...

    http://www.politico.com/gallery/2016/04/april-2016-002241?slide=3

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    NIXON won the cold war and brought down the soviet union. it just took most people until reagan for people to realize that's what had happened.

    Uh yea... OK.. :D

    putin, former KGB, STILL doesn't realize that's what happened, and is acting as if he hadn't lost by trying to colonize crimea.

    Putin didn't "TRY" to colonize The Crimea... He's done it...

    then again, who the heck knows what obama really thinks about it or is doing about it...

    http://www.politico.com/gallery/2016/04/april-2016-002241?slide=3

    Dead on ballz accurate, Joshua.. Yer my hero for the day! :D

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cfn5lAiVIAgNxj9.jpg

    The funny thing is, the Globe thinks that this type of stuff will HURT Trump...

    But it would actually make Joe and Jane SixPack MORE excited about a Trump Presidency... :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Would you agree that a person's morality or ethics have NOTHING to do with whether or not they are Democrat or Republican?

    Let ME rephrase ... and redirect!

    Would you agree that there are Republicans and Democrats who act in a morally and ethically astute manner in terms of the policies they espouse and the vision they have for positive change that will move the country successfully forward through the 21st century?

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would you agree that there are Republicans and Democrats who act in a morally and ethically astute manner in terms of the policies they espouse and the vision they have for positive change that will move the country successfully forward through the 21st century?

    Yes...

    I will also state for the record that there ARE policies of the Republican Party that are detrimental to the best interests of this country and her citizens..

    Just as there are policies of the Democrat Party that are detrimental to the best interests of this country and her citizens...

    In short, there isn't much difference between a Democrat or a Republican..

    Some are good, some are bad...

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'd say that we are making some degree of progress here, Michale.

    However, when you stack up the bad policies and good policies and their resultant detriment to the nation and its people, then there is no doubt in my mind that Republican ideology today and the policies it inspires are far more detrimental. And, that defines the difference between the two parties.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, when you stack up the bad policies and good policies and their resultant detriment to the nation and its people, then there is no doubt in my mind that Republican ideology today and the policies it inspires are far more detrimental.

    That's an opinion I would disagree with.... :D

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    @ Michale [57]

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/04/09/you-don-rent-criminals-are-you-racist/PoPt0m36oQA3Nh7YOngA4L/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline&s_campaign=

    It's crap like this coming from the Obama Administration that makes a Donald Trump presidency all but assured...

    Not really, it is just to try to help some of our politicians who are being discriminated against, and since most of those with a criminal record are Republicans, it is a rare case of the Democratic executive helping out the embattled Republican legislative branch ;)

    Legislative branch convictions since 2009:

    Dennis Hastert (R-IL) Speaker of the United States House of Representatives pleaded guilty in court for paying $3.5 million to quash allegations of sexual misconduct with a student when he was a high school teacher and coach decades ago.

    Michael Grimm (R-NY) pleaded guilty of felony tax evasion. This was the fourth count in a 20-count indictment brought against him for improper use of campaign funds. The guilty plea had a maximum sentence of three years; he was sentenced to three months in prison. (2015)

    Trey Radel (R-FL) was convicted of possession of cocaine in November 2013. As a first-time offender, he was sentenced to one year probation and fined $250. Radel announced he would take a leave of absence, but did not resign. Later, under pressure from a number of Republican leaders, he announced through a spokesperson that he would resign. (2013)

    Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was found guilty on 17 of 32 counts against him June 12, 2013, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators. (2013)

    Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) pleaded guilty February 20, 2013, to one count of wire and mail fraud in connection with his misuse of $750,000 in campaign funds. Jackson was sentenced to two and one-half years' imprisonment. (2013)

    Laura Richardson (D-CA) was found guilty on seven counts of violating US House rules by improperly using her staff to campaign for her, destroying the evidence and tampering with witness testimony. The House Ethics Committee ordered Richardson to pay a fine of $10,000. (2012)

    Not forgetting General Patraeus (A-SS) ...

    Brings tears to my eyes ;)

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not really, it is just to try to help some of our politicians who are being discriminated against, and since most of those with a criminal record are Republicans,

    And bigotry rears it's head again...

    Ya know all I have to say to disprove your opinion??

    ALBANY, NEW YORK

    :D

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Complain all ya want about the GOP Primary...

    Rigged race means Hillary takes more delegates in Bernie’s Wyoming win
    http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/bernie-sanders-wins-democratic-caucuses-in-wyoming/

    But Democrats have absolutely NO moral foundation to point fingers...

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Dead on ballz accurate, Joshua.. Yer my hero for the day! :D

    was this before or after reading [50]?

    ;)

    JL

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    was this before or after reading [50]?

    ;)

    Yes...

    :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    That's an opinion I would disagree with.... :D

    How so?

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's an opinion I would disagree with.... :D

    That's an opinion I would disagree with.... :D

    How so?

    Because "good" or "bad" is subjective and totally in the eye of the beholder...

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Good and bad policies each have consequences that are easily documented and analyzed for their impacts, negative and positive.

    There is nothing subjective about such an analysis. You may choose to ignore these consequences, as you do, but you cannot dismiss the differences between Republican and Democrat policy that led to those impacts and consequences. They are what they are - good or bad and easily distinguishable.

    I am beginning to understand why it is impossible to discuss policies and their impacts with you ... nothing is different, everything is the same, cause and effect mean nothing and the difference between good and bad is without distinction.

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, context provides no understanding, in your view.

  75. [75] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    So, you would agree that morally and ethically Democrats and Republicans are the same??

    No. The Republicans in Congress decided to make Obama out to be a liar for claiming he would be known as the "bi-partisan President" during his inaugural address. To accomplish this, the Republicans agreed that they would not vote for any legislation that Obama supported or that would be viewed positively by Americans. The Republicans intentionally voted against legislation that they felt would be good for this country if it became law. They no longer were concerned with what would be best for their constituents; they did not vote against legislation based on differing or conflicting political philosophies, but simply because Obama supported it. They boasted about this in 2012 when they believed that they had caused Obama to lose his re-election bid, and they wanted to get the credit for giving Romney the White House. They even bragged that the better a piece of legislation would be viewed as "helping Americans", the harder they had to fight to block it from passing! The Republicans gave interviews admitting all of this, taking such pride in their becoming the " Party of NO!" That the media let this slide after Obama was re-elected and their plan failed still blows my mind.

    We have seen the Republicans choose to have opposing views with Obama on every issue, even if they had to flip/flop long held positions in order to do so. That way, their supporters will never hear them agreeing with Obama's actions. (The exception being the TransPacific trade agreement). Gov. Chris Christie was called a traitor simply for thanking Obama for his quick response to the disaster caused by Hurricane Sandy.

    Democrats have never refused to work with Republicans on legislation simply to obstruct anything that would be viewed as "good for the country" from being passed. Democrats have never spent seven years voting against the best interests of their constituents, of voting against the best interests of this nation. Before 2008, I had always considered myself a Republican. I would have voted for McCain had he not flip/flopped from being a moderate Republican and turned into an ultra-conservative Immediately after winning the nomination. What I have witnessed in the actions of the GOP since Obama took office has disgusted me! Going to court to be able to lie in their political ads without the fear of being held legally culpable for what their lies cause to occur...and winning! Romney's campaign manager told reporters that they would not allow fact-checkers to dictate to them how they would run their campaign!

