Pax1 4 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
I said "It looks as if you are trying to convince people you are honest by lying about it!"
That is the truth. It does look that way. What is wrong with telling the truth? Or offering an opinion? You want me blocked from this forum because I express an opinion you don't like? Or because I tell the truth and you object to people reading it?
You say something about "demeaning personal attacks"... but I didn't write anything that wasn't true or unsubstantiated. You might have a point if I made something up or lied about something ... like maybe if I claimed to be a "registered Republican" when it isn't true. If you wrote you were the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, would I be making a "demeaning personal attack" if I refuted your claim and demonstrated why it wasn't true? Or if you stated you were my son and I denied it and showed proof to back up my statement? Of course not... and what you are objecting to is the same thing. You made an outrageous claim and I demonstrated why it was untrue. And then you cried about it and suggested I be denied the right to express myself on this forum.
Sounds a lot like you are a fascist -- but you will probably whine and cry if I write that so maybe I'd better not. No, on second thought. I will leave it. It is true.
Fascism: "...having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism,"
Seems to fit, doesn't it?
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/18/1620529/conservatives-like-sen-kyl-seem.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1K37u4cMh
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
It's time for an AWARD
The Award of Horse's Ass of the Day goes to "radec"
A despondent woman tries to commit suicide, thus poisons
an in-utero fetus.
radec wants to punish the woman and
bemoan the life that never was.
How about a heaping helping of horseshit to go with that horse's ass
A case supporting abortion
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/18/1620529/conservatives-like-sen-kyl-seem.html#ixzz1JzcER1PF
Enough mental illness and emotional challenges that she tries to kill herself, but the Reich Wing Fascists want to make sure that they charge her with a crime because she was also sick enough to try to take the child's life. I'm sure they really want to get their hands on the woman in New York who drove into the river. Sorry fascists....she's dead.
Now, as Paul Harvey would say.....the REST of the story:
Shaui’s downward spiral began in late December, when her boyfriend blindsided her. It turned out the man who had fathered her baby and promised to marry her, and with whom she’d recently opened a restaurant, wasn’t going to follow through on any of his promises. He was married to someone else—not divorced, as he’d told Shuai—with two children. And perhaps lacking vision or a spine, he decided he didn’t want to give up his estranged family to start a new one. He left Shuai, sobbing on her knees, alone in a parking lot.
Interesting how Buttbutter left out these details, huh? Oh...and that which they call "infant" was not yet born when the lady attempted the suicide.
When in doubt, make something up.
Sarah gets a "Madison Cheer"
Interestingly, as the photo below shows, the rally was organized by the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, with Palin and other speakers at a podium with a sign proclaiming "I am AFP."
Americans for Prosperity is, of course, a Koch brothers financed group. The Koch name has popped up quite a bit in the Wisconsin protests -- most notably after Walker's 20-minute phone call in late February with blogger Ian Murphy, who was posing as "David Koch". During that call, Walker discussed his ideas for tricking the Democrats into coming back by pretending to negotiate, his ambition to bust the public employee unions.
Monday, April 18, 2011
More Hypocritical Moderation
Yesterday, Yvonne Conway of Olympia had a LTE published in which she advocated violence against our elected officials. Her suggestion: "Those elected officials deserve to be horsewhipped, voted out of office with no pay, pension or health care." (emphasis mine)
I responded with a comment critical of the Olympian's decision to publish a letter that advocated such violence. The result? Yvonne's letter stayed; my comment was deleted.
Later, on a different story, Tammy McGee admonished us by saying,"Please get the comments back on the subject of the article, or I will be forced to close this thread. ~Thank you~" The comments continued to deteriorate, yet nothing was done. Interestingly, Boltcutters then made what just may be the only intelligent comment I've ever heard it utter: "You can't possibly think that there's any rhyme or reason with regard to the moderation of these forums can you???????????????????????"
Go figure.
I responded with a comment critical of the Olympian's decision to publish a letter that advocated such violence. The result? Yvonne's letter stayed; my comment was deleted.
Later, on a different story, Tammy McGee admonished us by saying,"Please get the comments back on the subject of the article, or I will be forced to close this thread. ~Thank you~" The comments continued to deteriorate, yet nothing was done. Interestingly, Boltcutters then made what just may be the only intelligent comment I've ever heard it utter: "You can't possibly think that there's any rhyme or reason with regard to the moderation of these forums can you???????????????????????"
Go figure.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The Budget deficit as seen by blind politicians
..............................
Cartoon by Daryl Cagle
Undies in a knot????
boltcutters:
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/16/1618334/cut-more-tea-party-activists-say.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1JoDlxzxa
Gee, Sandy, at least they continue to let you try to post. You've had your blog closed for a few years, all the time bullshitting that you encourage open discussion.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Pageviews continued....
We have already exceeded yesterday's total and the count for a day doesn't stop until 4pm...
Someone is really fixated on ThurstonBlog......or.....
Maybe we need to create an award to present to ourselves.
Someone is really fixated on ThurstonBlog......or.....
Maybe we need to create an award to present to ourselves.
Friday, April 15, 2011
WOW.....what did we do?????
Pageviews have skyrocketed over the past two days.
Did I miss something important?
Did I miss something important?
"Not strictly directed at Obama"??? Yeah, sure!
...........................
Arizona may require U.S. birth proof for candidates
By David Schwartz, Reuters
A bill that makes Arizona the first in the nation to require presidential candidates prove U.S. citizenship has cleared the state Legislature.
The bill, which would put into law what has been a rallying point for those doubting that President Barack Obama was born in the U.S., does allow candidates to file other documents to prove their citizenship.
State House members late Thursday sent to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer the so-called "birther bill," a measure that requires a candidate for the nation's highest office present a "long-form birth certificate" to qualify.
"This bill is about the integrity of our elections and the integrity of people who run, and making sure that they properly qualify," said Rep. Carl Seel, a sponsor of the measure told Republican legislators in caucus Thursday. He said it was not strictly directed at Obama.
[snipped]
Arizona's birther bill has attracted nationwide notice in recent weeks, with critics saying the bill represents another black mark on the desert state's tarnished image.
[snipped]
Arizona Democrats have labeled the bill unconstitutional and predict it will be challenged in court if signed into law by the governor.
...........................
Arizona may require U.S. birth proof for candidates
By David Schwartz, Reuters
A bill that makes Arizona the first in the nation to require presidential candidates prove U.S. citizenship has cleared the state Legislature.
The bill, which would put into law what has been a rallying point for those doubting that President Barack Obama was born in the U.S., does allow candidates to file other documents to prove their citizenship.
State House members late Thursday sent to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer the so-called "birther bill," a measure that requires a candidate for the nation's highest office present a "long-form birth certificate" to qualify.
"This bill is about the integrity of our elections and the integrity of people who run, and making sure that they properly qualify," said Rep. Carl Seel, a sponsor of the measure told Republican legislators in caucus Thursday. He said it was not strictly directed at Obama.
[snipped]
Arizona's birther bill has attracted nationwide notice in recent weeks, with critics saying the bill represents another black mark on the desert state's tarnished image.
[snipped]
Arizona Democrats have labeled the bill unconstitutional and predict it will be challenged in court if signed into law by the governor.
...........................
Sometimes some good moderation
When the folks at the Olympian are on top of it, kudos are in order. This morning Sage 1 commented on the Jeff Kingsbury leaving Capitol Playhouse.
This of course set off our favorite OCD stalker radec, who launched a personal attack on Sage based on a comment from another thread from the previous day, the text of which is to drearily familiar to cite. The She Beast jumped on her sock's bandwagon and within an hour there were close to a dozen off topic back on forth posts between the darling fascists and Uncomfortable Truth . At this point the moderator decided to take down most of the off topic comments. The She Beast threw her usual temper tantrum and stormed off.
boltcutters
Duh..............
Boltcutters: Yea, except no one has a problem with the protesting.
It's when the law gets broken or when it intrudes on the rights of others that civilized people take issue
It's when the law gets broken or when it intrudes on the rights of others that civilized people take issue
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/14/1615847/protests-drive-up-ot-costs.html#storylink=omni_popular#ixzz1JbMOSUUu
You mean like when TEA Baggers close down Town Hall Meetings or phone in harassing messages to the Governor and a Senator?
Damn, they forget so easily.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Guess Who is belching more stupid comments?
Bravo to spinnakr for great rebuttals!
.....................................
boltcutters
Most of the time they're forced to pay for research and development etc for all the stuff the government makes them responsible for.
in reply to UncomfortableTruth
..............
UncomfortableTruth
I was asking about thier profits, not the the cost of thier R&D divison
in reply to boltcutters
..............
boltcutters
ETC.
in reply to UncomfortableTruth
..............
spinnakr
What a clever response! We are so lucky to have you around!
in reply to boltcutters
..............
boltcutters
yea. I really should just let you put words in my mouth and attribute to me things I don't say.
