i don't think you're being fair. once in a while someone wanders in from the outside and takes don's comments at face value. look at caddy's initial responses to don from a year ago, and look at his responses now. then perhaps you'll understand why some people find it necessary to engage from time to time.

Actually, I was just trying to be funny. Like the commercial. Why does that always get so lost in translation around here??

Anyway, I may have been the first to take Don's idea at face value back when it was called something else so I don't really have to backtrack the comments on this. It didn't take too long, though, to figure out that I was about to fall into a giant-sized rabbit hole. Ahem

I just find the back and forth blather on this mind-numbing so I just ignore it.

Did you check out that coke zero commercial with the eyeball, tongue and brain? Heh. It's pretty apropos to a lot of what goes on around here. :)

Look at mtn caddy responses from a year ago and now.

At first he thought he could make rational arguments to show I was wrong about One Demand. When he found out he couldn't he switched to the dodges and trolling.

WRONG! at first he thought OD was a pretty good idea and couldn't understand why the rest of us seemed unmoved. just think about that for a second - you had someone strongly aligned with your values and absolutely primed to be on your side and join you.

then a few weeks later, after reading other people's criticisms and your responses to them, caddy came up with a few ideas he thought might help make you more successful. that was when you convinced him.

JL

Lying right there. I told you about your site being hacked and what it is being used for when it happened. I was quite serious that I agree:

The evidence is in the comments since 2015.

Ah, no. When he figured out you can not handle rational arguments he started treating you like the troll you are...

i don't think you're being fair. once in a while someone wanders in from the outside and takes don's comments at face value. look at caddy's initial responses to don from a year ago, and look at his responses now. then perhaps you'll understand why some people find it necessary to engage from time to time.

yes the whole process is distasteful, and for that i suggest pie.

JL

https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-rogers-rogers_001&ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-rogers_001&hspart=rogers&p=Coke+Zero%2C+commercials#id=2&vid=5c2a4b60635d857c953913acd7bed502&action=click

Heh. It's my all-time favourite TV commercial. :-)

Too many bong hit robbing your memory or have you moved on to straight out lying Trump style?

The evidence is in the comments since 2015.

Yes it is...

Including you?

I do not know where you get information my site has been hacked unless you hacked it yourself.

Your site was down until I told you about it. Twice. Once it was being used for online poker scams. Bad enough that you were delisted from search engines and banned from security software for longer. Incompetence no matter how you slice it...

Not accurate. I have addressed every concern raised while other commenters have only provided dodges and avoided the issues raised.

Total and complete bullshit. From being told my questions are "bullshit" to occasionally just tossing perfectly normal questions at you to watch you squirm, you have proven unable to answer anything critical of OD.

But you ignore that when I comment at commondreams I always have more people that agree with me than those that don't by a wide margin.

Ignore? I addressed it. Remember preaching to the choir? I just didn't answer how you wanted...

You can't convince me I am wrong by being slick. You can only do that by actually addressing what One Demand is and and making rational arguments that prove me/it wrong.

Been there done that. As have many here. You just can't take criticism...

of course you can.

https://www.seriouseats.com/images/2016/05/20160503-spicy-spring-pizza-primary-1500x1125.jpg

QED

Well, except we all agree with him...

That was/is a shameful and disgraceful blemish on CW's history.

Or glorious as the case may be...

The facts concerning it are there for all to see in the comments that led to it and any objective observer would agree with me and not CW.

Yet most of the objective observer's here agree with CW. Interesting that...

The rest is just you again repeating your same false statements about me and/or One Demand as if just because you say it it is true when it is not.

Really? How many supporters do you have compared with five years ago? I say fewer. How many times has your site been hacked? At least two. How many candidates are listed on your site that match your small donation litmus test? Zero. None of these are false statements. Shall I continue with more statements I toss at you that are demonstrably true?

Considering you have never got above rounding errors of support, I think your 10% is deep in wet dream fantasy territory.