    Are the Democrats and Republican ethically and morally the same? No. I am not claiming the Democrats are perfect, but the Republicans have proven that they are not ethically or morally the same as Democrats...they are far worse.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    No. The Republicans in Congress decided to make Obama out to be a liar for claiming he would be known as the "bi-partisan President" during his inaugural address.

    Republicans didn't have to "make" Obama a liar...

    President Barack If-You-Like-Your-Health-Plan-You-Can-Keep-Your-Health-Plan Obama proved he was a liar all by himself...

    The Republicans intentionally voted against legislation that they felt would be good for this country if it became law.

    To know this, you would have to be able to read minds..

    Are the Democrats and Republican ethically and morally the same? No. I am not claiming the Democrats are perfect, but the Republicans have proven that they are not ethically or morally the same as Democrats...they are far worse.

    Let me adjust your statement that says the EXACT same thing, just using different groups...

    Are the black people and white people ethically and morally the same? No. I am not claiming the white people are perfect, but black people have proven that they are not ethically or morally the same as white people...they are far worse.

    Now, you tell me...

    Is that a bigoted statement???

    Of course it is....

    I rest my case...

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    No. The Republicans in Congress decided to make Obama out to be a liar for claiming he would be known as the "bi-partisan President" during his inaugural address.

    Republicans didn't have to "make" Obama a liar...

    President Barack If-You-Like-Your-Health-Plan-You-Can-Keep-Your-Health-Plan Obama proved he was a liar all by himself...

    The Republicans intentionally voted against legislation that they felt would be good for this country if it became law.

    To know this, you would have to be able to read minds..

    Are the Democrats and Republican ethically and morally the same? No. I am not claiming the Democrats are perfect, but the Republicans have proven that they are not ethically or morally the same as Democrats...they are far worse.

    Let me adjust your statement that says the EXACT same thing, just using different groups...

    Are the black people and white people ethically and morally the same? No. I am not claiming the white people are perfect, but black people have proven that they are not ethically or morally the same as white people...they are far worse.

    Now, you tell me...

    Is that a bigoted statement???

    Of course it is....

    I rest my case...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wooops Double Tap... :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, I have noticed that you use everyone's loose use of language to make your point but that just makes your point very, very lame.

  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    And bigotry rears it's head again...

    Ya know all I have to say to disprove your opinion??

    Lighten up Michale ;)

  81. [81] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale said: Republicans didn't have to "make" Obama a liar...

    President Barack If-You-Like-Your-Health-Plan-You-Can-Keep-Your-Health-Plan Obama proved he was a liar all by himself...

    A person is lying if their intent is to deceive with what they say. Obama was just wrong. The ACA was specifically designed in a way that made sure that insurance providers would not HAVE to rework already existing plans. Unfortunately, Obama failed to realize that nothing prevented them from choosing to restructure existing plans in order to increase their profits. One way to tell the difference between someone lying and someone being wrong; their willingness to admit that they were wrong. Obama was very direct about this matter. He screwed up. While what he said he had believed was the truth, it was not. He apologized for that. Now, maybe you've never been wrong before (pause for hysterical laughter), but when you are wrong and want to make amends, what more is a person to do?

    Are the black people and white people ethically and morally the same? No. I am not claiming the white people are perfect, but black people have proven that they are not ethically or morally the same as white people...they are far worse.
    Now, you tell me...

    Is that a bigoted statement???

    Of course it is....

    I rest my case...

    Yes, what you said was in deed a bigoted statement. But that in no way means that my statement was bigoted. You changing the subject matter without providing any supporting evidence to validate your claim makes your statement bigoted. I notice that you did not bother to try to discredit what I had listed as the reasons why I believe the Republicans are far worse, probably because you recognize the truth in my statements. I can show that all of the Republicans in Congress have done the things that caused me to arrive at my conclusion regarding them. A statement is not bigoted when it is factual.

  82. [82] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale said:
    The Republicans intentionally voted against legislation that they felt would be good for this country if it became law.

    To know this, you would have to be able to read minds..

    No, I would only have to take them at their word! They stated in interviews that the better a piece of legislation would be viewed by Americans, the harder they had to fight to prevent it from passing! They opposed the Zagruder Bill to renew money allotted to cover the medical expenses of rescue workers who became ill after cleaning up the 9/11 site, which was probably the first indication as to the fact that things had changed in how things worked in Congress. This and countless other examples are how I know that they voted against our nation's best interests!

  83. [83] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @listen,

    i disagree with you about obama's "keep your health care" quote - it was given lie of the year by politifact in 2013, and i'm inclined to agree with them.

    i do agree with you about the difference between bigotry and judgment based on evidence. saying democrats are better than republicans is like saying republicans are better than communists, or communists are better than nazis - it's a comparative evaluation of a group of people's real-life actions and statements, taken as a whole. however, if i were to say that a specific republican is not as good as a specific democrat, without knowing anything else about either individual, that would be bigotry. do i understand you correctly?

    JL

  84. [84] 
    Paula wrote:

    (73-74) Elizabeth: yeppity yep!

    (75) ask... More yep!

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    A person is lying if their intent is to deceive with what they say. Obama was just wrong.

    Bullshit... Obama was told repeatedly in private briefings that millions of Americans would lose their health plans under TrainWreckCare.

    36 times, Obama blatantly and knowingly lied...

    Yes, what you said was in deed a bigoted statement. But that in no way means that my statement was bigoted.

    It's EXACTLY the same statement. I just changed the groups of people...

    Saying all Republicans are bad is no different than saying all black people are bad...

    They are both blatantly bigoted statements...

    Let me re-iterate that I am not saying that your bigotry is a bad thing.. We ALL have our bigotries...

    I hate terrorists, child-molesters and politicians.. That's a bigoted statement..

    But the difference between ya'all and me is that I CONCEDE the bigotry..

    Ya'all refuse to do the same.

    That's the difference that makes all the difference..

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/trump-erupts-as-cruz-sweeps-colorado-without-votes/

    And this is exactly why I hate politicians..

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Michale, I have noticed that you use everyone's loose use of language to make your point but that just makes your point very, very lame.

    I simply hold ya'all to the same standards that ya'all hold me to..

    What's wrong with that???

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Lighten up Michale ;)

    "Lighten up, Francis!"
    -Sgt. Hulka, STRIPES

    :D

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is nothing subjective about such an analysis. You may choose to ignore these consequences, as you do, .

    There is EVERYTHING subjective about the analysis...

    but you cannot dismiss the differences between Republican and Democrat policy that led to those impacts and consequences.

    Exactly..

    The problem here is that ya'all ignore the bad impacts and consequences of Obama and the Democrat policies..

    Take Libya for example..

    At the time and thereafter, ya'all were going on and on about how good a policy Leading From Behind (AKA The Coward Of The Country) policy was..

    Oh, it was grand!! Oh, it was awesome!!

    Ya'all ignored the consequences..

    And now, Obama admits that he fraked up on Libya.. He had no plan for the aftermath..

    And NOW Libya is a cesspool of violence and misery..

    Ya'all IGNORED the "impacts and consequences" of bad policy..

    And WHY??

    Because it was DEMCORAT policy.. And, simply by virtue of it being Democrat policy, it was good...

    Your "analysis" is subjective because it STARTS with the premise that it's "good policy" and goes on from there...