But too bad.
in reply to spinnakr
..............
spinnakr
Your own words are so awesomely amazing, why would anyone want to change them? I mean, you can't add to perfection, can you?
in reply to boltcutters
..............
spinnakr
And today you substitute union members for Jews; Muslims for Jews; Mexicans for Jews; gays for Jews ... and you hope all your problems will go away.
in reply to Rock_the_Boat
..............
boltcutters
Massive fail.
in reply to spinnakr
..............
spinnakr
Yes, it will.
in reply to boltcutters
..............
HURPDURP
Payroll tax, Medicare & Social Security, Sales Tax, Property Tax are all paid by those "50%". But..but..but.. Those don't count!
How very patriotic to despise half of your countrymen.
in reply to Rock_the_Boat
..............
boltcutters
Wow. There's a lot of hate in a person who sees despise where it's not.
Anywho, if everyone was contributing equally to the benefits that they receive we wouldn't be in this mess. So just stop it.
in reply to HURPDURP
..............
HURPDURP
No, YOU stop it! I'm telling Mom!
in reply to boltcutters
..............
spinnakr
The President has asked us to "share the burden." To you, apparently, living in poverty is not enough of a burden for our poorest citizens. You want them to "share" more of it so that the wealthy can continue to avoid their share. Nice.
in reply to Rock_the_Boat
..............
boltcutters
Everyone should contribute equally.
in reply to spinnakr
..............
UncomfortableTruth
Yup, no violent rhetoric here.
..............
boltcutters
Well, Lenin was a violent man.
in reply to UncomfortableTruth
..............
boltcutters
Eliminating "non-profits" would go a looooooong way in providing much needed tax revenue.
..............
sloboda
The Red Cross is a non-profit. Should they be Taxed???
..............
boltcutters
Yes.
in reply to sloboda
..............
HURPDURP
I can't believe you agree with me!
Thousands of so-called "non-profits" own enormous wealth & property tax free and contribute nothing of value to this country. They are controlled mostly by men in dresses or other strange costume, many of whom have been implicated in despicable crimes such as pedophilia and whose followers have committed acts of terrorism such as murdering physicians.
It's about time they pay up!
..............
troll_whacker
HurpDurp, you are rockin' my world!
in reply to HURPDURP
..............
boltcutters
Took all your deductions eh.
..............
troll_whacker
how can corporations get more of an incentive than not paying any taxes?
in reply to sloboda
..............
boltcutters
What corporations are not paying taxes?
in reply to troll_whacker
..............
sloboda
Facts are facts. Just because you do not like the results does not mean they are not true. Cutting Marginal and Capital gains taxes always increases revenue.
..............
spinnakr
Well then, let's cut 'em to zero -- then we'll really be rollin' in the dough!
in reply to sloboda
..............
boltcutters
No. Just treat all people equally.
in reply to spinnakr
..............
boltcutters
Yea. And there's even proof of it.
..............
glenn
How about - shrink the stupid overbloated government and everyone will have money?
..............
spinnakr
Funny, Glenn, I don't remember you complaining when Dubya accomplished his massive government increases.
in reply to glenn
..............
.....................................
boltcutters
Most of the time they're forced to pay for research and development etc for all the stuff the government makes them responsible for.
in reply to UncomfortableTruth
..............
UncomfortableTruth
I was asking about thier profits, not the the cost of thier R&D divison
in reply to boltcutters
..............
boltcutters
ETC.
in reply to UncomfortableTruth
..............
spinnakr
What a clever response! We are so lucky to have you around!
in reply to boltcutters
..............
boltcutters
yea. I really should just let you put words in my mouth and attribute to me things I don't say.
But too bad.
in reply to spinnakr
..............
spinnakr
Your own words are so awesomely amazing, why would anyone want to change them? I mean, you can't add to perfection, can you?
in reply to boltcutters
..............
spinnakr
And today you substitute union members for Jews; Muslims for Jews; Mexicans for Jews; gays for Jews ... and you hope all your problems will go away.
in reply to Rock_the_Boat
..............
boltcutters
Massive fail.
in reply to spinnakr
..............
spinnakr
Yes, it will.
in reply to boltcutters
..............
HURPDURP
Payroll tax, Medicare & Social Security, Sales Tax, Property Tax are all paid by those "50%". But..but..but.. Those don't count!
How very patriotic to despise half of your countrymen.
in reply to Rock_the_Boat
..............
boltcutters
Wow. There's a lot of hate in a person who sees despise where it's not.
Anywho, if everyone was contributing equally to the benefits that they receive we wouldn't be in this mess. So just stop it.
in reply to HURPDURP
..............
HURPDURP
No, YOU stop it! I'm telling Mom!
in reply to boltcutters
..............
spinnakr
The President has asked us to "share the burden." To you, apparently, living in poverty is not enough of a burden for our poorest citizens. You want them to "share" more of it so that the wealthy can continue to avoid their share. Nice.
in reply to Rock_the_Boat
..............
boltcutters
Everyone should contribute equally.
in reply to spinnakr
..............
UncomfortableTruth
Yup, no violent rhetoric here.
..............
boltcutters
Well, Lenin was a violent man.
in reply to UncomfortableTruth
..............
boltcutters
Eliminating "non-profits" would go a looooooong way in providing much needed tax revenue.
..............
sloboda
The Red Cross is a non-profit. Should they be Taxed???
..............
boltcutters
Yes.
in reply to sloboda
..............
HURPDURP
I can't believe you agree with me!
Thousands of so-called "non-profits" own enormous wealth & property tax free and contribute nothing of value to this country. They are controlled mostly by men in dresses or other strange costume, many of whom have been implicated in despicable crimes such as pedophilia and whose followers have committed acts of terrorism such as murdering physicians.
It's about time they pay up!
..............
troll_whacker
HurpDurp, you are rockin' my world!
in reply to HURPDURP
..............
boltcutters
Took all your deductions eh.
..............
troll_whacker
how can corporations get more of an incentive than not paying any taxes?
in reply to sloboda
..............
boltcutters
What corporations are not paying taxes?
in reply to troll_whacker
..............
sloboda
Facts are facts. Just because you do not like the results does not mean they are not true. Cutting Marginal and Capital gains taxes always increases revenue.
..............
spinnakr
Well then, let's cut 'em to zero -- then we'll really be rollin' in the dough!
in reply to sloboda
..............
boltcutters
No. Just treat all people equally.
in reply to spinnakr
..............
boltcutters
Yea. And there's even proof of it.
..............
glenn
How about - shrink the stupid overbloated government and everyone will have money?
..............
spinnakr
Funny, Glenn, I don't remember you complaining when Dubya accomplished his massive government increases.
in reply to glenn
..............
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
"Jim Kerry"??????
Huh? glenn is usually just a fool, but now he's an idiot, too, who doesn't know who he's referring to!
.......................
glenn
Rosetta - Just say the name Jim Kerry and even suggest, imply or infer that he made up his war wound boo boos to get medals he didn't deserve and the fire I started earlier will get hotter. Go for it - it's lots and lots of fun.
It's actually more fun than pulling the wings off of flies and putting ink on their feet so they can walk on a piece of paper.
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/11/1612120/its-time-to-fix-interstate-5-problem.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1JHJm5wpJ
.......................
.......................
glenn
Rosetta - Just say the name Jim Kerry and even suggest, imply or infer that he made up his war wound boo boos to get medals he didn't deserve and the fire I started earlier will get hotter. Go for it - it's lots and lots of fun.
It's actually more fun than pulling the wings off of flies and putting ink on their feet so they can walk on a piece of paper.
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/11/1612120/its-time-to-fix-interstate-5-problem.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1JHJm5wpJ
.......................
Hey radec.....
Knock, Knock.
radec: Who's there
Awgo....
radec: Awgo who?
Awgofuckyourself
Knock knock
radec: Who's there?
Andy...
radec: Andy Who?
Awgofuckyourself
radec: Who's there
Awgo....
radec: Awgo who?
Awgofuckyourself
Knock knock
radec: Who's there?
Andy...
radec: Andy Who?
Awgofuckyourself
radec: Unmitigated asshat V 10.35
Some idiot Right wing ‘think tank’ awarded Tim Eyman something shiny for being such a good little tool. This of course gave our favorite OCD fascist stalker radec an instant stiffy.
radec
The left are going to blow their collective gaskets at this story!
spinnakr
Apparently, my posts get deleted when I note who the Sam Adams Alliance is affiliated with, so you'll just have to google them and find out for yourself. HINT: It's not the brewery.
radec
Too bad all of them aren't deleted!
sidrat38
Fortunately, we don't have YOUR version of the first amendment
radec
Sidrat, nice of you to join us here instead of sniping at people from behind the blog of hate!
Hey radec you moran, if you want to live in a Banana Republic so bad why don't you go move to one.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
An interesting post I found on Yahoo about the recall elections in Wisconsin
545 vs. 300,000,000 People -By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red..
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red..
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
"Donald, you’re fired — for incompetence"
.....................................................
Donald, You’re Fired!
Trump repeats false claims about Obama's birthplace.