Cowards.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Mirror.

vote for pie!

JL

Troll is not a word that applies to me no matter how nuanced the definition.

I personally think you are a spammer which is much worse than troll but CW has labeled you troll so troll you are...

You don't get to label questions "legitimate" nor answers "rational". Especially when only the softballs get answered as legitimate and all answers from you, no matter how dodgy are labeled rational.

But at least you agree with me that people should answer questions.

You should try it some time. The hard ones, not the softballs...

So why do you let CW get away with never answering when I question his position of advocating for the big money Deathocrats and point out how One Demand can improve our political process?

Because we agree with him that you are a troll (or worse). Plus your idea is a stuck-in-stone politically non-starter run by a lazy incompetent. It has no chance of success because you go out of your way to ensure it has no chance of success.

If my answers were the word that you and everyone else can use but I can't then you would make a rational argument that proves it rather than use dodges to avoid addressing my answers.

You spew this dodge over and over but years ago when I took you somewhat seriously all questions I asked that went beyond dripping praise were called bullshit. I have seen the same behavior from anyone else asking even slightly probing questions. We are not fooled.

But in the end we keep criticizing and will continue to keep criticizing OD to a few ends: You just go away (ideal outcome). In case some random person reads your comments, we like to add a few grains of salt or possibly pounds depending on the quality or lack there of your post. And I think there is a general attempt to push you into bannable behavior in case it's a rare occasion that CW actually reads the comments...

Enjoy a Joyride with Roxette!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCorJG9mubk

This special cover is for you ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXkHXjYzit8

Black Hole Sun Acoustic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt_9h4i0Lw8

Black Hole Sun Acoustic - Chris Cornell

My favourite of his was You Know My Name, theme song from my favourite Bond film, Casino Royale with Daneil Craig ...

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Whgn_iE5uc

How the heck are you?!

Nice Rob Thomas tunes - been a Matchbox 20 and Rob Thomas fan since Bent was released ... It remains my favourite Rob Thomas tune, along with Smooth ...

Bent,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=969RAKkYESU

Enjoy their beautiful Venusian Lights,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E70USaSahSw&list=RDGMEMJQXQAmqrnmK1SEjY_rKBGA&start_radio=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYV6KZpnEak

Wheel In The Sky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqM_U8lUqMQ

Here they are doing Wave Babies ... love the sound of this tune ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU2NZLMFWxo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXnTbmPxv5g

This is really making me ache for the time when we can leave the pandemic behind and get back to live music!

First up, Toque with another excellent cover,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPZ7-U7TeRM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTZ1A8CY5B4

Take Me To The Kaptin, featuring the great Ron Tabak on soaring vocals ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjb75geCcMI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di3rPBH4Ep0

Hey, it's Canada-USA night, tonight!

United We Rock!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFyE87ZsZeA&list=OLAK5uy_l9CnJqx6WRCXmxInvifZXevkkx-Dybq8Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwXsh7bYN_c

It's Parallel 49 again, this time covering my absolute most favourite Bryan Adams tune, Lonely Nights, and again featuring the soaring vocals of Rod Raslack ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGZJQdoGq1I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx8XeUVSXcg&list=OLAK5uy_m5M2YG83k52699IQ5vOM-j55Jauepgbkc&index=1

Anyway, here is the original PRiSM tune featuring the wonderful vocals of the late Ron Tabak - it's See Forever Eyes, off of the 1978 See Forever Eyes album,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrmFLfnWp4w

Elizabeth Miller wrote:

Okay, kids ... it's that time again and not a minute too soon, I can see.

Aw, c'mon Mommy. Me and OD-Boi were just roughhousing a little bit!

It's A Long Way To The Top (Live on TV)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nULs4JW3tPI

Aren't you kicking yourself now that you know how easy it turned out to be?

*sarcasm off*

Alrighty, here's a cover of Black Hole Sun, this by : Eydie Gormé & Steve Lawrence. The original was written and performed by Soundgarden.