    If one were to step outside the box of ideological slavery and look objectively at the policies, they would discover what I know to be true..

    Democrats and Republicans. Some good policy, some bad policy...

    There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats..

    They both use the same methods to achieve the same goals..

    Ya'all are inside the bubble so ya'all can't see it..

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Let me give you another example of the bias..

    Ya'all have incessantly ridiculed Cruz for his comments regarding "carpet bombing" the Middle East..

    U.S. deploys B-52 bombers to Middle East for the first time in 25 years
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/9/us-deploys-b-52-bombers-middle-east-first-time-25-/

    Obama deploys the Carpet Bombers to the Middle East for the first time in a quarter century..

    The response from the Left Wingery??

    {{chhiiirrrrrppppppp}} {{chirrrrrrrrppppppppppp}}

    Is this "good policy"??

    Of course it is. It comes from the guy and the administration with a '-D' after their names.. Therefore it's "good policy"...

    You see my point??

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another point..

    Obama's policy of welcoming Syrian refugees into the United States when it's been well documented that dozens of terrorists had been infiltrated into the refugees heading into Europe..

    Anyone with a modicum of common sense would know that welcoming Syrian refugees into this country under those circumstances is ludicrous and suicidal..

    But, because the guy doing it has a '-D' after his name, it's "good policy"....

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another bad policy example..

    Obama pushed the JCPOA, despite the fact that it grossly favors Iran, because he said, among other things, it would be a way to bring Iran into the international community whereas they could bring Iran to heel on OTHER issues like Ballistic Missile development and Iran's support of terrorism...

    IRAN SAYS MISSILE PROGRAM IS NOT NEGOTIABLE
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN_US?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-10-08-16-46

    BAD policy....

    Iran is not only pushing ahead with their missile programs, NOW they have BILLIONS of dollars with which to accelerate the programs...

    BAD policy that ya'all claim is GOOD policy...

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another good example...

    The Obama Administration has been pushing lenders to give home loans to people with shaky credit with little or no downpayment..

    When Bush did that, ya'all excoriated him for it. It was "bad policy"...

    But now that it's Obama who is doing the EXACT same thing... All of the sudden it's "good policy"....

    Domestic Surveillance...

    Under Bush, it was "bad policy"...

    Under Obama, it's "good policy"...

    Drone Strikes....

    Under Bush, the wanton deaths of hundreds of innocents as collateral damage??? BAD policy...

    Under Obama, the wanton deaths of THOUSANDS of innocents as collateral damage??? GOOD policy...

    Illegal Immigration...

    Bush touts his deportations of illegal immigrants to show he's securing the border... Bad policy...

    Obama touts his deportations of illegal immigrants to show he's securing the border... Good policy....

    I could go on and on and on (and probably will :D) about how ya'all, by and large, use just the '-D/-R' after a person's name to determine whether or not it's good or bad policy...

    Democrat Policy?? Good

    Republican Policy?? BAD

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    I could go on and on and on (and probably will :D) about how ya'all, by and large, use just the '-D/-R' after a person's name to determine whether or not it's good or bad policy...

    Democrat Policy?? Good

    Republican Policy?? BAD

    Again, let me re-iterate... Again... :D

    What ya'all are doing is not bad, per se...

    I would readily discount ANYTHING that Al Qaeda, ISIS or DailyKos would tell me..

    The source for ANY information or policy *IS* relevant...

    So, if ya'all automatically distrust ANYTHING coming from Republicans, I can understand it. These days, I even empathize....

    There is no dishonor in that whatsoever..

    The dishonor comes from refusing to admit it..

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    I notice that you did not bother to try to discredit what I had listed as the reasons why I believe the Republicans are far worse, probably because you recognize the truth in my statements.

    And if I list all the things that black people have done to "prove" my point that all black people are bad and you refuse to discredit my list, does that mean you recognize the "truth" in my statements??

    We can play this game all day and all night and, when all is said and done, we will be left with the ONLY logical and rational conclusion possible..

    Claiming all Republicans are bad and evil is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than claiming that all black people or all oriental people or all green people are bad and evil..

    They are ALL completely and unequivocally bigoted claims...

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    Claiming all Republicans are bad and evil is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than claiming that all black people or all oriental people or all green people are bad and evil...

    how about claiming all members of the klan or hamas are bad and evil?

    simple definition of bigot from merriam-webster:
    a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

    being a member of a racial or ethnic group is a native trait, you're born that way. being a member of a religion can be a choice, but is often just a social framework in which you are raised. you can choose for yourself how to interpret a religious doctrine.

    to judge somebody based on their skin color or religion makes someone a bigot because it has nothing to do with the target's own choice of personal behavior. being a member of a political group is a personal choice. it is not necessarily bigoted to evaluate the quality of someone's choices based on the factual outcomes of those choices.

    if liz or i say "democrats are better than republicans," that does NOT mean that we think every single democrat is better in every way than every single republican. in fact, i have met many republicans who i can confidently evaluate as better human beings and more positive contributors to society than many democrats.

    that said, it is not bigotry to make an evaluative judgment of two groups and compare the impact of their actions as a unit. it would only become bigotry if we were to suggest that some random individual was a good or bad person a priori, without getting to know anything about them.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    being a member of a racial or ethnic group is a native trait, you're born that way. being a member of a religion can be a choice,

    Which has nothing to do with anything..

    CHOICE is not a parameter of bigotry...

    but is often just a social framework in which you are raised. you can choose for yourself how to interpret a religious doctrine.

    So, for some redneck bodunk from BumFuq, Kentucky, it's perfectly acceptable for him to hate gay people because that was "just a social framework in which you are raised"

    Right???

    if liz or i say "democrats are better than republicans," that does NOT mean that we think every single democrat is better in every way than every single republican.

    It does if you don't clarify...

    Just as if I say "black people are better than white people"... Unless I clarify that, it's a bigoted statement..

    Ya'all can tap dance all you want.. Sit around and try to clarify what the definition of "IS" is..

    But when ya'all say that "Republicans are liars" or "Republicans are terrorists" or "Republicans are arsonists" ya'all are making a completely bigoted and unfounded statement...

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Let's take YOUR definition of bigotry..

    a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.

    Does Paula or Light or anyone of a dozen other Weigantians strongly ('unfairly' is not really relevant because it's so subjective..) dislike Republicans..

    YES...

    a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group

    Does Paula or Light or anyone of a dozen other Weigantians hate Republicans and refuse to accept Republicans??

    YES....

    Ergo, by YOUR definition, that's bigotry....

    Don't take my word for it.. Read CW's commentary EMBRACING BIGOTRY....

    It's all right there in black and white...

    Well, light beige and black.. With cute little flowery squiggly background.. :D

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    . in fact, i have met many republicans who i can confidently evaluate as better human beings and more positive contributors to society than many democrats.

    Then ya'all need to quit SAYING that Democrats are better than Republicans...

    Throw in qualifiers like "by and large, Democrats are better than Republicans.." or "For the most part, Democrats are better than Republicans"...

    Those are still bigoted statements but at least ya'all are qualifying...

    But, by and large (see how easy it is.. :D), Weigantians CAN'T qualify their hatred because that would actually humanize and legitimize Republicans...

    Read some of the full-on, venom-spewing, god-damning, hate-filled rants against Republicans from some Weigantians..

