Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* In another sign of just how brutal the Nevada dogfight has become, Harry Reid is up with a hard hitting negative ad slamming Sharron Angle over her "extreme" and "dangerous" suggestion that we should move in the direction of privatizing the Department of Veterans Affairs:

By the way, the story of Angle's suggestion about the veterans agency was first broken right here on this blog.

* Desperate fundraising ploy of the day: A longshot GOP House candidate runs an ad saying "they" (meaning conquering Muslims) want to build a "victory" mosque "by ground zero," and pairs the ad with an online fundraising form.

* Awesome news! CNN will televise a debate on October 13th between Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell.

* Josh Marshall senses a turn in Dem fortunes, in the form of an uptick for Dems in the generic Congressional matchup.

* Misfire of the day: Sam Stein reports that a lobbying firm that the White House and Dems are pillorying for raising money for Republicans, supposedly proving K-Street is betting on a big GOP win, has actually given much more to Dem candidates.

* Ben Smith notes that predictions that Bill Clinton would stomp all over Obama's foreign policy agenda if Hillary were made secretary of state just haven't come to pass.

Of course, not everyone bought into that view of the Clintons. And Obama was very shrewd not to take the view of the Clintons as power-mad schemers too seriously, something he plainly never believed, even though some of his top supporters skillfully got media figures to tell the story that way during the 2008 primary, often in comically outlandish terms.

* And speaking of Bill, there's no one better positioned to make this particular case to Dems that they'd better turn out this fall, or else:

"There will be two years of unrelenting investigation of the White House, the staff, the Cabinet," he warned. "It'll be Newt Gingrich all over again."

* Who are they working for again? A new report finds that most of the "moderate" House Dems who want to keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich have tiny percentages of constituents who would be impacted by doing that.

* Pushback of the day: The grandson of Franklin Delano Roosevelt blasts Wisconsin Tea Partying Senate candidate Ron Johnson's new ad accusing Dems of raiding Social Security, accusing Johnson of "scaring senior citizens."

* Pew Research is trumpeting its finding that nearly four in ten say letting the tax cuts for the rich expire would hurt the economy.

Yes, but 26 percent say doing so would have no effect, and 26 percent say it would hurt -- for a total of 52 percent. Also: Only a third of independents say ending the tax cuts for the rich would hurt.

* The media obsession with O'Donnell's "dabbled into witchcraft" quote seems misguided, since her other quotes are far, far worse.

* And Michael Falcone aptly notes that Sarah Palin's new video hailing the Tea Party makes no mention whatsover of that political organization known as the GOP.

You betcha: She's putting GOP leaders on notice that her growing independent power base is a force to be reckoned with.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | September 21, 2010; 6:02 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, 2012, Happy Hour Roundup, House Dems, House GOPers, Political media, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: GOP obstructionism works, part 973
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Larry Summers resigned.

Perhaps O'Donnell's nose twitched.

Posted by: tao9 | September 21, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I don't think that ANY of those O'Donnell quotes are bad (I've already dealt with the "witchcraft" and "indentity disorder" quotes). You really want to argue that most Americans don't believe: "People are created in God's image"?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

My condolences to the families of the 9 soldiers who died in the helicopter crash Afghanistan.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Article in The New Yorker on the stimulus success and how "watching Rome burn" is politically more safe than doing something about it. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/09/20/100920ta_talk_surowiecki

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 21, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Thanks (again) for the reminder.

To the 48% of Americans who are "so extreme" because of their opposition to same-sex marriage:

Donate to Christine O'Donnell's campaign today!

https://secure.piryx.com/donate/ObyCSaw9/Friends-of-Christine-ODonnell/primary-victory

Or, send a check to "Friends of Christine O'Donnell" • PO Box 3987 • Wilmington, DE 19807

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Glad Summers is leaving. Nothing good to say about that guy.

Jake, could you outline some of her experience that would make her an effective Senator? Also, what is she going to do once she's in the Senate?

I assume that your answer will, at least in part, address the subject of mast*rbation.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 21, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

"Or, send a check to "Friends of Christine O'Donnell" • PO Box 3987 • Wilmington, DE 19807"

She prefers that you make that check out to "cash".

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell gets lumped in with Angle and Palin for obvious reasons, but as a candidate, she seems to be much better than the other two. Palin and Angle are hilariously incompetent debaters, but I don't think O'Donnell will be. I also think she is far more charismatic than the other two. I think it's to the GOP's detriment that she is in Delaware where she will have a much harder time winning. I don't think Reid would stand a chance of O'Donnell was his opponent. I hope COons takes her seriously.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 21, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Benen points us to a sleek new website to keep track of Health Care Reform. Cool stuff:

http://healthreform.kff.org

The following provisions go into effect THIS THURSDAY, September 23rd:

* Adult Dependent Coverage to Age 26 *

Extends dependent coverage for adult children up to age 26 for all individual and group policies.

* Consumer Protections in Insurance *

Prohibits individual and group health plans from placing lifetime limits on the dollar value of coverage, rescinding coverage except in cases of fraud, and from denying children coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions or from including pre-existing condition exclusions for children. Restricts annual limits on the dollar value of coverage (and eliminates annual limits in 2014)

* Insurance Plan Appeals Process *

Requires new health plans to implement an effective process for allowing consumers to appeal health plan decisions and requires new plans to establish an external review process.

* Coverage of Preventive Benefits *

Requires new health plans to provide at a minimum coverage without cost-sharing for preventive services rated A or B by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended immunizations, preventive care for infants, children, and adolescents, and additional preventive care and screenings for women.

Check out the awesome timeline as to when provisions take effect:

http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

I want someone to ask her about carbon dating in the debates. Well, and witch dating...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 21, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama said

The Mexicans were here long before America was "an idea"


Mexico was founded in 1810.


So what is Obama talking about?


Does Obama EVEN know his history?


Everyone seems to forget Obama was raised in Indonesia, not here - so the usual schooling just did not happen with Obama.

IS OBAMA "ONE OF US" ???


Valid question.


If Obama came down against the mosque at Ground Zero, I think a great number of people would be willing to say Obama is "one of us" - but Obama keeps on giving us reason to believe otherwise.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Draft Paul Krugman!

Posted by: jzap | September 21, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Senate GOP leadership will move Wednesday to strip Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) of her position as the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee's ranking member.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/09/senate-republicans-to-strip-mu.html

Should be interesting to see who gets the spot in her place. Inhofe?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, that sounds like crazy Muslim socialism. Wouldn't it be better if people died nice, free-market deaths?

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 21, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I thought Murkowski already resigned all her committee positions.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 21, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI:

Could you review my posts (including "Christine O'Donnell On the Issues" in the prior threads), or do you want me to cut and paste that all here again? She's at least as qualified as Al Franken was. On the "lust in your heart = adultery" stuff, I pointed out that Jimmy Carter said the same exact thing.

SaveTheRainforest:

Maybe he was thinking about Mexico existing before all 57 States ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Rainman just made me laugh. Again.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 21, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Chuck: "I want someone to ask her about carbon dating in the debates."

I've heard she prefers silicon-based life forms.

Posted by: jzap | September 21, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell will end up winning.


She has the money now to run the commercials she needs to run.


Chris Coons - the "Bearded Marxist" - does anyone expect him to be sent to Washington to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH WITH OBAMA???

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

As a woman of principled determination, with a governing philosophy centered on the core values of the great American tradition and a wide experience in taking on the liberal establishment, Christine O’Donnell is more than qualified to be a Senator.

Christine has served as a marketing and media consultant to various clients, including: Icon Pictures’ The Passion of The Christ; Natalia Tsarkova, the Vatican’s first female portrait painter; and non-profit organizations such as the World Education and Development Fund, a charity that provides scholarships to children in poor communities throughout Latin America.

After attending Fairleigh Dickinson University in Madison, NJ, Christine was awarded a 2002 Abraham Lincoln Graduate Fellowship in Constitutional Government from the Claremont Institute in Claremont, CA.

Christine O’Donnell is a nationally recognized political commentator and marketing consultant. She appears weekly, sometimes daily, on national news outlets such as the Fox News Channel, CNN, C-SPAN, MSNBC and ABC, including major ratings hits like “The O’Reilly Factor,” “Hannity & Colmes,” “The Glenn Beck Show,” “Hardball with Chris Matthews” and “Entertainment Tonight.” Christine is also a frequent radio talk show guest-host on WGMD in Rehoboth Beach and WDEL in Wilmington, DE.

As part of a delegation of journalists, Christine toured the middle-eastern country of Jordan as a guest of the Royal Jordanian government. Having witnessed firsthand the oppression in the Middle East, Christine describes this journey as truly a life changing experience and says it deepened her commitment to the women’s movement.

An effective communicator, Christine is known for her skill in winning over even those who disagree with her most. Liberal Bill Maher stated, “I don’t know how many times you’ve been here but it’s always a good show when you’re on.” Even Democratic strategist James Carville was forced to admit of Christine O’Donnell “Now, this is one hip woman,” on CNN’s “Crossfire.”

During her 20-year career, Christine has served as a social advocate in Washington, D.C., participating in regular White House and Capitol Hill strategy meetings and leading delegations to the United Nations to lobby on behalf of pro-family global policies. She’s successfully debated Cabinet members, lawmakers and international leaders.

In the early 1990’s Christine worked for the Republican National Committee (under then Chairman Haley Barbour) helping to develop the marketing strategy credited with having had a key role in the historic ’94 Republican Congressional sweep.

She was at least BORN in the USA, is at least 30 years old, and an inhabitant of the state she seeks to represent.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 12:05 PM

I guess you never listened to [Franken's] show on the (now-defunct) Air America Radio network. Do I have to remind you about the Presidential veto lesson I gave you too?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Poor Harry is so desperate. And such vitriolic and even irresponsible campaigner. Says a lot that this unprincipled hatchet man is a party leader.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

"Does Obama EVEN know his history?"

I don't know...you wrongly claimed earlier that we live in a democracy, which we don't.

Maybe people who don't even understand the basics of our government shouldn't be throwing stones at other's so-called lack of knowledge.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Is STRF really that stupid?

Unlike the United States, a large percentage of the Mexican population is descended (pure or mixed race) from indigenous Americans -- i.e., people who were in North America long before Europeans. Yes, they can say, "It was our continent long before it was yours."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 21, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

IMHO:

"Larry Summers resigns." ≠ "Article in The New Yorker on the stimulus success..."

heh

Posted by: tao9 | September 21, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Jake


A little bit more than the "nothing" the democrats have portrayed, huh?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm from California, so I know the reputation of the Claremont Colleges and the Claremont Institute (while I favor the Hoover Institution at my alma mater, it is still well regarded). As for web sites, I preferred the aesthetics on the Bush White House site over the current site, so?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 12:20 PM

At least she's not under indictment like Greene. O'Donnell also never implied that she was taking master's degree classes, nor that she had been accepted, at Princeton University -- she did take one undergraduate, non-matriculated class at PU on constitutional government -- in fact, her lawsuit specifically alleged that "ISI violated its promise to allow Miss O'Donnell time to take Master's degree classes ..."