Things You Said

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im8yO-CwqFE

I'll play the original and then the cover.

First up, it's Canadian rock band Sheriff's When I'm With You featuring the exquisite lead vocals of Toronto's own Fred Curci - he is about 18 here in a rare live version,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnEkz5k0vyk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHXWE17Stik

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygd5T_jimSk

It's the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party!

Let's get it on ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2vHbXI2p4k

Your attempt is not to give me an opportunity to respond which I already did it is to make me reply again and then ignore it as you have done before. It deserves no respect, only contempt.

I used small words because English isn't your first language:

If you had shot them [OD's fatal flaws] down before than it should be no problem to shoot them down again, in a jiffy.

When you say I can't be bothered to defend OD you're saying I can't defend OD.

Put up or shut up.

No one here buys your fantasy, whatsoever. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because when people point out OD's problems you fail to convince? Or completely dodge it like today? What do you not "get" about the concepts of "responding"* and "persuading?"*

*Dammit! Sorry, I promised little words for our OD-Boi.

You are not toxic but painfully repetitive in your generally unwanted solicitation. The reality for both Michale and you is "troll" as a term does not have enough nuance.

What is evidenced in this thread that makes you reach the conclusion that I am not adept at making my case for One Demand?

Part of advocating for a cause is to answer the same questions over and over. That's why the answers become more slick over time the longer someone advocates.

Plus, your answers are bullshit.

Many here do remember him through rose tinted glasses of what he was rather than what he became...

I resemble that remark. Besides, it isn't possible to view Michale through rose-coloured glasses. Heh.

Stormy Daniels is back in the news because of her affair with Trump.

She's being indicted for Inciting an Inch Erection

The guy was NOT any more interested in persuasion/the exchange of ideas/etc. than is OD-Boi. He struck me as someone who got his jollies by pissing people off...

What a pathetic way to go through life.
*smh*

Sure, the guy was way more intelligent than OD-Boi. And I liked all of the movie and television references.

But he was way the hell too vicious -- pushing pushing pushing buttons until he got someone to pay attention to his sorry as.

And the acres of cut-and-paste boldified Right-wing blather was tough on my eyes.

Fuck him. The quality of this Comments section was vastly improved once he slithered back under his rock. I DO wonder, though, if the fool participated in the Capitol Insurrection.

So who are you referring to?

He was a much higher quality troll than our current dollar store version...

Er, "no rules" except no posting "Black Betty."

Guys & Gals...it's not going to be easy for me. But I view this as a personal growth opportunity, so I'll do my very best!

Just call me The Man of Steel.

italyrusty,

Although I, too, think that you've been a tad harsh on Herr Weigant,

1- FTP is likewise something I always look forward to. Even if it was the only column that he posted each week I'd still have a mancrush on his commentary.

2- I, too, am sometimes underwhelmed with his work product. The way I see it, that unavoidable occurrence simply makes his outstanding stuff that much more enjoyable. It's kind of like sports, Victory would be joyless without sometimes losing. You can't have one without the other.

3- You wrote,

I wouldn't waste my time commenting if I didn't care deeply. While my comments surely have more than their fair share of snark, I also hope that Chris finds them constructive.

I love this statement and I'm 100% on board with it! If Weigantia didn't give a bleep then no one would put in the kind of effort demonstrated here in the Peanut Gallery, yea verily.

4- Dude, why not write your own Talking Points? This is the right forum for the exchange of ideas (whoops --unless you're Don Harris) and as you know [57] I'm not shy about jumping on the Soapbox myself -- woot!

5- Unlike, say, Political Correctness (there I go again!) I don't think it's possible to overdo the snark. So, Mazeltov, Baby. Have at it!

I'm (not) sorry I didn't reply on your schedule, for I have a life.

I went through the trouble to collect the arguments against OD and presented them for you to address, all in one place. If you had shot them down before than it should be no problem to shoot them down again, in a jiffy.

