Open Forum, Jan. 2 - 8

Published:

 

The forums are moderated by Columbian staff and our community guidelines and terms of service still apply. To participate, login with your Columbian.com ID or register for an account at Columbian.com.

Columbian staff members create new forum threads. Don't see a forum topic here that fits your comments? Email Web Editor Libby Tucker, libby.tucker@columbian.com, or Social Media Coordinator Matt Wastradowski, matt.wastradowski@columbian.com.


230 comments

Comments

nailingit,

Your sci-fi brothel article had a link to another one I found worth spending a moment on.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/30/dont-get-caught-using-these-banned-words-in-2012/

They want to ban AMAZING. I'd like to add AWESOME to the list. Also anything else retro 60's/70's. Get rid of all the texting shortcuts - LOL, ROFLMAO, etc - take the extra moment to use real words. And we have a local phrase, courtesy of Mr. John Laird, that (in my humble opinion) really needs to be retired - HOUNDS OF WHINERVILLE. Just because someone chooses to disagree, they're whining?

And this will be the last time I use the phrase IN MY HUMBLE OPINION - I've yet to read anything I'd consider humble where its being used. Certainly not from me, anyhow.

roger — January 2, 2012 at 7:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I got a chuckle reading John Laird's column with the Portlandia u-tube link about Vancouver. The next release needs to address one of our favorite choices of transportation - the "bigger is better" behemoth. Everywhere I go I see H1s, F350s, and monster truck candidates from their competitors. And nearly all are spic and span shiny clean - probably haven't seen a day of honest "truck work" since leaving the dealership.

But seriously - did anyone else click on the other videos that were posted there? Very STRANGE people, reveling in maintaining some sort of 90's attitude about life. Those guys wearing their tight little girlie pants - disgusting. And the anemic girls with all their tattoos look like they're auditioning to be porn stars or something. Last time we saw something like this was - let me think - why, way back in the 60's/70's when guys grew their hair long (Come here, Sally Boy, I got something for you) and girls wore miniskirts so short they couldn't sit down. Boy do I miss those days!!

roger — January 2, 2012 at 8:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — January 2, 2012 at 7:38 a.m

Roger I would like to add to the "ban list" the word...AGENDA

ELISI — January 2, 2012 at 8:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Happy new year to All. Lets hope for a great 2012 and leave 11 in the rear view mirror...

Hawk, What's your prediction of the Rose Bowl today??
Oregon 37 Wisconsin 33 GO DUCKIES...

Kinda like the winning margin in Iowa..LOL

vanwadreamer — January 2, 2012 at 9:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Elisi,

But that's a word I like to use!

roger — January 2, 2012 at 9:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — January 2, 2012 at 7:38 a.m.

I really dislike anything "-wise". Actually, I don't like any word "bundled" with another word. It just seems lazy.

vanwadreamer, I think that's a good guess, as long as they win without any injuries, I'll be happy. They haven't won in the Rose Bowl since 1917.

hawkeye — January 2, 2012 at 9:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Interesting 60 Minutes segment last night - Leslie Stahl interviewed Eric Cantor. I got the impression they truly disliked each other, but were working hard to stay professional.

The part that got me was where Stahl brought Reagan into the conversation, and pointed out that he compromised. Cantor's counter was that he's more than willing to compromise - as long as principles aren't violated. That he'll be happy to support increased spending in one area, as long as spending is reduced somewhere else.

That exchange got me thinking. Wasn't this one of the strategies used during Clinton's Presidency?

roger — January 2, 2012 at 10:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger: I saw 60 Minutes, too.

Eric Cantor is climbing the political power ladder on the backs of the voters. I get the impression that he has big plans for himself and will do anything to garner attention, no matter what the cost to the people he is sworn to serve.

What I heard, too, was a lot of rationalization and excuses for his obstructive behavior.

Narcissist to the max. Just what we all need more of in DC!

manthou — January 2, 2012 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Eric Cantor riding his bike w/helmet was nothing short of precious! We have this wealthy out of touch geek who grew up with a silver spoon, "compromising" his heritage/religion since he was a kid, telling the middle class to "eat your peas" while Cantor and his 1 % crowd receive unconditional tax cuts! And may I say... **amazing!** Why don't the Republicans on these threads take guys like these to task? Republicans don't believe in "regulation" or checks and balances. They just let these guys run the party off the rails for fear of facing reality.

The Republican party will be seriously fractured/fragmented for years to come. :))))))

im·plode verb \im-ˈplōd\
im·plod·edim·plod·ing

**Definition of IMPLODE**

intransitive verb
1
a : to burst inward
b : to undergo violent compression
2
: to collapse inward as if from external pressure; also : to become greatly reduced as if from collapsing
3
: to break down or fall apart from within : self-destruct
transitive verb
: to cause to implode
See implode defined for English-language learners »
See implode defined for kids »
Examples of IMPLODE


Origin of IMPLODE

2in- + -plode (as in explode)
First Known Use: 1881
Related to IMPLODE

Synonyms: buckle, cave (in), crumple, founder, give, go, go out, collapse, tumble, yield
[+]more
Rhymes with IMPLODE

abode, anode, bar code, boatload, busload, byroad, carload, cartload, caseload, cathode, church mode, commode, corrode, crossroad, dead lo...
---------
**Virginia down on Cantor, favors civil unions**

When PPP last polled Virginia in July, before Congress cut a deal with President Obama to raise the debt ceiling, key House negotiator Eric Cantor was already somewhat unpopular in his home state. 29% saw him favorably and 31% unfavorably. In the five-month aftermath of that deal, as Congress has gotten less popular, so has one of its most vocal and visible leaders, even on his home turf.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/virginia/

nailingit — January 2, 2012 at 6:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


No 'Sea of Love' here. Where's Serpico when you need him?

Ellen Barkin Shoved By NYPD Amidst Protests And Arrests, Tweets Outrage

She also wrote, "I have never been afraid of a NY policeman until last nite.What I saw was random & senseless arrests and unnecessarily threatening behavior."

Just before Barkin said she was shoved, she began chronicling the police scuffles, writing, "Walking home...13th & 6th, police making random arrests of non protesters.Young girl in police van screaming"I'm just trying 2 get home" and then "People being thrown in police vans, arrested for "jaywalking"What happened to the NYPD of my youth?Who are u all?Shame shame on u all."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ellen-barkin-shoved-to-ground-by-nypd_n_1178489.html?ref=mostpopular

nailingit — January 2, 2012 at 8:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


If it was "Barkin", it must have been the dog catcher.....

hawkeye — January 2, 2012 at 11:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — January 2, 2012 at 6:31 p.m.

Re: Cantor's home state popularity. VA as a whole might not like him, but the Richmond area thinks he walks on water. And they're the ones who'll reelect him.

Kind of like our own JBH - though maybe she's up to her knees here.

roger — January 3, 2012 at 6:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Duckie fans - definitely an entertaining game. Good thing Wisconsin played defense worse than they did! And definitely a strange turn that an outstanding D play (the interception) won it for them.

And now that it's all over (for this area) - I hereby declare Boise State the best of the Northwest. They wuz ROBBED of the chance to prove this by the BCS!

roger — January 3, 2012 at 6:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


from today's edition-Thomas Sowell

*Most of the things for which Gingrich has been criticized are things he did either in his personal life or when he was out of office. **But, if we are serious, we are more concerned with his ability to perform when in office.***

Does anyone think this guy and his fellow conservatives would give Obama a pass if infidelity or unethical conduct was uncovered in his past? It seems the R's are wanting to go from eating their own to forgive and forget. Their line-up is truly that bad.

mrd — January 3, 2012 at 7:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- While searching for Cantor's popularity numbers in Richmond I came across this more than interesting tidbit. Check it out. I think this story will have legs that run into this years Prez election. Pretty soon corporate America will have us attending church and bible school as a part of "corporate values" in order to have the pleasure to work for them.

"Simply put, a secretive, corporate front group is writing Virginia's laws," said Anna Scholl, executive director of ProgressVA. "Legislators who kowtow to a corporate agenda are nothing new in Virginia, but secretly copying and pasting legislation from corporate lobbyists is a step too far."

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2012/jan/03/tdmet01-conservative-group-scrutinized-ar-1582946/

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 8 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye- So goes NY PD abuse, so goes America. These people who aren't even protesting are being snatched off the street according to Barkin and many others. These are daughters and wives of people like us. Combine this with true horror stories (these are the ones that get caught, and chances of being a cop and getting caught at any wrong doing is extremely thin) and I'm surprised anyone would put their lives in danger protesting in NY. I have much respect for OCCUPY NY!

