ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

From The Archives -- Don't Call It A Black-And-Tan

[ Posted Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 – 18:28 PST ]

[Program Note: Sorry, no new column today. In anticipation of next Friday, I'm re-running a Paddy's Day column from a few years back. I did check (and update) the final link in this article, because it was the most important one, but haven't checked any of the others, so my apologies if they don't work anymore. Oh, and if you're interested in reading some recent Irish politics, check out this story of the pro-choice protest this week. Otherwise, just sit back and learn why you should never order a "black and tan" in Ireland, as it could save you some severe embarrassment (or worse), should you ever travel there. Regular columns will resume tomorrow.]

 

Originally published March 15, 2012

I realize I'm a wee bit early for a Saint Patrick's Day column, but tomorrow is our regularly-scheduled Friday Talking Points, and Saturday I will be hoisting a pint of Sir Arthur Guinness' fine product, so we'll just have to make do with today.

Being pressed for time, I thought I'd just re-run my explanation of what "Saint Patrick banishing the snakes from Ireland" actually means, as it is an entertaining story to tell down at your local pub this weekend, full of rich Irish history that will amaze your sozzled friends. If you can remember the story, at the time, of course.

But that was before I had read the story of Nike putting "its foot in it" (as the Irish Times summed it up) with a mis-branding faux pas for the ages. We'll get to that in a moment.

Before we do, I have a piece of advice for all American tourists who ever find themselves in Ireland. Be it on Paddy's Day, or be it any other day of the year, the advice I have to give will still be sound. Because you'll arrive in Ireland starry-eyed with the magic of the Emerald Isle, and will immediately want to explore the nearest quaint pub and drink deep of the... ahem... flavor of the local life, not to put to fine a point on it.

At this point, you may be tempted to ask the barman for what you believe will be a well-known local drink, and you may thus make the mistake of asking for a "black and tan." The reception of what you consider a harmless drink order for a pint glass half-filled with Harp and half-filled with Guinness Stout will not, however, be a merry twinkle of approval from the barman's eye for ordering a local delicacy. Instead, you will (hopefully) be forgiven for such a gross error of etiquette, and (once they hear some more of your American accent, again, hopefully) they will instruct you in the long and grim history of the Black and Tans -- with a helpful suggestion that if you ever want the same drink again in an Irish pub, that you ask for it as a "half and half" instead.

That's if you're lucky, mind you. If you're not so lucky, you will be met with a much more... shall we say, "colorful" response... from both the barman and any nearby patrons who happen to overhear such an offensive request. Loudly proclaiming "I'm an American! That's what we call it back home! I didn't realize..." may help, just as a humble suggestion.

This may be confusing, which is why I'm offering this advice beforehand. Back home in Peoria (or Wherevertown, U.S.A.) you may be accustomed to enjoying an evening in your local "Irish" pub, and this may be a favorite drink for you to order. But what you don't realize is that this is an American-Irish term. It's like the difference between Tex-Mex and real Mexican food, on a benign level. On a less benign level, however, it would be like walking into a bar in Harlem and asking the bartender for a drink you were used to calling a "K.K.K." This is about the magnitude of how offensive ordering a "black and tan" in an Irish pub truly is.

Which brings us to our marketing snafu (or, really, a marketing fubar, if truth be told). Nike decided that it would be a good week to release two new shoe styles. The first they called the "Guinness," and the second they called the "Black and Tan." Whoops. The company has since issued an apology and insists that the names were nothing more than "unofficial" anyway. "Good luck with that," was my initial response. Other American companies have made the same mistake in the past, after all.

The reason why the name "Black and Tans" is so monumentally wrong for a corporate promotion (and for you to order in a pub in Ireland) is the history behind the term. In 1920, England decided to send an army of thugs into Ireland to deal with the guerrilla war being waged by the Irish Republican Army (which is not exactly the same thing as what Americans call the "I.R.A." in modern times, but that's a whole 'nother story). This paramilitary group became known as the Black and Tans. From a British newspaper on the Nike story comes an excellent rundown of this history. Here's a short excerpt (I highly recommend reading the whole article):

The recruits, many hardened by trench warfare, were given only a few months' training before being despatched to Ireland, supposedly to act as policemen but in fact to provide military steel. In Ireland, they faced a very different type of war. The IRA waged guerrilla warfare, with hit-and-run tactics, attacks on isolated police barracks and deadly ambushes in territory which was unfamiliar to the Tans. All the security forces found this an extremely frustrating type of conflict but the Tans in particular quickly abandoned the normal rules and conduct of war.

They were in any case explicitly instructed to step outside the law, one police divisional commander instructing his men in a speech: "If a police barracks is burnt then the best house in the locality is to be commandeered, the occupants thrown into the gutter. Let them die there; the more the merrier."

He instructed them to shout "Hands up" at civilians, and to shoot anyone who did not immediately obey. He added: "Innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man."

This is the number one reason you should not use this phrase to order a drink anywhere in Ireland. To say that "it brings up bad memories" doesn't even begin to describe it. Read that whole article, if you don't believe me.

Of course, there is a far better reason not to order such a drink. To be quite blunt, the Irish will not be impressed at your local savvy -- even if you ask for a "half and half." They will, instead, consider you some species of wimp -- for watering down perfectly good Guinness Stout. Especially since they don't even brew Harp in Ireland any more (it's now made in Canada, check the label).

It's best just to ask for a pint of Guinness, if truth be told. If you want to sound like a grizzled old culchie, you could say something like: "I think me physician would recommend a pint of the customary," or maybe: "A pint of Sir Arthur's finest" -- although I have to further warn that, with your American accent, you'll never pull it off. It's safest just to politely go with: "A pint of Guinness, thanks very much."

Beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig!
Happy Saint Patrick's Day!

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

89 Comments on “From The Archives -- Don't Call It A Black-And-Tan”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Just wanted to apologize for the re-run again. Today was (hopefully) the last time I had to take time off to deal with getting my taxes straight. Met with a professional, got my questions answered, and am ready for the final push. Sigh. In any case, once it's all truly behind me, I'll have a lot more time on my hands and won't have to punt on writing articles....

    Thanks in advance for everyone's patience.

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    Good luck with your taxes - sorry it is a pain.

    I use TaxAct for myself and my four boys (or Bhoys - your wife will understand CW - God Bless Glasgow Celtic - and I'm an atheist, but if there is a God, just remember we need another 1967 mon diety and tout suite!).

    Mixing anything and anything when it comes to beer and/or cider is a double mistake:

    1. Everybody in the British Isles (All of the U.K. and Eire) is going to think you are a plonker (look it up)
    2. You are really going to hate yourself the next morning

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:
  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone:

    I don't understand why you are adding fictional bits and downplaying the capabilities they have.

    The article itself strayed ... no galloped ... into tin foil hat land - I was sending it up/

    I find the idea that our phones and TV's can be turned against us disturbing.
    I mean, it is Trump's CIA now, so this power is at his disposal. That doesn't concern you?

    Not really, I always assumed that my electronic devices could be hacked, and by people far more malicious than the CIA.

  5. [5] 
    michale wrote:

    Not really, I always assumed that my electronic devices could be hacked, and by people far more malicious than the CIA.