Instead of taking this opportunity to reply (and to respect my attempt to give you the time of day) you tell me to go back through hundreds of comments to make your case for you!

What.

A.

Dodge.

When you say I can't be bothered to defend OD you're saying I can't defend OD.

Put up or shut up.

I have no idea how popular (or not) is Cuomo among the political class. In your opinion, is there an element of revenge, as I've read suggestions of?

revenge is really the wrong word. andrew cuomo has been a corrupt, amoral, misogynistic hypocrite bully for his entire political life (although highly competent - which is just about the only point of contrast distinguishing him from donald trump). most have not been burned personally to the extent that they'd want revenge per se, but i'd wager the rest of the new york political class kind-of feel he's had some sort of comeuppance due for quite awhile.

An investigation of the nursing home reclassifications (reminder, the total number of deaths was not underreported, according to the accusations) by your wonderful AG Letitia James. But I hope that cooler heads will prevail and your legislature awaits the results.

no, the total number of covid deaths statewide was not doctored. however, the statistics attributing those deaths to hospitals and nursing homes were falsely distributed to hide the number who died as a direct result of the governor's decision to force nursing homes to admit covid patients from the hospitals. then, the governor personally created immunity provisions to insulate nursing home owners from liability for their failure to prevent those covid patients from dying, or from infecting and causing the deaths of other residents. for specifics as to how that happened, see below:

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-releases-report-nursing-homes-response-covid-19

JL

A Gal Pal of mine sent me a movie trailer from an anti-abortion movie that's called "Unplanned," and I wrote back:

Okay, I watched the trailer a couple of times & here's what I think:

I appreciate that you reached out to me so we can consider this issue together. It's sometimes not easy to talk about politics and I value this opportunity to do so with someone that I like & respect. AND I DO look forward to your reply!

All of your folksy, repetitious sloganeering doesn't change the fact that political spending closely approximates a Nash Equilibrium Game.

https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/consider-following-simultaneous-move-campaign-game-represents-payoffs-different-advertisin-q60742416

In nearly all cases, outspending your challenger is the optimal strategy. If you don't win, you can't legislate. Serious candidates get this. Their campaign mangers can work the odds with reasonable accuracy. If you want to limit campaign contributions, you are going to have win some elections within the existing money driven system. In current practice, campaign spending is somewhat self limiting...it's the Limu Emu Rule...only spend what you need.

Speaking of things that are stuck places, what happened to your web site????

Did I ask? Great! I know.

1) My opinion of legal weed isn't important to anyone.
2) Apology accepted
3) As I hope I've communicated more than once, the FTP column is a highlight of my week, especially since 9 March 2020. I wouldn't waste my time commenting if I didn't care deeply. While my comments surely have more than their fair share of snark, I also hope that Chris finds them constructive.

Yippie Yi Yo Tieyay!

I am really starting to believe that Joseph R. Biden is EXACTLY THE MAN FOR THIS MOMENT.

you're about fifteen months over par on that epiphany, but better late than never.

as an old buddy of mine on this board used to say:

welcome to the party, pal!
~die hard

JL

swiftus: Hey, what country are you from?
josephus: Ethiopia.
swiftus: What part?
josephus: Hunn'et twenty fifth street.

I think "freeform" is a great suggestion, Elizabeth! Looking forward to some fuuunnnn!

Don Harris wrote:

If you can dig up those quotes you can dig up my answers and answer them or expose yourself as a troll.

This is my "getting back to you."

Since you've "already addressed these concerns" [28][29][30] then you should be able to answer them right now, in a jiffy!

Telling me to go look up your shit translates to Nope, I don't have a reply. I cannot address these concerns.

I trust we won't be hearing from you again this weekend. But don't worry, I saved em for the next time you troll Weigantia and I'm going to keep jamming em down your throat until you man up and "answer zee question, Alt Mann." Or disappear.

Brah-brack-brack-brack-brack-brack!