    And THEN try and tell me that is not full-frontal, blatantly-nekkid bigotry...

    There are varying degrees of bigotry here in Weigantia.. To deny that is to deny reality..

    But to claim that it is NOT bigotry???

    Well, that's just a weak justification to justifiy the unjustifiable...

    A lame attempt to somehow excuse the inexcusable...

    We're all bigots. We all rail against various groups of people for various, real and imagined, transgressions...

    To deny this is to deny one's own humanity... If one has no bigotries, then one is an android...

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ('unfairly' is not really relevant because it's so subjective..)

    unfairly is completely relevant - in fact, it's vital - because if someone has a valid, factually accurate justification for their feelings, then those feelings don't qualify as bigoted.

    JL

  101. [101] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    let's say, just going out on a limb here, that you hate the obama administration. but then let's say you can demonstrate a dozen things they did that made them deserving of your feelings. calls on the part of others that you are bigoted against obama administration members cease to be valid because your opinions are fairly and factually arrived at, and therefore not bigoted.

    get me now?

    JL

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    But worshipping at the altar of reality means seeing things as they are. And it's hard to argue that what will be on display for the next two weeks will be the last acceptable outlet for Americans to get in touch with their inner political bigot. But this bigotry is not based on what color your skin is, what religion you happen to believe, or even what sports team you root for -- it is instead based on the eternal American self-confidence that your political opinion is the right one, and your vision for the future is the only possible answer to America's problems.
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/08/27/embracing-bigotry/

    It's as true today as it was in August of 2012, when CW wrote it.. I would say it's even *MORE* true today. Back then there wasn't much of the blatant HATRED and VIOLENCE that we see today... Or, to be more accurate, we were witnessing only the beginning of the hatred and violence...

    Democrats are rushing the stage to try and ATTACK a GOP candidate!!

    And THAT's not violent and hate-filled bigotry!!!????

    ON WHAT PLANET!!????

    Ya'all can pooh-pooh it all you want. Ya'all can hide behind your self-delusions that ya'all are free from bigotry..

    Ya'all are entitled to your own delusions, but you are not entitled to your own facts..

    And the FACT is, by ANY stretch of ANY definition you can find, it's bigotry...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are {indisputable}"

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    let's say, just going out on a limb here, that you hate the obama administration. but then let's say you can demonstrate a dozen things they did that made them deserving of your feelings. calls on the part of others that you are bigoted against obama administration members cease to be valid because your opinions are fairly and factually arrived at, and therefore not bigoted.

    Ok.. ok... ok....

    Let's say that Joe Redneck, going out on a limb here, that he hates gay people.. But then let's say that Joe can demonstrate a dozen things that gay people have done that made them deserving of Joe's feelings. calls on the part of others that he is bigoted against gay people cease to be valid because his opinions are fairly and factually arrived at, and therefore not bigoted....

    I know what you are trying to do Joshua and I thank you for that... You sincerely are trying to find common ground and are really REALLY aggravated with me that I won't meet you half way on this..

    But there IS no halfway...

    I hate terrorists. I can give you tens of thousands of reasons why I hate terrorists.. ALL of them valid.. ALL of them fair....

    But that doesn't change the fact that my hating terrorists is BIGOTRY...

    It's just that it's ACCEPTABLE bigotry...

    But it being acceptable doesn't make it any less bigotry...

    THAT's the point I have been trying to make...

    I am not denigrating ya'all for being bigots...

    I am denigrating ya'all because you refuse to accept that label that is fairly applied...

    I can't make it any clearer than that...

    But will likely spend the rest of my day off trying.. :D heh

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me see if I can clarify this with an algebraic expression..

    y=I HATE {x}!!!!!

    x=black people y=bigoted statement

    x=white people y=bigoted statement

    x=catholics y=bigoted statement

    x=gay people y=bigoted statement

    x=terrorists y=bigoted statement

    x=Ferengi y=bigoted statement

    x=Republicans y=bigoted statement

    x=Democrats y=bigoted statement

    Are you seeing the pattern???

    No matter WHAT group of people you insert for {x}, {y} will always....ALWAYS... be a bigoted statement

    Algebra 101

    Class dismissed

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    neilm wrote:

    The survey also found that 53% of respondents had a favorable view of Obama, more than any of the presidential candidates. Democrat Bernie Sanders was next with 48% favorability, followed by Democrat Hillary Clinton (40%) and Republican John Kasich (34%). Republicans Ted Cruz and Donald Trump were tied with 26% favorability.

    Trump: 26% / 69% / -43% (favorable / unfavorable / difference)
    Cruz: 26% / 59% / -33%
    Hillary: 40% / 55% / -15%
    Bernie: 48% / 39% / +9%
    Obama: 53% / 44% / +9%

    Donald is going to win the nomination and get absolutely creamed in November. Not that Cruz is much better.

    Source (page 11):
    http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/March-2016-AP-GfK-Poll-FINAL_Obama.pdf

  106. [106] 
    Paula wrote:

    I am down with a flu today -- although the worst, thank goodness, is over. Not a pleasant weekend. I am poised between having enough energy to get up and do something, and not. So, doing a bit of surfing on iPad...

    Michale: apparently I have to spell out for you EVERY TIME (as I have done periodically over the years) my disdain for Republicans is directed towards the actions of the power-holders in the party, followed by the behaviors of the those rank and file members who embrace violence, bullying, a host of bigotries and, most importantly to me, intellectual and actual dishonesty.

    As Light noted up thread, in the case of President Obama, the republicans at the top deliberately and openly chose to implement a policy of pure obstruction against him, with the intent of destroying his presidency regardless of the collateral damage to the country as a whole, and individual citizens. This, after years of other forms of skullduggery.

    Your incessant attempts to bring everything down to "everybody does it" is seen, by me, as a way of dodging responsibility for your allegiance to the right. You claim to be impartial but consistently use the language of rightwing propaganda to make your accusations against Dems/Liberals/Progressives, and you use their language to attempt to divert us away from the actions of Repub leaders/luminaries. Then people bring up specifics about Republican actions/policies and you circle back, either trying diversionary tactics or re-stating your belief that "everybody does it" -- in this case, "everyone's a bigot".

    My favorite Republicans are those people I know personally and have read about who are and have been recognizing their party started down a bad path some years ago and the results have been dire. Their dilemma, of course, is "what to do?" Do they leave the party or try to change it or do nothing? They've been fed a diet of Dem-hate for so many years it's hard for many to join us, but some do. If you haven't, you should visit balloon-juice.com -- an entertaining blog by a republican-turned-democrat.

    But now, with the Trump phenomenon, many more Republicans are realizing the depths of the party's descent and they are appalled. Yes, yes, some people love Trump and you can post all the links you can find about those people but it serves only to make you feel justified in your embrace of him. If you were, in actuality, the impartial person you claim to be you would be equally appalled.

    Most painful, of course, is to read your words -- filled with rightwing propaganda -- and see that you don't see it. You don't understand what is plain to everyone else here that you are a perfect conduit for this propaganda without realizing it. Probably it's best that you don't realize it because if you ever do it's gonna hurt. None of us like to be fooled or manipulated. None of us want to discover we have been.