Summary
If Donald Trump worked for us, we’d have to say: "Donald, you’re fired — for incompetence." The successful developer and TV celebrity says he’d make a good president, and maybe he would — we take no stand either way about that. But when it comes to getting facts straight, he fouls up again and again on the basics of President Barack Obama’s birth. As a rookie reporter, he just wouldn’t make it.
[snipped]
So — love Trump or hate him. That’s your choice. All we’re saying is that his factual assertions about Obama’s birth would get him fired from any reputable news organization. Or at least, it would get him fired here.
.....................................................
Donald, You’re Fired!
Summary
If Donald Trump worked for us, we’d have to say: "Donald, you’re fired — for incompetence." The successful developer and TV celebrity says he’d make a good president, and maybe he would — we take no stand either way about that. But when it comes to getting facts straight, he fouls up again and again on the basics of President Barack Obama’s birth. As a rookie reporter, he just wouldn’t make it.
[snipped]
So — love Trump or hate him. That’s your choice. All we’re saying is that his factual assertions about Obama’s birth would get him fired from any reputable news organization. Or at least, it would get him fired here.
.....................................................
Saturday, April 9, 2011
More hmmmmm.....
radec: This coming from a person who hangs out at a blog that would make Howard Stern blush! Anonymii: You must be hanging out there, too, since you appear to be very familiar with it.
boltcutters: You simply need to demonstrate some self control.
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/08/1609530/thousands-rally-at-state-capitol.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1J3Ctx7wE
My response:
radec - go fuck yourself. How's Howard Stern feel about that?
boltcutters - I remember your blog being headed by "Emma is a cunt" for weeks
What the hell am I doing? I'm talking as if this were two people.
boltcutters: You simply need to demonstrate some self control.
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/08/1609530/thousands-rally-at-state-capitol.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1J3Ctx7wE
My response:
radec - go fuck yourself. How's Howard Stern feel about that?
boltcutters - I remember your blog being headed by "Emma is a cunt" for weeks
What the hell am I doing? I'm talking as if this were two people.
Hmmmm.....
RedForeman
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/08/1609530/thousands-rally-at-state-capitol.html#ixzz1J3BkLbdEI don't know, Red. You seem pretty fucked up to me.
Friday, April 8, 2011
The latest temporary "deal"
....................................
Done deal
THE phrase “at the eleventh hour” seems to be taken quite literally in Washington. At midnight on April 8th the federal government was due to shut up shop, when the latest of the six stopgap spending measures it has been subsisting on this year in lieu of a budget expired without replacement. Despite weeks of negotiations the Republicans who run the House of Representatives and the Democrats who run the Senate seemed unable to agree on how much the government should spend, and on what, for the remaining six months of the fiscal year. It was not until 11 pm that the two sides announced they had reached a deal to avert a government shutdown.
The deal will involve cutting almost $80 billion from Barack Obama’s proposed budget for the year, or roughly $40 billion from current spending levels. But it was not possible to put the details of the agreement into legislative language and vote on it before time ran out. Instead, the two chambers approved a seventh stopgap spending resolution, which was immediately whisked to the White House to receive the president’s signature. In fact, it did not arrive until after midnight, meaning that the government was theoretically out of action for a brief spell. The new measure puts it back in business until midnight on Thursday, by which point, if all goes according to plan, Congress will have had a chance to codify and vote on the grand bargain, thus finally putting this year’s budget to rest.
Congressmen from both parties are congratulating themselves on the historic nature of the deal. It does cut spending by an unprecedented amount, especially considering that half of the year has already passed. Moreover, it entails concessions from both sides. The Democrats agreed to far deeper cuts than they had wanted; the Republicans abandoned almost all of the ideologically-charged “riders” they had tried to slip into spending bills, undermining the Democrats’ health-care reforms, for example, or restricting the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gases. Instead the Democrats agreed to put some of these proposals to separate votes, knowing they will not pass the Senate. Mr Obama made a statement shortly after the agreement was announced full of stirring words such as “compromise”, “leadership” and “dedication”.
For all this heady talk, however, the deal-making has been far from edifying. The Democrats brought events to this pass by neglecting to pass a budget last year, when they had control of both the House and the Senate. The Republicans, for their part, refused to accept a Democratic offer to cut the very amount their own leaders had originally proposed back in February, $75 billion, and instead held out for $100 billion. Moreover, in a naked display of opportunism, they seemed willing to bring the government to a standstill over riders that had nothing to do with the budget.
And the worst is almost certainly yet to come. Within the next five weeks, Congress will have to raise the ceiling it imposes on the federal government’s debt. Many Republicans have indicated that they will not do so unless the Democrats agree to much more sweeping spending cuts than the ones that have proved so difficult to square away this week. As one senator put it while waiting to vote on the budget deal, “The debt ceiling is going to be Armageddon.” One hopes she did not mean it literally.
....................................
Done deal
THE phrase “at the eleventh hour” seems to be taken quite literally in Washington. At midnight on April 8th the federal government was due to shut up shop, when the latest of the six stopgap spending measures it has been subsisting on this year in lieu of a budget expired without replacement. Despite weeks of negotiations the Republicans who run the House of Representatives and the Democrats who run the Senate seemed unable to agree on how much the government should spend, and on what, for the remaining six months of the fiscal year. It was not until 11 pm that the two sides announced they had reached a deal to avert a government shutdown.
The deal will involve cutting almost $80 billion from Barack Obama’s proposed budget for the year, or roughly $40 billion from current spending levels. But it was not possible to put the details of the agreement into legislative language and vote on it before time ran out. Instead, the two chambers approved a seventh stopgap spending resolution, which was immediately whisked to the White House to receive the president’s signature. In fact, it did not arrive until after midnight, meaning that the government was theoretically out of action for a brief spell. The new measure puts it back in business until midnight on Thursday, by which point, if all goes according to plan, Congress will have had a chance to codify and vote on the grand bargain, thus finally putting this year’s budget to rest.
Congressmen from both parties are congratulating themselves on the historic nature of the deal. It does cut spending by an unprecedented amount, especially considering that half of the year has already passed. Moreover, it entails concessions from both sides. The Democrats agreed to far deeper cuts than they had wanted; the Republicans abandoned almost all of the ideologically-charged “riders” they had tried to slip into spending bills, undermining the Democrats’ health-care reforms, for example, or restricting the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gases. Instead the Democrats agreed to put some of these proposals to separate votes, knowing they will not pass the Senate. Mr Obama made a statement shortly after the agreement was announced full of stirring words such as “compromise”, “leadership” and “dedication”.
For all this heady talk, however, the deal-making has been far from edifying. The Democrats brought events to this pass by neglecting to pass a budget last year, when they had control of both the House and the Senate. The Republicans, for their part, refused to accept a Democratic offer to cut the very amount their own leaders had originally proposed back in February, $75 billion, and instead held out for $100 billion. Moreover, in a naked display of opportunism, they seemed willing to bring the government to a standstill over riders that had nothing to do with the budget.
And the worst is almost certainly yet to come. Within the next five weeks, Congress will have to raise the ceiling it imposes on the federal government’s debt. Many Republicans have indicated that they will not do so unless the Democrats agree to much more sweeping spending cuts than the ones that have proved so difficult to square away this week. As one senator put it while waiting to vote on the budget deal, “The debt ceiling is going to be Armageddon.” One hopes she did not mean it literally.
....................................
The Olympian's hypocisy has reached new heights
I thought I'd post this before my comment is deleted ...
Docent
This comment was flagged for review.
--------
Olympian newsroom
Sigh.
--------
Spinnakr
You *sigh* as if you have no control here. Of all the newspapers I read in the course of a week, the monitoring of the comments here is the worst I've seen. YOU can change that, if you choose to do so. I know, the 'hits' you get here go to your bottom line, but I'm wondering when you decide to grow a pair and try to clean up this sewer. There has to come a point where integrity means more to you than profit. Many of us are waiting to find out where that point lies.
Docent
This comment was flagged for review.
--------
Olympian newsroom
Sigh.
--------
Spinnakr
You *sigh* as if you have no control here. Of all the newspapers I read in the course of a week, the monitoring of the comments here is the worst I've seen. YOU can change that, if you choose to do so. I know, the 'hits' you get here go to your bottom line, but I'm wondering when you decide to grow a pair and try to clean up this sewer. There has to come a point where integrity means more to you than profit. Many of us are waiting to find out where that point lies.
An era is two years????????????
It’s the end of an era: Glenn Beck is leaving his daily talk show on Fox News later this year, he and Fox announced Wednesday. The show, called “Glenn Beck,” had seen a precipitous decline in ratings over the last year, and Mr. Beck’s departure was not unexpected.
Not long ago, the populist rabble-rouser of the right and self-described “rodeo clown” was flying high. Beck began at Fox a little more than two years ago, in January 2009, having jumped from CNN Headline News. Coincidentally, that was right before the birth of the tea party, and he quickly became one of the movement’s leading advocates.