This should not be happening in America. The Fox kool-aid crowd that cheers on police abuse when it suits their needs...their time will come. This abuse should be discussed at a national level daily.

How about occupying houses of bad cops to get public attention?

NYPD Scandals 2011: Ticket-Fixing, 'Rape Cops' And More From A Rough Year For NY's Finest

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/nypd-scandals-2011-ticket_n_1172566.html#s431139&title;=The_Gunpoint_Rape

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 8:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Here's a pair working in tandem to include a "veteran cop" . Times the number of those that get caught by ten. Even then it most likely would not be enough to gauge police corruption in this area. They are raping at will with impunity. Imagine being a rape victim accusing cops and taking it to through the court system. If you lived long enough to do it.....countless incidents such as this.

Two cops charged with sexual assault
One officer faces charges in a second incident
May 12, 2011|By Jason Meisner and Jeremy Gorner, Tribune reporters
A veteran Chicago police officer was charged with sexually assaulting two women in separate attacks just weeks apart in March while he was on duty and in uniform, and his partner was accused of raping one of the alleged victims.

Cook County prosecutors said the officers offered each victim a ride home as they patrolled near Wrigley Field in their marked police SUV in the early morning hours of their overnight shift.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-05-12/news/ct-met-chicago-officers-charged-0513-20110512_1_sexual-assault-police-officers-police-powers

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The murdered park ranger is a tragedy.

Also tragic are the freaks that use red herring statements to further some sort of agenda. I'm writing of all the hoopla about firearms in parks.

Man, dude was involved in a shooting and was headed to the hills to hide out. The fact that he was armed, and obviously prepared to fire on a person, is NOT relative to the firearms in parks law.

Not in the least.

Sheesh.

Drift — January 3, 2012 at 8:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Occupy WS NY: Protesters told me, when I was there in early December, that cops were tossing yummy balls of crunchy peanut butter around and in Zuccotti Park to attract hungry rats, hoping the vermin would displace the humans.

manthou — January 3, 2012 at 9:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


My rule of thumb is, is you don't want to be involved any "occupy" situation, (or any situation) just don't be around them. Chances are, the cops won't include you in their legal/illegal actions. Be aware of your surroundings, like always.

hawkeye — January 3, 2012 at 9:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye, should that be our standard? Many have jobs to go to. I think we should have decisive PD/public policy. The local PD is to protect and serve, not endanger and rape/assault.

Why should our right to walk down a street be subjected/relegated by our next door neighbors that happen to wear a badge when they go to work?

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 9:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger,
Really the Broncos...they beat a very average UGA team that got beat by the Spartans who got crushed by the badgers.. Ouchy now...And they don't have a kicker..LOL.. They will get their chances now that they are in the far east conference.. I mean if they can't win that league which is the worst rated league of all the power conferences then they should join PSU league... In all seriousness though they now will have an opportunity...Hope they start scheduling better out of conference games though..

vanwadreamer — January 3, 2012 at 9:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


...add to that the right to peaceably protest. I think to OCCUPY bad cops homes would be great. I don't think people in this area would have far to travel!

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye: In NYC, for instance, there was an "Occupy Broadway" event on a Saturday afternoon, right in the midst of Times Square and the 42nd street theatre district.

Many people were in the area to attend a matinee show or shop. Some were going to work. Some were there to protest.

When you live in a small community like BG, it is hard to comprehend the complexities and mechanics of life across the country in one of the largest cities in the world. It is simpler for us to avoid Occupy PDX and Occupy Vancouver than it is for the likes of Ellen Barkin and others who are trying to make their way home.

Police and mayors are truly frustrated and confounded by the strength and tenacity of this movement. It would be so much more convenient if it would just fade away.

The 1% are counting on us little guys to scrap against each other over this, you know. It deflects focus on where the blame really lies.

manthou — January 3, 2012 at 9:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


My anger in this whole thing (protest) is the people who are protesting are either not going after their real targets or don't know who their targets are and are just out there to cause trouble for everyone. The 99% are attacking the rest of the 99%. There's no focus.

hawkeye — January 3, 2012 at 10:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Is it in poor taste to wish for a "OCCUPY Kate Middleton" movement? :)))

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/02/celebrity-wardrobe-malfunctions-nip-slips-bloopers_n_1179959.html

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 11:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal


...that did not sound right...

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit, nope!

I'd take Kate Middleton over any Gaga or Kardashian any day. At least she's "real".

hawkeye — January 3, 2012 at 12:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawk- I'd take Kate over just about any human* this side of the pond! (except my wife .. of course! :)

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 1:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I was just at Lowes in Orchards and there was a guy in a bucket on a boom truck working on the "LOWES" sign over the front doors. He hadn't blocked off the area around his work area and people were walking right under him. Now, I'm all about personal responsibility and keeping yourself safe but there needs to be some kind of a warning like pylons or tape to warn people. I mentioned to the store manager that he might have an OSHA violation happening but he didn't seem to care. He didn't even know anyone was working out there.

I hope nobody got hurt.

hawkeye — January 3, 2012 at 1:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Anyone care to pic tonight's Iowa caucus winner/winners? Just for one of those I predicted moments...1. Sanitorium 2. Paul 3. Romney 4. Jesus (Jesus will come in fourth, in part for advocating background checks to rule out the criminally insane with regards to gun ownership)

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 2:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger,

After reading your comment at the top of the page I think the one phrase that needs to be banned is:

**"WITH ALL DO RESPECT"**

This phase is usually meant as the exact opposite of what the words mean. Just like "HONEY CHILD" in the South East.

pdxtech91 — January 3, 2012 at 2:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


1. Romney, 2. Paul, 3. Santorium, 4. who friggin cares, 5. as soon as Bachmann drops out- her husband!

hawkeye — January 3, 2012 at 2:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Craziest defense for a food product I have seen...

http://blog.sfgate.com/hottopics/2012/01/03/why-you%E2%80%99ll-never-know-if-there-was-a-mouse-in-your-soda/?tsp=1

It got me rethinking about GO and the comments she had regarding food additives and reading labels on food products.

pdxtech91 — January 3, 2012 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail,

Since we are talking about a caucus and not a primary election.

1)Paul 2)Santorum 3)Romney 4) What Hawkeye said.

I think Paul and Santorum have the kind of network that will get their followers to the caucus locations. ( I don't think either can win in a ballot election) But I hear the weather is to be good so it will depend on who can get their supporters to the caucus locations early so they can fill the halls. I can't wait for it to be over and if I feel that way I can just imagine how the People of Iowa must feel.

pdxtech91 — January 3, 2012 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Of local interest (maybe): I saw the meter maid earning her wages today in Uptown Village. She had just given a ticket to someone who parked longer than the 2 hour limit on the street. She was marking tires with chalk on Main and Broadway and in the angled parking in front of Hi School Hardware and Walgreens.

A Starbuck's employee told me the employees in Uptown Village are parking on the street all day in those 2 hour zones, leaving few open spaces for customers. They have been told to find parking in the neighborhoods.

In the 8 years I have lived near Uptown, I have never seen such a parking sting. Is this an indication that business is looking up? Or does this mean that the city is going after any and all revenue they can?

Truly, this is a new issue for Uptown. I look for metered parking soon.

manthou — January 3, 2012 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


pdxtech91: You called it correctly so far in Iowa, although it looks like it is going to be a looong night for the Republicans.

Any guess as to who the Hail Mary surprise 11th hour candidate will be, when all this drama is over?

manthou — January 3, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


As of right now, 6:43 pm, Romney, Paul, Santorum are tied at 23%. Then comes Newter.

hawkeye — January 3, 2012 at 6:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Here's some fun. Most of these guys are better than republican and democratic candidates, and offer more than being a 'Flash in the pan'.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/movie-tv-presidents-iowa-caucus-fantasy_n_1180703.html#s583838&title;=Jed_Bartlet_The

manthou, I see Perry finishing fourth by at least 4 or 5% points. (out on a limb here :)

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 6:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


vanwadreamer — January 3, 2012 at 9:35 a.m.

Boise State beat up the SEC East champ, Georgia. That Georgia team finished the regular season 10-3; perhaps the SEC East was a bit subpar this year - compared to the SEC West - but they're still better than any other conference. Boise State also beat up Arizona State in their bowl game. ASU was down that game, but Boise State made the quarterback Osweiler (a pro prospect) look a lot worse than any of the PAC teams did.