What part of that don't you understand?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 12:29 PM

Neither is the Hoover Institution OFFICIALLY affiliated with Stanford University. Of course, the Claremont Institute was founded by four students of Harry V. Jaffa, a professor emeritus at Claremont McKenna College and the Claremont Graduate University, with many of the interns and Fellows being selected from the Claremont Colleges. So, it's a little more than "has nothing to do" with the Colleges.

Also, Miss O'Donnell never claimed that she graduated (until she did graduate this year). How many fine, upstanding Americans never graduated from college do you think?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 1:05 PM

A turnip is neither an inhabitant of the State nor can it "seek" to represent said State.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 1:47 PM

I'm not here for "pathos" (or even to convince you libs of the error of your ways). The day after Christine O'Donnell won the GOP primary, Rush Limbaugh urged his listeners to each send her $1. For the purposes of my instant hypothetical, assume that 2 million listeners did exactly that.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 2:12 PM

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Vote for Christine O'Donnell, the Wiccan Witch of The East.

She persuaded Conan O'Brien's Bear to stop playing with himself.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I could keep going?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"Josh Marshall senses a turn in Dem fortunes, in the form of an uptick for Dems in the generic Congressional matchup."
----------------------------------------------

I've been kind of expecting (or perhaps "daring to hope" would be a better term) all year that once people got their kids back into school and started, started turning more than a passing glance upon the election and began taking stock of the actual candidates that Republicans have been nominating this year, a lot of the shine might tend to wear off the idea of sending a bunch of them to congress pretty quickly. Up to now, the fact there's an election this year has been more of an abstract concept than anything else for most people. Now it's getting real.

So I've generally been pooh-poohing polls and pundit predictions as much ado about nothing all year long because as crazy as it may sound to hopeless political junkies, most people don't start tuning into the election campaign in any meaningful sense until after Labor Day. When people told pollsters they were paying more attention to the election than usual, for most of them that just meant they're aware that we're having one. But we're finally to the point where I'd expect things will either start taking a turn for the better or start going horribly, horribly wrong in a hurry. If it's the latter, this time it won't be a drill. But I'm still cautiously optimistic.

Posted by: CalD | September 21, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Christine O’Donnell On the Issues:

Jobs - Believes jobs are created when businesses are freed from endless taxes and bureaucratic red tape.

Security - Believes terrorism is an act of war requiring the full force of our intelligence and military resources rather than granting terrorists precious Constitutional rights and outsourcing our foreign policy to the U.N.

Debt - Believes heaping trillions in debt on the backs of our grandchildren is immoral and that Congress is elected to make the hard choices to preserve our nation’s future prosperity.

Taxes - Will fight to remove the crushing tax burden faced by American families and businesses and dramatically simplify the tax code.

Life - Strongly believes in protecting the sanctity of life at ALL stages.

Energy - Supports a market-based approach to energy solutions that will keep competition high and energy prices low.

Values - Believes our country was founded on core values of faith, family and freedom and will fight to defend those values. Will always fight for maximum choice for parents about where to educate their kids, including private, parochial and charter schools or in the home.

Spending - Believes unrestrained government spending is eroding our freedom, destroying our economy and ceding our sovereignty to foreign debt- holders like China.

Accountability - Denounces corrupt pork-barrel politics, including earmarks, and will fight for increased transparency and performance information for every Federal program.

Healthcare - Believes that the solution to the healthcare crisis is less government meddling in the doctor/patient relationship, more competition in the insurance market and more choice for families about their health plan.

Gun Control - Christine’s strong support of 2nd Amendment rights has earned her an “A” rating from the NRA.

DO YOU WANT MORE?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Why do Republicans feel that our Troops are afraid of gay people, and have to be protected from them?

There are gay people in all walks of civilian life, and yet the nation has not fallen apart.

Is our Military that cowardly, that they have to be protected, by mostly Chicken Hawks, from a small percentage of our own population, which is one of the the most law abiding and peaceful communities in the land.

Republicans are afraid of their own shadows, and are nothing but a bunch of bed wetting cowards. Imagine how fast they will run and hide, if terrorists ever deploy a gay terror cell!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Jake-

So, how is O'Donnell different from the run of the mill GOP candidate? Why would Rove give a rat's arse about someone so "mainstream"?

Haven't you just described the vast majority of the GOP? Why have a Tea Party at all?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 21, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1


You can hold the name-calling


If Obama wanted to say american indians, or native Americans, he could have.

But Obama said MEXICANS -

OLA !

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

"How many fine, upstanding Americans never graduated from college do you think?

Posted by: JakeD2"

For O'Donnell's sake hopefully a lot, since they are the only ones who will vote for her.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 21, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Chuck, that's too bad you refused to answer my questions to you on that prior thread -- should have thought through the consequences of that earlier -- I wish I could help you ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

When will Harry Reid call the vote on Obama's $700 BILLION TAX INCREASE.


I think it would be a good idea to get all the democrats on the record - in favor of RAISING TAXES $700 BILLION IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECOVERY.

When will Harry Call that vote?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

ddawd


Obama apparently finished college, what good did it do him?

./

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell is a Grifter.


She was hired by a Coservative Non-Profit Organization, and they fired her, after they caught her doing for profit work, for herself, while, working out of their offices.

She then sued them for millions, and claimed gender discrimination. In the court documents, that she submitted, she claimed that she had a college degree, when she did not have one. She lied to the court, and should be charged with having done so. She got no settlement, and she dropped the charges. She was just trying to bluff the Conservative Non-Profit group, into giving her millions of dollars, of their donor's money.

She is A Grifter.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

"... one of the the most law abiding and peaceful communities in the land."

LOL!!! Putting aside, for the moment, that homosexual activity was ILLEGAL prior to Lawrence v. Texas -- every molesting priest and most mass murderers are homosexuals (or at least bi-sexual) if not canibals to boot -- how about this for "law abiding":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXHJQSX78o

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

"But Obama said MEXICANS"

I'm sure it would've had the same effect if he had instead referred to the "citizens of New Spain".

Truth is, Mexicans did exist before 1810. The Aztec capital was México-Tenochtitlan which then became Mexico City in 1524.

But don't let a few facts stand in the way of your repetitive, maniacal ravings.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

STRF,

Mexico Tenochtitlan was founded in 1325. You lose. Again.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 21, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

P.S. she did not claim that she had a college degree in court papers (she only this year finished the last course in order to formally obtain her degree in English Lit., with a concentration in Communication). But, you already knew that, didn't you?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

"every molesting priest and most mass murderers are homosexuals"

Really? "EVERY" molesting priest was gay? Not one single girl was molested? Ever? And what the heck does "most" mean?

You may just be the perfect storm of bigotry and ignorance. Congratulations.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

.

Why do Republicans feel that our Troops are afraid of gay people, and have to be protected from them?

There are gay people in all walks of civilian life, and yet the nation has not fallen apart.

Is our Military that cowardly, that they have to be protected, by mostly Chicken Hawks, from a small percentage of our own population, which is one of the the most law abiding and peaceful communities in the land.

Republicans are afraid of their own shadows, and are nothing but a bunch of bed wetting cowards. Imagine how fast they will run and hide, if terrorists ever deploy a gay terror cell!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Keep polishing that turd, Jake.

I'm sure one of your fellow-turd polishers will buy it off you. Good luck selling it to anyone else, though.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 21, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

jake-

Oh, remember the thread-the one where you made a ridiculous hypothetical/wingnuttia/birther-esque argument and asked me to reply to it. I don't reply to questions about what would I do if: Obama declared martial law/Obama works for Al Quaeda/Obama's jumpshot isn't as good as_____.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 21, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Texas was a part of Mexico, so of course they were here first.

They named a certain state: New Mexico, so of course they were here first.

Only TeaBagger Morons fail to grasp that historical fact.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Vote for Christine O'Donnell, the Wiccan Witch of The East.

She has a catchy campaign slogan:

A New Broom Swoops Clean.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

.

She lied to the court about having a degree,and of having been prevented from taking time off to attend college in pursuit of her masters degree.

'Donnell is a Grifter.


She was hired by a Coservative Non-Profit Organization, and they fired her, after they caught her doing for profit work, for herself, while, working out of their offices.

She then sued them for millions, and claimed gender discrimination. In the court documents, that she submitted, she claimed that she had a college degree, when she did not have one. She lied to the court, and should be charged with having done so. She got no settlement, and she dropped the charges. She was just trying to bluff the Conservative Non-Profit group, into giving her millions of dollars, of their donor's money.

She is A Grifter.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

Christine "Dabbled into witchcraft but never joined a coven" O'Donnell said the following in her amended complaint against ISI:

"ISI violated its promise to allow Miss ODonnell time to take Master's degree classes at Princeton in return for a salary as small as $65,000 for her credentials and expertise, and as a result of ISI's breach of its agreement, Miss O'Donnell was forced to quit her courses at Princeton, losing her time and money invested in this course of study at Princeton."

Except she was never accepted for graduate study at Princeton, never took graduate courses at Princeton, and thus could not have been forced to "quit" such graduate courses.

She lied.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 21, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

scat:

Every priest molesting an alter boy is a homosexual (or at least bi). Do you have any source, news story, lawsuit etc. of a priest molesting a little girl?

Chuck:

I don't answer your questions either.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell for U.S. Senate.

A New Kind of Repubwiccan.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 21, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Conan O'Brien's Bear has endorsed The Wiccan Witch Of The East;

and said that she was the one who stopped him from habitually pleasuring himself.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1:

If I send in an entrance fee to run in a marathon, but then you hit me driving your car with injuries so severe that I am "forced to quit" before I can even run the race, those are damages I can assert against you in a lawsuit. O'Donnell never claimed that she had a college degree in court papers. Even if she did, the statute of limitations for purjury has run.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell for U.S. Senate.

A New Kind of Repubwiccan.

Posted by: bearclaw1
------------------------------------
We all tried our hand at slogans, but you are the MAN!

POST.OF.THE.DAY

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 21, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

"Ms. O’Donnell initially expressed reservations about this position, as she had applied for admission to a Master’s Degree program at Princeton University, to start in the fall of 2003, and was concerned that the ISI position would not fit with her plans. "

How do you think she was planning on going to grad school without her bachelor's degree? Do you think she stated on her application to Princeton that she hadn't been conferred a degree? Did she think that maybe they would be so wowed by her dazzling intellect and sparkling personality that they would waive the requirement of an undergraduate degree and let her just skip on ahead?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Is our Military that cowardly, that they have to be protected, by mostly Chicken Hawks, from a small percentage of our own population, which is one of the the most law abiding and peaceful communities in the land.

Republicans are afraid of their own shadows, and are nothing but a bunch of bed wetting cowards. Imagine how fast they will run and hide, if terrorists ever deploy a gay terror cell!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 7:01 PM
----

You're always referring to people as cowards. Now our military is cowardly. I would guess that you have a yellow streak wider than Harry Reid's or you wouldn't keep using the same B.S. You certainly have no respect for yourself or your country.