But, there is usually no response on their facebook page so if you have time and wanna have some fun, check it out!

https://www.facebook.com/KFUN995/

If not, let's make it a free-for-all and settle in on a theme for next week???

Sorry about my [23] ... must have been in some kind of mood . :-)

Always like reading your stuff - just lay off Chris, okay!? Heh.

Good point. Like the "Socialism" label it kind of disserves what is fundamentally the notion of showing people respect.

Such people might say, to explain the difference, "Well of course I would never say that. That's not about being PC, that's just about not being rude - or racist."

Political correctness, in other words, is just plain good manners, only a little bit ahead of its time.

No Don Harris?

C'mon guy. This is the last time I'm going to waste time on your silly One Demand fantasy.

Cat got your tongue?

What a surprise.

isn't "runs" a bit strong?

Ya, the kind that runs windows...

C. R. Stucki wrote:

Caddy [26] Is there any OTHER kind of PC?

I'm tempted to say, "No, there isn't," but for the fact that:

American heterosexual cis-white men* have dominated America culturally and economically from Day 1. Back before the 1960s that meant:

1- Blacks, asians, hispanics in their place.

2- Women barefoot and pregnant -- not competing with men in the workplace.

3- Likewise Jews, Irish Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists in their places.

4- Gays etc in the closet.

PC is the Liberal response to this. It's meant to give respect to all these other Americans. But IMO it's gotten way the bleep out of hand. Just like forced school busing, it's an overreach, ya dig?

*I do NOT agree that we should capitalize "black" "hispanic" etc groups. That's overreaching.

Department
of
One
Demand
Smackdown

Bleyd once wrote:

I'm seeing a pretty monumental flaw in your OD plan. You essentially seem to require a majority of the citizens to simultaneously go on strike against non-OD candidates in favor of a single OD-friendly candidate in order for it to work. That's simply unrealistic.

First you'd have to find a candidate who agreed to OD's principles and who is popular enough to get the financial support of such a huge segment of the population that they could out-raise the major party candidates. That alone is simply not possible to do all in one go. No candidate of sufficient popularity would willing risk handicapping themselves so monumentally with the rules as they stand.

Even if you could find such a candidate though, how are you expecting to get so many small donors that they could keep up with the current fund raising system? How are you going to convince them that their donations wouldn't be in vain, that the candidate they're supporting would have a realistic chance of beating someone entrenched in the current system? Most people aren't willing to throw money at causes they don't believe have a chance.

So I ask you, what is the workable plan of action you are proposing? Ideals and concepts are great, but unless you have a way to put them into practice, they won't get you far.

Let's add Kicks two cents:

...and after all these years, you still haven't answered a boatload of questions along the same lines.

A strong and competent leader would not take big money to run their campaign. ~ Don Harris

Prove it. Your equating of "big money" with evildoers is tedium ad nauseam and something for which you've yet to provide any proof despite multiple requests to do so.

You've claim repeatedly that those who would accept more than your mandate aren't worthy, strong, competent, etc. Prove it. I could set my own arbitrary purity test and claim that those candidates who don't say 25 "Hail Mary's" a day aren't "strong and competent" leaders because I said so. I mean, if they're not willing to hit their knees and do the praying, they cannot possibly be worthy to lead. It sounds stupid because it is. Your standard operational statements sound likewise.

And...my one cent:

A- Don, we agree that BigMoney has corrupted our government.

B- It follows that money is important to winning elections, right?

Here are my questions:

1- What about the ocean of PAC money out there? Corporate money, Citizens United "dark" money and (possibly/likely in Trump's case) foreign money?

2- What about the partisan divide? Whether it's a Dem or a Repug that adopts OD, s/he will have a floor of only 45% as voters of the other party will reject that candidate out of hand, period.

Okay, Dude. Now's your chance to address the above myriad One Demand shortcomings. Have at it!

Ahhhh...