- Christian Science Monitor
Considering how long Olberman was on MSNBC, that must have been "an era of epic proportions"
Not long ago, the populist rabble-rouser of the right and self-described “rodeo clown” was flying high. Beck began at Fox a little more than two years ago, in January 2009, having jumped from CNN Headline News. Coincidentally, that was right before the birth of the tea party, and he quickly became one of the movement’s leading advocates.
- Christian Science Monitor
Considering how long Olberman was on MSNBC, that must have been "an era of epic proportions"
Can't wait for the recount....
Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus announced today that she made a computer error that failed to account for more than 14,000 votes that were cast in the City of Brookfield Tuesday night, and if the votes are allowed to stand, they could give Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser a victory over challenger Joanne Kloppenburg.
With the new votes counted, Prosser would pick up a net gain of 7,582 votes over Kloppenburg, who led after the initial ballot count by a mere 204-vote margin after more than 1.7 million votes were cast in the state.
Nickolaus conducted a press conference today to announce that 14,315 votes were not counted in the strongly conservative county.
Nickolaus said the error was discovered today.
She said the Brookfield vote total was “imported into the database, but was inadvertently not saved.”
Nickolaus said, “I noticed the discrepancy during the canvass. The purpose of the canvass is to catch these kinds of errors. This is human error, which I apologize for, which is common in this process.”
She said the new totals reflect a voter turnout rate of 47 percent in Waukesha County.
How do you make a "mistake" on 14,000 votes in a 30,000 voter county? Who paid who to "take the fall"?
With the new votes counted, Prosser would pick up a net gain of 7,582 votes over Kloppenburg, who led after the initial ballot count by a mere 204-vote margin after more than 1.7 million votes were cast in the state.
Nickolaus conducted a press conference today to announce that 14,315 votes were not counted in the strongly conservative county.
Nickolaus said the error was discovered today.
She said the Brookfield vote total was “imported into the database, but was inadvertently not saved.”
Nickolaus said, “I noticed the discrepancy during the canvass. The purpose of the canvass is to catch these kinds of errors. This is human error, which I apologize for, which is common in this process.”
She said the new totals reflect a voter turnout rate of 47 percent in Waukesha County.
How do you make a "mistake" on 14,000 votes in a 30,000 voter county? Who paid who to "take the fall"?
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Fascist Sheep
Freedom of speech physically repulses fascists. To whit, a short exchange over the sleep-over at the Capitol Wednesday.
Wrotetwo words
#1 rubber
#2 bullets
gottacomment
Or the little wooden dowels. Shoot them into the ground and they bounce up into your shins. Very effective.
sage1
Advocating violence against political speech is a symptom of fascism.
Then the lump of stupid known as Menzies (isn’t that a mis-spelling of Auntie Flo?) chimes in.
Menzie
Refusing a lawful order to leave because you are trespassing is against the law.
sage1
Like breaking the law is worse than the usurpation of the legal process.
The rest of the thread was the usual undifferentiated fascist squeal of the Olympian’s ten resident Teabaggers.
When will the Olympian figure out it needs to publish a product in tune with the community is expects to support it? About a year after it declares bankruptcy.
Click on the headline link for the News Tribune....
See where you end up....
- Dozens of demonstrators rolled out sleeping bags Wednesday inside the Washington state Capitol to protest budget cuts.
She-Who is another one who has gone over the edge!
.....................................
Anonymii
Many of us really don't care what Beck does and have only noted in passing that some of the righties are in mourning now.
in reply to RedForeman
..........
boltcutters
Yea, and many of you people put a LOT of energy into not buying stuff that has nothing to do with want or need.
Just spite. There's something super wrong with that mindset.
in reply to Anonymii
..........
interest
Continued proof: There is a God.
..........
boltcutters
A television program is that important to you??? Really???
You definitely need God.
in reply to interest
..........
troll_whacker
you mean the lessons he learned not paying corporate taxes, doing the bidding of the Republican party and creating the Tea Party???
in reply to suzedoosie
..........
boltcutters
Ain't he amazing!!!!!!!!!! Love that guy.
Psssssst....the Republican Party and the TEA Party aren't exactly BFFs in case you haven't noticed.
You're slipping. Usually you don't contradict yourself in the same comment...you usually wait a couple in between.
in reply to troll_whacker
..........
boltcutters
You can't shut us up.
Ever.
..........
Pax1
Who is trying? You guys make for great comedy relief! No one takes you any more seriously than they took Beck -- and only the sheep of the far right paid any attention to him. Really, your only value on this forum is to make the far right appear to be somewhat sane in comparison! LOL
in reply to boltcutters
..........
boltcutters
Yea. that's why you people actually put thought, time and effort into not buying stuff.
My value has no relationship whatsoever to you or this forum or what you think or say.
But yours is clearly determined by me.
Maybe you'll "win the race" to the next red light tomorrow. Good luck!
in reply to Pax1
..........
Anonymii
Who mentioned anything about buying or not buying stuff? And who mentioned anything about your or our value? Having trouble staying on topic again?
in reply to boltcutters
..........
Pax1
This "twist" makes a screen door spring look straight! I'm reminded of a certain Republican caught in a rest room stall tapping his foot --- and trying to make it look like a positive situation! LOL Or Nixon shouting "I am not a crook!" and the GOP defending him.
..........
boltcutters
It's. A. Television. Show.
in reply to Pax1
..........
Pax1
It WAS a TV show --- and a poor one, at that. And, typical of the right-wing FOXNews, filled with garbage pretending to be facts, watched by fools pretending to be "average Americans", most of whom appeared to believe almost everything that station fed them.
And now, continuing that fine history of garbage pretending to be facts, Fox and Beck are trying to make a major loss appear to be a "win".
Very sad.
in reply to boltcutters
..........
boltcutters
This makes you sad??????????
Seriously? A television program has the power to make you sad?
in reply to Pax1
..........
Pax1
You DO have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? It isn't the TV program that makes me sad. As clearly stated, it is the attempt by FOX and Beck to further delude their sheep instead of accepting the defeat that makes me sad.
Perhaps if you wiped the tears of pain from your eyes you would be able to read and understand a bit better.
in reply to boltcutters
..........
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/06/1606641/glenn-beck-leaving-his-fox-news.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1IoL114mb
Anonymii
Many of us really don't care what Beck does and have only noted in passing that some of the righties are in mourning now.
in reply to RedForeman
..........
boltcutters
Yea, and many of you people put a LOT of energy into not buying stuff that has nothing to do with want or need.
Just spite. There's something super wrong with that mindset.
in reply to Anonymii
..........
interest
Continued proof: There is a God.
..........
boltcutters
A television program is that important to you??? Really???
You definitely need God.
in reply to interest
..........
troll_whacker
you mean the lessons he learned not paying corporate taxes, doing the bidding of the Republican party and creating the Tea Party???
in reply to suzedoosie
..........
boltcutters
Ain't he amazing!!!!!!!!!! Love that guy.
Psssssst....the Republican Party and the TEA Party aren't exactly BFFs in case you haven't noticed.
You're slipping. Usually you don't contradict yourself in the same comment...you usually wait a couple in between.
in reply to troll_whacker
..........
boltcutters
You can't shut us up.
Ever.
..........
Pax1
Who is trying? You guys make for great comedy relief! No one takes you any more seriously than they took Beck -- and only the sheep of the far right paid any attention to him. Really, your only value on this forum is to make the far right appear to be somewhat sane in comparison! LOL
in reply to boltcutters
..........
boltcutters
Yea. that's why you people actually put thought, time and effort into not buying stuff.
My value has no relationship whatsoever to you or this forum or what you think or say.
But yours is clearly determined by me.
Maybe you'll "win the race" to the next red light tomorrow. Good luck!
in reply to Pax1
..........
Anonymii
Who mentioned anything about buying or not buying stuff? And who mentioned anything about your or our value? Having trouble staying on topic again?
in reply to boltcutters
..........
Pax1
This "twist" makes a screen door spring look straight! I'm reminded of a certain Republican caught in a rest room stall tapping his foot --- and trying to make it look like a positive situation! LOL Or Nixon shouting "I am not a crook!" and the GOP defending him.
..........
boltcutters
It's. A. Television. Show.
in reply to Pax1
..........
Pax1
It WAS a TV show --- and a poor one, at that. And, typical of the right-wing FOXNews, filled with garbage pretending to be facts, watched by fools pretending to be "average Americans", most of whom appeared to believe almost everything that station fed them.
And now, continuing that fine history of garbage pretending to be facts, Fox and Beck are trying to make a major loss appear to be a "win".
Very sad.
in reply to boltcutters
..........
boltcutters
This makes you sad??????????
Seriously? A television program has the power to make you sad?
in reply to Pax1
..........
Pax1
You DO have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? It isn't the TV program that makes me sad. As clearly stated, it is the attempt by FOX and Beck to further delude their sheep instead of accepting the defeat that makes me sad.
Perhaps if you wiped the tears of pain from your eyes you would be able to read and understand a bit better.
in reply to boltcutters
..........