Here's a clue. A lot of straight guys might enlist in the Armed Forces if they could sleep and shower with members of the opposite sex. My guess is that the worry isn't protecting the majority from a "small percentage of our population", but rather protecting that "small percentage" from the majority who may not relish the idea of some member of the same sex staring at their privates and drooling while they shower. Why don't more of your D-Bagger friends join the military. Then people like Gore and Kerry and Obama wouldn't have to go out of their way to see that military ballots are disqualified in every possible way in every national election.

Posted by: Brigade | September 21, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

To add insult to injury, Obama's pick to head the U.S. Marines admitted to Congressional panel today that he opposes the repeal of DADT:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grHLcTA5VMaxM1KPtvrf3OTOfZuQD9ICC2PG0

(mikefromArlington, wiccan, and carolanne528: is he a bigot too?)

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 6:33 PM

I did not call anyone a bigot. I asked why you rejoiced when your fellow Americans, who are willing to die to protect you, are being treated like second class citizens. Is their service, their sacrifice made less worthy because of who they are?

I thought respect for the members of our military was part of the conservative ethos. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Posted by: wiccan | September 21, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Christine O' Donnell was fired by The Conservative Non-Profit organization, because they caught her running her own for-profit operation, on their time. That is a form of embezzlement. She was taking paychecks from that Conservative Employer, while working for herself, instead of her employer.

She then made up a completely false claim, including lying to the court about her education, in an attempt to shake down the Conservative Non-Profit organization, in an attempt to swindle them out of millions of dollars. They did not fall for it.

So, The Grifter did not get away with her shakedown scam, but never the less, that makes her A Grifter.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"Every priest molesting an alter boy is a homosexual (or at least bi)."

Oh, so now you've changed the standard to "alter boy" (sic).

"Do you have any source, news story, lawsuit etc. of a priest molesting a little girl?"

http://jezebel.com/5518672/the-forgotten-victims-of-priest-sexual-abuse-girls

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw

There is nothing wrong with going on a lesbian date with a witch at midnight on a blood-stained altar.

It's really hot, that's what it is .

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

We've heard ad nauseum since Obama was elected how slooowwwwllly the wheels of government and the economy move. Just be patient, we're told.

From an article by Paul Wiseman in today's USA TODAY: "A panel of prominent economists delivered a verdict Monday that may surprise 14.9 million unemployed Americans: The Great Recession ended more than a year ago, in June 2009."

Obama had been in office scarcely more than four months in June 2009. So by typical liberal logic, he and his policies could have had little or nothing to do with ending "The Great Recession." What they do own, however, is a non-recovery and staggering unemployment numbers. Good job!

Posted by: Brigade | September 21, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

"Even if she did, the statute of limitations for purjury has run."

So, it isn't actually a lie because she can't be charged criminally? Is that the new standard for the Republican party?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are painting Our Military as Cowards, who have to be shielded from Gay People.

Regular civilian Americans do not have to be protected from gay people, so why do the Republicans feel that Our Military is not capable of being able to interact with them.

Why do Republicans keep portraying Our Military as a bunch of cowards, who are scared to have some gay people in their ranks?

Republicans are afraid of everything.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

LOST on the MEDIA REPORTING TODAY


Harry Reid had the democrats go ON RECORD AS SUPPORTING AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS


THAT was in the Defense Bill.

Rolllllllll up those 30-seond ads.

Thank you Harry.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

Meso-america (which they are trying to claim is the same as "Mexico") NEVER reached into territory now known as the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mesoam%C3%A9rica_relief_map_with_continental_scale.png

The Influence of Teotihuacan in Meso-america peaked around AD 500 and declined over the 8th to 10th centuries. In fact, no culture was dominant in the present-day Texas region, and many peoples inhabited the area. Native American tribes that lived inside the boundaries of present-day Texas include the Alabama, Apache, Atakapan, Bidai, Caddo, Coahuiltecan, Comanche, Choctaw, Coushatta, Hasinai, Jumano, Karankawa, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Tonkawa, and Wichita. The name Texas derives from "táysha" a word in the Caddoan language of the Hasinai, which means "friends" or "allies".

Not until SPAIN, in 1519, send explorer Alonso Álvarez de Pineda did that area see its first European. Obviously, Columbus had already discovered America by then. By 1497, John Cabot had landed in North America. In 1528, shipwrecked Spanish explorer Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca and his cohorts landed in Texas.

European powers ignored Texas until accidentally settling there in 1685. By then, Jamestown was settled in 1607. Miscalculations by René Robert Cavelier de La Salle resulted in his establishing the colony of Fort Saint Louis at Matagorda Bay rather than along the Mississippi River. The colony lasted only four years before succumbing to harsh conditions and hostile natives.

In 1690 Spanish authorities, concerned that France posed competitive threat, constructed several missions in East Texas. After Native American resistance, the Spanish missionaries returned to Mexico. When France began settling Louisiana, mostly in the southern part of the state, in 1716 Spanish authorities responded by founding a new series of missions in East Texas. Two years later, they created San Antonio as the first Spanish civilian settlement in Texas.

Hostile native tribes and distance from nearby Spanish colonies discouraged settlers from moving to Texas. It was one of New Spain's least populated provinces. In 1749, the Spanish peace treaty with the Lipan Apache angered many tribes, including the Comanche, Tonkawa, and Hasinai. The Comanche signed a treaty with Spain in 1785 and later helped to defeat the Lipan Apache and Karankawa tribes.

When the United States purchased Louisiana from France in 1803, American authorities insisted that the agreement also included Texas. The rest is history.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"Meso-america (which they are trying to claim is the same as "Mexico") NEVER reached into territory now known as the United States."

Who is "they"?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

cat wrote: "Even if she did, the statute of limitations for purjury has run."
-----------------------
The jokester is a lawyer. Doesn't that explain a lot?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 21, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

A person who was a campaign assistant to Christine O'Donnell, when she ran for the US Senate in 2008; has come forward to report that Grifter O'Donnell had no income or savings, and payed her personal bills out of campaign contributions. That is breaking the law, and makes her A Grifter.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Jake's new standard: it isn't a lie if the statute of limitations for perjury has run.

Repubwiccan standards of honesty are definitely low.

Besides, Jake, the amended complaint against ISI was filed on September 29, 2005, and the federal statute of limitations for perjury, 18 U.S.C. 3282, is five years. So she isn't out of the woods until next Wednesday.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 21, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

scat:

Fine, MOST priests molesting children are homosexuals. As for O'Donnell's application to Princeton, I have not yet seen that, so I can't answer your questions about any alleged "lie". I have seen the lawsuit, and there's no "lie" therein. My comment regarding the statute of limitations was not about a "lie" (assuming arguendo that she lied) but rather someone else urging that she be "charged" for perjury. It's called a LEGAL DEFENSE, maybe you've heard about them?

wiccan:

I never said that you called anyone a "bigot". I'm ASKING you if you think that General Amos is? If not, then I would think you'd concede that there are valid military reasons for not repealing DADT. That's why I celebrate!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat at 7:13 PM


bearclaw1 at 7:18 PM


Did you two even READ the quote?


Obama said the Mexicans were HERE - in the present territory of the United States


So you BOTH ARE WRONG - AGAIN


Aren't you exhausted having to defend Obama?


The democrats should be.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat at 7:13 PM


bearclaw1 at 7:18 PM


Did you two even READ the quote?


Obama said the Mexicans were HERE - in the present territory of the United States


So you BOTH ARE WRONG - AGAIN


Aren't you exhausted having to defend Obama?


The democrats should be.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

"I thought respect for the members of our military was part of the conservative ethos. Perhaps I was mistaken."

It is. That's one reason why we oppose the radicals' imposition of their social and psychological reeducation program on them.

Now that wasn't so complicated, was it? How does it feel to have Lady Gaga as your policy spokesmoron?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

.

Christine O' Donnell was fired by The Conservative Non-Profit organization, because they caught her running her own for-profit operation, on their time. That is a form of embezzlement. She was taking paychecks from that Conservative Employer, while working for herself, instead of her employer.

She then made up a completely false claim, including lying to the court about her education, in an attempt to shake down the Conservative Non-Profit organization, in an attempt to swindle them out of millions of dollars. They did not fall for it.

So, The Grifter did not get away with her shakedown scam, but never the less, that makes her A Grifter.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still wrote,
"Republicans are painting Our Military as Cowards, who have to be shielded from Gay People."
----

No, it's YOU who are so painting them.

The Dems in Congress are able to play you dimwits like a fiddle. Defense, DREAM, DADT, all tied together in one bill with few or no amendments to be offered. Earth to Liam: this bill was INTENDED TO FAIL. That was ole Harry's plan. They want to use these issues to stir up the lowbrainers (like you) for the upcoming elections---even though there was some Republican support for each and every part of the bill---individually. I'll grant you that this Democratic Congress (and this Administration) is probably the most inept and incompetent in my lifetime. But even they could have passed portions of this bill had they made a good faith effort.

This is the point I was making in the discussion about "Big Pill" yesterday evening. Show me the bill and prove you want to pass it; don't use it as a cheap political ploy to raise money and rouse the rabble. I'm not biting.

Posted by: Brigade | September 21, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

"When the United States purchased Louisiana from France in 1803, American authorities insisted that the agreement also included Texas."

We bought Texas from France? You mean all those guys at the Alamo died for nothing? Bummer. I guess "Remember the Lousiana Purchase!" just doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it?

"European powers ignored Texas until accidentally settling there in 1685. "

That's the problem with getting your info from Wikipedia, there's a chance it could be wrong. El Paso, TX was actually founded in 1659 and in 1680 it was the base of governance for the New Mexican territory.

Truth is, your article is only about TX. What about the other areas of the Southwest? Do they not count?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Jake at 7:54

Thank you - I agree the Mexicans were never in the territory of the United States


I supposed the Francisan Priests in California were here at some point - and Santa Fe, New Mexico was founded early.

HOWEVER, the point is Obama REALLY does not know his history -


Obama was raised in Indonesia - learning muslim songs, NOT American history.

Thank you.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to wiccan -- you are, as always, not obligated to answer any of my questions and are free to leave at any time -- but, why didn't you answer that question on the thread I has asked it?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

This is the loony bin. STRF, for some insane reason, is talking about Mexicans. The jokester is talking about homosexual priests, again for some insane reason.

What's really going on? I know it's not about Mexicans or priests. No one cares about that.

Oh, wait, is this a diversion instead of talking about O'Donnell, the latest trainwreck of the Tea Party? Or Sharron Angle, the penultimate trainwreck? Tick tock...will Bill Mayer be releasing another tidbit on Friday? That's the more fun question.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 21, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Let's get onto the BIG NEWS OF THE DAY


Harry Reid has the democrats on the record as AGREEING TO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS


Well - I supposed that is good for Harry in Nevada -


But in the rest of the country, didn't Harry just throw his fellow democrats to the dogs?


Sure seems that way.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are painting Our Military as Cowards, who have to be shielded from Gay People.

Regular civilian Americans do not have to be protected from gay people, so why do the Republicans feel that Our Military is not capable of being able to interact with them.

Why do Republicans keep portraying Our Military as a bunch of cowards, who are scared to have some gay people in their ranks?

Republicans are afraid of everything.

I have more confidence in the ability of Our Miltary to be able to interact with gay people just as well as Americans in civilian life do, every day.