    And the world of greys is harder to navigate than the world of black and white. But the arguments are more interesting. Plenty of problems over here but at least we start with the idea that people can think, rather than assuming they are here to be used. We start with the premise that people have inherent value. Yes, we fail at things but the best of us notice the failures and try something else. Your brains are wasted over there. But your heart still lives there and your loyalty (no matter how you deny it) is over there.

    Sigh.

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    @ Michale [104] - yet we still have hate crimes and hate speech, go figure. Maybe, just maybe, there is a nuance your algebra is missing?

  108. [108] 
    neilm wrote:

    Two of Donald Trump's kids forgot to register to vote in time for the NY primary, and we're surprised Cruz is running rings around him in the delegate accumulation process?

    Source:
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/two-trump-s-kids-missed-ny-registration-deadline-can-t-n553991?cid=sm_fb

  109. [109] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Let's say that Joe Redneck, going out on a limb here, that he hates gay people.. But then let's say that Joe can demonstrate a dozen things that gay people have done that made them deserving of Joe's feelings. calls on the part of others that he is bigoted against gay people cease to be valid because his opinions are fairly and factually arrived at, and therefore not bigoted....

    did something about gay people being gay do substantive harm? or is joe's conclusion unfair and therefore bigoted?

    I hate terrorists. I can give you tens of thousands of reasons why I hate terrorists.. ALL of them valid.. ALL of them fair....
    But that doesn't change the fact that my hating terrorists is BIGOTRY...

    terrorists commit terrorist acts, which carry the intentional harm to others as part of their identity. if they didn't, they wouldn't be terrorists. your judgment of them is therefore fair, and by definition NOT bigoted.

    I'm not saying all bigotry is necessarily evil; it IS necessarily unfair. calling some individual an idiot for being a republican is bigoted because it's unfair. calling the republican (or democratic) ideology harmful is not bigoted if it is a fair and factually justified point of view.

    you're trying to say anything subjective is irrelevant to whether or not bigotry exists, and that's simply not the case. in order to be a bigot, you must by definition be unfair, and that's why your equation didn't add up, doesn't add up and will continue not to add up, no matter how many ways you try to explain it.

    JL

  110. [110] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But there IS no halfway...

    where your comprehension of bigotry and racism are concerned, there appears to be ONLY halfway, presumably because accepting the FULL definition would require you to re-evaluate your opinions.

    JL

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    you're trying to say anything subjective is irrelevant to whether or not bigotry exists, and that's simply not the case. in order to be a bigot, you must by definition be unfair, and that's why your equation didn't add up, doesn't add up and will continue not to add up, no matter how many ways you try to explain it.

    Ya'all are being "unfair" by trying to lump ALL Republicans for the actions of a minority of Republicans..

    Hence, your statements meet the "unfair" requirement of your own definition of bigotry...

    Unless you qualify your statements they are, BY DEFINITION, bigotry...

    Per your own definition..

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald is going to win the nomination and get absolutely creamed in November. Not that Cruz is much better.

    And if General Election polls had any meaning now, you would have a point..

    But they don't, so they don't..

    Find me a poll that takes into account Hillary's indictment for her crimes..

    THEN you might have a valid peg to hang yer hat on...

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    @ Michale [104] - yet we still have hate crimes and hate speech, go figure. Maybe, just maybe, there is a nuance your algebra is missing?

    I am not sure what your relevance is to my algebra as we are referring to speech and not legal statutes???

    What "nuance" are you referring to???

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    did something about gay people being gay do substantive harm? or is joe's conclusion unfair and therefore bigoted?

    Joe has been beaten up by 12 different gay people..

    Substantive enough for you??? :D

    Or do you propose to pass judgement on what's substantive for another person?? :D

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your incessant attempts to bring everything down to "everybody does it" is seen, by me, as a way of dodging responsibility for your allegiance to the right.

    I have amply proven beyond ANY doubt that I hold no allegiance to the Right..

    That's just an incessant attempt to convince yourself that my comments have no meaning because they come from a, in your mind, Republican..

    Simply another form of political bigotry.. :D

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since ya'all obviously missed it..... :D allow me to appeal to the ultimate authority...

    But worshipping at the altar of reality means seeing things as they are. And it's hard to argue that what will be on display for the next two weeks will be the last acceptable outlet for Americans to get in touch with their inner political bigot. But this bigotry is not based on what color your skin is, what religion you happen to believe, or even what sports team you root for -- it is instead based on the eternal American self-confidence that your political opinion is the right one, and your vision for the future is the only possible answer to America's problems.
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/08/27/embracing-bigotry/

    No body seemed to want to make back then, the points you are making now..

    Maybe because the person making the point back then has a '-D' after their name??? :D

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    And if General Election polls had any meaning now, you would have a point..

    But they don't, so they don't..

    You know what I mean! :D

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Neil,

    Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with their nonprofit Clinton Foundation, have established at least five shell companies in Delaware, according to tax filings highlighted on Monday.

    Those companies include two for the couple's personal finances and three for the foundation, according to the documents, which were first reported by the Washington Free Beacon.

    Why would the Clintons need shell companies???

    They sound like greedy and corrupt 1%'ers...

    And yes... I am bigoted against greedy and corrupt 1%'ers.... :D

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale, I see where there is some confusion in conversation. My analysis was not of all people who claim to be Republican/ Democrat, as you seem to think and are now basing your reasons for disagreeing with me on. No, I was only making that claim regarding elected officials and members of Congress. I was not making broad sweeping statements, but was commenting on a very specific group whose actions I listed. Personally, I think you are too intelligent to not have recognized that, and have chosen to play the semantics game instead of just acknowledging that my points were valid.

    NYPoet22, while I realize that the comment was Politifact's Lie of the Year, I still will accept Obama's apology and statement as being what occurred. It made no sense for him to intentionally lie about this, as it would only come back to haunt him and possibly give the Republicans the public outcry that they would need to recall the ACA. The President's apology was not back pedaling, it was an admission of being wrong. If I was played for a fool for believing it, so be it. I just don't see the President making such a bold-face lie when if he wanted to deceive the American people, he could have reworded it so it would be " somewhat True". I never read a single article prior to the ACA passing that pointed out that while the ACA wouldn't force insurance providers to change their already existing plans, that doesn't mean they can't do it themselves.

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ted Cruz Isn't Cheating, He's Winning
    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/04/11/ted_cruz_isn_t_cheating_he_s_winning

    It's winning BY cheating, ya frakin' moron!!!

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula (106). [standing ovation]. Bravo!

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen

    I can only go by what you said..

    "Are the Democrats and Republican ethically and morally the same? No."

    Even IF you qualify your claim with Republicans "in Congress" I can find more than a handful who are NOT guilty of what you accuse "Republicans" of....

    Personally, I think you are too intelligent to not have recognized that, and have chosen to play the semantics game instead of just acknowledging that my points were valid.

    Who said your points weren't valid?? You listed a BUNCH of good points that *ARE* perfectly valid..

    SOME Republicans are crooks and scum and greedy and frakin' morons..

    I am not arguing that..

    I am simply pointing out that, by trying to paint ALL Republicans, or even ALL Republicans in Congress with that brush, you are making a bigoted statement..

    I could easily replicate your good points with EQUALLY good points about how bad Democrats are... But I am honest enough with myself and with ya'all to concede that not ALL Democrats are scumbag traitors to this country... Only SOME are...

    made no sense for him to intentionally lie about this, as it would only come back to haunt him and possibly give the Republicans the public outcry that they would need to recall the ACA.