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/06/1606641/glenn-beck-leaving-his-fox-news.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1IoL114mb
.....................................
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Docent Has Gone Over The Edge
Groupthink
Washington is a purple state. Yet in recent years the electorate has tended to support Democrats. Why is that, dalecon?
I'd suggest this is so because the Republicans have moved too far to the right. They have become so knee-jerk anti-government that they have alienated mainstream voters who are neither liberal nor conservative.
The average Joe wants to keep taxes down but also wants to maintain quality schools, competent public services and a clean environment. He doesn't want to see government's capacity gutted.
You will start electing more Republicans in this state when you start listening to average Joe instead of your fellow radical right wingers.
--------
Docent
Because of entitlements, because of King County, because stupid people live in this State!
PS The average Joe could care less about the left wing agenda because he is too busy working his a** off to support his family.
--------
Groupthink
You don't believe in majority rules? Would you prefer a right-wing dictatorship?
--------
Docent
No,stupid people should not be allowed to vote! A benevolent despot. I volunteer!
--------
sage1
Oh Dear.
--------
spinnakr
It finally comes out ...
Washington is a purple state. Yet in recent years the electorate has tended to support Democrats. Why is that, dalecon?
I'd suggest this is so because the Republicans have moved too far to the right. They have become so knee-jerk anti-government that they have alienated mainstream voters who are neither liberal nor conservative.
The average Joe wants to keep taxes down but also wants to maintain quality schools, competent public services and a clean environment. He doesn't want to see government's capacity gutted.
You will start electing more Republicans in this state when you start listening to average Joe instead of your fellow radical right wingers.
--------
Docent
Because of entitlements, because of King County, because stupid people live in this State!
PS The average Joe could care less about the left wing agenda because he is too busy working his a** off to support his family.
--------
Groupthink
You don't believe in majority rules? Would you prefer a right-wing dictatorship?
--------
Docent
No,stupid people should not be allowed to vote! A benevolent despot. I volunteer!
--------
sage1
Oh Dear.
--------
spinnakr
It finally comes out ...
No Mas (Duran v. Leonard)
WASHINGTON — Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has appealed directly to President Barack Obama to halt what the Libyan leader called "an unjust war," and wished Obama good luck in his bid for re-election next year.
One slight problem, Moammar......the US ain't runnin' the show.....
One of the meanest Supreme Court decisions ever
..............................
Cruel but Not Unusual
Clarence Thomas writes one of the meanest Supreme Court decisions ever.
By Dahlia Lithwick. Friday, April 1, 2011.
In 1985, John Thompson was convicted of murder in Louisiana. Having already been convicted in a separate armed robbery case, he opted not to testify on his own behalf in his murder trial. He was sentenced to death and spent 18 years in prison—14 of them isolated on death row—and watched as seven executions were planned for him. Several weeks before an execution scheduled for May 1999, Thompson's private investigators learned that prosecutors had failed to turn over evidence that would have cleared him at his robbery trial. This evidence included the fact that the main informant against him had received a reward from the victim's family, that the eyewitness identification done at the time described someone who looked nothing like him, and that a blood sample taken from the crime scene did not match Thompson's blood type.
In 1963, in Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors must turn over to the defense any evidence that would tend to prove a defendant's innocence. Failure to do so is a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Yet the four prosecutors in Thompson's case managed to keep secret the fact that they had hidden exculpatory evidence for 20 years. Were it not for Thompson's investigators, he would have been executed for a murder he did not commit.
Both of Thompson's convictions were overturned. When he was retried on the murder charges, a jury acquitted him after 35 minutes. He sued the former Louisiana district attorney for Orleans Parish, Harry Connick Sr. (yes, his dad) for failing to train his prosecutors about their legal obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense. A jury awarded Thompson $14 million for this civil rights violation, one for every year he spent wrongfully incarcerated. The district court judge added another $1 million in attorneys' fees. A panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict. An equally divided 5th Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed again.
But this week, writing on behalf of the five conservatives on the Supreme Court and in his first majority opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas tossed out the verdict, finding that the district attorney can't be responsible for the single act of a lone prosecutor. The Thomas opinion is an extraordinary piece of workmanship, matched only by Justice Antonin Scalia's concurring opinion, in which he takes a few extra whacks at Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent. (Ginsburg was so bothered by the majority decision that she read her dissent from the bench for the first time this term.) Both Thomas and Scalia have produced what can only be described as a master class in human apathy. Their disregard for the facts of Thompson's thrashed life and near-death emerges as a moral flat line. Scalia opens his concurrence with a swipe at Ginsburg's "lengthy excavation of the trial record" and states that "the question presented for our review is whether a municipality is liable for a single Brady violation by one of its prosecutors." But only by willfully ignoring that entire trial record can he and Thomas reduce the entire constitutional question to a single misdeed by a single bad actor.
Both parties to this case have long agreed that an injustice had been done. Connick himself conceded that there had been a Brady violation, yet Scalia finds none. Everyone else concedes that egregious mistakes were made. Scalia struggles to rehabilitate them all.
One of the reasons the truth came to light after 20 years is that Gerry Deegan, a junior assistant D.A. on the Thompson case, confessed as he lay dying of cancer that he had withheld the crime lab test results and removed a blood sample from the evidence room. The prosecutor to whom Deegan confessed said nothing about this for five years. While Scalia pins the wrongdoing on a single "miscreant prosecutor," Ginsburg correctly notes that "no fewer than five prosecutors" were involved in railroading Thompson. She adds that they "did so despite multiple opportunities, spanning nearly two decades, to set the record straight." While Thomas states the question as having to do with a "single Brady violation," Ginsburg is quick to point out that there was far more than just a misplaced blood sample at issue: Thompson was turned in by someone seeking a reward, but prosecutors failed to turn over tapes of that conversation. The eyewitness identification of the killer didn't match Thompson, but was never shared with defense counsel. The blood evidence was enough to prove a Brady violation, but it was the tip of the iceberg.
In the 10 years preceding Thompson's trial, Thomas acknowledges, "Louisiana courts had overturned four convictions because of Brady violations by prosecutors in Connick's office." Yet somehow this doesn't add up to a pattern of Brady violations in the office, because the evidence in those other cases wasn't blood or crime lab evidence. Huh? He then inexplicably asserts that young prosecutors needn't be trained on Brady violations because they learned everything in law school.
Scalia and Thomas are at pains to say that Connick was not aware of or responsible for his subordinates' unconstitutional conduct, except—as Ginsburg points out—that Connick acknowledged that he misunderstood Brady, acknowledged that his prosecutors "were coming fresh out of law school," acknowledged he didn't know whether they had Brady training, and acknowledged that he himself had 'stopped reading law books … and looking at opinions' when he was first elected District Attorney in 1974." And Connick also conceded that holding his underlings to the highest Brady standards would "make [his] job more difficult." As Bennett Gershman and Joel Cohen point out, the jury had "considerable evidence that both Connick and prosecutors in his office were ignorant of the constitutional rules regarding disclosure of exculpatory evidence; they were ignorant of the rules regarding disclosure of scientific evidence; there was no training, or continuing education, and no procedures to monitor compliance with evidentiary requirements; prosecutors did not review police files; and shockingly, Connick himself had been indicted by federal prosecutors for suppressing a lab report of the kind hidden from Thompson."
It's not just that a jury, a judge, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Connick knew his staff was undertrained and he failed to fix it. It's that it's almost impossible, on reviewing all of the evidence, to conclude anything else. Nobody is suggesting that the legal issue here is simple or that there aren't meaningful consequences to creating liability for district attorneys who fail to train their subordinates in Brady compliance. But those aren't the opinions that Thomas and Scalia produced. Their effort instead was to sift and resift the facts until the injury done to Thompson can be pinned on a single bad actor, acting in bad faith. It's a long, sad, uphill trek.
Beyond that, there is no suggestion in either opinion that this is a hard question or a close call or even a hint of regret at their conclusion. There is only certainty that the jury, the appeals court, and above all Ginsburg got it completely wrong in believing that someone should be held responsible for the outrages suffered by John Thompson. If there is empathy for anyone in evidence here, it's for the overworked and overzealous district attorneys.
It's left to Ginsburg to acknowledge that the costs of immunizing Connick from any wrongdoing is as high as the cost of opening him to it: "The prosecutorial concealment Thompson encountered … is bound to be repeated unless municipal agencies bear responsibility—made tangible by §1983 liability—for adequately conveying what Brady requires and for monitoring staff compliance." As Scott Lemieux points out, by all-but-immunizing Connick for the conduct of his subordinates, the court has created a perfect Catch-22, since the courts already give prosecutors absolute immunity for their actions as prosecutors (though they may still be liable for their conduct as administrators or investigators). By immunizing their bosses as well, the court has guaranteed that nobody can be held responsible for even the most shocking civil rights violations.