    I'll remind you of that when the Left Whinery starts screaming hysterically about police state tactics from the Trump Administration.. :D

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    It's best just to ask for a pint of Guinness, if truth be told. If you want to sound like a grizzled old culchie, you could say something like: "I think me physician would recommend a pint of the customary," or maybe: "A pint of Sir Arthur's finest" -- although I have to further warn that, with your American accent, you'll never pull it off. It's safest just to politely go with: "A pint of Guinness, thanks very much."

    Can't I just ask for a Bud Light?? :D

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    Happy International Women's Day:

    HAPPY LOVE DAY!!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh-UBaIktRo

    heh :D

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    The article itself strayed ... no galloped ... into tin foil hat land

    For example....?????

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    Happy International Women's Day:

    Ya just gotta wonder..

    Are today's women soooo insecure that they need to establish a day that shows their worth???

    Strange...

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    Happy International Women's Day:

    The Women’s Strike Is A Self-Indulgent Day For Privileged Females
    http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/08/womens-strike-self-indulgent-day-privileged-females/

    You mean, of course, HAPPY SPOILED BRAT WOMEN WHO CAN AFFORD TO SCHLUFF OFF THEIR WORK AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND RUMINATE WITH OTHER ELITIST WOMEN HOW UTTERLY ELITIST THEY ARE day...

    Right??

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    This is, I submit, one of the more objectionable parts about A Day Without A Woman: this event is tailor-made as a day of sanctimony for women with cushy jobs, no actual duties to others, flexible work schedules, and careers requiring relatively specific skill sets.

    Many women, unfortunately, have very different experiences in their workplaces. Some women perform work that another low-skilled laborer can quickly and easily replace. If some women were to take a day off, they would simply be fired. The organizers recognize this and write, “It is possible that some women may be fired, as there were about a dozen instances of firings over the Day Without Immigrants strike. Nothing comes without a sacrifice.” They are right. Nothing comes without a sacrifice, but some women must simply make no sacrifice (see above) and some women would be making a huge sacrifice.

    That the organizers so cavalierly say it’s “possible that some women may be fired” nauseates me. It’s galling. They should be ashamed of themselves. For tenured academic women who epitomize the ivory tower and quite seriously cannot be fired to so graciously acknowledge the possibility that women will lose their jobs incenses me.

    That is ENTIRELY what is wrong with the Left Whinery...

    "Oh yes, some women will be fired, but it would be me so frak off"

    GREAT message from the Democrat Party..

    No wonder they can't win any elections.. :^/

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    "Oh yes, some women will be fired, but it would be me so frak off"

    "Oh yes, some women will be fired, but it WON'T be me so frak off"

    My bust...

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Mixing anything and anything when it comes to beer and/or cider is a double mistake:

    "NEVER mix beer and wine, EVER!!! And, OH YEA!! DON'T DRIVE ON THE RAILROAD TRACKS!!!"

    "Uh... Phil?? That's one I happen to agree with.."
    -GROUNDHOG DAY

    :D

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm (2)-
    "I'm an atheist.."
    This is another one of the terms like Ber...the term about some of the Bernie supporters that I promised Altohone I would stop using.
    In my opinion it creates the impression that you don't believe in something that is real to people that are believers.
    I prefer the term non-superstitious. This conveys the impression that I don't believe in something that doesn't exist. (It's also fun to watch people's faces as people realize that I just indirectly called their religion a superstition.)
    There was even one time when I told a Jehovah's Witness that I was non-superstitious it surprised him so much that he quickly stepped back and almost fell off my porch. (I have also talked with other ones that were actually able to discuss religion and accept that I did not believe. At least I answer the door when they come.)

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    HA!!!!!

    Gender-swap experiment shows Hillary even less likable as a man

    An experiment designed to reveal gender bias by reenacting the presidential debates with the candidates’ genders reversed found that Hillary Clinton would have been even less likeable as a man.
    The two NYU professors who designed the experiment were "unsettled" to discover that audience members actually found Trump's style more endearing when it came from a woman.

    One female audience member even remarked that she found the male version of Clinton "very punchable" because he smiled so much.
    http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8889

    What part of NOT-45 was just a shitty candidate do a few of ya'all NOT understand???

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If I posted this story before please accept my apology, but every year around St. Paddy's Day I remember this. I don't hold a lot of grudges but this one still bothers me.
    Many years ago another stout company was running a limerick contest to win an Irish Pub and a trip to Ireland to visit it. When I first heard the commercial in less than 5 minutes I came up with what should have been the winning entry.

    For this contest I've nary a doubt,
    if I tried I could figure it out.
    But when I started a-thinkin',
    Thought I'd rather be drinkin',
    another bottle of [someone's] Irish stout.

    I then spent the next two months trying to get a copy of the rules and where to send my entry. I finally got the information the day before the deadline and the rules said that the limerick had to start with the line "There once was a man from Cork.."
    I sent in my entry anyway in the hopes that it would get the person that suggested starting the limerick with "There once was a man from Cork.." fired.

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    Can't I just ask for a Bud Light?? :D

    Here is how to order one in an Irish pub:

    "One bottle of 'put it back in the horse' please mate."

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    I prefer the term non-superstitious.

    I'm definitely stealing that one. Thanks Don.

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'll remind you of that when the Left Whinery starts screaming hysterically about police state tactics from the Trump Administration.. :D

    Why?

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    I'll remind you of that when the Left Whinery starts screaming hysterically about police state tactics from the Trump Administration.. :D

    Why?

    Because when that happens, I'll wager you a thousand quatloos that such capabilities will concern you greatly... :D

    Here is how to order one in an Irish pub:

    "One bottle of 'put it back in the horse' please mate."

    Heh :D

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    . Otherwise, just sit back and learn why you should never order a "black and tan" in Ireland,

    What if I want a Rottweiler?? :D

    Sorry, I am having WAY too much fun with this.. :D

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Can I just ask for a Bud Light ?"
    Anybody remember the " No, I asked for a Bud Light." commercials ?
    The following joke I told at the time was one of those jokes that was more fun for me to tell than for people to hear.
    Q: What did the proctologist say when the nurse handed him a beer ?"
    A: No. I asked for a butt light.

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    hehehehehe

    Speaking of Light Beer commercials...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfJb1E3fnHs

    Hilarious!!! :D

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:
  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm (24)-
    "Say it ain't so , Joe" (I think)
    Kid
    -Eight Men Out
    It's good cop/ bad cop working together against us.

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    It's good cop/ bad cop working together against us.

    No, it's bad cop/worse cop.....

    That's why it's so awesome to have a POTUS that owes no allegiance to either...

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    "No, it's bad/ worse cop..."
    No argument with the sentiment.
    But the good cop / bad cop scenario implies that both cops are bad and the good cop is only pretending to be good.
    Both sides pretend to be good cop to their base and play bad cop for the side's base.
    Unfortunately, the POTUS also owes no allegiance to us and does owe some Big Money contributors to the general election campaign and perhaps a few former KGB bad cops. :D

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    ooops. "..for the other side's base."

  29. [29] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    delayed response to comment 59 in "RyanCare"

    "Who smeared Ellison as an anti-semite?"

    It is amazing you are ignorant of an issue reported widely and even raised in the DNC chair debates, and are at the same time attacking the victim, condemning his supporters with false allegations, and defending the establishment Dems who were involved and the policies that are at the center of the whole mess.