    It makes PERFECT sense for Obama to intentionally lie about it. Because his advisers told him that if he DIDN'T lie about it, if the American people KNEW that millions of them would lose their health insurance plans, TrainWreckCare would have crashed and burned and likely NEVER to be talked about again for ANOTHER couple decades... This is well documented...

    So it would make PERFECT sense for Obama to lie because it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission...

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    NYPoet22 (83). Sorry, I failed to answer your direct question.. Yes, you do understand that correctly.

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    So it would make PERFECT sense for Obama to lie because it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission...

    And, I am constrained to point out that Obama could shoot someone on 5th Avenue in the middle of rush hour and it would not affect his standing amongst supporters one iota...

    So, there was absolutely NO down side to Obama's big fat lie X 36....

    As your own position proves....

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Paula wrote:

    [121] Listen: Thanks!

    [119]: The "Obama lied about keeping your insurance" is one of the biggies Michale brings up all the time. He uses it to claim "Democrats lie too!" -- and it doesn't matter that Obama came out, explained, etc. In his world a Democrat can never err, they can only lie.

    As I recall at the time, and I concede I may not be completely accurate here, the statement was in the context of trying to clarify for Americans that if the ACA passed, they could still keep the insurance they were getting through their employer. The idea was that ACA was not going to affect most people who were already insured through their jobs. What he didn't say at the time -- and apparently the Michale's of the world cannot put this together for themselves -- was that ALL INSURANCE POLICIES WERE CHANGING ALL THE TIME ANYWAY, ALREADY. People's plans changed periodically. Coverages changed, shifted, etc. Doctors came and went from within plans. Premiums went up and/or deductibles changed, etc. Companies left Blue Cross and went somewhere else. He wasn't claiming nothing would ever change. He was saying things would continue for insured people much as it already had been.

    Or maybe that's a compendium of how his remarks were explained at the time.

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    In his world a Democrat can never err, they can only lie.

    Actually that is not true..

    But in YOUR world, a Republican can never err, they can only lie..

    You are on record as STATING this unequivocally. "Republicans are liars" I believe were your exact words....

    -- and it doesn't matter that Obama came out, explained, etc.

    Bush came out and "explained" too.. That doesn't stop you from STILL saying the "Bush Lied!!! I believe were your exact words....

    Or maybe that's a compendium of how his remarks were explained at the time.

    “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

    You just CAN'T admit that a Democrat blatantly, KNOWINGLY and constantly lied...

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    So, there was absolutely NO down side to Obama's big fat lie X 36....

    No, this very conversation we are having is the downside of Obama not saying specifically that the ACA, as it was written, would not force the insurance providers to change or drop any plan that people were already enrolled in. It doesn't mean that they cannot choose to do that themselves, but the ACA does not require them to. The fact that his not saying it in that manner has caused people to think that he intentionally misled them on the matter is the down side! The ACA didn't require insurance companies to change plans that they already had people enrolled in. That is a fact. One of the big demands insurance providers had for agreeing to this was that it would not force them to change pre-existing plans that they had people enrolled in. The government bent over backwards to meet this demand. How was Obama to know that the insurance providers would then choose to do themselves what they did not want the government to do and drop plans they were already using in order to replace less financially productive plans for new ones that made them more money? This is why I do not believe Obama was intentionally lying regarding this issue: there was absolutely no benefit for lying! Had he told the American people the the truth in the manner which I stated above, lying has absolutely no benefit.

  128. [128] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale

    You just CAN'T admit that a Democrat blatantly, KNOWINGLY and constantly lied...

    Allow me to offer up your own statement as a response to this (77):

    To know this, you would have to be able to read minds..

  129. [129] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    The law, as it was intentionally written, did NOT cause any person to lose the insurance plan that they were previously enrolled in. This was a stipulation that the insurance providers demanded! This was a massive selling point to get the insurance providers on board, which is probably why Obama touted it 36 times in different speeches. So to say that Obama knew that people were going to lose their plans and chose to lie about it instead of explaining that the ACA wasn't the cause of their losing their plan makes absolutely NO SENSE! Please explain why if Obama knew people were going to have their plans dropped, Obama must have thought lying in this case was more beneficial than telling the truth and explaining how it wasn't the ACA that caused them to lose their plans.

  130. [130] 
    Paula wrote:

    [126] Michale: eh? I feel sure I have said "Republicans are Liars", followed by or preceded by comments that provide some form of context. I notice you don't provide a full sentence.

    Which time are you quoting? I remember recently having a few rounds over the utter dishonesty surrounding the fake Planned Parenthood video and related ginned-up Repub smear campaign. That time? Give me a link so I can go back and look.

  131. [131] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why would the Clintons need shell companies???

    What is a shell company? How do you conclude that the companies the Clintons have set up are shell companies?

    Sounds like some nimrod on AM radio or with rudimentaryWordPress skills is mixing up Delaware corporations with 'shell' companies because Hillary and Bill are involved.

    Why would Bill and Hillary want to set up a company? Well why not? If they are running a speaking-for-hire business they would absolutely need a legal entity, and every start-up I've ever worked for in the U.S. has been based in Delaware.

    These are the innuendoes that are continually thrown at Hillary - no substance, nothing out of the ordinary, but a little bit of 'Alex Jones' mentality and then comes those marvelous phrases "no smoke without fire", and "if they have nothing to hide", forcing Hillary to address the issue, which opens up more "Hillary today tried to explain ...", etc.

    The problem is, this trick is getting old, and more and more people are seeing thru it. Plus, it is a double edged sword that I fully expect to be used against "The Donald" regarding his tax returns, etc.

  132. [132] 
    neilm wrote:

    They have rigged it over to the Democrat side. They're using their superdelegates. It's not rigged on the Republican side. This is just the establishment taking advantage.

    From the transcript of the Limbaugh show that Michale [120] posted (thanks, btw, and see, I do read your links).

    Limbaugh is running fast and loose with the truth here on the Republican side. It isn't 'rigged' on the Democratic side, but let's let that one go.

    On the Republican side I've just listened to one of the lawyers for the Republicans talk for 40 minutes about the rules, processes, etc. for a convention and I can tell you this, if it isn't currently being rigged, the potential to rig the outcome is most definitely there.

    If you want more information than you ever thought you would need, only to realize you are only scratching the surface of the byzantine process that is a Republican (or Democratic for that matter) convention, listen to the 'NPR Politics' podcast from April 11 at 1pm titled "Can Candidates Pay Delegates?" (Spoiler Alert: Not in $$$ but just about any other way.)

  133. [133] 
    Paula wrote:

    [131] neilm: Another point is that the setting up of these kinds of companies is perfectly legal. The Panama Papers expose is really exposing legal activity. The "crime" is IN the legality -- the fact that this kind of tax-evasion and asset-hiding is allowed. The heads of state taking hits so far are taking hits for nondisclosure because they have had conflicts of interests or have said they were against things they appear to have been doing. But the doing of those things isn't criminal. It should be but it isn't.

  134. [134] 
    Paula wrote:

    I'm connecting the "Clinton's have Corporations!" thing with the Panama Papers because they're dealing with the same kinds of thing. So far, per what I've read, Americans haven't come up much in the Panama Papers simply because Americans have Delaware, etc. to do the same things.

  135. [135] 
    neilm wrote:

    They have rigged it over to the Democrat side. They're using their superdelegates.