I don't think that the failure at the court is one of empathy. I don't ask that Thomas or Scalia shed a tear for an innocent man who almost went to his death because of deceptive prosecutors. And, frankly, Ginsburg's dissent—while powerful—is no less Vulcan in tone than their opinions. But this case is of a piece with prior decisions in which Thomas and Scalia have staked out positions that revel in the hyper-technical and deliberately callous. It was, after all, Scalia who wrote in 2009 that "this court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." It was Thomas who wrote that a prisoner who was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a guard after asking for a grievance form had no constitutional claim.
The law awards no extra points for being pitiless and scornful. There is rarely a reason to be pitiless and scornful, certainly in a case of an innocent man who was nearly executed. It leads one to wonder whether Thomas and Scalia sometimes are just because they can be.
..............................
Cruel but Not Unusual
Clarence Thomas writes one of the meanest Supreme Court decisions ever.
By Dahlia Lithwick. Friday, April 1, 2011.
In 1985, John Thompson was convicted of murder in Louisiana. Having already been convicted in a separate armed robbery case, he opted not to testify on his own behalf in his murder trial. He was sentenced to death and spent 18 years in prison—14 of them isolated on death row—and watched as seven executions were planned for him. Several weeks before an execution scheduled for May 1999, Thompson's private investigators learned that prosecutors had failed to turn over evidence that would have cleared him at his robbery trial. This evidence included the fact that the main informant against him had received a reward from the victim's family, that the eyewitness identification done at the time described someone who looked nothing like him, and that a blood sample taken from the crime scene did not match Thompson's blood type.
In 1963, in Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors must turn over to the defense any evidence that would tend to prove a defendant's innocence. Failure to do so is a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Yet the four prosecutors in Thompson's case managed to keep secret the fact that they had hidden exculpatory evidence for 20 years. Were it not for Thompson's investigators, he would have been executed for a murder he did not commit.
Both of Thompson's convictions were overturned. When he was retried on the murder charges, a jury acquitted him after 35 minutes. He sued the former Louisiana district attorney for Orleans Parish, Harry Connick Sr. (yes, his dad) for failing to train his prosecutors about their legal obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense. A jury awarded Thompson $14 million for this civil rights violation, one for every year he spent wrongfully incarcerated. The district court judge added another $1 million in attorneys' fees. A panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict. An equally divided 5th Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed again.
But this week, writing on behalf of the five conservatives on the Supreme Court and in his first majority opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas tossed out the verdict, finding that the district attorney can't be responsible for the single act of a lone prosecutor. The Thomas opinion is an extraordinary piece of workmanship, matched only by Justice Antonin Scalia's concurring opinion, in which he takes a few extra whacks at Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent. (Ginsburg was so bothered by the majority decision that she read her dissent from the bench for the first time this term.) Both Thomas and Scalia have produced what can only be described as a master class in human apathy. Their disregard for the facts of Thompson's thrashed life and near-death emerges as a moral flat line. Scalia opens his concurrence with a swipe at Ginsburg's "lengthy excavation of the trial record" and states that "the question presented for our review is whether a municipality is liable for a single Brady violation by one of its prosecutors." But only by willfully ignoring that entire trial record can he and Thomas reduce the entire constitutional question to a single misdeed by a single bad actor.
Both parties to this case have long agreed that an injustice had been done. Connick himself conceded that there had been a Brady violation, yet Scalia finds none. Everyone else concedes that egregious mistakes were made. Scalia struggles to rehabilitate them all.
One of the reasons the truth came to light after 20 years is that Gerry Deegan, a junior assistant D.A. on the Thompson case, confessed as he lay dying of cancer that he had withheld the crime lab test results and removed a blood sample from the evidence room. The prosecutor to whom Deegan confessed said nothing about this for five years. While Scalia pins the wrongdoing on a single "miscreant prosecutor," Ginsburg correctly notes that "no fewer than five prosecutors" were involved in railroading Thompson. She adds that they "did so despite multiple opportunities, spanning nearly two decades, to set the record straight." While Thomas states the question as having to do with a "single Brady violation," Ginsburg is quick to point out that there was far more than just a misplaced blood sample at issue: Thompson was turned in by someone seeking a reward, but prosecutors failed to turn over tapes of that conversation. The eyewitness identification of the killer didn't match Thompson, but was never shared with defense counsel. The blood evidence was enough to prove a Brady violation, but it was the tip of the iceberg.
In the 10 years preceding Thompson's trial, Thomas acknowledges, "Louisiana courts had overturned four convictions because of Brady violations by prosecutors in Connick's office." Yet somehow this doesn't add up to a pattern of Brady violations in the office, because the evidence in those other cases wasn't blood or crime lab evidence. Huh? He then inexplicably asserts that young prosecutors needn't be trained on Brady violations because they learned everything in law school.
Scalia and Thomas are at pains to say that Connick was not aware of or responsible for his subordinates' unconstitutional conduct, except—as Ginsburg points out—that Connick acknowledged that he misunderstood Brady, acknowledged that his prosecutors "were coming fresh out of law school," acknowledged he didn't know whether they had Brady training, and acknowledged that he himself had 'stopped reading law books … and looking at opinions' when he was first elected District Attorney in 1974." And Connick also conceded that holding his underlings to the highest Brady standards would "make [his] job more difficult." As Bennett Gershman and Joel Cohen point out, the jury had "considerable evidence that both Connick and prosecutors in his office were ignorant of the constitutional rules regarding disclosure of exculpatory evidence; they were ignorant of the rules regarding disclosure of scientific evidence; there was no training, or continuing education, and no procedures to monitor compliance with evidentiary requirements; prosecutors did not review police files; and shockingly, Connick himself had been indicted by federal prosecutors for suppressing a lab report of the kind hidden from Thompson."
It's not just that a jury, a judge, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Connick knew his staff was undertrained and he failed to fix it. It's that it's almost impossible, on reviewing all of the evidence, to conclude anything else. Nobody is suggesting that the legal issue here is simple or that there aren't meaningful consequences to creating liability for district attorneys who fail to train their subordinates in Brady compliance. But those aren't the opinions that Thomas and Scalia produced. Their effort instead was to sift and resift the facts until the injury done to Thompson can be pinned on a single bad actor, acting in bad faith. It's a long, sad, uphill trek.
Beyond that, there is no suggestion in either opinion that this is a hard question or a close call or even a hint of regret at their conclusion. There is only certainty that the jury, the appeals court, and above all Ginsburg got it completely wrong in believing that someone should be held responsible for the outrages suffered by John Thompson. If there is empathy for anyone in evidence here, it's for the overworked and overzealous district attorneys.
It's left to Ginsburg to acknowledge that the costs of immunizing Connick from any wrongdoing is as high as the cost of opening him to it: "The prosecutorial concealment Thompson encountered … is bound to be repeated unless municipal agencies bear responsibility—made tangible by §1983 liability—for adequately conveying what Brady requires and for monitoring staff compliance." As Scott Lemieux points out, by all-but-immunizing Connick for the conduct of his subordinates, the court has created a perfect Catch-22, since the courts already give prosecutors absolute immunity for their actions as prosecutors (though they may still be liable for their conduct as administrators or investigators). By immunizing their bosses as well, the court has guaranteed that nobody can be held responsible for even the most shocking civil rights violations.
I don't think that the failure at the court is one of empathy. I don't ask that Thomas or Scalia shed a tear for an innocent man who almost went to his death because of deceptive prosecutors. And, frankly, Ginsburg's dissent—while powerful—is no less Vulcan in tone than their opinions. But this case is of a piece with prior decisions in which Thomas and Scalia have staked out positions that revel in the hyper-technical and deliberately callous. It was, after all, Scalia who wrote in 2009 that "this court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." It was Thomas who wrote that a prisoner who was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a guard after asking for a grievance form had no constitutional claim.
The law awards no extra points for being pitiless and scornful. There is rarely a reason to be pitiless and scornful, certainly in a case of an innocent man who was nearly executed. It leads one to wonder whether Thomas and Scalia sometimes are just because they can be.
..............................
She-Who and its “associates” have new fixations
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/05/1604596/republicans-have-a-history-of.html
...........
boltcutters
Troll just likes to say these silly things to get attention. It's the only way she can.
in reply to Rock_the_Boat
...........
spinnakr
Wow. Just ... wow!
Jealous, Bolt? I mean, it's obvious how you feel about anyone taking attention away from you.
in reply to boltcutters
...........
boltcutters
We see you've made it to the "X" in the dictionary. Good job!
Now pay attention to the definitions.
"fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign"
Nope. Dudeless was just demanding that everyone pay their fair share, Troll.
in reply to troll_whacker
..........
troll_whacker
[snipped]
As for my use of the word Xenophobia, I used it appropriately.
in reply to boltcutters
..........
boltcutters
No, you didn't.
in reply to troll_whacker
..........
spinnakr
Actually, he did. You could look it up.
in reply to boltcutters
...........
boltcutters
Except the ones who don't.
in reply to troll_whacker
...........
troll_whacker
The states wouldn't be in the mess they are now if it wasn't for the Republicans failed policies.
Next.
in reply to boltcutters
..........
boltcutters
Yea, except there are no Republicans in charge here.