    I will repeat what I wrote in comment 58 due to the obvious relevance-
    The weird thing about projection is that you'd look even worse if you were aware you were doing it.

    Insisting you are right when you aren't even paying attention explains everything.

    A

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    Unfortunately, the POTUS also owes no allegiance to us

    Patently and provably false..

    If President Trump doesn't do right by the patriotic Americans who voted him into office, he will be gone..

    He has no Party structure to save his ass if he pisses off the patriotic Americans.

    It's that simple..

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    On the other hand, I guess it's depending on who you define as "us".... :D

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [9]

    Ya just gotta wonder..

    Are today's women soooo insecure that they need to establish a day that shows their worth???

    I guess if "today's women" established International Women's Day you'd have a point, but they didn't so... educate yourself. It's over 100 years old.

    "Ya just gotta wonder" why people with access to facts would rather spew bullshit than use their resources... 45 tweeting out lies about 44 comes to mind. :)

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    I guess if "today's women" established International Women's Day you'd have a point, but they didn't so... educate yourself. It's over 100 years old.

    By all means.. Educate me.. :D

    I assume you have all sorts of references where mainstream Americans celebrated International Woman's Day.. :D

    I'll look back thru the Weigantian archives and read all the celebrations. :D

    "Ya just gotta wonder" why people with access to facts would rather spew bullshit than use their resources... 45 tweeting out lies about 44 comes to mind. :)

    For example???

  34. [34] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    24

    Junk bills to make it look like congresscritters are doing something, and the use of those bills by the other party for fundraising is not what I was hoping for from that link.

    The real fleecing is in the bills that get passed after all.

    Not surprised a former lobbyist didn't go there though.

    A

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    "Ya just gotta wonder" why people with access to facts would rather spew bullshit than use their resources...

    Yes, I DO wonder why ya'all spew bullshit.. Like AG Sessions lied...

    Like Russians hacked the election, etc etc etc...

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [33]

    By all means.. Educate me.. :D

    I assume you have all sorts of references where mainstream Americans celebrated International Woman's Day.. :D

    Thank you for the glimpse into how your "mind" works, but this is not exactly rocket science. Today's women didn't establish the day. Celebrating the day and establishing the day are two different things.

    I'll look back thru the Weigantian archives and read all the celebrations. :D

    Knock yourself out, snowflake; it still won't change the definition of "establish."

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    Thank you for the glimpse into how your "mind" works, but this is not exactly rocket science. Today's women didn't establish the day. Celebrating the day and establishing the day are two different things.

    Semantics....

    But, hay... I'll be yer huckleberry...

    Ya just gotta wonder..

    Are today's women soooo insecure that they need to ALL OF THE SUDDEN, start celebrating HAPPY SPOILED BRAT WOMEN WHO CAN AFFORD TO SCHLUFF OFF THEIR WORK AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND RUMINATE WITH OTHER ELITIST WOMEN HOW UTTERLY ELITIST THEY ARE Day that shows their worth???

    Strange...

    Don't forget to wear yer vaginas on yer heads.. That REALLY shows how classy today's women are!!!

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Feel better now, snowflake?? :D

    Gods yer so easy... :D

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Knock yourself out, snowflake; it still won't change the definition of "establish."

    And 'is'.. Don't forget to argue what the definition of 'is' is!!! :D

    hehehehehehehehehehehe

  39. [39] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    New boots on the ground in Syria!
    In addition to sending Marines to fight IS in Raqqa Syria...

    ... Trump just deployed Army Rangers to Manbij Syria to stop fighting between US backed Kurdish/Arab SDF forces and US/Turkish backed rebels (who fight alongside al Qaida).

    In other words, Rangers were deployed as peacekeepers to stop fighting between OUR ALLIES...

    ... one of which we never should have supported because of those minor, easily forgettable incidents including 9/11.

    And, just in case anybody has forgotten, Trump seems to be escalating US involvement on a path to implementing the policy Hillary supported... and which Obama opposed.

    There's anti-establishment Trump serving the establishment warmongering wings of both parties for ya!

    But don't worry.
    A Pentagon spokesperson claims the deployments are "just temporary".

    A

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    But don't worry.
    A Pentagon spokesperson claims the deployments are "just temporary".

    The Left Whinery should have NO PROBLEM accepting that excuse..

    They did all the time when Obama used it..

  41. [41] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    4

    I thought you were reading the documents from Wikileaks so I'm not sure what article you are referring to, but the CIA allowed their hacking tools to become public and thus available to those entities more malicious than the CIA.
    You trust them despite the proof they can't be trusted to protect their own secrets... or their history of abuse of power.

    Your indifference to and acceptance of bipartisan supported Big Brother and his foreign friends (not to mention corporations) violating your privacy at will is downright heartwarming.

    You and our resident trumpling have something in common with Trump and Obama.

    Personally, I value the protections in our Constitution and think they are worth defending.

    A

  42. [42] 
    altohone wrote:

    40

    Back to two wrongs making a right...

    ... not to mention hypocrisy and turning a blind eye.

    At least you finally apologized to neil.

    A

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [37]

    Semantics....

    No, it's not semantics. You said "establish" and inferred that today's women created a day that "shows their worth."

    Ya just gotta wonder..

    Are today's women soooo insecure that they need to ALL OF THE SUDDEN, start celebrating HAPPY SPOILED BRAT WOMEN WHO CAN AFFORD TO SCHLUFF OFF THEIR WORK AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND RUMINATE WITH OTHER ELITIST WOMEN HOW UTTERLY ELITIST THEY ARE Day that shows their worth???

    Strange...

    Semantics 'cause we were supposed to know you meant "celebration," and then you go on to describe what sounds to me like a "protest" so there goes your "semantics" argument about you meant celebration.

    You also assign them to the "elitist" category... that's demonization and makes it so much easier to dismiss them altogether, and your ideological shortcomings are showing again.

    Don't forget to wear yer vaginas on yer heads.. That REALLY shows how classy today's women are!!!

    Coming from a "lock her up" and "trump that bitch" type guy, this type of comment is not at all unexpected. Also too, I believe the hats they wear are inspired by the "grab them by the pussy" comment from that bastion of "class" who bragged about how he gets away with doing that... oh, and walking into the dressing room of teenage girls in various stages of undress because you're the pervert... I mean owner... or allowing Howard Stern to refer to your own daughter as "a piece of ass"... real "class."

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [39]

    Pretty much nailed that down. Bravo!

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [41]

    but the CIA allowed their hacking tools to become public and thus available to those entities more malicious than the CIA.

    I have a question and just to qualify, I'm actually asking a question and not meaning to infer anything. So the question: Do you really think the CIA "allowed" their hacking tools to become public? I'm asking because it sounds like you're saying they intentionally wanted it to happen.

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    kick (45)-
    I think he (geez- I sure hope altohone is a he) clarifies "allowed" in the next sentence when he says "can't be trusted to protect their own secrets".

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (40)-
    ""...the deployments are just temporary.""
    " The Left Whinery should have no problem accepting that excuse."
    It's not just the left.
    After all, it should be easy for lots have people from all persuasions to accept because they have had to get used to temporary jobs since before even Obama was elected.