Republicans are making our Military look weak and bigoted.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

"How does it feel to have Lady Gaga as your policy spokesmoron?"

I wouldn't be throwing terms like "spokesmoron" around until someone pulls the plug on Palin's twitter account.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

You're welcome, my friend : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

A whole thread of arguing with trolls over a candidate who is clearly on the full-employment-for-herself plan, illegal immigrants are the reason for everything that's wrong with the country, and the gay is taking away our freedoms.

Folks, we just aren't going to agree, so maybe those interested in policy and issues just ignore the ignorant.

Shorter me: if they argue it on Fox News, please don't take up the whole thread responding to it here.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 21, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to wiccan -- you are, as always, not obligated to answer any of my questions and are free to leave at any time -- but, why didn't you answer that question on the thread I has asked it?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 8:11 PM

My humble apologies. Real life prevented me from posting in a timely manner.

Posted by: wiccan | September 21, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Brigade 7:51 PM

You are 100% correct.

The recession ended in June 2009 - just a few months after Obama got into office - at a time when Obama and the democrats repeatedly stated that Bush and the Republicans were RESPONSIBLE for the state of the economy.


So therefore, THE REPUBLICANS AND BUSH DESERVE CREDIT FOR ENDING THE RECESSION.

The stagnation is ALL OBAMA'S STAGNATION.

The GREAT OBAMA STAGNATION has been CAUSED by a drag on hiring - as a result of uncertainty surrounding Obama's health care plan -

And by the wasteful spending of the Stimulus, which has not created many jobs - and instead just driven the budget deficit to $1.3 Trillion dollars.


Obama's borrowing has led to the GREAT OBAMA STAGNATION.

Thank you Brigade for catching that.

The democrats really can NOT argue with any of this logic - because it is precisely true.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

"Thank you - I agree the Mexicans were never in the territory of the United States"

And your both WRONG.


"I supposed the Francisan Priests in California were here at some point - and Santa Fe, New Mexico was founded early."

You're clueless about the history of the Southwestern part of this country. You should stop because you're really beginning to embarass yourself.

"HOWEVER, the point is Obama REALLY does not know his history -"

Now tell me again, what kind of government do we have here in the US?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

The DREAM Act sounds good to me (and a bunch of Republicans as well, it so happens...): Amnesty for attending college and a path to citizenship as well as/or joining the military. Its not as if is a get out of jail free card.

BTW, great cartoon in the New Yorker showing cop handcuffing a suspect and saying, "anything you say with an accent may be used against you".

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 21, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

"Shorter me: if they argue it on Fox News, please don't take up the whole thread responding to it here."

Shorter shorter BG: don't talk to people who disagree with you.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Oh, wait, is this a diversion instead of talking about O'Donnell, the latest trainwreck of the Tea Party? Or Sharron Angle, the penultimate trainwreck? Tick tock...will Bill Mayer be releasing another tidbit on Friday? That's the more fun question.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 21, 2010 8:11 PM
----

This O'Donnell dame may be the Republican's secret weapon. There are but a few short weeks until the election, and she is acting like a lightning rod. She's sucking up all the oxygen. I don't know if she'll win or lose, but as Toomey, Rubio, Whitman, Miller, Paul, Angle(?), et al. are setting up to possibly run the table, Democrats are obsessed with O'Donnell. She's all we've heard about for a week. A diversion? A little sleight of hand? A little witchcraft perhaps?

Posted by: Brigade | September 21, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat at 8:19


The point is that Obama really does not understand American history - and that is true.


Obama said "before anyone ever thought of America" - one could say that was with the Pilgrims - and the Jamestown colony.

Obama's statement was silly.


>>>>>>>>>>>> Another terrorist incident in Chicago this weekend

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats are not on record supporting Amnesty.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

It occurred to me, now that there is a wiccan on PL, I wonder how long it will take for other lefties to begin mocking her beliefs as a mental disorder.

Yeah, probably not going to happen.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

The recession ended in June 2009 - just a few months after Obama got into office - at a time when Obama and the democrats repeatedly stated that Bush and the Republicans were RESPONSIBLE for the state of the economy.


So therefore, THE REPUBLICANS AND BUSH DESERVE CREDIT FOR ENDING THE RECESSION.


The stagnation is ALL OBAMA'S STAGNATION.


The GREAT OBAMA STAGNATION has been CAUSED by a drag on hiring - as a result of uncertainty surrounding Obama's health care plan -

And by the wasteful spending of the Stimulus, which has not created many jobs - and instead just driven the budget deficit to $1.3 Trillion dollars.


Obama's borrowing has led to the GREAT OBAMA STAGNATION.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

"one could say that was with the Pilgrims - and the Jamestown colony."

Actually, since the term "America" is believed to be derived from the name Amerigo....I think you should do some research and find out who was the first person EVER to use the name Amerigo. Then you could just use THAT date. You'll look even SMARTER then.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

DADT isn't protecting heterosexuals in the military from being around gay and lesbian soldiers, sailor, Marines and airmen. It just "protects" them from people who publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation.

It was a nonsensical policy when Clinton went for the compromise, it is a nonsensical policy today.

Some heterosexual men seem to believe that "open" gays and lesbians in the military will be engaged in incessant sexual harrassment of those who serve with them. In other words, they think gays and lesbians will act just like heterosexual men act toward women. Projection much?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 21, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 7:54 PM

There was a treaty between the United States and the King of Spain in 1819 - and I believe that was between the time that Mexico declared Independence and Spain recognized that independence.


However, there was a treaty which defined the boundary between Lousiana and Texas - and the rest of Mexico.


Anyway -


The truth is that ILLEGAL ALIENS SHOULD GO HOME - to their countries.

.


thank you.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"long before America was even an idea"


Well... when was that ? When Jamestown was founded? or at the Revolution?


Who cares? Obama shouldn't be saying the Mexicans were here in America.

The land taken from Mexico, and Texas - doesn't count - because that was there then - and it is here now.


I supposed that is what the illegal aliens are saying - they refuse to recognize the results of the Mexican War - they are saying that at the least, they should have the right to settle in the land taken from Mexico after the war.

So - anyway - you ARE WRONG.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm so proud that Saxby "bum knee" Chambliss is my Senator. /snark

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/09/21/the-gop-gay-outreach-continues-at-top-speed/

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

"Shorter shorter BG: don't talk to people who disagree with you."

qb, I don't think you really believe that. We're always happy to have interesting debates and discussions. What happens here about 80% of the time anymore is just a bunch of nonsense, IMO. No problem, everyone's entitled, but it's definitely not that enlightening to some of us.

BG, last night was a good night at the PL.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 21, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

In other words, they think gays and lesbians will act just like heterosexual men act toward women. Projection much?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 21, 2010 8:30 PM
-----

Uh . . . what??? That is exactly what they will do. Why do you think heterosexual men act that way toward women? Sexual attraction is sexual attraction, homosexual or not. Do you think pedophiles went through childhood thinking, "Boy, when I grow up, I want to be a child molester!" ???

No. A couple of genes got transposed and they developed an unwholesome and unacceptable sexual predilection. Therefore, they shouldn't work around children. Savvy?

Posted by: Brigade | September 21, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

The truth is that ILLEGAL ALIENS SHOULD GO HOME - to their countries.

thank you.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest
+++++++++++++++++++++++

And the truth is that most would go home if "Americans" would throw those who employ illegal aliens in jail for a couple of years. They are here because people employ them. But we don't have the moral consistency to punish the employer who will commit a federal crime in order to have cheaper labor.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 21, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Let's get back on the Economy


The Great Obama Stagnation is hurting America.


The health care bill has put a massive drag on hiring - and the stimulus dollars have been wasted.


So what is the economic policy of the democrats? MORE STIMULUS? No one wants that.

So WHAT is the economic policy of the democrats?


DO THEY HAVE AN ECONOMIC POLICY?


Obama is DRIFTING


The Great Obama Stagnation.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

"The land taken from Mexico, and Texas - doesn't count - because that was there then - and it is here now."

Can you please translate that sentence? I don't know how to read "babble".

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm so proud that Saxby "bum knee" Chambliss is my Senator. /snark

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/09/21/the-gop-gay-outreach-continues-at-top-speed/

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 8:39 PM
----

Is Hank Johnson your representative? Do you have a poster of Democratic governor Lester Maddox on your wall?

Posted by: Brigade | September 21, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing wrong with going on a lesbian date with a witch on a blood-stained altar at midnight.


Obama is the one who wants an absolute Freedom of Speech.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

"Is Hank Johnson your representative?"

No.

"Do you have a poster of Democratic governor Lester Maddox on your wall?"

Why? Was Maddox a progressive?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Translation for SchrodingerDingerCat

"The land taken from Mexico, and Texas - doesn't count - because that was there then - and it is here now."

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

"SQUAWK!!! SQUAWK!!!! SQUAWK!!! SQUAWK!!!!"

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 21, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

The Great Obama Stagnation


What is Obama's economic policies now?


Why did Summers leave? Was he thrown out ?

Basically, there is chaos on Obama's economic team - and few people can even EXPLAIN what Obama's economic policies are.

Spending $50 Billion more is NOT a policy - it is more like a fish flopping on a pier - it is near the water, but not quite there.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

And the truth is that most would go home if "Americans" would throw those who employ illegal aliens in jail for a couple of years. They are here because people employ them. But we don't have the moral consistency to punish the employer who will commit a federal crime in order to have cheaper labor.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 21, 2010 8:43 PM
----

You are 100% correct. Most of the illegal immigrants are just hard-working people looking for a better life. Arrest those who are exploiting them as slave labor and the influx will slow. Wasn't it McCain who said you can't find regular citizens willing to pick cabbage for $50 an hour? I doubt that. Maybe he meant 50c an hour.

Sholomon Rubashkin of Agriprocessors, scene of the infamous Postville immigration raid of 2008, was acquitted of all 67 counts of child labor violations---at the Postville slaughterhouse; but he was then convicted of 86 counts of financial fraud and sentenced to 27 years in prison. Exploit children and frightened immigrants---okay; screw banks out of money---no, no, no!

Posted by: Brigade | September 21, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

The Great Obama Stagnation


What is Obama's economic policies now?


Why did Summers leave? Was he thrown out ?

Basically, there is chaos on Obama's economic team - and few people can even EXPLAIN what Obama's economic policies are.

Spending $50 Billion more is NOT a policy - it is more like a fish flopping on a pier - it is near the water, but not quite there.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

The Great Obama Stagnation


What is Obama's economic policies now?


Why did Summers leave? Was he thrown out ?

Basically, there is chaos on Obama's economic team - and few people can even EXPLAIN what Obama's economic policies are.

Spending $50 Billion more is NOT a policy - it is more like a fish flopping on a pier - it is near the water, but not quite there.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

No one wants to state what Obama's economic policies are - I guess everyone agrees that Obama has little of an economic program.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

No one wants to state what Obama's economic policies are - I guess everyone agrees that Obama has little of an economic program.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

""Do you have a poster of Democratic governor Lester Maddox on your wall?"

Why? Was Maddox a progressive?