    What happened in Colorado is right out in the open. Everybody's known how Colorado runs its affairs.

    Both quotes come from the same segment on Limbaugh's show.

    This is what f'n fries me about clowns like Limbaugh.

    The 'superdelegate' votes in the Democratic side might not seem completely democratic, but the process is right out in the open. Everybody knows that there are superdelegates, who they are, etc.

    In Colorado, the process is far more complex and less transparent, but because it suits him, he terms it 'right out in the open'.

    I deeply detest this man for his bullying, intellectual dishonesty and all round lying and distorting.

    Just had to get that off my chest.

  136. [136] 
    Paula wrote:

    [135] Yep.

  137. [137] 
    altohone wrote:

    neilm and Paula

    Paula is absolutely correct.
    It is the legality of US tax havens like Delaware that is the problem.
    Delaware has "favorable tax treatment" that in effect robs other states of revenue.
    They also happen to allow essentially anonymous creation of these tax evading entities and have minimal oversight that allows ill-gotten gains to enter the system, but it is legal tax evasion that is the main problem.

    And the reason they can do this is because the system has been rigged by those seeking to evade taxes in order to make it legal. The politicians want us to believe it's just a coincidence that they changed the laws to legalize this, and that it had nothing to do with huge campaign donations or high paying jobs they get once out of office... but does anybody believe that?

    Hillary playing this game is problematic because it means she is unlikely to work to fix the problem and is currently benefitting at our expense.

    It is a matter of fairness.
    We have a progressive income tax system for a reason... it used to be far more progressive, but it is still officially progressive in that people that earn more pay higher rates.

    The Delaware (and two other states now) schemes where a corporation is set up for Hillary's book earnings or speech payments (which are so awesome she won't let voters know the contents of) allows her to pay 8 or 12% in taxes on the millions instead of 35% minus deductions.

    Yes, it's legal, but the average American can't have their salary funneled through a corporation to avoid taxes, so it isn't equitable... not fair.

    Delaware benefits by having more corporations than people in the state, but the states where the people setting up these corporations live i.e. NY in the case of Clinton lose out, as does the federal government.

    The net effect is shifting the burden of running our government from the rich to the poor... meaning less revenue for things we need like education and infrastructure, and increased inequality.

    Playing this game may be legal, but it's not right.

    And when deciding who it is we want to lead, the distinction is important.

    (I do agree that the repubs trying to make it look like the Clinton's are trying to hide something is bull... because B and C knew dang well their tax filings would be scrutinized. And repubs fully support this legalized tax evasion so it's pure hypocrisy. But progressive Dems do not.)

    Pretty much 99% of Americans should want this problem fixed, not perpetuated.
    It is against our interests.

    A

    PS- the repubs "the rich will just take their money out of the country if they have to pay (a fair share) bit usually follows... but political leaders who disclose their taxes can't do that for obvious reasons... see Panama Papers.
    A little patriotism and fairness remains an expectation in most countries.

  138. [138] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Filter check please.
    Thanks.

    A

  139. [139] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    altohone -

    Sorry, there you go...

    :-)

    -CW

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    What is a shell company? How do you conclude that the companies the Clintons have set up are shell companies?

    Have you ever heard of the Panama Papers??

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula & Listen,

    It's impossible to logically and rationally debate the issue of Obama's lies with ya'all, if you can't even admit what everyone who is NOT enslaved by Party ideology already knows..

    Obama lied..

    Knowingly and deliberately lied on several occasions..

    Obama was told repeatedly in briefings that the requirements of TrainWreckCare would force insurance companies to cancel MILLIONS of policies that did not measure up to TWC's requirements.

    Yet, he continued to lie and claim that, if Americans liked their healthcare plans, they could KEEP their health care plans...

    That was a lie and Obama knew it was a lie..

    It's that simple..

    Michale

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Playing this game may be legal, but it's not right.

    And when deciding who it is we want to lead, the distinction is important.

    Dead on ballz accurate, Biga.... :D

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    You just CAN'T admit that a Democrat blatantly, KNOWINGLY and constantly lied...

    Allow me to offer up your own statement as a response to this (77):

    To know this, you would have to be able to read minds..

    Not at all.. I simply read the reports of the briefings that Obama had when his advisers TOLD him that millions of Americans would lose their health care plans under TrainWreckCare...

    No mind reading necessary.. The ONLY thing necessary is to be free of ideological enslavement..

    That's probably where you are confused. :D

    Oh, and I noticed that, since you didn't address my and CW's points about bigotry, you acknowledge the factual nature of the comments. :D

    Silence Gives Assent

    :D

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    The "crime" is IN the legality -- the fact that this kind of tax-evasion and asset-hiding is allowed. The heads of state taking hits so far are taking hits for nondisclosure because they have had conflicts of interests or have said they were against things they appear to have been doing. But the doing of those things isn't criminal. It should be but it isn't.

    So what does that say about a person who USES this "legal" means to commit (what should be) crimes??

    It goes back to my comment to Listen (I think) a while ago regarding Citizens United and the Pinch Hitter rule.. A comment that went unresponded to so I can only assume that he (she??) acknowledged the logic of my comment..

    To whit.. If a person screams and whines and cries about a rule, saying it will end our world as we know it and bring about catastrophic and horrible consequences but then turns around and USES that rule to their political advantage.... Then that person is a turd blossom...

    So, if a person uses something that SHOULD be a crime to their financial advantage... Well, what can you say about that person's integrity???

    Not a whole helluva lot, eh???

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    The 'superdelegate' votes in the Democratic side might not seem completely democratic, but the process is right out in the open. Everybody knows that there are superdelegates, who they are, etc.

    So, your beef is that Republicans hide their primary shenanigans while the Democrats do their shenanigans out in the open...

    I would say, THAT doesn't much matter to the Democrat voters who have been disenfranchised, does it??

    "We're going to screw you out of your vote, but hay... At least we're being open about it"
    -Democrat "leaders"

    See my point??

    But actually, that wasn't my main point of this response..

    My MAIN point is what I have always said about Democrat hypocrisy...

    Republicans are greedy and opportunistic but they, by and large, don't make any bones about it.. They don't try to hide it. They say, as they are stabbing the American people in the back, "This is who we are and if ya don't like it, tough cookies!!"

    Whereas Democrats will talk the talk, spew all sorts of pious, silver-tongued, holier-than-thou, sweet nothings in your ear as they do a reach-around, take your wallet and THEN stab you in the back...

    So, using your reasoning above, Republicans are better (on this particular issue) because they more honest than Democrats. Because the Republicans actions are blatant and out in the open...

    Lemme know if you need any help hoisting your Picard.. :D

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's what I said back in 2012...

    Now you people know why I have a bigger problem with the Democratic Party than I do with the Republican Party..

    Republicans are bigoted, but they make no bones about it. They are proud of what they are...

    With Democrats they pay lip service to words like "tolerance" and "diversity" but they are as divisive, as intolerant and as bigoted as the Right is...

    I much prefer an asshole who KNOWS he's an asshole, who doesn't make any excuses for being an asshole...

    As opposed to an asshole who pretends he is all goodness and light and tolerant, but deep down he is just as much an asshole as the first guy...