Boise State can play defense. Something none of the PAC whatever teams (except for USC) have shown themselves capable of. Defense wins games!! And they have a pretty fair offense too. At least four players from this year's team should get drafted - not bad for a school in a no-respect conference.

Actually, I'm a Penn State fan - have been a fan since the late 60's. We were humiliated by another non-BCS conference team that also should have gotten more respect - Houston.

Michigan v. VA Tech and Clemson v. West VA are the two remaining money bowls (except the championship, of course). Get real. Boise State, Houston, TCU - at least these three teams from the lesser conferences deserve a berth in one of those bowls before any of those four.

roger — January 3, 2012 at 7:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"Any guess as to who the Hail Mary surprise 11th hour candidate will be, when all this drama is over?" manthou — January 3, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.

I'm not sure if they'll have one for Pres. There was noise a couple of days ago about Gov Christie being Romney's choice as Vice Pres. And when they interviewed Christie he gave an evasive answer - not the irritated denials given by him in the past. Given Christie's popularity, if this does happen then that unknown 11th hour candidate should probably forget it.

roger — January 3, 2012 at 7:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Ask Pat!**

Christian conservative leader Pat Robertson says he has a secret straight from God: He knows who the next president of the United States will be.

Robertson then went on to recite the message he claimed to have been told by God. According to Robertson, God doesn't support President Barack Obama's agenda and says that only "overwhelming prayer" can bring a new leader who will stop the country from "disintegrating":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/pat-robertson-president-2012-god_n_1181669.html

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 7:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"Any guess as to who the Hail Mary surprise 11th hour candidate will be, when all this drama is over?" manthou

Actually, for 2012 I see them just going through the motions, no real candidate out there. But if they really planning an "October Surprise" I see them going with Jeb. YEP, another **Bush!**

I just don't see anyone else with the name recognition that can pull it off. Christie may have some pull in the NE. But most out west just don't see what the big deal (pun intended) is.

Just speculating.

pdxtech91 — January 3, 2012 at 8:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Down to the wire. My Perry prediction went 'south'. :) He'll hang in till SC. Palin is urging Bachman to fold, Newt$$$ to slay the Mittster, Huntsman picking corn,, Bush has become Valdemort, one whose name cannot be spoken of, cats & dogs living together...could this be a sign of the 2012 end of days?

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 8:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


pdxtech91- Jeb would fulfill the unholy trinity of poor judgement. It could open the floodgates of Hell, conjuring up the wrath of God and with that, our Democracy would be dealt a final blow.

------

Let us pray...

God whoever we elect to become president please don't let it be a Bush. Amen

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 8:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**AMEN**

pdxtech91 — January 3, 2012 at 8:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Great banter here, made me laugh. I second all the jesus references.
Now why does Santorum poll so high? This is the dude who used to open his mouth so widely that all his idiocy fell out on a regular basis. That's what killed his campaign last time. So why is he riding so high now?
His name reminds me of sanatorium. Fitting somehow.

luvithere — January 3, 2012 at 9:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


***RIGHT ON***

hawkeye — January 3, 2012 at 9:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


In 1988 Pat Robertson received 24.6% of the Iowa Republican caucus vote. :)...:))....:)))

Romney is on stage quoting American anthems...like stanza's no ones heard before...creepy!

A petition most in the basement can get behind!

**A Petition to Support the Saving American Democracy Amendment**

Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court decision in a case called Citizens United vs. FEC.

The Saving American Democracy Amendment states that:

**-**Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people.
**-**Corporations are subject to regulation by the people.
**-**Corporations may not make campaign contributions or any election expenditures.
**-**Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.

http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c

nailingit — January 3, 2012 at 9:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Perry to Return to Texas to Assess Campaign’s Future

After placing fifth in the Iowa caucuses, Rick Perry said Tuesday night that he will return to Texas to “assess” whether or not there is a path for him to continue in the presidential campaign.

hawkeye — January 3, 2012 at 10:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**words to ban:**

*THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS*

DeeLittle — January 4, 2012 at 2:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


i like santorium.... what the problem w/him?

DeeLittle — January 4, 2012 at 2:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


A side note on the caucus. (Side note should probably get added to the ban list.)

I'm a channel surfer - especially when politics is involved. I've noticed in the past that Fox News tends to be behind the others when reporting "the very latest." Not last night. Shortly before 11 PM on CNN Wolf and Anderson were spas'ing over the captain of the last precinct to report having disappeared - "We hope to hear something from the RNC soon." I flipped to Fox and Karl Rove was giving a complete rundown on an agreement between Romney's and Santorum's aides on ground as to the number of votes, and was also discussing two other precincts where the reported vote count was off. He referenced his contacts in Iowa a few times. And he predicted an 8 vote victory for Romney. Back to CNN and they're still clueless.

I woke up this morning and find that Rove wasn't just close - he was dead on target. I'm wondering if this is just an isolated case, or whether Karl Rove is still a major player in Repub circles who deserves to be paid close attention to.

roger — January 4, 2012 at 6:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


IN MY OPINION

The clowns on both sides that are running are just that, clowns without direction. Just running for what the power of the office will bring them.

Now if the American people could find a man with the integrity and the cajones as the likes of Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan rolled into one, we just might have a fighting chance to bring this country back strong again.

The house and senate could use a purging also. They remind me of schools of fish..ever watch a school of fish? How they dart back and forth, with no real leader? Can't make up their minds
which way to go..

ELISI — January 4, 2012 at 7:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal


ELISI-
politicians aren't aimlessly darting back & forth, they're chasing the money.

hope the R's nominee race stays this close. It'd be interesting to see a good ol' timey political convention instead of the coronations of today.

mrd — January 4, 2012 at 7:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger @ 6:20- Rove is "still the man" when it comes to Republican elections and outing undercover CIA operatives for political gain.

luvithere @ 9:10- Santorum is still a homophobe racist who promises to extinguish women's rights while ensuring America's imperialistic rise by invading Iran. The conservatives went to him after Perry displayed his "intellectual prowess" and Bachman, as usual, ran off the rails before getting on them. Hearing her tout being on the "Intelligence Committee" is too much. Democrats gasped at this when she was appointed. It speaks volumes to how desperate/incompetent Boehner's decision making is.

All in all, Santorum is a fine representative of the Republican conservative establishment.

nailingit — January 4, 2012 at 8:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd,

Yes.. they dart back and forth, every time the anti is raised by someone. Mindlessly darting..

ELISI — January 4, 2012 at 8:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I think Michelle is going to cash it in today. At least I hope so.

It's kind of sad that the Repubs don't really have anybody worth running. Everybody has something a little or a lot wrong and don't get started on Jeb Bush. Total looser.

hawkeye — January 4, 2012 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Here ya go Hawkeye,your wish is filled...

AP reports that Michele Bachmann will end her presidential campaign

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann will end her bid for the Republican presidential nomination on Wednesday, the AP reported, citing a Bachmann adviser.

The announcement, is expected at a news conference in Iowa, would come just hours after a disappointing sixth place finish in the that state's caucuses.

Read more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/bachmann-cancels-sc-campaign-trip-schedules-press-conference/2012/01/04/gIQAgZONaP_blog.html

ELISI — January 4, 2012 at 8:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Thanks EL,

At least she helped stimulate the economy by spending all that campaign money. Of course it was other people's money but that was their gamble.

hawkeye — January 4, 2012 at 10:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


CONCORD, N.H. -- After coming in fourth place in Iowa--8 percentage points behind third-place finisher Ron Paul--Newt Gingrich chartered a late-night plane to New Hampshire and was in the air even before the full Iowa caucus results were even tallied.

But first, he made a brief stop in Des Moines to address a small but enthusiastic crowd at the city's convention center. There, he vowed to take Mitt Romney to the mat in New Hampshire for running a punishing negative ad campaign against him that political observers cite as one of the primary reasons for sinking Gingrich's campaign in the Hawkeye State. "We are not going to go out and run nasty ads. We are not going to go out and run 30-second ads. But," Gingrich said, emphasizing the last word, **"I do deserve the right to go out and tell the truth."**

***Sure thing Newt, when are you going to start?***

What I really love about these campaigns is all the free ammo they are giving to the Demo's without them having to do any of the research.

hawkeye — January 4, 2012 at 10:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


You know, I'm starting to like this guy!