Posted by: schrodingersca"

Hahahahaha, is someone talking about how the Democrats are sooooooo racist because 50 years ago?

I wonder when those nigggers will catch on.

Posted by: DDAWD | September 21, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Apparently, the fear-mongering of the right wing noise machine is working wonders for misrepresentation of whats in HCR and its costs http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_poll

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 21, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Um, I believe Obama's economic program was 1) keep the country from going into a full-blown depression and 2) government spending to take up some of the slack in demand.

#1 was accomplished; #2 fell short of what needed to be done because Presidents Snow and Collins decided that spending an arbitrary amount of money, so long as it didn't exceed $800 billion, was a better idea than spending what needed to be spent to fill the hole in the economy. Either way, economists are in general agreement that the stimulus DID help keep things from being much worse. And no, Sean Hannity is NOT an economist, so whatever he might have told you doesn't really count. Health insurance reform was part of this economic plan as well, and it was done; we aren't seeing the effects yet because it hasn't phased in, but once it does, the requirement that 85% of every dollar paid in premiums be spent on actual care will help hold costs down, as insurers will no longer have an incentive to hike premiums 15 - 20% per year to increase profits for shareholders - in the future, if they want to increase profits, the only way to do it will be by increasing efficiency, because operating expenses and profits will have to ALL come out of that 15% they are allowed over and above payments for medical services.

As for the plan going forward, one aspect just passed - that's the hiring incentives for small businesses. The next is to continue tax relief for the people who need it, while allowing taxes for millionaires to rise slightly on marginal rates to cover the hole the Republicans blew in the budget.

That's Obama's economic plan; I'm sure I left some things out but...compared to 8 years with no job creation, stagnant wages etc, and what he was handed the day he walked in the door...not too shabby.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 21, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

lms,

"qb, I don't think you really believe that."

Actually, I do think it is largely true of BG. It's a bit of a pattern. Not unusual for a leftie academic.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Brigade:

"Arrest those who are exploiting them as slave labor..."

"Exploited" does not seem quite the right word to describe someone who chooses to enter the country illegally in order to find a paying job and manages to do just that. And "slave labor" definitely does not accurately describe a situation in which a person is getting paid to do a job for which he volunteered, and which he is free to leave at any time.

"Sholomon Rubashkin of Agriprocessors, scene of the infamous Postville immigration raid of 2008, was acquitted of all 67 counts of child labor violations---at the Postville slaughterhouse; but he was then convicted of 86 counts of financial fraud and sentenced to 27 years in prison. Exploit children and frightened immigrants---okay; screw banks out of money---no, no, no!"

I was unfamiliar with this, so I looked it up. It's not exactly how you portray it.

Rubashkin was scheduled for 3 different trials; a federal trial on financial fraud charges, another federal trial on illegal immigration charges, and a third, state, trial on child labor law violations. The financial fraud trial came first, and he was convicted on 86 counts. In direct response to these convictions, the immigration charges were dismissed at the prosecutor's request because a conviction would have no impact on his ultimate sentencing (following the fraud convictions) and so they wanted to save time and resources.

The third trial, for child labor violations, went ahead. The prosecutors needed to prove that he had knowingly allowed his company to hire underage workers...workers who, BTW, had provided false documentation regarding their ages. The jury...a different jury, obviously, from the bank fraud trial...determined that the prosecutors did not meet their burden, and so acquitted.

So it is not clear to me who, exactly, you would accuse of thinking that "exploiting" immigrants and their children was OK but "screwing" a bank was not, other than perhaps the jury on the child labor trial. But since they were not involved in the bank trial, even that makes no sense, even if one was to bizarrely assume that they acquitted because they thought violating child labor laws was "okay".

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 21, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell for U.S. Senate.

A New Kind of Repubwiccan.

Posted by: bearclaw1

LOL!

Posted by: carolanne528 | September 21, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

To the sadsack lefties above talking about perjury charges, just so you know, a complaint that isn't sworn under oath isn't a basis for such a charge. Sorry.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Jenn at 9:36


I don't know if you have been following the discussion, but the National Bureau of Economic Statistics said the the economy was already coming out of the recession in the 2nd Quarter of 2009.


1) So, Obama's policies could NOT have prevented a depression - because the recession was already ending.


2) Because Obama said that the economic conditions in 2009 were Bush's responsibility, then the ENDING OF THE RECESSION MUST BE CREDITED TO THE REPUBLICANS AND BUSH.


3) Wasting $800 Billion in Stimulus funds is not really an economic policy. Obama promised a website to track the job creation, but Obama stopped updating the website.


So, Obama DOESN'T REALLY have much of an economic program AT ALL GOING FORWARD.


And everything up to now has been ineffective.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

The new economic numbers out - right now - have confirmed that the Republicans and Bush have brought us OUT of the recession.


So, now the country is dealing with THE GREAT OBAMA STAGNATION.


The GREAT OBAMA STAGNATION has been CAUSED by a drag on hiring - as a result of uncertainty surrounding Obama's health care plan -

And by the wasteful spending of the Stimulus, which has not created many jobs - and instead just driven the budget deficit to $1.3 Trillion dollars.


Obama's borrowing has led to the GREAT OBAMA STAGNATION.


What is important is to REMOVE from the economy those Obama policies which are HOLDING THE ECONOMY BACK - LIKE THE DRAG ON HIRING FROM HEALTH CARE.

This is the way to go.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

I have to be honest - there is no way that the Republican in the Senate race in PA is up by 7 points - AND the Republicans in the Governor and Senate race in Ohio are up by 10 points - AND the rest of the races in the nation are as close as the polls show.


My point is - PA and Ohio are leading indicators - and the bottom is falling out from under the democrats all over the place.


The pollsters haven't really caught what is happening around the nation.


I wonder if the pollsters in Ohio and PA are more focused, or more refined - and somehow they caught the trend there earlier.

The nation has lost complete confidence in Obama -


The idea that Obama responded to the economic crisis with arrogance - and permitted the democrats to make False Charges of Racism - the American people are just NOT in a mood to give Obama another chance.

It is whining to say that the democrats "only had 18 months and $800 BILLION DOLLARS" to fix things.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

The basic truth is that after Obama raises taxes $700 Billion - Obama is going to say THAT IS NOT ENOUGH.


Obama will raise taxes on the rich - but then OBAMA IS GOING TO RAISE THE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS.

No one can TRUST Obama - we all know that.


Obama wants to raise your taxes -


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris Coons: "I am not a Marxist"

Well, if you have to deny it............

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

The bottom line


Who would you rather vote for

The chick who went on a lesbian date with a witch at midnight


OR


The "Bearded Marxist"

I think the Marxist will raise your taxes - and the date with the witch is HOT -

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

You know that rush of expectation you get when you open your mailbox and see an envelope inside, followed by the complete downer of discovering that it is piece of junk mail advertising something you have absolutely no interest in? Well, that is precisely how I've been feeling for the last 30 minutes every time I hit the refresh button.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 21, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

So it is not clear to me who, exactly, you would accuse of thinking that "exploiting" immigrants and their children was OK but "screwing" a bank was not, other than perhaps the jury on the child labor trial. But since they were not involved in the bank trial, even that makes no sense, even if one was to bizarrely assume that they acquitted because they thought violating child labor laws was "okay".

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 21, 2010 9:56 PM
-----

I followed the trials. There was convincing evidence, in my opinion, that child labor laws were violated. The fact that people contrive to maintain a posture of plausible deniability---they didn't "knowingly" do it---reminds me that Barry Bonds didn't knowingly ingest steroids but thought they were only vitamins or whatever. Where do you think these immigrants get these fake documents? Why do you think employers hire them? Don't you believe that employers and their agents exploit them, knowing that, as illegals, they have no one to complain to?

Google 'Henry's Turkey Service'. Those victims(?) weren't illegal immigrants; they were just retarded people---free to go at anytime, as you say.

I didn't suggest that the same jury was used in both of the Postville trials, merely that it seems to be much easier to get a conviction for messing with a bank than for messing with people's lives or violating labor laws. What do you suppose the conviction rate is for people accused of defrauding banks and how might it compare to the conviction rate of businesses accused of hiring illegal immigrants?

I recall a few years ago when lawmakers in Nebraska deigned to get tough on people who hired illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration ceased to be a problem almost immediately. Owners of some of the packing plants went to these lawmakers complaining about a lack of "affordable" labor and threatened to move their operations to some state less concerned with who hired whom and why. Lo and behold, the lawmakers capitulated. Not much sense in having immigration or labor laws if you can't or won't enforce them.

Posted by: Brigade | September 21, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Scott


The nation has the same feeling from Obama's job performance


We were promised one set of things in 2008

And all we got in return was arrogance and False Charges of Racism.


Thank you

Thank you very much.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

@ScottC ""Exploited" does not seem quite the right word to describe someone who chooses to enter the country illegally in order to find a paying job and manages to do just that. And "slave labor" definitely does not accurately describe a situation in which a person is getting paid to do a job for which he volunteered, and which he is free to leave at any time."

That is such an incorrect post it amazes me you did it Scott.

As someone who lives in Florida where "undocumented" workers are indeed EXPLOITED you are simply mistaken or heartless, perhaps both!

I used to pick up milk as a truck driver from Florida dairy farms. Every farm where I picked up milk was totally staffed by Mexicans except for one which had white people with records..sex offenders and such who couldn't get any other job. I've seen FIRST HAND how the system works. Often times..especially in fruit/vegetable picking...these "heinous criminals" who entered the country ILLEGALLY are hired by unethical farmers who use their undocumented condition to "enslave" the workers...if you concede that slavery can be a relative term.

Specifically Scott...these workers have zero protection precisely because of their "heinous" ILLEGAL act of entering our country for work without documentation. And so they are frequently crammed into double wide trailers...sometimes as many as 20 in a trailer more suited for six...they are not paid minimum wages..and then their employers dock the little wages they do make for "housing" costs...even though the "housing" doesn't even meet code. If they or anybody gripes or turns the farmer into the authorities...boom they lose their jobs and perhaps are sent packing back to Mexico. Heartless person that you are Scott, I'm sure you might be comfortable with that situation. However most of the "civilized" world looks down upon what is indeed employers EXPLOITING people who have zero leverage.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 21, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade...Thanks for demonstrating far more knowledge about our immigration problems and "exploitation" than Scott.

While I don't always agree with you brigade at least you try and deal with reality.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 21, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

"Well, that is precisely how I've been feeling for the last 30 minutes every time I hit the refresh button."

Scott, we found something we agree on, after about 13 months of trying. LOL. Have to disagree about the mail though, I stopped feeling that rush a long time ago.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 21, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, thanks for the great posts re immigration. Being from CA I recognize the complexities and appreciate someone who is looking at the problem realistically and not trying to simply scapegoat an entire class or nationality of people. Solutions are available but everyone has to be sitting at the same table first.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 21, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

One thing I can agree with our righty tea party friends is that O'Donnell's high school experiences and mentions of witchcraft are really no big deal.

However her stupidity is!!! As if the mice running around with fully developed human brains wasn't bad enough...