    Michale.....
    -Tuesday, August 28th, 2012 at 03:55 PDT

    Say what you want about me.. But at least I'm consistent.. :D

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Hence, your statements meet the "unfair" requirement of your own definition of bigotry...

    probably some of them, but would you care to be more specific about which statements you mean, and provide facts to prove that said statements were unfair? preferably the true kind?

    Say what you want about me.. But at least I'm consistent.. :D

    yeah?

    Wile E. Coyote: Brilliance. That's all I can say. Sheer, unadulterated brilliance!
    ~wile e coyote

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wile E. Coyote: Brilliance. That's all I can say. Sheer, unadulterated brilliance!
    ~wile e coyote

    "In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says 'see redundant' "
    -Robin Williams

    :D

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    preferably the true kind?

    "If it's truth you're looking for, Professor Tyree's philosophy class is just down the hall."
    -Indiana Jones

    or

    "THEIR TRUTH IS NOT YOUR TRUTH!!!!"
    -Oracle Of Yonada

    Take your pick... :D

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    so... that was a no? just for clarity's sake, i'll try again, sans snark:

    would you care to be more specific about which statements you mean, and provide facts to prove that said statements were unfair?

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    would you care to be more specific about which statements you mean, and provide facts to prove that said statements were unfair?

    No problemo..

    Which statements I mean as to what context??

    I made many statements about ya'all's statements so I am going to have ta ask you to be more specific.. :D

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    here's what you wrote:

    Ya'all are being "unfair" by trying to lump ALL Republicans for the actions of a minority of Republicans..

    Hence, your statements meet the "unfair" requirement of your own definition of bigotry...

    so, i'm asking you to choose a specific statement i made and establish factually that it was unfair, thereby proving my bigotry. i mean this with no sense of irony, i just want a clarification. i had thought i avoided mislabeling any republican in an unfair way, but i'm open to being proven wrong.

    JL

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    so, i'm asking you to choose a specific statement i made and establish factually that it was unfair, thereby proving my bigotry.

    I thought we covered this..

    "Ya'all" referred to Weigantians in general.. I believe I have already exempted you from that before...

    If I hadn't, my apologies..

    I am on record as stating that oft times, you are the exception that emphasizes the rule in many of my broad brush strokes..

    But, I have asked ya'all to qualify your condemnations of Republicans so I should be willing to do no less..

    I will endeavor to be more accurate in the future..

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton and Blowhard.. I mean DeBlasio did a skit with a racist joke in it..

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mayor-de-blasio-hillary-clinton-ripped-racial-joke-article-1.2596977

    And now we will hear the condemnation from the Left Wingery...

    {{cchhhiiiirrrrrpppppp}} {{chiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrppppppp}}

    :^/

    Michale

  155. [155] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: "Silence Gives Assent"

    Not here. You put up so much silliness it would take all day, every day, to deal with your assertions. No one has the time, especially since you just repeat them anyway, no matter how well they've been refuted.

    You also seem to have appointed yourself some kind of Outrage Monitor -- you find something you think illustrates Leftist Hypocrisy and then scream because we didn't all drop everything to express the outrage you seem to feel. Lots of times, when legitimate, the outrage HAS been expressed -- though not necessarily here; other times the outrage is bull because it's just another rightwing fake-scandal that you have served up straight from your masters at FOX.

    You really just have a deeply embedded outrage habit, fed by your daily intake of propaganda. Can't be good for your health.

    You are an excellent candidate for a withdrawel treatment. I wonder how you'd feel about things if you spent a month? (would that be enough) cut off from media -- at least News media. No FOX. No hate radio. No Rightwing online outlets. I'll bet your family would find it a relief if nothing else. But I also think it would do you a world of good.

    Oh well, if I were Queen of the World...

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    You also seem to have appointed yourself some kind of Outrage Monitor -- you find something you think illustrates Leftist Hypocrisy and then scream because we didn't all drop everything to express the outrage you seem to feel.

    Yea.. Ya'all just reserve that for when you can express outrage at the Right.

    And THAT's my point..

    Ya'all have NO problem with dropping everything to express outrage and every little utterance by the Right Wingery or every little faux hysterical claim of racism because some scumbag, who happens to be black, was put down by a white cop or a white hispanic security guard...

    But when there is racism from the Left, or corruption from the Left or bigotry from the Left.... All of the sudden ya'all are just too busy to comment... Funny how that ALWAYS is the case, eh?? No qualification required..

    Political bigotry at it's finest... :D

    You are an excellent candidate for a withdrawel treatment. I wonder how you'd feel about things if you spent a month? (would that be enough) cut off from media -- at least News media. No FOX. No hate radio. No Rightwing online outlets. I'll bet your family would find it a relief if nothing else. But I also think it would do you a world of good.

    As long as I gots my CW.COM, I would be in hog heaven.. :D

    How would YOU feel if you were cut off from your bastions of hatred and bigotry and intolerance like DailyKos and HuffPoop etc etc etc?? :D

    It works both ways... :D

    Michale

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for the record, I don't listen to radio or watch network/cable TV... Just finished Season 8 of Big Bang Theory.. Watched all 8 seasons in under a month.. :D

    My online outlets include Al Jazeera, HuffPoop, Reuters, RCP and some regional and local outlets...

    So, you are wrong about things in so many different ways... :D

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    I ALSO think it's fair to say that, as of late I have been capping down on the Right Wingery almost as much, if not MORE than I have been dumping on the LEFT...

    But does THAT get me any credit around here??

    Of course not... The rule is, you have to swear subservience and obedience to the Left Wingery utterly and completely... OR ELSE.. There is no room for independent outside the box thinkers!!!

    I just happen to love to revel in the OR ELSE part.. :D

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    Paula wrote:

    [158] I ALSO think it's fair to say that, as of late I have been capping down on the Right Wingery almost as much, if not MORE than I have been dumping on the LEFT…

    Where? When?

    The rule is, you have to swear subservience and obedience to the Left Wingery utterly and completely…

    That is your fantasy. It isn't true. It's something you want to be true. It's the straw man you constantly fight. But it's wrong.

    [157] What is RCP? And what regional and local outlets?

    Finally, I have, on occasion, stopped following all political news and it's actually very nice. Given the sorts of things you constantly assert, I'm convinced it would do you a world of good. You swim in poison -- you're just so used to it you don't notice the effects.

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    [158] I ALSO think it's fair to say that, as of late I have been capping down on the Right Wingery almost as much, if not MORE than I have been dumping on the LEFT…

    Where? When?

    I don't have the time or inclination to go back over the last month of comments to find these tidbits. Anyone who regularly reads CW.COM and is honest can vouch for the fact that, of late, I have been sticking it to the GOP on a regular basis..

    Some highlights. I called Reice Pinichioo.... I said that Rush Limbaugh was a moron for saying Cruz's debacle in Colorado wasn't cheating, it was winning... I took the GOP to task over the whole Colorado debacle.. And tons more..

    But, I don't expect any acknowledgement of this..

    That is your fantasy. It isn't true. It's something you want to be true. It's the straw man you constantly fight. But it's wrong.

    And yet, the facts clearly prove otherwise... :D

    Finally, I have, on occasion, stopped following all political news and it's actually very nice. Given the sorts of things you constantly assert,

    AND back up with facts... :D

    You swim in poison -- you're just so used to it you don't notice the effects.

    It's funny you should say that.. Cuz I was thinking the same thing about ya'all.. :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.