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    At least you finally apologized to neil.

    I *ALWAYS* do when the facts warrant it..

    This is well documented...

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    You also assign them to the "elitist" category... that's demonization and makes it so much easier to dismiss them altogether,

    Yes, the women who can easily dismiss those women who would get fired for taking a day off..

    Yes... I demonize AND dismiss those elitist morons..

    Abso-frakin'-loutly...

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [49]

    Yes, the women who can easily dismiss those women who would get fired for taking a day off..

    BS, Michale. You're mischaracterizing what you said. First you demonized the women "celebrating" International Women's Day as "spoiled brats" and "elitist snobs," and now you're inferring that they were dismissing women less fortunate and that makes it okay for you to demonize them.

    Nice try... but there's no way you can spin that turd you wrote so don't even try.

    Pathetic... even for you... but not whatsoever unexpected.

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'll remind you of that when the Left Whinery starts screaming hysterically about police state tactics from the Trump Administration.. :D

    Why?

    Because when that happens, I'll wager you a thousand quatloos that such capabilities will concern you greatly... :D

    Let me get this straight, you will be happy if 45 starts using the CIA to monitor Americans?

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    Let me get this straight, you will be happy if 45 starts using the CIA to monitor Americans?

    Depends..

    But I'll be happy to see you go stark-raving apeshit hysterical over it.. :D

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    BS, Michale. You're mischaracterizing what you said. First you demonized the women "celebrating" International Women's Day as "spoiled brats" and "elitist snobs," and now you're inferring that they were dismissing women less fortunate and that makes it okay for you to demonize them.

    That's because they ARE spoiled brats and elitist snobs..

    And those spoiled brats and elitist snobs ARE dismissing women less fortunate..

    This is, I submit, one of the more objectionable parts about A Day Without A Woman: this event is tailor-made as a day of sanctimony for women with cushy jobs, no actual duties to others, flexible work schedules, and careers requiring relatively specific skill sets.

    Many women, unfortunately, have very different experiences in their workplaces. Some women perform work that another low-skilled laborer can quickly and easily replace. If some women were to take a day off, they would simply be fired. The organizers recognize this and write, “It is possible that some women may be fired, as there were about a dozen instances of firings over the Day Without Immigrants strike. Nothing comes without a sacrifice.” They are right. Nothing comes without a sacrifice, but some women must simply make no sacrifice (see above) and some women would be making a huge sacrifice.

    That the organizers so cavalierly say it’s “possible that some women may be fired” nauseates me. It’s galling. They should be ashamed of themselves. For tenured academic women who epitomize the ivory tower and quite seriously cannot be fired to so graciously acknowledge the possibility that women will lose their jobs incenses me.

    Do try and keep up, eh??

    Jeeesh...

  54. [54] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And those spoiled brats and elitist snobs ARE dismissing women less fortunate.

    Yeah, yeah, the right really cares about poor women, and really, really cares about ethnic minorities, right? All they ever fight about is justice for the downtrodden and helpless. Sure.

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    Yeah, yeah, the right really cares about poor women, and really, really cares about ethnic minorities, right? All they ever fight about is justice for the downtrodden and helpless. Sure.

    Well, we know for a FACT that the LEFT doesn't...

    Why do you think we have President Trump...

    DUH...... :D

  56. [56] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why do you think we have President Trump

    My theory, since you ask, is that the "talk radio" right has captured the GOP (which, having exorcised most of the moderates, didn't put up much of a fight), and that 45's uniquely media-centric worldview plays straight into that. He personifies the wingnut media bubble that folks have been complaining about for years, but that no reasonable politician would previously go near, for reasons that are becoming increasingly apparent now that they've got to put their policies where their big mouths have been for so long.

    A perfect example is 45's confession that Health Care is "really hard". Didn't seem so when the talk jocks were using it as a truncheon to bash democrats with. The difference between their nonsense and our reality is the moat that divides and holds hostage our country now.

  57. [57] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    44, 45, and an old one

    Thanks.
    And no.

    Allowed, failed to protect... Don had it right.

    As I understand it, contractors had access and may be the source of the leak, but nobody knows for sure yet. It was a whistleblower who found the actions and capabilities troubling.

    That brings us to the privatization of national security matters debate... to which I am opposed for security, privacy and financial reasons in case anybody cares.

    BTW, I went back looking for a response from neil on something, and noticed a response from you I had missed on the minimum wage and Dem control of Congress.

    I feel bad you spent so much time detailing things I am aware of... you did a great job of it though.
    I'm sorry my comment made it seem I was unaware that Dems only had full control for 4 months in 2009.

    That said, unlike the ACA or legislation tackling new issues, minimum wage legislation doesn't require much time or effort to produce... they can just cut and paste from the previous legislation... changing the dollar amounts, dates, crossing some i's and dotting some t's, and a quick review by legal.

    Dems should have had it ready knowing a window of opportunity was possible. It's not like they were unaware that Repubs were planning on obstructing everything. I lived 3000 miles away and knew, so there's no excuse there.

    They also should have had other legislation like union "card check" and a whole bunch of other things ready too.

    Personally, I believe they intentionally failed in order to please their large donors, but that is impossible to prove unless we get some deathbed memoirs or as of yet unreleased insider info.

    History is also replete with examples of political arm twisting to coerce or convince needed votes from the opposition party, and there is zero evidence Obama even attempted that approach.

    Similarly, using the bully pulpit to generate public pressure to advance legislation was never attempted.

    It seems to me both of those support my belief of intentional failure. If Dems really were so eager to pass legislation they claimed to care about, such tactics would have been used.

    I know it's just an opinion from a cynic, but it pisses me off and I feel compelled to point it out.

    Passing a higher minimum wage and card check could have resulted in better results in 2010 and every election thereafter... not to mention actually helping a huge number of Americans.

    A

  58. [58] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    On the things that make you go Hmmm front...

    So assuming that the GOP gets this turd called health care "reform" pushed out, it will mean that a bunch of regulations will get repealed, BUT, it also means that new regulations will get implemented.

    Considering that the incremental cost allowance for imposing new regulations is set at not greater than zero for this fiscal year,effectively making it so you do not get credit for any regulations you remove this year.

    Thus begging the question of what else will get " De- Regulated" to allow for the implementation of this " landmark" legislation?

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [53]

    What, no link? Here, let me spoon feed you one.

    https://thefederalist.com/2017/03/08/womens-strike-self-indulgent-day-privileged-females/

    And the paragraph that follows your excerpt for which you fail to supply a link actually reads as follows:

    They are right, of course, that strikes require a sacrifice and a risk, but such a risk needs to be worth it. The one-day disturbance of some women in a company striking is so non-threatening that it is unlikely to spur any company policy changes, but it will likely be annoying enough to get women fired from that same company. Remember, “it is possible.”

    This is your so-called evidence that it's okay to demonize those women you lumped into neat little categories and vilified? This is your proof that those women "celebrating" (your word) were dismissing the less fortunate? The writer here describes the organizers as "self-indulgent and privileged," and the organizers acknowledged that it would take sacrifice. She agreed and had other issues, but nowhere does she say they dismissed the less fortunate who could not afford to "celebrate" alongside them.