Yesterday O'Donnell showed just how incredibly stupid and illiterate she is...when asked about Czars...a favorite subject among the tea bagging idiots...she was handed a piece of paper and quoted from the Constitution:

"Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

O'Donnell then went on to state..so Obama is violating the Constitution by having all those Czars to a big round of applause.

ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS MORONS?

Really can we get back to reality? She said this with a straight face and her audience of idiotic supporters took her SERIOUSLY!

If you idiots can't be serious how do you expect us to take you seriously? Get this now...see if you can comprehend if you're one of those tea party morons who loves to bring up Czars.

THERE ARE NO CZARS IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

Czar is a NICKNAME used by the media. IT IS NOT AN ACTUAL ROYAL TITLE BESTOWED BY ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT AND IN FACT YOU WILL NOT FIND THAT TITLE FOR A U.S. GOVERNMENT POSITION.

Sorry to yell but the stooopid is just getting beyond acceptable. Forrest Gump would pass for an intellectual in the tea party movement. But then if they suspected he ACTUALLY HAD A BRAIN they toss him out and tell him he was unqualified because he had an education which made him an "elitest"

If you're point is that the Federal Government is too large then make that freaking point without the stupidity...again there are literally no Czars but if you must make the argument about the size of Gov't by using that shorthand descriptor be careful of your HYPOCRISY!

Barack Obama has currently Thirty Two (32) Czar Jobs and 34 appointees.

G.W. Bush had THIRTY FIVE CZAR JOBS (35) and FORTY FIVE (45) appointees.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 21, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

@Scott At last we agree about something...yes hitting the refresh button has produced some disappointment.

One has to go through a lot of chaff to get to the wheat.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 21, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Brigade:

"There was convincing evidence, in my opinion, that child labor laws were violated."

Jurors often come to conclusions that seem whacky to outside observers, even close followers, of the trial. The OJ trial was one of the greatest miscarriages of justice that I have ever seen. Still, I don't conclude that the jurors thought murder was "okay".

"I didn't suggest that the same jury was used in both of the Postville trials, merely that it seems to be much easier to get a conviction for messing with a bank than for messing with people's lives or violating labor laws."

That may be, but that doesn't mean, as you clearly implied, that it reflects some kind of societal valuation of each. Some crimes, because of their nature, are simply less easily provable in a court. It is much easier to prove what someone did than it is to prove what that person knew, or his state of mind.

As an aside, if you really think that the average guy who might appear on a jury cares on iota that a bank got "screwed", you haven't been paying attention to whats going on in the country for the last couple of years.

"Not much sense in having immigration or labor laws if you can't or won't enforce them."

Well, I agree with that. Don't mistake my comments for a brief in favor of employing illegals. But we shouldn't pretend that we're going after employers in order to protect "exploited" illegals. The result of going after employers, as you rightly point out, is that employers won't hire them. If that was an outcome that the illegals themselves desired, they wouldn't be here in the first place. That's why I don't buy the whole "exploited" business. When an employer employs illegals, everyone involved is getting a better deal than they otherwise would get. The employer gets cheaper, less regulated labor, and the labor gets jobs and income they otherwise would not have (and which is precisely what they sought when they entered illegally).

When we enforce illegal immigration laws, we do so for the sake of the nation, not for the sake of the illegal. If you actually cared about the welfare of illegals, you wouldn't advocate for a policy that will prevent them from earning a living (or at least the living that they manifestly prefer to their other options).

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 21, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"Heartless person that you are Scott..."

It's rare to see someone as willing as you to speak with complete and absolute certainty regarding things about which you are totally and utterly ignorant. And Greg has managed to attract both you and Ethan. Go figure.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 21, 2010 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Delaware nominates a witch - and ALREADY the recession is over.


What more do you want?


I think Christine is onto something......


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 12:01 AM | Report abuse


Let's put it this way


Would you rather vote for a lesbianic witch who WILL NOT raise your taxes

OR


a "Bearded Marxist" who has shaven - but who DEFINITELY WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES ???


This election is about getting out of the Great Obama Stagnation -


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

qb, if you review the posts, you'll see, and remember, that I interacted with and defended Bilgey probably as much or more than anyone here on PL from the left. I have a really, really high tolerance for smart people I don't agree with.

I have little tolerance for people who just repeat Fox News talking points or subject the thread to endless repetition of mindless blather.

So, you can dismiss my fatigue by saying I don't want to "talk to people with whom I disagree," but I don't think people who know me here would agree.

I would just like to see the quality of discussion not so watered down. I'm sorry you think lefty academics as a rule can't brook dissent, but if you knew my friends you'd sure as hell think otherwise. Admittedly, plenty on the left can't. Try not to be prejudiced against all of us.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 22, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

rukidding7


Are you sure you know what a czar is?


And what positions require Senate confirmation and which do not?


Is Obama's system of czars substantially circumventing the proper Senate confirmation process - by placing real power within the Executive branch with unconfirmed "czars" - and not properly with Senate confirmed candidates - as the law requires?


Is Obama violating the Separation of Powers of our Constitution?


Are you sure you know what you are talking about?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 12:20 AM | Report abuse


You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price by calling 877-882-4740 or check http://bit.ly/9fDY7U If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: colinfarrell22 | September 22, 2010 2:41 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3 wrote,
"When we enforce illegal immigration laws, we do so for the sake of the nation, not for the sake of the illegal."

Then we can kill two birds with one stone.

-------

"If you actually cared about the welfare of illegals, you wouldn't advocate for a policy that will prevent them from earning a living (or at least the living that they manifestly prefer to their other options)."

-----

So I've proved that I don't actually care about the welfare of illegals? Wow, and that wasn't even the point I was trying to make. Go figure.

These immigrants are desperate. How is hiring desperate people---including children--- for pennies, no benefits, and in miserable and unsafe working conditions, all in violation of the law, NOT exploiting them?

If one made the case that some of the slaves brought to America actually ended up as well or better off than they would have been had they remained in Africa, does that mean no one should have gotten worked up about it? Note: I am not EQUATING the two conditions but merely COMPARING them. I do realize that most of the illegal immigrants were not shanghaied.

And is it not possible to be concerned about the nation and mindful of the condition of the immigrants at the same time? As so many others have so conclusively pointed out, it is not feasible to round up all the illegal immigrants in the U.S. and deport them. It's pretty much a logistical impossibility. We don't have the will or the law enforcement resources to devote to the task. Going after those who hire is a rather simple solution.

Amnesty would be sort of a waste of time as well, because the workers who become legal and thus have access to legal remedies in court would then become unattractive to those who have been employing them. Then---guess what? We'd have a new round of illegal immigration to deal with.

Personally, I've tired of watching companies in some industries depress wages by first replacing union workers with scabs and then replacing the scabs with illegals. If you want to pay your employees a dollar an hour, then by all means, move your operation out of the country. The same sheriff who used to be on hand to keep a scab from getting his melon crushed with a baseball bat while crossing a picket line now stands idly by with his back turned while businesses routinely violate labor and immigration laws.

Someone once said: if you can't afford your property taxes, you can't afford your house. How about: if you can't afford your employees, you can't afford to be in business? I'm tired of subsidizing, through taxes, employers who expect me to help provide for their employees while they pocket what should be an additional expense to THEM.

Posted by: Brigade | September 22, 2010 6:52 AM | Report abuse

"I recall a few years ago when lawmakers in Nebraska deigned to get tough on people who hired illegal immigrants."

Of course, the O admin now considers it illegal for states and localities to enforce immigration laws.

Anyone who thinks O and company are in the least interested in stopping or even slowing down the flood needs his or her head examined. Illegal immigration and amnesty are the Dem Party's long-term electoral plan.

I'm always a bit dubious about the claim that we "can't deport 12 million" people but can without too much trouble crack down on employers. Like Scott, I find overwrought claims of exploitation a bit much, but I don't oppose cracking down on employers as a way to stop the flood and get illegals out of the country. But it seems to me that if we were really serious about it we could make a pretty large dent by deporting as many as we can find.

And if it is so easy to crack down on employers, and people like ru are well aware of places where large numbers of illegals are concentrated, how can it be that hard? How can the government not know what ru knows?

Why hasn't anyone called ICE to report all the dairy farms in Fla that ru already knows about?

I think all the talk about how we can't actually deport people flows much more from a lack of desire to do it than from any reality. And I think the left -- and that obviously includes the Obama-Reid-Pelosi crew -- positively wants amnesty. What was it O said? That being an American is a matter of faith? Really?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Scott:

"And Greg has managed to attract both you and Ethan. Go figure."

(Snort)

I've commented to/asked Greg several times about the behavior of many of his fave commenters. No comment of course. There was never a commenter more vulgar and abusive than Tena, and he loved her. I suppose this is a representative group, though. Sad.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

@ScottC "It's rare to see someone as willing as you to speak with complete and absolute certainty regarding things about which you are totally and utterly ignorant."

What I AM completely certain of is that your comments and posts over time reveal a person with little or no compassion. If "heartless" is an offensive term to you then I apologize. And besides we hate for Q.B. to get his panties in a bunch. LMAO.

Perhaps "heartless" is a bit hyperbolic, but again IMHO not totally inaccurate. It's your own comments Scott that reveal an author who by THEIR POSTS appears to lack compassion for his fellow man.

That's just the persona you present on this blog ScottC. The policies you advocate would take us back to the mid 19th..perhaps 18th century.

If you wish to appear more caring, (something I doubt), then perhaps offer ONE SINGLE post where you showed an iota of caring for your fellow man.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

BG:

"qb, if you review the posts, you'll see, and remember, that I interacted with and defended Bilgey probably as much or more than anyone here on PL from the left. I have a really, really high tolerance for smart people I don't agree with.

I have little tolerance for people who just repeat Fox News talking points or subject the thread to endless repetition of mindless blather."

That's true about Bilgey, so I'll give you credit. I do think you are prone to dismiss opposing viewpoints as "Fox talking points" pretty much categorically (to coin an dubious phrase). But, so bit it.

In any event, though, let me propose a hypothesis to you that I've believed for a long time is true. I'd be interested in your opinion, and it is just a matter of opinion.

My belief is that conservatives understand liberal or progressive beliefs, and can articulate them, better than vice versa. Of course, I'm talking about conservatives and liberals who consider themselves at some level informed and thoughtful, and not merely instinctual conservatives or liberals who have never been interested enough to explore why they believe what they do.

Taking PL as a microcosm, for example, I would assert that conservatives like me, Scott, Kevin, tao (not to leave anyone out, but these are a few I've observed) are better able to articulate in good faith (without straw-man slant) arguments for liberal/progressive positions from the perspective of liberals/progressives, better than the typical liberal/progressive can do the opposite, on just about any issue. We conservatives can generally state the case for Keynesianism, for example, but I don't think most on your side can actually state a case against it or for "supply side" policy.

Why do I say this? I guess just long experience. Here at PL I've debated and seen Scott et al. debate everything from tax rates and cuts to SSM with Ethan, ru, et al. and I virtually never see any evidence that your side actually comprehends our point of view or reasoning process. Debating taxes with Ethan, for example, I finally concluded that it was literally impossible for him to comprehend the conservative case. This is very much consistent with my experience going back many years.