**Richard Cordray Nomination: Obama Using Recess Appointment Amid GOP Opposition**

WASHINGTON -- In a bold move sure to infuriate Republicans and possibly draw a court challenge, President Barack Obama announced Wednesday that he will use his executive power to bypass Congress and put Richard Cordray in charge at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The move is a rare instance of the president invoking his authority to override a months-long effort by Senate Republicans to block Cordray. They rejected his confirmation in a December vote and reiterated that, even though they like Cordray, they would keep opposing him or any other CFPB nominee until changes are made at the agency. Obama's recess appointment on Wednesday trumps their effort.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/richard-cordray-obama-recess-appointment-cfpb_n_1183225.html

nailingit — January 4, 2012 at 1:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Just another way of reaching over to the other side and say Happy New year:) Thank You Very Much see who has the last laugh..

vanwadreamer — January 4, 2012 at 3:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Uh-Oh, he's going to make Boehner cry again.

hawkeye — January 4, 2012 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Why are the Republicans wasting time and money on an election they can't win? No one in the field can beat "His Arrogance", so it has to be an ego thing. We are going to be stuck with obama for another four years. Our only hope is that the Republicans can take control of both the House and Senate next year. It will be very entertaining if that happens. Since he has told the Republicans to go to hell on almost every issue that has come up, it will be fun to see him be on the other end of it for a change. Of course, in another four years, even without the Republicans, he can do a lot of damage, damage that we will probably never recover from. His using of the executive order as much as he does or threatens to do is nothing short of wanting to be a dictator.

cranky — January 4, 2012 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Cranky,

I'm thinking once he gets elected again to "His Arrogance" new title he will bestow upon himselfness. All new words Nail, don't bother looking up..LOL..It makes me laugh what this elected official thinks he has become... Yet the lemmings continue to jump off the cliff. Our only hope is we have more come elction time...

vanwadreamer — January 4, 2012 at 4:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


VAN...

didn't he put himself as one of the four most important presidents in US history...? and didn't include george washington as i recall....

DeeLittle — January 4, 2012 at 4:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I'd much rather have an "arrogant" President than a mousey little weasel like Bush. (ALL OF THEM)

And yes, Dee, he is one of the most important Presidents in history as would be the first woman President. Could be Hillery, I'd vote for her. If we are lucky, she'll win in 2016.

hawkeye — January 4, 2012 at 5:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Good for Montana!

WASHINGTON -- The Montana Supreme Court has put itself on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding a century-old state law that bans corporate spending in state and local political campaigns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/citizens-united-montana-supreme-court-corporate-spending_n_1182168.html

nailingit — January 4, 2012 at 5:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I think some are either so partisan they refuse to see what's in front of them, or part of the below 100% Intel crowd that are unable to understand/grasp how matters at the Government level will affect them. Either way here is a right leaning publication (I know some are not allowed liberal reading material :)) laying out the prelims. I really hope this helps. It is bewildering when people continually damn their own interests. For whatever reason.

“With a director finally in place and no question about its powers, **the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can start scrutinizing unfair practices by debt collectors, mortgage brokers, credit reporting agencies, and predatory payday lenders,**” Lauren Saunders, managing attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, said in an e-mailed statement.

Obama pushed for creation of the consumer bureau **after lawmakers accused existing regulators of doing too little to protect the public before credit markets collapsed in 2008.** Congressional Republicans, who opposed Democrats’ plans for the agency in talks leading to passage of Dodd-Frank in 2010, sought to block the seating of a director until changes were made in its funding and structure.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-04/cordray-appointment-activates-full-powers-of-new-consumer-bureau.html

nailingit — January 4, 2012 at 6:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Scott Brown Backs Obama Recess Appointment Of Consumer Finance Watchdog Richard Cordray**

"While I would have strongly preferred that it go through the normal confirmation process, unfortunately the system is completely broken," Brown added. "If we're going to make progress as a nation, both parties in Washington need to work together to end the procedural gridlock and hyper-partisanship."

"The President made every effort to present a candidate for a Senate vote, but he was right not to let Senate Republicans block full implementation of the consumer agency," Warren added. "Senate Republicans will surely complain about the recess appointment, but their refusal to allow an up or down vote on Cordray's nomination is just another example of the political games in Washington that must end."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/scott-brown-richard-cordray_n_1184683.html

nailingit — January 4, 2012 at 6:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I like this Scott Brown guy. Too bad he's from Massachusetts, we could use a guy like that here.

***HEY JAMIE, hook up with this guy!***

hawkeye — January 4, 2012 at 7:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


This is really incredible! They are destroying public school systems. A collective dumbing down of the middle class, and the middle class put them in power! And try to keep them in power!

New Hampshire Lawmakers Pass Law Allowing Parental Objections To Curriculum

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/new-hampshire-legislature-curriculum-objection-law_n_1184476.html

nailingit — January 4, 2012 at 9:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


HAWK

if you include presidents who grievously injured the united states, i agree.

DeeLittle — January 4, 2012 at 11:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — January 4, 2012 at 9:57 p.m.

What seems to be missing from the article is what courses being taught led to this decision. There was a quick blurb about previous law allowing religious beliefs to be a legitimate reason to pull a child from sex education class, and a very vague passing reference to teaching evolution. Also a reference to handing out condoms and lubricants without explanation.

This definitely needs some clarification. States designate course required for graduation - can a parent object, pull their child from state history (as an example) and still have their child graduate? Or is the focus of the law much more restrictive?

As I recall, PA went a different route a couple of years ago - parents opposed to teaching evolution took control of some of the school boards and started passing requirements to ban teaching evolution and/or include creationism (I forget actual details). We also have the Tucson AZ controversy over the Mexican experience classes (whatever they were called). And I'm sure someone could bring up a local example.

So, in a somewhat circuitous fashion I guess I'm agreeing with you. Our schools have become a battleground for socio-political issues. And I've ranted about the need to get back to the 3 R's and job training (shop, business classes) in the past.

roger — January 5, 2012 at 5:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- This seems to have less to do with socio-political issues, and more with the fundamentals of the three R's, using them to bring down our public schools. I have great respect for our educational community, who would want to teach in New Hampshire? It has to do with any parent objecting to anything at anytime! The Baggers are like a virus. Everything they get their hands on turns to crap. Can't wait for this years elections! Here are a few snippets for those whose pastors and pundits have commanded them not to read the Huffington Post!

"For example, under this bill, parents could object to a teacher's plan to: teach the history of France or the history of the civil or women's rights movements," Lynch wrote in his veto message. "Under this bill, a parent could find 'objectionable' how a teacher instructs on the basics of algebra. In each of those cases, the school district would have to develop an alternative educational plan for the student.

Hoell stressed the new law could allow parents to address both moral and academic objections to parts of the curriculum. The lawmaker said he could imagine the provision being utilized by parents who disagree with the "whole language" approach to reading education or the Everyday Math program.

"HB542 is an unprecedented attack on New Hampshire children's right to a quality education," he said. "In fact it will end education in New Hampshire as we know it, allowing children to be removed from any lessons their parents choose: algebra, English language arts, health education, American history, the civil or women's rights movement, science, absolutely anything."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/new-hampshire-legislature-curriculum-objection-law_n_1184476.html

nailingit — January 5, 2012 at 7:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Ten years of US occupation, tens if not hundeds of thousands of lives lost, untold billions spent, and what is there to show for it in Iraq? A regime, propped up only by US presence, unable to maintain control. The Sunnis and Shittes are at each others throats again, threatening to destabilize the region and giving Iran a shot a becoming the new power in the region-just what we need. Why can't our leaders ever get anything right? Maybe total gridlock in DC isn't so bad. If nothing is done, they can't screw up as much.

mrd — January 5, 2012 at 7:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm curious what buckeye71, manthou and those that have been or are currently in education think about this. Allowing parents to write lesson plans!

In the best possible scenario the Baggers want to expand public ed and put everyone on a Individualized Educational Program (IEP) as is currently available for special needs kids. It would involve more personnel, more time, more money invested in Public Ed. I have a strong feeling this is not the end game for the baggers!

nailingit — January 5, 2012 at 7:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Teachers have had their pay reduced, benefits taken away, jobs reduced and for what? For this? When are we going to end the assault on educators and our public school systems who serve the community at large? I understand much needs to be revamped to reflect progressive change. But not this. This speaks to the long term goal of destroying the Dept. of Ed, and the dumbing down our kids. And may I say...In My Humble Opinion. :)

nailingit — January 5, 2012 at 7:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


if you include presidents who grievously injured the united states, i agree.

DeeLittle — January 4, 2012 at 11:57 p.m.