    You're trying so hard to defend your indefensible bullshit that you're posting what you would usually describe as "Left Whinery PC crap" in order to try. Epic fail and P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C... even for you.

    You're deluding no one but yourself. There's simply no way you can spin that turd you wrote. You label and demonize those who don't share your worldview, and you succeed at nothing but exposing your own ideological shortcomings.

  60. [60] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    response to comment 93 from "Ryancare"

    "Give me links"

    You go off spewing falsehoods despite being ignorant and too lazy to look into what your own party is up to, and expect me to spoonfeed you a link for the friggin DNC debate?

    from comment 97 from "Ryancare"

    you wrote-

    "Did it ever occur to you that there are bad actors out there who deliberately sow dissension -- who encourage Dem infighting because it weakens the counter forces to the traitorous GOP?

    Some schmo somewhere says something stupid about Ellison (in this case) -- and stands back to watch the fireworks. Trolls/moles, traitors -- all trying to divert attention from the real monsters in all this. Don't play their game."

    I did occur to me.
    In this case, that "bad actor" and "schmo" who "deliberately sowed dissension" and "weakened the Democratic party" and "helped the GOP" to which you are referring happens to be the billionaire who put up most of the money for the g*d dang building that houses the DNC...

    ... AND he was Hillary's single biggest donor too.

    Is your ignorance starting to become apparent as a problem yet?

    A

  61. [61] 
    altohone wrote:

    oops

    "It did occur to me"... though I did occur to me too.

    A

  62. [62] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    This is worth a read-

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-voters_us_58c1ac90e4b054a0ea68fa17?

    Great article about a viable path forward.
    Beware.
    If you read the comments, about a third of them are from Paula types.

    It's depressing how much ignorance there is.
    It seems that it's still too soon for acceptance of reality and constructive criticism. They're still too busy pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

    A

  63. [63] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Alto-

    As I understand it, contractors had access and may be the source of the leak, but nobody knows for sure yet. It was a whistleblower who found the actions and capabilities troubling.

    Or... is it like the discovery Carnivore/DCSNet, where the discovery of the systems happened as they were being phased out and newer more invasive programs where already in place?

  64. [64] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It seems that it's still too soon for acceptance of reality and constructive criticism. They're still too busy pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

    You still don't get it.

    Do you see the Great Orange Ape that currently inhabits the Oval Office? If better than 4% of the progressive vote hadn't been wasted on third-party candidates, he wouldn't be there today. It's that simple.

    Eh, Naderites never admitted their role in getting Bush elected either.

  65. [65] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula

    addition to comment 60

    "Don't play their game"

    On that we fully agree.

    It is the point I've been making here from day 1.

    The billionaires with undue influence over the Democratic party are indeed the problem... even if you didn't realize that's who you were blaming.

    A

  66. [66] 
    altohone wrote:

    goode trickle
    63

    Well, that would be good from a national security standpoint I suppose, but since Apple and Google, etc. are scrambling to fix some of the problems that were exposed it is apparent that some of the vulnerabilities were still usable.

    Assuming that the privacy violations can potentially still occur using as of yet undisclosed vulnerabilities shouldn't make anybody happy.

    A

  67. [67] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    64

    Hillary is responsible for Hillary losing.

    But, since you mentioned it, you should consider doing the math on this crazy basis-

    Bernie brought MILLIONS of new voters into the Democratic party in the primaries, and over 90% of them ended up voting for Hillary because Bernie encouraged them to while he was campaigning for Hillary.

    If you are mathematically challenged, the point is that Hillary would have lost by a larger margin if not for Bernie.

    Berniecrats are not the enemy of the Democratic party, they are the future...

    ... literally... because Bernie decidedly won the "under 45" category.

    -
    -

    And, since 300,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush in 2000, you still blaming Nader is a joke too.

    Personally, I blame Lieberman... and Gore for choosing such a sniveling little weasel.

    A

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [57]

    Allowed, failed to protect... Don had it right.

    Oh, okay. The CIA "allowed, failed to protect." The intelligence community is an arm of our government, although I am convinced some people see this aspect of our government as being our whole government. How can the IC arm of our government "protect their own secrets" when the world is peopled with those who might at any time choose to raise their right hand and swear an oath to protect from enemies foreign and domestic but then turn over millions of documents to a person like Assange?

    One could accomplish the wounding and death of our government as we currently know it and then set about constructing the most absolute perfect "Utopia," regardless their philosophy, but there'll still be a country full of "we the people" where not all of them are going to share the same political persuasion.

    So the revolution is over and "President Perfect" has ascended to the top of the new chain, but sooner or later a "Snowden" is likely to find your "actions and capabilities troubling" and hatch a plan for crippling Utopia along with their "Greenwald." How would Utopia go about convincing "the people" that government could be trusted and that their IC arm could be depended on to "protect its own secrets" and hadn't just "allowed" it to happen?

    Ah, humanity... it is what it is. There's always going to be someone who thinks they're saving democracy from an existential threat.

    As I understand it, contractors had access and may be the source of the leak, but nobody knows for sure yet. It was a whistleblower who found the actions and capabilities troubling.

    One man's "whistle-blower" is another man's traitor. :)

    That brings us to the privatization of national security matters debate... to which I am opposed for security, privacy and financial reasons in case anybody cares.

    Of course we care, and while there's still the potential of a "troubled Manning," I totally agree with you there.

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Bernie brought MILLIONS of new voters into the Democratic party in the primaries, and over 90% of them ended up voting for Hillary because Bernie encouraged them to while he was campaigning for Hillary.

    Whether Bernie 'brought' millions of new voters, or just diverted them is arguable. Democrats historically do well with younger voters anyway. But you make my point for me: what happened to that 10% of Bernie voters who didn't vote for Hillary? Did they fall for that curated Wikileaks dump that was designed by Russian intel/Trump advisors to drive a wedge between the Bernie people and the DNC? Alot did. Perhaps they ended up voting for an also-ran candidate as a result. They didn't think about the result of their mistake: Trump.

    Like Hillary, Gore lost by an impossibly small margin in Florida. A relative handful of votes could have swung the state. The most likely helpful votes would have come from the left, but there again, they were looking the other way, and we all ended up with Bush the Junior.

    Blaming Gore or Hillary for losing votes that should have been (at least) scared enough of the other party's candidate to vote for them or (at best) loyal enough to the causes they believe in to vote for a candidate that acknowledges them is like blaming Washington for Arnold's defection. It's not accurate, and amounts to a slur.

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [57]

    I feel bad you spent so much time detailing things I am aware of... you did a great job of it though.
    I'm sorry my comment made it seem I was unaware that Dems only had full control for 4 months in 2009.

    Oh, a "great job" LOL... it was nothing! Certainly nothing to "feel sorry" for; I didn't spend all that much time. I have multiple programs available that actually do the majority of my typing for me. Ah, technology... such a time saver... such a job killer! One of my programs types as fast as I talk, and another one allows me to use shortcuts that expand to entire words and sentences when I invoke certain combinations of letters. There is both an upside and a downside to this technology. The upside is that I can spend 5 minutes and end up with several paragraphs with relative ease, and the downside is that I can spend 5 minutes and end up with several paragraphs... long posts! A short conversation with a poster on my end can become a very long post. {apologies} :)

    Personally, I believe they intentionally failed in order to please their large donors, but that is impossible to prove unless we get some deathbed memoirs or as of yet unreleased insider info.