Nothing like a good smackdown of Don Harris to get my day rolling!

That, and The All American Breakfast:

Coffee, donuts and a cigarette -- woot!

It's just never good enough for you, is it? Why don't you go ahead and try to convince us that it didn't matter that Biden beat Trump last year, and that it doesn't matter that the Democrats now control Congress. All because no one is willing to bring a knife to a gunfight by self limiting their fundraising to satisfy your One Demand fantasy.

You ought to take your own tiresome closing slogan as seriously as you want us to:

Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.¹
Get Real.²
Get Credible.³

¹ No one is buying what you're selling, hello? And for the record 80 million Americans rose up to fire Trump.

² If OD was a viable campaigning strategy someone would have employed it by now. What do you not "get" about that?

³ Repeatedly claiming that there's no difference between the Dems and Repugs just kills your credibility. For just one example, I'm sure 500,000 dead Americans would disagree with you. You know, if they weren't dead. And telling people on your OD website that you are essentially a zero is, to put it kindly, less than inspiring.

CONCLUSION:

You're trying to sell a shitty product and you don't have the first clue as to how to sell anything. You are therefore simply engaging in effing useless trolling.

italyrusty wrote,

So I propose a new term for the Weiga[s]phere, "Franken-ized": to be accused, tried, and convicted by one's fellow Democrats based on sensational media reporting.

Yeah I remember when Al Franken got thrown under the Democratic Righteousness Bus. All for, what, some jokes in perhaps poor taste and cupping his hands in front of but not actually touching a sleeping women's breasts.

IMO this was an overreaction. I'm down with the #MeToo, er, movement but I bleeping HATE what I consider excessive #Political Correctness.

This fiasco trashed a good Progressive Senator's carrer -- spank you very much, Senator Gillibrand!

*yeesh*

[12] you sort-of answered your own question. CW dedicated most of the body of the post to the positives of the democratic legislation, so by the time he got to 'talking points' all that was left to discuss was republicans' continued obeisance to donald trump and failure to do anything worthwhile.

that said, it probably would be a good idea to pare down the list of positives into talking point format.

[13-15] the senate is a tougher nut to crack, and always has been. that doesn't mean accomplishments in the house don't count, but the level of difficulty is lower so they don't count for quite as much. these are very important issues to tackle, so passing house legislation is a good first step.

[16-19] these confirmations are all great. the successful nominees may yet turn out to be impressive if any of them actually does something noteworthy in their position. i'd say it's likely that at some point at least one of them does.

[20-21] being from new york i think i can safely say you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about on this front. no matter what political party he's from, andrew cuomo has always been a special kind of awful, and nothing synema or golden voted on amounts to a fart in the wind next to his ongoing misdeeds. as mentioned in the article, perhaps coming after him over six sexual misconduct allegations is focusing on the wrong issue, but this is no 'franken' situation. not given all the nursing home patients he needlessly exposed to covid, then covered up by fudging the numbers, then used his influence to try to insulate his political allies from consequences, all while grandstanding against trump on national television over essentially the same issue.

[22] yeah that's kinda true. the legalization crusade is given a substantial forum here.

we are armed with mighty joint!
-gregory hines, history of the world part I

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

These rants are becoming rather, well, predictable.

And, it's time to embrace weed!

Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies passed landmark legislation Thursday morning, ahead of a April 30 deadline set by the country's Supreme Court to legalize recreational sales. The Senate is expected to back the bill in the coming days. '
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/11/mexico-marijuana-legalization-biden-pressure-443800

It's a replay of Sen. Al Franken's treatment, at the hands of Sen. Gillibrand most famously. So I propose a new term for the Weigaphere, "Franken-ized": to be accused, tried, and convicted by one's fellow Democrats based on sensational media reporting. Thus, "Gov Cuomo is being Franken-ized."

Have I already mentioned that Biden was also accused of sexual harassment in March 2020? Where would we be today if he had been Franken-ized and withdrawn from the race?