Of course, it isn't universal. I've said more than once for example that, way back in the stone age when I attended college, I had some far, far left professors who could and would argue Burke or Aquinas as well as anyone. (In fact, there were two who had a standing challenge to debate any students on any issue within reason and take any side dictated by the students. Annually, they would bury two of us in the debate.)

But I believe my theory is true as a rule. I have theories about why it is true, but I'll leave that for another time.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

@ScottC3:

"'Heartless person that you are Scott...' -- It's rare to see someone as willing as you to speak with complete and absolute certainty regarding things"

Really? I thought it was pretty common. It's been my experience for years that "Republican = heartless", and worse. Or conservative = evil. Or that "Disagrees with me about a certain television show = The Devil".

Ruk's just a little prone to the hyperbole, that's all.

@qb: "I've commented to/asked Greg several times about the behavior of many of his fave commenters. No comment of course."

That's probably because it was none of your business. ;)

"There was never a commenter more vulgar and abusive than Tena"

I've noticed this a lot. If you like someone, or have an understanding that they agree with you on important issues, you interpret almost everything they say in the best positive light. If you don't agree with them, every innocuous remark is seen in the worst possible light. Which often leaves other folks who watch them interact with both sorts of people jaw agape at the apparent double-standard. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 22, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

One thing that amazes me is how some people have difficulty understanding who THEY are defending...and who the majority of folks on a PROGRESSIVE blog are trying to defend.

The comments speak for themselves. One side advocates for the middle class/poor..the "everyday" man...the other side advocates for the wealthy, by definition the top 2% (at least the currently accepted definition in our tax debate) but even if you expand that to the top 5% (which would include me and my wife) it's still arguing for the interests of the few over the many.

What's funny to me is that SOME posters here believe you have to take a vow of poverty, or perhaps give away all of your own wealth to advocate for those less fortunate than you. That you must NOT take advantage of current tax law and simply DONATE extra money to the U.S. Government to be able to discuss tax law.
This seems to me to be a very counter intuitive argument. If I am arguing for tax codes that do NOT favor ME but would favor the MAJORITY of Americans doesn't that make my argument even more acceptable in that obviously I haven't given into the conflict of interest that possessing some wealth might present.

Wouldn't it appear more LIKELY(not an absolute word) that someone in the top 2% or again 5% arguing against tax law that might increase their taxes but benefit the majority is simply more concerned about being selfish and hanging onto their OWN PERSONAL wealth.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin....now it is you my Memphis friend who is being hyperbolic...

"It's been my experience for years that "Republican = heartless", and worse. Or conservative = evil. Or that "Disagrees with me about a certain television show = The Devil"."

Hyperbolic snark perhaps but hyperbolic never the less.

My post was very specific...it was directed at Scott and made no mention of all conservatives. Certainly Brigade and you both impress me as conservatives. I don't feel either of you lack compassion.
And in fact kudos to Brigade for understanding who is really getting scr6wed in the immigration debate...who is really getting exploited right now.

This was not some mindless attack aimed at Scott...or since he joined the fray and also demonstrated a lack of compassion..Q.B. (Like Scott, I find overwrought claims of exploitation a bit much,) it was an OBSERVATION an OPINION based on months of reading their posts.
Neither of them has EVER (and I do mean that literally and it's factual not hyperbole) exhibited any compassion for their fellow man...except in the instances where they defend the wealthiest folks amongst us to hang on to that wealth.

Sorry Kevin but I don't believe advocating for the wealthy is showing genuine compassion..at least in the sense of tax codes or finances.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "Of course, it isn't universal. I've said more than once for example that, way back in the stone age when I attended college, I had some far, far left professors who could and would argue Burke or Aquinas as well as anyone."

I've often been swayed by the folks who understand not just the mechanics of a particular argument, but why people are swayed by it (and not why they think they are swayed by it: i.e., they're powermad, they're angry white men, they're greedy, etc). People have a full view of the context of the argument that they disagree with it, to the point where they can make the argument more cogently and rationally than many folks who agree with the argument . . . those folks have my ear. You think all property should belong to the state? Tell me more!

When they're understanding of (in this example) conservative arguments starts with, "Well, see, there is the cabal of greedy business men . . . " or some variation of thereof ("well, of course you believe in lower taxes . . . because you have no heart!") I've got exactly as much time for that as I have for "you see, Obama hates America because he's an anti-colonial Kenyan socialist . . . " or some variation thereof.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 22, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_morning_plum_95.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 22, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

First, nickel claims:

"I would assert that conservatives like me, Scott, Kevin, tao (not to leave anyone out, but these are a few I've observed) are better able to articulate in good faith (without straw-man slant) arguments for liberal/progressive positions from the perspective of liberals/progressives, better than the typical liberal/progressive can do the opposite, on just about any issue."

He demonstrates his astounding insight and good faith by then declaring:

"Anyone who thinks O and company are in the least interested in stopping or even slowing down the flood needs his or her head examined. Illegal immigration and amnesty are the Dem Party's long-term electoral plan."

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 22, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Brigade:

"So I've proved that I don't actually care about the welfare of illegals?"

No, that is not what I meant to imply at all. Apologies if it sounded that way. My point was simply that enforcing labor laws against employers for employing illegal immigrants is not at all necessarily to the benefit of illegals. They've come here for a reason. They obviously have decided that working here under whatever conditions they work under is preferable to the alternative back home. Forcing them to go back home will, then, make their situation worse, not better. (I am, of course, speaking of illegals who have willingly come here to work. Obviously the situation is different if there is some kind of coercion or fraud involved.)

"These immigrants are desperate. How is hiring desperate people---including children--- for pennies, no benefits, and in miserable and unsafe working conditions, all in violation of the law, NOT exploiting them?"

Because the illegals are doing it willingly. How is refusing to hire such people and sending them back to the very desperation they have fled from doing them a favor? It would be one thing if you argued that the illegals should be allowed to stay and work, but under the protection of our labor laws (which is, I believe, the position of many liberals, but which obviates the benefit of hiring them in the first place). But you cannot sensibly argue both that immigration laws should be strictly enforced and at the same time argue that doing so will redound to the benefit of illegals. It won't. I am all for enforcing immigration laws against employers, but I understand that by doing so I am not making the lives of illegals any better or easier at all.

"I do realize that most of the illegal immigrants were not shanghaied."

But that fact makes all the difference.

"And is it not possible to be concerned about the nation and mindful of the condition of the immigrants at the same time?"

You can be concerned about them both, but you must recognize that they are competing values, not compatible values. If illegal immigration is harmful to the nation, stopping it will be harmful to the illegals. That is an unavoidable fact. It is certainly a conundrum for a compassionate society concerned with its own welfare as well, but it doesn't go away by pretending it doesn't exist.

"As so many others have so conclusively pointed out, it is not feasible to round up all the illegal immigrants in the U.S. and deport them. It's pretty much a logistical impossibility. We don't have the will or the law enforcement resources to devote to the task. Going after those who hire is a rather simple solution."

I agree.

(cont'd)

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 22, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Brigade (cont'd):

"Amnesty would be sort of a waste of time as well, because the workers who become legal and thus have access to legal remedies in court would then become unattractive to those who have been employing them. Then---guess what? We'd have a new round of illegal immigration to deal with."

Exactly correct. As I said, enforcing labor/immigration laws is not in the best interests of the illegals themselves.

"I'm tired of subsidizing, through taxes, employers who expect me to help provide for their employees while they pocket what should be an additional expense to THEM."

Well, actually, it will be an additional expense to the consumer of whatever they happen to produce.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 22, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

RUkidding7 at 8:09


First of all - I really have not seen the democrats in the past 30 years really adopt policies designed to help the lower classes or the inner cities.


I see the democrats going into the inner cities with GOTV operations every year - but after the election they leave and they don't come back until the next election. I haven't seen the democrats help the inner cities at all.

YOUR view of tax policy is very shallow - we already have a progressive tax structure - so the question is really should the tax structure be more progressive or less progressive. At this point, the real issue is whether the tax structure fosters ECONOMIC GROWTH - the economy as a whole benefits from growth - just 1% adds up to over a 10% difference over a decade.


Conversely, a 1% drag on growth which a tax policy may create - will lead to an economy over 10% smaller a decade later.

That is a massive piece of the pie that doesn't get to be divided up down the road - for rich or for poor.

I used to think along your views.

But then I began to see how the world actually worked - tell me one policy which Nancy Pelosi has pushed in the last 4 years which got ONE CHILD out of the inner city -


They are all there - and now ALL the children there 4 years ago are 4 years older - and they have the same vulnerability to being recruited into gangs - and a life of crime and drugs.


I don't see the democrats really helping the poor.


And to be honest, taxing a double income family a little more isn't going to help any children in the inner cities.


Taxing the rich might sound good - but it really doesn't help the poor -


It just takes more money into some faceless government accounts which end up getting wasted - AND creating less economic growth.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"If you don't agree with them, every innocuous remark is seen in the worst possible light."

It is pretty difficult to find a positive light in which to view the comment "F*** off, troll", which was standard fare for Tena.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 22, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "It is pretty difficult to find a positive light in which to view the comment "F*** off, troll", which was standard fare for Tena."

Which, I'm sure to many of those who agreed with her generally, came across as light-hearted banter. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 22, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "@Kevin....now it is you my Memphis friend who is being hyperbolic...-- It's been my experience for years that 'Republican = heartless', and worse. Or conservative = evil. Or that 'Disagrees with me about a certain television show = The Devil'."

Yeah, I wish I was being hyperbolic. I'm actually soft-pedaling multi, real-world experiences. Indeed, you sorta-kinda just did it with Scott, but I could refer you to any number of threads at AintItCoolNews where people, in complete seriousness, have suggested folks need to kill themselves because they do or don't like a particular TV show. It really, really happens. A lot.

I wasn't being hyperbolic, I was sugar-coating it.

"My post was very specific...it was directed at Scott and made no mention of all conservatives."

Well, I could find stuff--on multiple occasions--where you have kind of tarred Republicans with a fairly broad brush. You may not have said all Republicans are heartless blackguards (although, you may have), but I'm pretty sure you've said that Republicans, as a class, care nothing for the poor, or something to that effect. My apologies if my brain-wires are crossed, but I'm 99% sure you've said something like that. If I'm inaccurately representing you, my apologies, but I'm betting it's more likely that you--in a fit of pique--have misrepresented yourself in the past. I know, I have. ;)

"Neither of them has EVER (and I do mean that literally and it's factual not hyperbole) exhibited any compassion for their fellow man.."

As defined how? By what standard? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but even if you could make that argument by the full body of their comment posts, there's still a huge assumption in there that somehow you know how they are, in full, in their entire lives, based on what probably amounts to 1% or so of their human interactions. In my opinion. Again, you may have mind-reading powers that I lack, in which case, I'm way off. ;)

"That's just the persona you present on this blog ScottC. The policies you advocate would take us back to the mid 19th..perhaps 18th century."

Really? The 18th century? Scott's advocating that we go there, from the future. In a time machine made from . . . a Delorean?