    Maybe the Obamas will "sing" in their 60+ million dollar memoirs. Of course they intentionally fail on issues, but on the issue of minimum wage in 2009, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I understand why some people don't. I think they felt they had the minimum wage issue covered with the raises in mid 2007, 2008, and 2009, although for the life of me I don't understand why they don't index the minimum wage to inflation. Oh, wait... yes, I do understand why they don't. ;)

    I know it's just an opinion from a cynic, but it pisses me off and I feel compelled to point it out.

    I completely understand, but you kept saying in multiple posts that Democrats had control of the Senate and House in 2009 and did nothing to pass a minimum wage hike, and I kept seeing it and seeing it! But there was a minimum wage hike in 3 increments in 2007, 2008, and 2009, and House Democrats passed it with no help whatsoever from Republicans the minute they secured the HOR majority, and I wasn't trying to pat them on the back by any stretch, but I thought it deserved at the very least an honorable mention.

    Passing a higher minimum wage and card check could have resulted in better results in 2010 and every election thereafter... not to mention actually helping a huge number of Americans.

    Amen to that. :)

    p.s. Damn, I feel like I'm being brief in my responses, but a few minutes of talking turns into long posts. Argh!

  71. [71] 
    Paula wrote:

    [29] A: Now you're just being pathetic. A billionaire? Who? Why can't you simply answer the question?

    Give me a credible link to this story -- you appear to consider it conclusive proof that the entirety of the Democratic establishment conspired, with malice aforethought, to deprive Keith Ellison of being selected to head the DNC and they succeeded by virtue of some "billionaire" saying something somewhere.

    If you don't provide a link I will assume you can't find one, or that whatever you have found isn't something you want to share -- i.e. you're trading in fever-swamp nonsense.

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [62]

    This is worth a read-

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-voters_us_58c1ac90e4b054a0ea68fa17?

    Good article, thank you.

    Beware.
    If you read the comments, about a third of them are from Paula types.

    It's depressing how much ignorance there is.
    It seems that it's still too soon for acceptance of reality and constructive criticism. They're still too busy pointing fingers in the wrong direction.

    If I recall correctly, it was not long ago you mentioned using a knife and some twisting so... pointing fingers seems like at least some improvement. :)

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    altohone [67]

    Personally, I blame Lieberman... and Gore for choosing such a sniveling little weasel.

    Personally, me too. I thought Gore made a very bad choice with Lieberman.

    I also thought Hillary erred in her choice. I totally understood why she wanted to nail down Virginia, but she would have been much better served if she had made a choice that united the Party. If Hillary had taken the steps to unite the Party, it wouldn't have mattered what anybody leaked in order to pry it apart.

    Ah, hindsight. :)

  74. [74] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    71

    The judgment of the ignorant and lazy really stings.

    You aren't capable of a simple search to see which billionaire paid for the DNC office?
    You aren't capable of a search using the keywords DNC chair, Ellison, donor and anti-Semitic?
    You aren't capable of watching or reading the transcripts of the DNC debates to find the question the moderator asked all the candidates about the smear campaign (hint- he said "raise your hand if you condemn it" and all but one did)?
    You aren't capable of a search for Hillary's biggest donor? Too many billionaires to sort through? OK. One more clue then. His initials are H.S. and Hillary wrote him a public letter vowing to fight BDS... y'know, criminalizing peaceful protest.

    Do you remember what I wrote about projection?

    Your ignorance is not my problem.
    And don't think I didn't laugh hard when you insulted Hillary's Big Money schmo and blamed the people you've been defending for sowing division and helping the Republicans.
    You shot yourself in the foot repeatedly there.
    I laughed and laughed and laughed.

    I'm all for going the extra mile helping and spending time convincing the people I want on my side.

    A

  75. [75] 
    Paula wrote:

    A: I'm glad you had a good laugh -- I always enjoy spreading a little sunshine!

    However, since you made the initial assertion (about someone saying Keith Ellison was anti-semitic) in an attempt to justify your Berniebro anger about the DNC selection, the burden of proof is on you.

    You spend a good deal of time writing insults but you cannot copy and paste a single link.

    While I'm aware the Berniacs were up in arms over Perez versus Ellison I don't hang out in Berniebro-land and therefore don't know everything that happened to enrage you all. If you are thinking "she doesn't care what we thought" throughout the process you would be 100% correct. Indeed, I avoided articles covering Bernie-Supporters' feelings about the DNC selection process because I have long since written you all off as whiners, whiners, whiners. (The problem with being enraged all the time is that after awhile the rest of us stop giving a damn.)

    Based on your "clues" I think what you've actually done is conflate several things into a Berniebro conspiracy, or rather, sucked up a conspiracy served up on some online outlet for the terminally resentful. That makes it difficult to provide links because, darn it, it actually takes a whole bunch of them to draw the right picture and ensure the reader comes to the same conclusion you did!

    Separately, I'm concerned about how your tone has deteriorated in your series of posts. The stress of perfection can be debilitating. My advice to you: abandon the disappointing-Dems and join a third party, one where people are more worthy and will appreciate your genius and wisdom. While we in corrupt-Democrat-land may suffer, I think its better for your health and well-being to let us figure things out without the benefit of your input. Some people just can't be helped.

  76. [76] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    68

    Thanks for the responses.

    Yeah, well, I grew up in DC, and I have friends in high places and high friends in low places. My father was an Army intelligence officer too. I'm not condemning everybody in the IC, but I think torture is wrong in all situations, that unnecessary wars endanger our country, and that the greed of a tiny minority shouldn't shape our policies.

    "How can the IC arm of our government "protect their own secrets" when the world is peopled with those who might at any time choose to raise their right hand and swear an oath to protect from enemies foreign and domestic but then turn over millions of documents to a person like Assange?"

    Some people take the "domestic" part of that oath seriously. And I applaud them when they expose clear violations of our Constitution.

    I'm not seeking Utopia, but I have no doubt we can do better.

    "One man's "whistle-blower" is another man's traitor. :)"

    And one man's patriot is another man's war criminal.
    But only whistleblowers get prosecuted these days.

    I'm glad you agree on privatization. We're paying more for less, and putting our security into the hands of people I wouldn't trust to take care of my goldfish... if I had a goldfish.

    comment 70

    On the Dem control thing, I wasn't just buttering your biscuit, pardon my French. Most people I've debated the issue with get the details wrong.

    My opinion on the minimum wage thing is harsh, but I thought $7.25 per hour in 2009 was a gift to their Big Money donors already.
    If it had been indexed to inflation from way back(which I support too, and which they also could have passed btw) it would be over $20 per hour now, so that is contextually relevant.
    And I suspect that the owners of the Obama's publisher saved a lot more than $60 million from his "failure".

    No worries on the length of your posts.
    I have a program that let's me pause for bathroom breaks.

    comment 72

    I've been pleasantly surprised by most Democrats recently... it took a little while... though sometimes most is only 50.1%.
    Some progress indeed.
    Dems in Congress are still lagging badly though.
    And good recall btw.

    comment 73

    If I ask to borrow your tank, it will probably be Lieberman related. And I'm not a violent guy.