If you are talking about the Bush two, sorry. I still can't go along with that one.

hawkeye — January 5, 2012 at 8:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Pepsi has experienced 8 consecutive quarters of year-over-year growth in revenue.
**So Pepsi isn't in dire straits. It's just squeezing employees to impress Wall Street** because it lacks confidence. And lets face it, confidence is the only thing that will ever save this economy.*

How's that for shared sacrifice? Corporate America and Wall St-you gotta luv 'em.

So, according to this logic, we must plunder the wealth of the working class and give it to the wealthy to fix the economy. I knew we were screwed, it's just now more open.

mrd — January 5, 2012 at 8:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


***OK, these guys are starting to scare me a little.***

Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/rick-santorum-birth-control-sodomy_n_1181291.html

hawkeye — January 5, 2012 at 8:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawk @ 8:48- Nothing like small government, eh? :))

nailingit — January 5, 2012 at 8:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal


A great read!

**Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs**

WASHINGTON — Benjamin Franklin did it. Henry Ford did it. And American life is built on the faith that others can do it, too: rise from humble origins to economic heights. “Movin’ on up,” George Jefferson-style, is not only a sitcom song but a civil religion.

But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1

nailingit — January 5, 2012 at 10:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


as long as companies, such as PepsiCo, will kick 2000 people to the curb to polish wall street's apple, don't look for much to improve for the masses.

another American myth busted. But as the guy from the Heritage Fnd hangs onto the myth with this kind of logical-need to tell that to all people immigrating to the US-the myth will linger. It's very hard to convince Americans that their system is broken.

mrd — January 5, 2012 at 10:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit,

They updated the article since I last read it. Per the update -

"In each of those cases, the school district would have to develop an alternative educational plan for the student. Even though the law requires the parents to pay the cost of alternative, the school district will still have to bear the burden of helping develop and approve the alternative...Under the terms of the bill, which was sponsored by state Rep. J.R. Hoell (R-Dunbarton), a parent could object to any curriculum or course material in the classroom. The parent and school district would then determine a new curriculum or texts for the child to meet any state educational requirements for the subject matter. The parent would be responsible for paying the cost of developing the new curriculum."

To be honest, the average person wouldn't be able to afford this on their own. Note that the school district bears the responsibility of developing the alternate curriculum - the parent has input, and pays the bill. Let's see - hiring state approved course development specialists to assess the various inputs and coming up with a final product is going to cost a lot. So, it would take a sizeable part of the supported community to make this feasible (as opposed to home or private schooling).

As for the main objection - that school would be disrupted by all the comings and goings, and the disparity in the education provide - total BS to anyone who grew up in the military and moved every year or two. If anything, we were exposed to a much more expansive educational experience than those who grew up in the same small town their entire life.

I'm still thinking the real focus - given that Tea Partiers are involved in ramming the bill through - is two areas. Sex education and evolution. Sex education is NOT an academic course; rather, it's an attempt at social engineering based on observations that parents aren't meeting their obligations in this area. Oh well. As for evolution, believe what you want. But colleges aren't going to teach creationism or allow someone to be ignorant of the basics of evolution - you know the material or else. There aren't alternate versions of the SAT or SAT - you answer questions correctly or you get them wrong. So, if parents want to increase thecurriculum to include fairy tales - so what? I sort of recall learning somewhere that an Indian tribe believed the world was on a turtle's back, or some such thing. And I read Genesis as a youth and got a Christian variation. Personally, I find Erich Van Daanikan more believable.

Whatever. If there is a pissing contest, it should be that once again the Tea Partiers are passing laws that favor the rich man.

roger — January 5, 2012 at 12:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Divine guidance must be a tough read.....

From CNN_

*Oxford, whose Twitter feed was named by TIME magazine one of the 140 best of 2011, wrote, “Cain, Perry, Bachmann all claimed God told them to run for President, and all are out of the race. God is hilarious.”
It’s been reported that Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have all suggested that God called on them to enter the presidential race.*

*But here we are: Cain’s out. Bachmann’s out*.

*After returning to Texas to “reassess” his campaign, Perry announced he’s not throwing in the towel. Judging by his poor showing in the Iowa caucuses and the debates so far, however, many political experts think it’s just a matter of time.*

*The only one with supposed divine guidance who’s still in the race is Santorum*

mrd — January 5, 2012 at 2:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


“Cain, Perry, Bachmann all claimed God told them to run for President, and all are out of the race. God is hilarious.”

mrd — January 5, 2012 at 2:06 p.m

God may have TOLD them to RUN for president, I haven't heard ANY of them say that God TOLD them they would WIN!
Last I checked the dictionary, the words "run and "win" do not mean the same thing.

ELISI — January 5, 2012 at 4:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


ELISI, good stuff, I love it. I almost fell out of my chair when I read your post.

hawkeye — January 5, 2012 at 5:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Perhaps some of you conservatives (if you haven't already) :) should send Pat Robertson a crisp $20 and maybe he'll let you in on the secret! After all, God has told him who will win!

nailingit — January 5, 2012 at 6:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Can I get a limited bragging right for predicting the winner?

"This is huge," True said. "It essentially changes who won."

Read more: http://www.kcci.com/news/30144582/detail.html#ixzz1idtvdx6b

nailingit — January 5, 2012 at 6:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


***Now that's funny, I don't care who you are***

hawkeye — January 5, 2012 at 7:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


***OK, Santorum isn't going to last long. We'll call him "flavor of the month- January"***

CONCORD, N.H. -- Rick Santorum left the stage of a town-hall meeting to a chorus of boos Thursday after getting into a contentious debate over gay marriage with an audience comprised of mostly young people.

Speaking at the 2012 "College Convention" here, the fireworks started when a student asked Santorum why he opposed gay marriage. Santorum's rhetorical style when answering questions is often to ask question back to the audience. But his questions soon prompted shouting from members of the nearly 200-person crowd, which led to an, at times, hostile back and forth.

"How about the idea that all men are created [with] equal rights to happiness and liberty?" a woman in the audience asked the former Pennsylavnia senator after he stated his opposition to gay marriage.

Santorum retorted, "Are we saying that everyone should have the right to marry?"

When the audience member told him yes, he shot back, "So anyone can marry can marry anybody else, so, if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/05/9985080-santorum-booed-in-contentious-exchange-over-gay-marriage

hawkeye — January 5, 2012 at 7:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Perhaps some of you conservatives (if you haven't already) :) should send Pat Robertson a crisp $20 and maybe he'll let you in on the secret! After all, God has told him who will win!*

nailingit — January 5, 2012 at 6:37 p.m

My crisp $20 would be sent to help an abused child or woman, or feed a homeless person, or donated to my own church's food bank to help others.
If anyone believes they have an inside track to who will win, via God.. well, lets just say they have been dippin the twilight zone sauce too much..and those whom on a daily basis feel the need to degrade and make snarky remarks of those who do believe in God, need to go take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror. You know..clean up your own actions before trying to clean up others.

"God tell us to turn the other cheek, but he doesn't say to be anyone's doormat"

ELISI — January 5, 2012 at 8:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


ELISI- You sound like such a selfless and wonderful person! Sorry if my humor offended you.

And I thought Pat Robertson was a well respected conservative.

nailingit — January 5, 2012 at 8:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh ELISI, don't be so tough on ol nailingit, he's just trying to make sense of the bazaar. Even you don't believe that Pat Robertson has the answers to who is going to win the election via God's voice. Now I'm all for turning the other cheek and a few times I've been whacked on the other side but I truly believe this time Robertson needs a good slap.

hawkeye — January 5, 2012 at 9:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit, you know as well as I do that your remarks are and meant to be far from humorous. They are down right snarky and you know it or you wouldn't post them daily.

Since you overwhelmingly feel the need to do so daily...just what about conservatives and Christians are you so afraid of? Must be something..people tend to make fun of or are angry at what they do not understand.

Sleep well nailingit, tomorrow is another day..I'm sure over night you will dream up more snarky remarks to make. :]

ELISI — January 5, 2012 at 9:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawkeye,

No I do not believe that Pat R "knows"..or he would tell the people.

You see Hawkeye If and When God does speak to someone, it is
(as I was taught) to benefit the body of the church, not for just one person.

Have I ever told you how much I HATE this captcha thing?