Fail.
in reply to troll_whacker
...........
Pax1
Dudeless -- do you ever see that YOU are in the overwhelming minority in this State? Look at all the elected positions held by Democrats/Progressives that are lost by GOP candidates year after year.
It's not that being in the minority is bad but when you are ignoring reality it is your arrogance that is holding you back. Either that or delusions and poor decision making caused by a mental illness. How about some solutions instead of whining? Try to come up with one moderate solution without raising taxes, attacking the so called "liberals", and personalizing the argument without destroying the "middle class" or hurting the poor while favoring the wealthy.
You can't do it, can you
in reply to dudeless
..........
boltcutters
Cool. So you people own it now.
in reply to Pax1
...........
Continued in the Comments.
...........
...........
boltcutters
Troll just likes to say these silly things to get attention. It's the only way she can.
in reply to Rock_the_Boat
...........
spinnakr
Wow. Just ... wow!
Jealous, Bolt? I mean, it's obvious how you feel about anyone taking attention away from you.
in reply to boltcutters
...........
boltcutters
We see you've made it to the "X" in the dictionary. Good job!
Now pay attention to the definitions.
"fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign"
Nope. Dudeless was just demanding that everyone pay their fair share, Troll.
in reply to troll_whacker
..........
troll_whacker
[snipped]
As for my use of the word Xenophobia, I used it appropriately.
in reply to boltcutters
..........
boltcutters
No, you didn't.
in reply to troll_whacker
..........
spinnakr
Actually, he did. You could look it up.
in reply to boltcutters
...........
boltcutters
Except the ones who don't.
in reply to troll_whacker
...........
troll_whacker
The states wouldn't be in the mess they are now if it wasn't for the Republicans failed policies.
Next.
in reply to boltcutters
..........
boltcutters
Yea, except there are no Republicans in charge here.
Fail.
in reply to troll_whacker
...........
Pax1
Dudeless -- do you ever see that YOU are in the overwhelming minority in this State? Look at all the elected positions held by Democrats/Progressives that are lost by GOP candidates year after year.
It's not that being in the minority is bad but when you are ignoring reality it is your arrogance that is holding you back. Either that or delusions and poor decision making caused by a mental illness. How about some solutions instead of whining? Try to come up with one moderate solution without raising taxes, attacking the so called "liberals", and personalizing the argument without destroying the "middle class" or hurting the poor while favoring the wealthy.
You can't do it, can you
in reply to dudeless
..........
boltcutters
Cool. So you people own it now.
in reply to Pax1
...........
Continued in the Comments.
...........
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
GOP suicide
LA Times, reporting from Washington -
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan's broad overview of the plan, which he described Sunday, is the clearest picture yet of how the party plans to reduce government spending over the long term. It also telegraphs the central role the issue will play in the GOP's pitch to voters in 2012.
The combination of changes to entitlement programs and spending cuts sketched out by the Wisconsin Republican amounts to a dramatically different approach to deficit and debt reduction. But it also puts the party in politically dangerous waters.
Much entitlement spending — including Medicare — benefits the middle class, making dramatic changes controversial and politically risky. Republicans demonstrated the political power of the issue last year when they campaigned against Obama's healthcare overhaul in part by warning seniors the new law would cut Medicare.
Still, experts said it was all but impossible to take a major bite out of the national debt without addressing the rising costs of the program, along with other entitlements benefits. Ryan did not mention the other most contentious piece of the puzzle: Social Security.
"We are giving [Democrats] a political weapon against us, but look, they're going to have to lie and demagogue," Ryan said on "Fox New Sunday." "Shame on them if they do that."
Isn't it fascinating that Ryan is from Wisconsin? Must be the water. His last quote was precious! If he is giving the Democrats a weapon, why would they have to lie? I would suggest, based on the political atmosphere in Wisconsin, Ryan had better be thinking about his re-election in 2012. A Gallup polling showed that people opposed messing with Medicare - 76% to 23%
FOX didn't get the joke....
From FOX Media:
Tina Fey says her Emmy-winning impersonation of Sarah Palin may have hurt ratings for her show “30 Rock.”
The comedian and actress writes in her new book “Bossypants” that the impression did not bring positive attention to the show, which also stars Alec Baldwin and Tracy Morgan, but instead may have polarized audiences.
“Some may argue that exploiting Governor Palin and her family helped bring attention to my low-rated TV show,” an excerpt of the book posted on USA Today reads. “I am proud to say you are wrong.“My TV show still enjoys very low ratings. In fact, I think the Palin stuff may have hurt the TV show. Let’s face it, between Alec Baldwin and me there is a certain fifty percent of the population who think we are pinko Commie monsters.”
Sunday, April 3, 2011
It appears it worked for Wall Street....
boltcuttersWhy don't you and your three sycophants tell us how many business owners can make the government step in and bail them out when their employees demand raises and benefits.
Someone is so shit for brains that they can't afford to pay attention.
Someone is so shit for brains that they can't afford to pay attention.
Speaking of "sophomoric" -- here's more "swill" from She-Who and her "sycophants"
..........................................
tlm509
There are surveys that reveal state workers make less. The biannual State Salary Survey is a thorough review of salaries compared to the private sector. Early last year the Seattle Times, hardly a liberal bastion, conducted a survey that revealed the same thing. The surveys were fairly consistent. More than 80% of state workers (classified employees) made less than their counterparts in the private sector.
in reply to hatesleechs
----------------------
boltcutters
There is no such thing as a counterpart in the private sector for a government employee.
in reply to tlm509
----------------------
kc
Really? Are there no computer programmers, secretaries, doctors, lawyers, nurses, janitors, painters, etc. in the private sector?
in reply to boltcutters
----------------------
boltcutters
You don't get it either.
You can't compare government employment to private.
Not everything is as sophomoric as you see it.
in reply to kc
----------------------
boltcutters
Why don't you and your three sycophants tell us how many business owners can make the government step in and bail them out when their employees demand raises and benefits.
in reply to kc
----------------------
Tedster
Your statement comes across as extremely ignorant.
in reply to boltcutters
----------------------
boltcutters
That's because you don't get it.
That's the problem, not me stating it.
in reply to Tedster
----------------------
Pax1
There is good reason for that. Your perception is entirely justified.
in reply to Tedster
----------------------
boltcutters
Feel better about yourself now?
in reply to Pax1
----------------------
beke673
So there aren't attorneys, secretaries, office assistants, accountants, cooks, legal secretaries, office managers, landscapers, economists, engineers, IT specialists, executive directors, etc, etc, etc, etc, in the private sector?
in reply to boltcutters
----------------------
boltcutters
The same people who scream about "bailouts" for "private" business see no irony in demanding the same for government employees.
----------------------
[Does the following sound familiar?]
WallysPal
Here's a quote from the great novelist and noted America-hater, John Steinbeck. Defines the Bagger philosophy to a Tea - so to speak. All the rich need to do is convince everyone in the trailer park that they too can someday be rich. Once they've done that, getting them to vote against their own self interest is guaranteed, as long as you consistently tell the lie.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporality embarrassed millionaires."
----------------------
sunshine_and_rainbows
Just like you're convinced there's a difference between democrats, republicans, etc. You are a fool and an idiot.
in reply to WallysPal
----------------------
WallysPal
Wow, that was easy.
in reply to sunshine_and_rainbows
----------------------
boltcutters
Well, if you're going to try as hard as you do to stir up and make trouble you'll find that most folks will be defensive.
Why don't you stop and see what happens.
in reply to WallysPal
----------------------
sunshine_and_rainbows
Yeah it was, you did all the work for me.
in reply to WallysPal
----------------------
justathought
Corporate money and the power/influence that comes with it is a strong force but it too has its limits. That's the difference. No more "champagne and caviar dreams" aka; "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". You try and take away our union jobs you are declaring class warfare!
in reply to sunshine_and_rainbows
----------------------
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/03/1602416/stop-picking-on-underpaid-state.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1IVek0cJD
..........................................
tlm509
There are surveys that reveal state workers make less. The biannual State Salary Survey is a thorough review of salaries compared to the private sector. Early last year the Seattle Times, hardly a liberal bastion, conducted a survey that revealed the same thing. The surveys were fairly consistent. More than 80% of state workers (classified employees) made less than their counterparts in the private sector.
in reply to hatesleechs
----------------------
boltcutters
There is no such thing as a counterpart in the private sector for a government employee.
in reply to tlm509
----------------------
kc
Really? Are there no computer programmers, secretaries, doctors, lawyers, nurses, janitors, painters, etc. in the private sector?
in reply to boltcutters
----------------------
boltcutters
You don't get it either.
You can't compare government employment to private.
Not everything is as sophomoric as you see it.
in reply to kc
----------------------
boltcutters
Why don't you and your three sycophants tell us how many business owners can make the government step in and bail them out when their employees demand raises and benefits.
in reply to kc
----------------------
Tedster
Your statement comes across as extremely ignorant.
in reply to boltcutters
----------------------
boltcutters
That's because you don't get it.