    I fully agree that Kaine was horrible too. "The guy lost a personality contest to Mike Pence".
    (that's a Jimmy Dore quote)

    A

  77. [77] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    75

    Wow.
    You really are incapable of a simple Google search.
    I thought I was just exaggerating for effect.
    It's not an assertion, it's a fact.
    Maybe somebody will take pity on you and help you lift a finger.

    When the blow-up dolls on CNN are better informed than you, don't expect anybody to take your advice.

    I am touched you are concerned for my health, but they say laughter is the best medicine, so you'll be hearing from me often.

    A

  78. [78] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    75

    BTW, believing that I got a DNC debate moderator to buy into my "conspiracy theory" and all but one of the candidates agreed (including Perez) gave me another good laugh.

    I wonder on which "terminally resentful online outlet" he read my comments?

    A

  79. [79] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    69

    Still in denial about the enthusiasm Bernie generated eh?
    It's a process.

    It cracks me up that you blame the people who never vote for Democrats for not voting for Democrats, while absolving 300.000 registered Democrats for voting for Bush in Florida in 2000.
    You're almost as funny as Paula.
    Nowhere near as original though.

    A

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    Despite the tremendous amount of free marketing for the day provided by media outlets, and the major funds devoted to the effort, the day was a bit of a bust. A “day without women” turned out to mostly be like every other day, with a few notable exceptions.
    http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/09/day-without-womens-worst-misfires/

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    It's what happens when elitist moron women in their vagina hats try to tell real working women what's what... :D

    It's especially hilarious because International Women's Day is a socialist/communist holiday that is primarily celebrated in socialist/communist countries..

    How apropos!! :D

  81. [81] 
    michale wrote:

    Hay neil,

    https://youtu.be/HIjEdwoLOus

    This one's for you! :D

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    And for the hysterical anti-Trumpers..

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/amazing-us-debt-decreased-60-billion-since-trump-inauguration/

    The hits just KEEP on coming!!! :D

  83. [83] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthasar (69)-
    "What happened to the 10% of Bernie supporters that didn't vote for Hillary?"
    I can't speak for all of the 10% (where ever that number came from), but I was never going to vote for Hillary even if Bernie had not run.
    Many of us were employing an electoral strategy of voting for Bernie in the primaries
    and clearly explaining that we would not vote for Hillary in the general. The Democratic Party made it's choice knowing full well the consequences of nominating Hillary and how it would affect our votes.
    The Democratic Party employed it's own strategy of as you said expecting that we would be "scared enough of the other party's candidate" to vote for Hillary.
    I do not vote out of fear. I vote for what I want.
    We told you that we would not be falling for that old trick and you did not believe us. Not our fault the Democratic Party could not read the tea leaves properly.

    To all debating this:
    But if people are looking for someone to blame, let's blame Bernie.
    He could have listened to me and made it more about changing the whole system right from the start of his campaign by also making it about Congress and not just his campaign for president. I remember reading some things about how his campaign didn't want to do that because they were afraid that would dilute the donor base and his campaign would not get as much money.
    I think it would have turned out just the opposite.
    There were many during the primaries and the nine months or so leading up to the primaries that said they would like to support Bernie but they didn't think he could win the primary and even if he did win the presidency he would have to work with a hostile Congress (after all, Republicans just LOVE Hillary). This is the same argument used against Nader in 2000 and all third party presidential candidates.
    I think if Bernie had made it also about Congress from the beginning it could have shown that it was becoming a complete movement as it grew which could have flipped some of those in the early primaries that wanted to vote for Bernie but voted for Hillary because they weren't sure about Bernie's chances and wanted to be unified behind Hillary who they thought was inevitably going to be the nominee.
    This may have been enough to flip a few close early states in Bernie's favor and could have built enough momentum for Bernie to win the nomination.
    Then in a general election choice between two anti-establishment candidates (One mostly real one, Bernie and one completely fake one, Trump) Trumps populist anti-establishment deceptive strategy would not have worked.
    Of course, we can also blame Elizabeth Warren. If Warren had not advanced her transformation into the next Hillary by remaining neutral leading up to and during the primaries and had endorsed Bernie by the fall of 2015 this would have given Bernie enough of a boost to win some of the close early primaries and win the nomination.
    A Warren endorsement combined with Bernie making it about the whole system and he would have run away with the nomination and the general.
    And with Bernie as the nominee many of those people that stayed home would have gone to the polls and also voted for Democratic congressional candidates in 2016.
    And even without Bernie as the nominee many of those that stayed home would have a reason to go to the polls in the general election to vote for the small contribution congressional candidates and many of them might have even voted for Hillary as long as they were there.

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [76]

    Thanks for the responses.

    De nada. Thanks for adult conversation.

    Yeah, well, I grew up in DC, and I have friends in high places and high friends in low places.

    Ah, recall! Nice to have all kinds of friends in DC... one of my favorite places. If I grew up in DC, my parents would have had to have me forcibly removed from the Smithsonian, The National Air and Space Museum, etc.

    My father was an Army intelligence officer too. I'm not condemning everybody in the IC, but I think torture is wrong in all situations, that unnecessary wars endanger our country, and that the greed of a tiny minority shouldn't shape our policies.

    Totally agree. :)

    Some people take the "domestic" part of that oath seriously. And I applaud them when they expose clear violations of our Constitution.

    And if that exposure crosses a line beyond exposing constitutional violations... by their own admission... I am gobsmacked why people applaud that. See Dante's Ninth Circle in Hell. :)

    I'm not seeking Utopia, but I have no doubt we can do better.

    So did George Lucas until he founded Lucasfilm and eventually became the very thing he despised.

    And one man's patriot is another man's war criminal.
    But only whistleblowers get prosecuted these days.

    Depends on your definition of "war criminal." :)

    On the Dem control thing, I wasn't just buttering your biscuit, pardon my French. Most people I've debated the issue with get the details wrong.

    LOL... Ce n'est pas le français!

    If it had been indexed to inflation from way back (which I support too, and which they also could have passed btw) it would be over $20 per hour now, so that is contextually relevant.

    Vrai.

    I've been pleasantly surprised by most Democrats recently... it took a little while... though sometimes most is only 50.1%.

    Two steps forward, one step back... but keep moving forward.

    If I ask to borrow your tank, it will probably be Lieberman related. And I'm not a violent guy.

    Gunner... Load sabot... On the way! ;)

  85. [85] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    84

    Good conversation is hard to come by... particularly when it is intentionally disrupted.

    I spent a lot of time at both of those museums. It takes multiple visits just to see everything. But they cater to tourists, meaning they don't feel the need to change the exhibits often enough.
    Well, Air and Space really can't do too much given the size and historical relevance of most of what they have. But the Smithsonian only displays something like 3% of their collection at any time, so it's frustrating when you see the same stuff still on display years later. I haven't been back in a long time though, so maybe that has changed.

    The punk rock music scene in DC was my salvation and the source of my anti-establishment education. Direct exposure to the nitty gritty details and issues the media refused to report on accurately may have had the same impact that Hayden was complaining about in that article blaming Millennials. The internet gave them access to all the stuff I could see pre-internet.
    Then again, as the article pointed out, leakers and whistleblowers aren't a new phenomenon.