ELISI — January 5, 2012 at 9:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*"No I do not believe that Pat R "knows"..or he would tell the people."* Are you saying he is lying? Delusional? Speaking for profit? Is he a "man of God" in the Conservative community? Say it ain't so! Not Pat!

snarky adj \ˈsnär-kē\

Definition of SNARKY

1
: crotchety, snappish
2
: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner
— snark·i·ly adverb
Examples of SNARKY



The writer at No. 10, Fred Mustard Stewart, died last February at 74. His obituary in The Guardian contained this snarky observation: “Year in, year out, the 600-page mark did not daunt him.” —Dwight Garner, New York Times Book Review, 24 Feb. 2008
[+]more
Origin of SNARKY

dialect snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate
First Known Use: 1906
Related to SNARKY

Synonyms: choleric, crabby, cranky, cross, crotchety, fiery, grouchy, grumpy, irascible, peevish, perverse, pettish, petulant, prickly, quick-tempered, raspy, ratty, short-tempered, snappish, snappy, irritable, snippety, snippy, stuffy, testy, waspish
[+]more
Rhymes with SNARKY

barky, larky
Learn More About SNARKY

Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for "snarky"
Browse

Next Word in the Dictionary: snarl (verb)
Previous Word in the Dictionary: snark
All Words Near: snarky
Seen & Heard

What made you want to look up snarky? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible).

*Well Merriam, there's this ELISI avatar that wears the conservative Christian badge with pride and anger. She thinks I put down Jesus rather than the unlike Jesus policies her Republican party espouses.
There's a reason Jesus prayed to his father on behalf of his followers, 'that while living in this world, they were/are not to be of it'.....ahem........sorry...amen...maybe orthodox should be replaced with paradox?*

nailingit — January 5, 2012 at 10:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


A blast from the past from Pat, at least at the time was a well respected conservative leader, who placed second in the Iowa caucus that year. I'm always taken back by the visceral hate many on the "conservative" right display to those who are not "Christian" Americans.

I'm enjoying the debate the right has brought to the table in Santorum, Perry and Bachman. America needs to have this talk about right wing intrusive big government. As Newt called it right wing social engineering. Conservatism is destroying our country, on so many levels. Communism, fascism, Palinism :), when it's all said and done, history will deem this era of right wing conservatism to be the most destructive internally influenced "ism" in American history.

As Barney Fife would say..."it's time to nip it. Nip it, nip it, nip it in the bud. 2012

____

From the posterior of Mister Pat Robertson...ahh those were the days! Vintage!

*The Democrats have given us a clear picture of their city. They offer unlimited government, massive transfers of wealth from the productive sector of society to the nonproductive, and ever-increasing regulation of the daily lives of the people and their children.
In the city of the Democratic Party, the liberal mindset reigns supreme. Criminals are turned loose and the innocent are made victims. Disease carriers are protected and the healthy are placed at great risk.
In the Democrat's city, welfare dependency flourishes and no one is held accountable for his or her behavior. Society is always to blame.
In the Democrat's city, the rights of the majority must always take a back seat to the clamorous demands of the special interest minorities. And yet, in their city it is always the majority that must pay the bills, through higher and higher taxes.
Now the Democratic Party has discovered the family. They want us all to be one-big-family. But let's keep in mind that they want you and me to be in one family with Jim Wright as the daddy, Barbara Mikulski as the mommy. And Teddy Kennedy as big brother. I can't speak for you, but I believe I'd rather pick my own relatives.*

http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/PresidentialBidEnded.asp

nailingit — January 5, 2012 at 11:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The Republican Party historically fails to vet candidates that represent the average American. Keep in mind this guy had a huge backing from the GOP AFTER his "end of the world" prediction failed. NO taxes NO abortion No Gays. Get this unholy trinity right and you could be the next president! Think Bush! :)))))) AAAHHHHHH!!!

"Almost as if he were bored or disappointed with his enormous influence on American politics and world events, Pat Robertson has returned to making immediate preparation for Armageddon his principle focus. **In 1980, he announced to his staff that God had revealed to him that the end of the world would follow a war in the Middle East in 1982.** Robertson's 1988 presidential bid and the formation of the Christian Coalition and American Center for Law and Justice were all outgrowths of the distress Robertson experienced when the prophecy failed."

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9512/armageddon.html

nailingit — January 5, 2012 at 11:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


ELISI

ever wonder when it's going to be illegal hate speech to talk about christianity?

DeeLittle — January 6, 2012 at 5:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Seeing as how polls show the number 1 issue with voters is the economy, this latest from Dept of Labor ought to support Pres Obama's reelection. I'm thinking the Repubs are going to have to pull the proverbial rabbit out of a hat to figure out how to spin this to their advantage - especially since they've been saying the fault for poor economy and high unemployment falls on The Pres. And they may be too late - MSNBC and others are running with the news.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/01/06/unemployment-report-december-2011/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D125289

"...the unemployment rate fell to 8.5 percent, the lowest since February 2009. The rate has dropped for four straight months."

"The hiring gains cap a six-month stretch in which the economy generated 100,000 jobs or more in each month. That hasn't happened since April 2006."

"For all of 2011, the economy added 1.6 million jobs, better than the 940,000 added in 2010. The unemployment rate averaged 8.9 percent last year, down from 9.6 percent the previous year."

"Economists forecast that the job gains will top 2.1 million this year."

roger — January 6, 2012 at 6:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"ever wonder when it's going to be illegal hate speech to talk about christianity?" DeeLittle — January 6, 2012 at 5:25 a.m.

Never, as long as Christianity is the majority religion. Hate crime law application has been toward the majority acting out on their discriminatory beliefs about a minority.

The problem with both Christianity and Islam, to those who believe one exists, doesn't lie with the basic tenets of the religion. Rather, it lies with those who believe they have a requirement from their god to convert others. And when this carries over to setting moral standards into law, problems will arise. Pat Robertson is a major proponent of doing just that; this makes him and his adherents dangerous in the minds of we nonbelievers.

The Founding Fathers recognized this; hence separation of Church and State. Arguments that this applies only to different Christian factions conveniently ignore the large Jewish populations that existed in Baltimore and Philadelphia, the Iriquois Nation, and other groups of people who had different religious beliefs and who the Founding Fathers took steps to protect from the white AngloEuropean majority.

roger — January 6, 2012 at 6:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Of ALL people who have posted on the Forum in the past several months, it is none other than Nailingit with his wit and wisdom(?) who has managed to get me to post this morning.

Nailingit, it is my honest belief that you are not intending to show personal attacks at those of us whose daily lives are surrounded by our religious beliefs (still learning every day how to improve ourselves through the word as well), but rather... showing your obvious discontent with those who utilize religion for political or monetary gain for which I agree with you on that point. In any society, there are always those who are opportunistic and will take advantage of the hearts and souls of others for their own personal financial benefits (obviously one of the 7 deadly sins-greed). In sharing your obvious discontent for such people, it is my opinion that you have unfortunately stumbled on the toes of each and every one of us, almost a condemnation to those of us who are willing to step up to the plate and share what we believe in as you have attempted to connect our faith to the works of public figures who have their own vested interests when it comes to the Christian faith.

I'm not meaning to sound like I'm chastising you, just sharing an observation for which I felt compelled to share my thoughts. And just as we have our beliefs, you have yours. Maybe all of us should take a little extra time and consideration before posting our comments will do everyone a bit of good.

..

On another note, a dear friend of mine shared this video with me this morning and I truly hope others take the time to watch it as well. It is under 10 minutes long and really worth the time. (Thanks J.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DXL9v...

*(And what the heck is wrong with Captcha??? Matt is this the improvement???)*

goldenoldie — January 6, 2012 at 6:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


goldie,

Why not just admit you miss the camaraderie, repartee, and other bennies of being a basement denizen?

As always, good to hear from you.

roger — January 6, 2012 at 8:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**I wonder if Pat Robertson ever read this**

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Those section 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations are subject to additional restrictions that are not described in this fact sheet.

Hi Goldie, nice to "see" you again.

hawkeye — January 6, 2012 at 8:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- *"I'm thinking the Repubs are going to have to pull the proverbial rabbit out of a hat ..."*

I'm thinking it's not going to be pulled from their hat.....anatomically speaking!

goldenoldie- "...almost a condemnation to those of us who are willing to step up to the plate and share what we believe in..."Good morning goldenoldie! Part of the problem I have with "Christian soldiers" is they refuse to step up to the plate. Conservatives by and large refuse to look at their political leaders, the positions they take and hold them accountable. As long as they enact laws to discriminate against Gays, Abortion and raising Taxes, they keep their mouths shut and support those that espouse the American Christian brand of hate they 'holy support. Many "Christians" today know of nothing else than to glom onto narrow minded bigoted beliefs they were taught as children, never achieving a degree of self-actualization, yet use their limited understanding of something much larger than themselves, and thrust their perverse interpretation of how our society should be run based on a bible they don't begin to understand. If that makes any sense.