Come on. There is nobody here advocating policies that are going to take us back to the 18th century. Or even the 19th century. Dude, that right there is the text book definition of hyperbolic argument. ;)

"Sorry Kevin but I don't believe advocating for the wealthy is showing genuine compassion..at least in the sense of tax codes or finances."

Well, from the conversations I've seen, I'd say you are, in part, choosing that interpretation. For many, advocating for the wealthy is advocating for jobs and opportunity for the middle-class (due to the jobs the wealthy create and the things they buy, which can help create jobs, etc). And I'm not making that argument right now, just saying that if you view things that way, then "advocating for the wealthy" is not bad.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 22, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Did I actually type "so bit it"?

Kevin,

"That's probably because it was none of your business. ;)"

Really? When I'm being told to "F#@4 off!!" and being called vulgar names? When another odious and pathologically dishonest commenter spends months stalking me and making risible "complaints" about conservative commenters? When Greg finds Bilgeman abusive but frequently compliments liberal commenters who are regular flamers and abusers?

I think you're trying a little hard to curry favor with folks, Kevin.

"If you don't agree with them, every innocuous remark is seen in the worst possible light."

This makes me really laugh, Kevin my friend. I used the terms I used very deliberately and precisely. I said that this former commenter was vulgar and abusive because she called me (and not just me) vulgar names and used obscene insults as her standard parlance.

ru and Ethan are just strident and dogmatic, but this poster was positively off the hook. And Greg seems to think they're wonderful. Bilgey was banned mainly for using a "slave" motif to make a point, but there doesn't appear to be any language a leftie can't use.

I've just found all this curious. And perhaps since you haven't been around here that long (afair) you don't appreciate all the history of attacks some of us weathered. As Scott more succintly said above: "It is pretty difficult to find a positive light in which to view the comment "F*** off, troll", which was standard fare for Tena."

Does that hurt or offend me? No, not at all. But I'll be darned if, having dealt with the ru's and Ethans of the PL world as long as I have, I'm going to give them some benefit of the doubt when they've expressed their hostility very clearly and repeatedly. The "innocuous" comments of people who've openly wished you ill, twisted every word you've said, and passed ultimate moral judgment against your humanity are not just innocuous comments, Kevin. Really, I can only chuckle at being scolded by anyone, including you, for taking "every innocuous remark" on PL the wrong way.

"Which often leaves other folks who watch them interact with both sorts of people jaw agape at the apparent double-standard. :)"

Not sure what that even means.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

And as further evidence of my hypothesis above to BG, I give you the subsequent comments of rukidding.

He is completely unable to comprehend opposing perspectives. If you don't agree with his policy beliefs, it can only be because you are a heartless plutocrat without compassion or basic humanity.

Kevin, I'd humbly suggest you look elsewhere for folks who put the worst possible spin on every comment.

A note on the immigration debate: I travel a lot and am in taxis in cities across the country multiple times a week. Am I allowed to say that I am absolutely fed up with obnoxious taxi drivers who CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH and do not know where they are going? This is the case in virtually every city I visit. Our immigration policies are a mess.

I'll be out most of the next 24 hours, so feel free to pile on.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

cmc,

Btw, way to totally whiff. Everyone claims to be against illegal immigration and for enforcement. There isn't a liberal argumet "for" it to be understood and argued. I simply don't believe the left actually supports enforcement, as it claims.

The Arizona case is a good example. I can make the O Admin's arguments for their attack on Arizona, no doubt much better than you could, since I actually know preemption law and can state the standard "civil rights" justification as well (although it isn't actually part of the O Admin's case). But my own conclusion is that these arguments are utter nonsense, and the real agenda is the one that is most obvious -- preventing enforcement of immigration laws.

See the difference? I'm guessing not.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

RTF/37th delusionally believes that Bush left the economy in great shape.
Question:
Do you have any idea about the economic significance of Sept 15, 2008?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, nickel, you've got it all figured out and your good faith insight relative to the motives of the administration are truly enlightening, particularly when you can compliment your thoughtful statements with absolute and unique knowledge that exceeds all scholarly discourse on the topic.

Of course, the reality that deportations of illegal aliens are at record levels is irrelevant to you. Certainly the federal government should allow each of the 50 states to overwhelm immigration officials with an ad hoc enforcement regime involving deportation efforts based on racial profiling and minor legal infractions that will result in an inability to deal with actual criminals.

Speaking of whiffing, isn't it time for you to take a shower and brush your teeth?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 22, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

cmc,

Again your comment is pure hyperbole, snarl and assumption.

Can you even explain why the O administration 's public attacks on Arizona were all civil rights attacks, but it then filed suit solely on a preemption theory that this admin normally rejects?


Can you explain why Reid suddenly raised another amnesty bill just before the election?

And are you able to state any conservative case on immigration?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin...Just wanted you to know that I read your post...take some of your points...but in the end we'll have to simply respectfully agree to disagree on the larger point. That's never a problem with you however because we can..and frequently do...disagree but do so agreeably. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "I think you're trying a little hard to curry favor with folks, Kevin."

Really? Am I trying a little too hard to curry favor with you, qb, or maybe could I just be . . . expressing my own opinion?

Good grief. As Charlie Brown might say.

BTW, I said (in a comment launching off something you had said, and that you quote): "If you don't agree with them, every innocuous remark is seen in the worst possible light."

Instead of the royal "you", I should have said "often, if a person". I was wondering at first why you were assuming everything I said was directed at you somehow, then noticed that might be cause I said: "you do this, you do that" instead of "we" or "people" or something more generic, which is how I meant it. Ooops. My bad, dude.

"but there doesn't appear to be any language a leftie can't use."

I've noticed that myself.

"I've just found all this curious. And perhaps since you haven't been around here that long (afair) you don't appreciate all the history of attacks some of us weathered"

I haven't been around here, but I've been in much more heated discussions that anything that has happened here since I've been here. Assuming that it was previous much worse then, yes, I've been there, too. Again, despite my interesting choice of the word "you", I meant it more generally than it sounded, as an observation of human nature, not as attack or criticism of you, personally. The only think I meant (in the nature of good-humored ribbing) that you've gotten no response from Greg on the difference between a Tena or an Ethan and a Bilgey because it's his blog and you're a guest here, thus, when it comes down to it, it's none of your business. Nor is it mine. Indeed, much of what I comment on is actually none of my business. That's the magic of the internet.

If you were a paying customer, that'd be different, though.;)

"Really, I can only chuckle at being scolded by anyone, including you, for taking "every innocuous remark" on PL the wrong way."

Again, that's was not addressed to you (even though I said it exactly like it was; my fault, I know that) but as a general observation.


"'Which often leaves other folks who watch them interact with both sorts of people jaw agape at the apparent double-standard. :)' -- Not sure what that even means."

It means that even very hostile language--especially in written form--is interpreted very differently, based on what we think of the person generally, who they are attacking, how similar we feel they are to ourselves, etc. When we disagree with someone, or have had other altercations or difficulties with them, that also distorts how we interpret what they say, and how they mean it. Especially when we have no facial expressions or tone-of-voice to go on.

So, how some people react to others behavior can be mystifying. What seems like modest language and insults are jumped on as evidence of incipient Nazism, and possibly banning offense. While much ruder stuff is given a pass.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 22, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin...final thoughts on this thread...perhaps even illustrating some of the points you make.

Ironically I am probably more like Q.B. than any other poster on this blog. We obviously hold diametrically opposed views. However we do largely share the same posting M.O.
We both try to hew to the intellectual high ground..we both frequently fail...sometimes through use of hyperbole...and alas sometimes through invective and name calling. It is never my intention to demonize either Scott or Q.B. However sometimes pointing out someone's specific post as lacking in compassion is the only truthful response.
I accept guilt as sometimes expanding that specific post or even series of posts as an implicit reflection of their character.

Having literally seen how Mexicans are treated...at least specifically here in Florida...knowing the abuses...of legal and "illegal" Mexicans..I can say without equivocation that the undocumented ones in particular are exploited. However I'd quickly concede for someone who has NEVER been on a farm in Florida then it may not be a lack of compassion but ignorance(in the literal not pejorative sense) that informs their comments.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

1. Because it wants to win the case.

2. Because he believes it is good policy and good politics.

3. As soon as the "conservatives" put out a consistent message (on this or most other issues), we'll both know. Right now, we have the position promoted by the previous GOP administration, the position set forth in the most recent presidential campaign, Steve King, Arnold, Tancredo ... you get the picture.

But I'm sure you know far better answers and will share them with your typical condescending absolutism which, in case you haven't noticed, has failed to convince anyone on this blog.

You must be great with a jury and a treat for opposing counsel. If only the law were as certain as you are of your own intellect, there wouldn't be any need for lawyers.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 22, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Well now Kevin, I do think of myself as royalty, although my wife might have her doubts.

I am actually interested in whether people agree or disagree with my hypothesis though. I've often been told I am ignorant of other points of view because I only watch Fox and don't listen to other sources. I find this amusing since I don't watch Fox much and am commenting on a liberal gblog I read all the time along with other left sources.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Well now Kevin, I do think of myself as royalty, although my wife might have her doubts.

I am actually interested in whether people agree or disagree with my hypothesis though. I've often been told I am ignorant of other points of view because I only watch Fox and don't listen to other sources. I find this amusing since I don't watch Fox much and am commenting on a liberal gblog I read all the time along with other left sources.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "I am actually interested in whether people agree or disagree with my hypothesis though. I've often been told I am ignorant of other points of view because I only watch Fox and don't listen to other sources. I find this amusing since I don't watch Fox much and am commenting on a liberal gblog I read all the time along with other left sources."

It has been my experience that assumptions about where people get their information (and their educational level, and their marital status) are far more influenced by presumptions based on ideology or party affiliation than on any objective criteria.

I.e: yes, you're hear, yes, you're reading a lefty blog, but since you want lower taxes and belief in a strong national defense, you clearly never graduated from high school and only watch Fox News. Because it's simply not possible for someone to have had similar experiences to me and reach different conclusions. Thus, if you were smart and well-informed, you would clearly agree with me. Since you do not agree with me, you are clearly neither smart, nor well informed.

It's a thesis that proves itself! And, coincidentally, lets us judge ourselves as superior to others, which is always fun.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 22, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

1. That is an evasion.

2. That is a convenient assumption.

3. That is another snotty evasion. Bush and Arnold are not conservatives, on immigration or most other domestic issues. A lot has been written about immigration from conservative perspectives. You've just confirmed you are unfamiliar with it. No doubtthis is an example of why ydoue comments are always substance-free talking points and slurs.


Thus YouTube are left with personal insults, about which I do not care, except to say, to your disappointmen, that yes I am successful and well liked by attorneys on both sides of the bar. Sorry about that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

1. That is an evasion.

2. That is a convenient assumption.

3. That is another snotty evasion. Bush and Arnold are not conservatives, on immigration or most other domestic issues. A lot has been written about immigration from conservative perspectives. You've just confirmed you are unfamiliar with it. No doubtthis is an example of why ydoue comments are always substance-free talking points and slurs.


Thus YouTube are left with personal insults, about which I do not care, except to say, to your disappointmen, that yes I am successful and well liked by attorneys on both sides of the bar. Sorry about that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company