That's the problem, not me stating it.
in reply to Tedster
----------------------
Pax1
There is good reason for that. Your perception is entirely justified.
in reply to Tedster
----------------------
boltcutters
Feel better about yourself now?
in reply to Pax1
----------------------
beke673
So there aren't attorneys, secretaries, office assistants, accountants, cooks, legal secretaries, office managers, landscapers, economists, engineers, IT specialists, executive directors, etc, etc, etc, etc, in the private sector?
in reply to boltcutters
----------------------
boltcutters
The same people who scream about "bailouts" for "private" business see no irony in demanding the same for government employees.
----------------------
[Does the following sound familiar?]
WallysPal
Here's a quote from the great novelist and noted America-hater, John Steinbeck. Defines the Bagger philosophy to a Tea - so to speak. All the rich need to do is convince everyone in the trailer park that they too can someday be rich. Once they've done that, getting them to vote against their own self interest is guaranteed, as long as you consistently tell the lie.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporality embarrassed millionaires."
----------------------
sunshine_and_rainbows
Just like you're convinced there's a difference between democrats, republicans, etc. You are a fool and an idiot.
in reply to WallysPal
----------------------
WallysPal
Wow, that was easy.
in reply to sunshine_and_rainbows
----------------------
boltcutters
Well, if you're going to try as hard as you do to stir up and make trouble you'll find that most folks will be defensive.
Why don't you stop and see what happens.
in reply to WallysPal
----------------------
sunshine_and_rainbows
Yeah it was, you did all the work for me.
in reply to WallysPal
----------------------
justathought
Corporate money and the power/influence that comes with it is a strong force but it too has its limits. That's the difference. No more "champagne and caviar dreams" aka; "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". You try and take away our union jobs you are declaring class warfare!
in reply to sunshine_and_rainbows
----------------------
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/03/1602416/stop-picking-on-underpaid-state.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1IVek0cJD
..........................................
Triumph of the Swill
From The Hill:
A small but vocal group of Tea Party activists gathered outside the Capitol on Thursday to urge House Republican leaders to hold the line and push for deeper spending cuts in the federal budget.
Chanting, “Cut it or shut it” and “We want less,” the activists directed their ire at Senate Democrats, arguing that the cuts they have demanded are not “extreme,” but necessary to right the nation’s fiscal ship.
Once upon a time this nation set its sights on the moon while ending poverty at home. Now 150 hypocritical malcontent bleat for the slashing of their own throat. We want less. Indeed.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Sandy coughed this one up in the TNT....
.....post an equivocation, never concede the truth, instead deflect, and then take the deflection off on a tangent - intended or otherwise. When what little credibility existed is gone, change screen name.
Nothing new to this approach - seen it before.
It is really a useless exercise to attempt conversation with this type of pathological fabulist.
Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/03/31/republican-hypocrisy/#ixzz1INbx7RAG
Self description????
Nothing new to this approach - seen it before.
It is really a useless exercise to attempt conversation with this type of pathological fabulist.
Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/03/31/republican-hypocrisy/#ixzz1INbx7RAG
Self description????
Friday, April 1, 2011
From Bill Maher, worth repeating.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - John Steinbeck
Busted
I never have been a true believer in the sock puppet theory. Sure, the She Beast has had to assume various aliases but because of her inability to write in anything other than full-on narcissistic snark, her attempts to spoof are always transparent as Granny’s underwear. There is a strange cabal of emotionally stunted men who ape her psychopathology, but I have been skeptical that the similarity of mono-browed opinion in the comments section was anything more than the echo of like mined morans. Then today I came across this little nugget.
Interubes
Glenn...what a shame. You are actually using your sockpuppet to comment this story. Incredible. This does it for me on the Oly comments. What a despicable gang of little trolls.
sunshine_and_rainbows
Its tactics, a large force of small trolls can take out a big idiot.
Good on Interubes for seeing the light. Perhaps we should start a support group for those who have turned their backs on the cesspool.
If there were any pretense of moderation, never mind the competence of said moderation, glenn would be gone, but because fascist Grandpappy is a pet troll of Ms. McGee the Olympian, comments section will continue it inexorable circular path down the bowl.
So I just got back from vacation...
And I passed the famous "Uncle Sam" sign in Chehalis...
Paraphrasing, it said..
First Iraq, then Afghanistan, now Lybia.
What are you going to get us into next, Obama?
Gee, Obama got us into Iraq and Afghanistan??????
I guess that Bush guy must have been on leave from his National Guard assignment and let Barak take over that day....
Oh,those wacky republicans..
Paraphrasing, it said..
First Iraq, then Afghanistan, now Lybia.
What are you going to get us into next, Obama?
Gee, Obama got us into Iraq and Afghanistan??????
I guess that Bush guy must have been on leave from his National Guard assignment and let Barak take over that day....
Oh,those wacky republicans..
Sometimes a Great Reply
In an LTE to the Zip Patricia Vandehey of Shelton patiently explains how the power of true grassroots organizing shut down the Adage incinerator project. Unable to wrap their minds around the truth, the puppets popped up in force. One of my favorites, Jimmy the Stool, blathered:
Jimmy_S
Mason county residents? More like the professional environmental protesters from out of the area killed this thing. Most of the real, long time residents were for this plant coming in, and I grew up in Shelton so I know a lot of long timers.
You know, the usual Know Thing and Proud of it crap that fills the bowels of the cesspool. Then this response put a smile on my face.
farfetched
I live in Mason County and participated, so I personally KNOW the people who opposed the plant. Most of the organizers are either business owners, professionals, doctors, and retired people. My father protested and he's in his 70's.
Define a "professional" protester. Do you think we get paid to protect ourselves? Do you have any idea how stupid "professional protester" sounds? It sounds so stupid it almost makes me believe you were born here.
It's like calling us "elitists". Yeah, all of us Shelton "elitists" conspire professionally while we rub elbows at Walmart and secret meetings at the Fir Cone or Bob's for a schooner. After all, everyone knows Mason county is where all the 'elitists' and 'professional protesters' live. It's a dumb enough idea. You might be a Shelton redneck.
If MOST wanted it, then they would have gathered more than the 3500 signatures we did opposing it and demanded a ballot like we did. WE were willing to put our votes where our mouths are. Those for it? They knew if it was put to a vote it would fail.
We didn't find many that wanted it or even knew about it.
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/04/01/1600054/mason-county-residents-helped.html#ixzz1IK3fix3N
Bravo farfetched, bravo.
New program from the NRA
.............................................
New NRA Initiative Aims to Put Lead Back in Paint, Gasoline
In a surprising development, the NRA said this week that not only is it opposing the Center for Biological Diversity's ban on lead in hunting ammo but is also pursuing the return of lead to house paint and vehicle fuel. A spokesman said federal laws in the 1970s that banned leaded gas and lead paint were unconstitutional and an attack on the personal freedom of many gun owners.
According to spokesman Buck Gummint, Jr.: "The Constitution was not written to tell Americans what they can't do. You know I'm right on this. It was written to tell us we can do anything we want. And that includes breathing some toxic fumes. And that includes ingesting toxic materials. So if that gives liberals a little cancer or makes their babies dumb, that's just the cost of doing business. 'Cause I got news for pantywaists and you can quote me: Freedom is not free."
The NRA's new program, which was inaugurated last year with a well-funded campaign to keep lead in hunting ammunition nationwide, is rapidly expanding. Its next freedom-defending projects, Gummint told reporters, will include the repeal of child-seatbelt laws and lifting of bans on the interstate transport of thermonuclear devices.
.............................................
New NRA Initiative Aims to Put Lead Back in Paint, Gasoline
In a surprising development, the NRA said this week that not only is it opposing the Center for Biological Diversity's ban on lead in hunting ammo but is also pursuing the return of lead to house paint and vehicle fuel. A spokesman said federal laws in the 1970s that banned leaded gas and lead paint were unconstitutional and an attack on the personal freedom of many gun owners.
According to spokesman Buck Gummint, Jr.: "The Constitution was not written to tell Americans what they can't do. You know I'm right on this. It was written to tell us we can do anything we want. And that includes breathing some toxic fumes. And that includes ingesting toxic materials. So if that gives liberals a little cancer or makes their babies dumb, that's just the cost of doing business. 'Cause I got news for pantywaists and you can quote me: Freedom is not free."
The NRA's new program, which was inaugurated last year with a well-funded campaign to keep lead in hunting ammunition nationwide, is rapidly expanding. Its next freedom-defending projects, Gummint told reporters, will include the repeal of child-seatbelt laws and lifting of bans on the interstate transport of thermonuclear devices.
.............................................
April Fool
I went through the ThurstonBlog Archives to find
the most deceiving picture I could find from the past year.
Sarah Palin logging with no sawdust on coveralls, boots or saw
was the hands-down winner
Glad she's wearing a safety vest so that passing cars can see her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The state of Indiana has charged Bei Bei Shuai, 34, with murder and feticide. She faces up to 85 years in prison if convicted...