----
On another note?

Christians today seem to be more concerned with people having proper documentation than if they are in need of food or clothing. Jesus was totally cool. Some of you guys use him to push a hate filled agenda that is destroying our country. Remember, be a part of this world, but not of it. Peace

nailingit — January 6, 2012 at 8:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


..and btw nice to see you goldenoldie!

hawk @ 8:08..."I wonder if Pat Robertson ever read this"

I wonder if 5 members on our Supreme Court ever read it!

nailingit — January 6, 2012 at 8:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


What a great idea! A secular advice columnist for a religious community! Brilliant!!!

During this "inception" period, advice is free! Fire away! :)

nailingit — January 6, 2012 at 8:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Note to Matt/Columbian/TWIMC- $25 DOLLARADAY deal! 5 days a week! X-tra on weekends! We can do this! Discourage readership! Lose sponsors! Devaluate yourselves further than you ever have before! I'll be your hired pun! $25 DOLLARADAY deal!! Act now!

nailingit — January 6, 2012 at 9:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — January 6, 2012 at 8:48 a.m.

You send me $500, and I'll pray for you.

Can't guarantee it will help, (you) don't guarantee results. Also, won't say exactly who I will pray to, could be the porcelain God, Ralph.

hawkeye — January 6, 2012 at 9:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawk- Watch out for backsplash.

hey, this is working!

nailingit — January 6, 2012 at 9:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger;
the unemployment rate dip coincides with over 400K not being counted anymore by the feds... If they can predict a gain of 2.1 million they probably already know whos going to win the Super Bowl. Maybe you can ask them and then you can bet your House on the game.. Bet you wouldn't do that so how can you actually beleive this bull crap?

vanwadreamer — January 6, 2012 at 9:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


***Here we go, look out Jeb Bush***

After months of low-level chatter, Joe Kennedy III—son of former Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II and grandson of Bobby—announced Thursday that, come January 20, he will leave his job with the Middlesex County District Attorney’s office to pursue the congressional seat being vacated by the crankily transcendent Barney Frank.

hawkeye — January 6, 2012 at 10:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Morning nailingit..

I have a deal for you..since you like bring up what you think is wrong with Christians and conservatives..oh by the way, there are Christians and conservatives in the democratic party also. Anyways..

I challenge YOU nailingit to attend lets say a Pentecostal/Assembly of God church for...lets say 2 months.
Go with an open mind to learn, to understand why some of those who ran for president said God told them to run. To understand why Pat R says what he does and why few listen.
Doesn't cost you dime..well maybe the gas to get you there and back home and a hour or so of your time. Sit in the back, listen and observe with an open mind. You can even make an appointment with the pastor anytime to talk to, I'm sure anyone of them would be more than happy to answer your questions, free of charge!
So how about it nailingit, game? Care to take the challenge,
who knows you may learn something..

ELISI — January 6, 2012 at 12:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well who wins South Carolina and why?

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — January 6, 2012 at 1:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I know of Pentecostals. What a strange request! I do understand the "why." I think you are getting justification mixed up with perversion of truth, to the point of perverting the bible's standard of what a true prophet is. To understand the "why" should not bring acceptance!

Sooooo..Pat's okay, he's just a lying false prophet homophobe that speaks for evangelical Christians? This gets more convoluted as it progresses! I wouldn't care to attend. Thanks though.

It would be like going to an all you can eat cafeteria for $2.99. You know it would be crappy, overpriced and leave you with a sour stomach.

Again if you care to answer. I'm not pressing, just interested.

"No I do not believe that Pat R "knows"..or he would tell the people." Are you saying he is lying? Delusional? Speaking for profit? Is he a "man of God" in the Conservative community?

nailingit — January 6, 2012 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Ready to hit the road for a long drive Lou. Will chime in later. Good to see you!

nailingit — January 6, 2012 at 1:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Where am I headed?

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — January 6, 2012 at 1:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Just a guess here Lou, but I think Newt is going to win in S.C. Only because of the lack of a real front runner, they will fall back on a "good ol boy". This, of course, is going to throw a monkey in the wrench because Santorum and Romney think they have it made in the shade. This will however, be the LAST state Newt will take before he self destructs.

But like I said before, this is just a guess.

Damn Lou, this captcha is getting worse.

hawkeye — January 6, 2012 at 1:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I don't like captcha either. It now comes with the "system." We did need to find a way to try and keep the spam out. Before we had to do it manually and it was taking longer and longer to get rid of it.

But I too wish it wasn't quite as difficult to read the dang thing.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — January 6, 2012 at 1:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh nailingit, nailingit, nailingit..your answer is exactly what I figured it would be..thanks for proving my point to a friend.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL badda bing, badda bing

ELISI — January 6, 2012 at 2:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


oh and nailingit, about your comment of..

"It would be like going to an all you can eat cafeteria for $2.99. You know it would be crappy, overpriced and leave you with a sour stomach."

Some say the same about here and reading your comments.

Have a nice weekend!

ELISI — January 6, 2012 at 2:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


....hehehe.... Somebody just got nailed on his own little game, I see.

goldenoldie — January 6, 2012 at 3:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well hello golden. Someone told me we were getting quite the lashing from you on another blog. Ouch! Welcome back.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — January 6, 2012 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


If Santorum can make a respectable showing in New Hampshire, then he stands a good chance of taking South Carolina. Otherwise - they'll fall in line and back Romney. Newt is going to get savaged leading up to the New Hampshire vote - using the tack that he's a political opportunist that will say what needs to be said to get elected. (This has started, with ads comparing his record to Romney's.) And his personal life baggage will come up again. By South Carolina, Newt should drop. I could be wrong, but I see South Carolina as more social conservative (Santorum) than fiscally so.

roger — January 6, 2012 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawk,
No way Newt wins, I believe he'll quit after SC.. Running 3rd, 4th, or 5th is one way of saying I need to throw the towel in, they ain't gunna vote for me so why try so hard in all seriousness....It's really down to Santorum and Romney...They are the only two viable candidates at THIS TIME....I watched ron Pauls speach the other night and while he does have 2 or 3 things he's pushing I like there are 1-15 other things I don't. What in the heck is Huntsman doing , is he running or not.. He surely doesn't seem to have a campain manager, if he does he should be fired...

vanwadreamer — January 6, 2012 at 3:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I think before Newt drops out, he will do some real damage to Santorum and Romney. He's going to let a couple of cats out of a couple of bags and these guys are going down in flames.

Someone is going to have to step up but I don't see a contender on the horizon. That is unless Jeb is in a holding pattern.

hawkeye — January 6, 2012 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well Hello, Mister Lou. I am honored that you would take the time out to say something to me in the forum. I noticed the numbers have dropped drastically lately. Wuz happenin'???

Lashing out??? Hehe...is that what you call it??? I hadn't said anything different from what I'd been saying here in recent months. You *WERE* reading the forum daily and *DID* see my comments, my concerns and my questions for you when I wrote on the forum, right??? Those non responses were deafening.

Silly Lou, you know me better than that!!! And Lou...no wait!!! It couldn't be...

*You're accepting third party information when you throw out such accusations??? Naughty you. I thought you'd get firsthand information, being the editor and all.*

Keep on smilin', Mister Lou. It makes people wonder just what it is you're up to!!!

and yes, I hate Captcha as well. Anybody know how to put hieroglyphs onto the Captcha response yet?

goldenoldie — January 6, 2012 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Huntsman is the only one in this race with real brains and no baggage. He does not cater to any fundamental religious group, he does not spout off about his beliefs and how he wants to change us back (to who knows what). He has an impressive background with solid experience, and he is an intellectual. In other words, he does not stand a chance in that party.
I say let Santorum win the candidacy. He is so far out there with his "let's get our Judeo Christian beliefs and biblical laws to override our constitutional laws" etc.,among his other somewhat goofy statements and lack of real intelligence und so weiter und so fort, that there's no chance he will win the election. Case closed.
Newty is done after SC. Good riddance.