    "And if that exposure crosses a line beyond exposing constitutional violations... by their own admission... I am gobsmacked why people applaud that"

    Generally speaking I favor transparency over secrecy, but I'd need an example to weigh in on what you are referring to there.

    "So did George Lucas until he founded Lucasfilm and eventually became the very thing he despised."

    Han fired first!!!
    But to your point, I'm not saying there aren't dangers of falling into that trap, but, for example, I attended roughly 20 anti-Apartheid protests, and while the impact of that activism on the end of Apartheid in SA is debatable, I think the world is a better place.

    Maybe it's just hard to predict, but I don't see the drawbacks in fighting for Single Payer or to end the War on Drugs or the corrupting influence of Big Money on politics.

    Going back in time, I'm not aware of drawbacks from the 40 hour work week, workplace safety regulations, the Clean Air and Water Acts, etc.

    Perhaps I am missing your point?

    "Depends on your definition of "war criminal.""

    Implementing torture as a policy, falsifying intelligence to launch a war of aggression, claiming humanitarian grounds for creating a humanitarian disaster. International law leaves a little wiggle room, but not that much.

    I don't know if it was just recently revealed or if I just learned about it, but apparently President Johnson became aware of Nixon communicating with the South Vietnamese government encouraging them to scuttle a peace agreement to end the war in order to help his election chances.
    And Johnson sat on the information "for the good of the country". Supposedly, he thought the information would undermine American's faith in our leaders and create instability.
    I think it makes them both guilty of war crimes. One for prolonging the war by five years and the other for covering up the collusion to do so.

    "LOL... Ce n'est pas le français"

    It's a colloquialism that has evolved to have a double entendre. Didn't want you to think I was going there.

    "Gunner... Load sabot... On the way! ;)"

    Sounds like you're on the team, or I'm on yours.
    It's probably overkill for such a little weasel. I'm fairly confident that no jury would vote to convict though.

    A

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [85]

    Good conversation is hard to come by... particularly when it is intentionally disrupted.

    Shhhhhhhhhhhh... He insists he's doing a public service here... like he goes on Alex Jones, Breitbart, and Drudge and insists they trash talk his idol and like the way he trash talks Trump on here. {shakes head} *LOL*

    The punk rock music scene in DC was my salvation and the source of my anti-establishment education.

    Sounds intense. Just so you know, you have inadvertently given yourself a nickname... punk! :)

    Generally speaking I favor transparency over secrecy, but I'd need an example to weigh in on what you are referring to there.

    I think I was meaning that those like Manning and Snowden aren't heroes IMO because I feel they crossed a line beyond whistle-blowing. Manning confessed as much, while Snowden admitted he obtained his job at Booz with the specific intent to gain access to information that he did not otherwise have. Although part of what they disclosed was whistle-blowing, part of it definitely was not and could be used to aid an enemy and endanger Americans. Snowden wanted to be famous; he sure got his wish.

    Han fired first!!!

    I know, right... don't believe us, just read the script.

    Han: Yes, I'll bet you have.

    Suddenly the slimy alien disappears in a blinding flash of light. Han pulls his smoking gun from beneath the table as the other patrons look on in bemused amazement. Han gets up and starts out of the cantina, flipping the bartender some coins as he leaves.

    And scene. Han acted alone... probably why he's called "Solo." At least he didn't "stiff" the bartender. :)

    Perhaps I am missing your point?

    Oh, I was probably meaning something along the lines of "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." Government is more than the IC.

    I don't know if it was just recently revealed or if I just learned about it, but apparently President Johnson became aware of Nixon communicating with the South Vietnamese government encouraging them to scuttle a peace agreement to end the war in order to help his election chances.

    Oh, yes. I believe that story broke around 2013/2014. Horrible. No question about it. There's so much history still being discovered with journalists putting notes together with taped telephone conversations. True fact: I was once held in a loving embrace by LBJ. He being much taller than I at the time, he had to lift me off the ground. He kissed me on the cheek, while I cried... like a baby... for my daddy. Should have poked his eyes out when I had the chance. :)

    It's probably overkill for such a little weasel. I'm fairly confident that no jury would vote to convict though.

    I know that's right... particularly a jury of his peers!

    Later... punk. :)

  87. [87] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    86

    Nickname, compliment, and fact.
    I live it.

    I think your moniker is perfect.

    "I think I was meaning that those like Manning and Snowden aren't heroes IMO"

    You may be, or may have been privy to information that hasn't been publicly disclosed, but there were a lot of accusations about both of those guys, er, guy and gal, along the lines of endangering Americans.
    When pressed, and few of them were pressed, none of them were able to back up their claims.

    While plausible in theory, the stink seems to have been for deterrence and public opinion purposes... and to distract from the very real criminality that was exposed.

    Snowden in particular turned over the documents to journalists, and left it to them to determine what was released in the name of the public interest.

    Manning's release was more historical in nature rather than about ongoing programs.

    I definitely see room for reasonable people to disagree though, so it's not like it's enough to keep me from turning down a ride in your tank if you offered one.

    I still have an original version of the trilogy on VHS... before the politically correct revisionism.
    Actually, politically correct isn't even accurate in my opinion. Greedo deserved it.

    Good story about Johnson.
    I think you made a sufficient and perfectly valid statement with your crying.
    He has a few other black marks on his record, so the Nixon bit is hardly surprising.

    I think old threads close after two weeks here.
    We may have to move the conversation soon.

    A

  88. [88] 
    altohone wrote:

    oops

    edit to 87

    "I definitely see room for reasonable people to disagree though, so it's not like it's enough to keep me from turning down a ride in your tank if you offered one."

    That should read... "keep me from accepting a ride".

    Double negative brain fart.
    What's a punk to do?

    A

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [87]

    Nickname, compliment, and fact.
    I live it.

    That absolutely was meant as a compliment; just letting you know it was. "Punk" was meant as a compliment! :)

    I definitely see room for reasonable people to disagree though, so it's not like it's enough to keep me from turning down a ride in your tank if you offered one.

    LOL. I knew what you meant. I think my "tank" is going to end up being a Jeep Wrangler... like you said, better gas mileage.

    I will say this about Manning, I think his sentencing was harsh. However, they probably wanted to make an example out of him because he took an oath and then knowingly broke that oath with little regard to the documents he leaked. He wanted to please his chat room pals at WikiLeaks, and sent documents to his "friends," in some instances without even knowing what the documents contained. It's not whistle-blowing IMO to just hand over documents indiscriminately for publishing... so agree to disagree on Manning and Snowden. I just think some of their documents were whistle-blowing, but a whole lot of them weren't. My mother disagrees, my sister disagrees... they saw a movie. Hey... that's my problem; I should have watched the movie. :)

    Actually, politically correct isn't even accurate in my opinion. Greedo deserved it.

    The original script says it all; he was a "slimy alien." :)

    Good story about Johnson.
    I think you made a sufficient and perfectly valid statement with your crying.

    One of my father's (RIP) favorite stories... how his baby wanted nothing to do with LBJ and cried for daddy. Still, I should have poked him in the eye with my little baby finger... missed opportunity. ;)

    I think old threads close after two weeks here.
    We may have to move the conversation soon.

    I'll find you, Punk. I seriously do mean that as a compliment. :)

Comments for this article are closed.