VanWa: yes, Paul has a few really good ideas, but the other 15 bad ones just plain and simply outweigh them. No chance for him in the general election either.
7 captchas before I can read one, this is getting silly.

luvithere — January 6, 2012 at 4:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh...one more thing Lou...Don't get your hopes up that I'm a regular any more. No more virtual pistol whipping towards me, sir. Oh...and if you check my recent history, I've only made about 6 or 7 comments since November 17th...almost two months, now. I'm coming and going...mostly absent. The spark...the urge to share my concerns about our community and to urge for all to work together to make a difference have all but faded through posting here since this is mostly a hit site now for those with frustrations who have no other way to vent their misdirected anger. And Lou, the Facebook side is not any better, either. In fact, it's a bit more...terse??? Sign of the times I guess? Probably.

That's okay, though. I'd rather utilize my valuable time taking action IN our community rather than drifting into the cyber world, to share my views in order to try to make a difference. Actions speak louder than words, my dear sir. So Lou, I'm outta here...maybe I'll be back...maybe not. Ciao!!!

goldenoldie — January 6, 2012 at 4:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Anyone who wins SC will likely be the ultimate Republican nominee, Lou. That has been the case in that state since 1980.

Based on that statistical history, I am playing safe odds and declaring Romney the winner in advance.

manthou — January 6, 2012 at 5:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well, I suppose I could find something to vent angrily on - but I've got a Rush concert playing on VH1Classic, and there's no way to be negative when they're playing. What a strange band - mostly crappy studio albums, but one of the greatest concert bands in rock history.

I just set a new (for me) Captcha record - at least 15 refreshes before I found one I could decipher.

roger — January 6, 2012 at 7:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger: Enjoy your concert. Good music changes our brain chemistry for the better. You are right: it is impossible to fight and argue when those good endorphins are surging...:)

manthou — January 6, 2012 at 7:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


For me, it's the Eagles and Foreigner. Mix in a little Fleetwood Mac, some old Beatles, a little Pink Floyd and a dash of Queen.

Oh, there are just too many......

hawkeye — January 6, 2012 at 7:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Interesting news article about the Repub primary out there -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-gingrich-perry_n_1190491.html

Seems the Religious Right is flexing it's might - traditionalists and Tea Partyers better watch out! This guy is saying South Carolina is the critical primary - unless Newt or Gov Perry has a major turn around, they're looking at telling those two to drop and support Santorum.

Looks like the Southern Baptists view Romney a bit negatively. Also looks like they believe they're the big player (still) in neoConservative circles....

I also wonder if the real answer to Editor Lou's question is whichever of the 3 top "Not Romneys" is ahead after South Carolina does their thing.

roger — January 6, 2012 at 7:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


This is quite interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/guide-hampshire-debates-184547431.html

hawkeye — January 6, 2012 at 7:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


And here comes the anti-Santorum crowd! This is starting to get interesting - time for some good old fashioned kick below the belt politics now! (But these guys are really going to have to do better than this.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-uhs_n_1186443.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl22|sec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D125435

Someone is trying to make the stretch that because Santorum sat on the board of directors of a hospital chain with quite a few "issues", he is responsible for all that happened, and that his reputation should suffer accordingly. (Also, it's just a little strange that there's an exorcism involved. Maybe Michelle Bachmann will be back sooner than we thought -
she can do the Linda Blair head turning routine in an ad and earn the nomination that way. Making her the real answer to Editor Lou's question.)

roger — January 6, 2012 at 8:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Good link, hawkeye. Bold Newt going after both Romney and Paul, and Perry going after Santorum. Is it just possible they both know the next two primaries are their make/break?

roger — January 6, 2012 at 8:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Lou @ 1:32- Mt Hood! I got to see the first snow this year at the bottom of the mountain!

Not to change things up, but New Hampshire is big...huge. Until that event is sorted out it's too hard to predict.

If I were a betting man, :) I'd say let's make some lines and prop bets! It's a perfect storm for Romney to stumble and then some. Santorum is on the rise and represents the conservative faction of the right better than anyone. On one hand I respect Santorum, he's seems sincere and real. On the other hand I believe he is sincerely wrong and would drive our country into the ground with a political jackhammer. It's all about the debates this weekend!

Santorum's the man for the right and is getting infused with money. He'll attack Romney.

Gingrich the human hate machine has already stated what his goal is. He'll attack Romney.

Huntsman is one of the few that have attacked Romney, He's using Mass to make a statement. He'll attack Romney.

Perry's ability to debate might be hindered by his inability to understand where he is. He'll pick it up midway. He'll attack Romney.

Ron Paul has acquired so much baggage that he'll attack everyone, and won't focus on Romney as the others, but use this as a forum to promote libertarianism, and get some more $$$ from his base.

I'll miss Michele, but I'm sure someone will take up the slack of "repealing Obama care".

It's too bad the republicans won't put forth something that's affordable, caring, healthy and actionable. :)

After the Mass debate follow the money. If Romney doesn't win big it's a loss for him.

It's all about the God thing. If Romney was evangelical this conversation wouldn't be happening. Any evangel worth their salt will pray for direction as to who to vote for. They're going to vote for a spiritual leader involved in (in their eyes) a cult that leads people away from the God they serve? A religion that promises their followers that they shall attain God hood someday. That Jesus is the brother of Satan, and this nugget in particular that would upset any North Westerner...that Paradise is buried under Mizzou!

Romney wins Mass by 9%. 2.Santorum 3. Gingrich trailing Santorum by 12% points.

nailingit — January 6, 2012 at 10:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Some say the same about here and reading your comments.*

LOL! I know what you mean ELISI, it's painful enough to write them! ELISI_ Again if you care to answer. I'm not pressing, just interested.

"No I do not believe that Pat R "knows"..or he would tell the people." Are you saying he is lying? Delusional? Speaking for profit? Is he a "man of God" in the Conservative community?

nailingit — January 6, 2012 at 10:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Don't count Santorum out. This might go to convention. Some might under estimate the conviction/tenacity/resolve/immoral judgements of the religious right. They are not to be taken lightly. Fox News/700 Club (Pat Robertson) are extremely powerful in the lives of GOP conservative Kool-aid guzzlers. It's the only source which validates their reality.

The O'Reilly Factor
Tiller was first discussed on The O'Reilly Factor on February 25, 2005. Subsequently Tiller was discussed in at least 28 episodes before his death. On the show he was sometimes described as "Tiller the Baby Killer". Show host Bill O'Reilly did not invent the nickname; previously, Congressman Robert K. Dornan had used it on the floor of Congress. O'Reilly said he would not want to be Tiller, Kathleen Sebelius, and other pro-choice Kansas politicians "if there is a judgment day."[24]
On November 3, 2006, O'Reilly featured an exclusive segment on The O'Reilly Factor, saying that he had an "inside source" with official clinic documentation indicating that Tiller performed late-term abortions to alleviate "temporary depression" in pregnant woman.[25] O'Reilly also interviewed a woman who allegedly got pregnant when she was 13 years old and went to Tiller for her abortion.[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_T...

The murder trial of Scott Roeder, confessed killer of abortion provider George Tiller, is being conducted as a case of savior against savior, which is in fact the title of the GQ piece detailing the events of May 31, 2009, the day Roeder shot Tiller in church. The piece begins on a disturbingly even-handed note: "Both men believed they were doing right..." And, though the judge has ruled that the jury will not be able to consider the killing either manslaughter or second-degree murder, the trial, which began last week in Wichita, Kansas, has unfortunately headed in a similar direction, with Roeder testifying today about his antiabortion beliefs, **his religious awakening while watching The 700 Club on TV** and his frustration with the legal system--as if any of this could way justify killing.

http://www.thenation.com/article/tillers-killer-puts-abortion-trial

nailingit — January 6, 2012 at 11:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others." --Ann Coulter on the murder of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, FOX News interview, June 22, 2009

nailingit — January 6, 2012 at 11:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Proposed Immigration Change Could Keep Families Together**

For immigration reform supporters, this would be a welcome policy change.

"This was definitely on my Christmas wish list," Douglas Stump, the vice president of American Immigration Lawyers Association First, said on a conference call.

Some Democrats in Congress praised the decision on Friday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a supporter of immigration reform, tweeted that he applauds "Obama's stance for [family] unity; allowing speedy reunification of spouses/children of US citizens, adjusting #immigration status."

The proposed rule wouldn't change existing law, or even lower the requirements for being granted a green card as the spouse or child of an American citizen. Undocumented immigrants and their family members must still prove "extreme hardship" -- which does not mean just being separated -- for the American citizen based on the absence of his or her spouse or parent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/proposed-immigration-change_n_1190680.html

nailingit — January 7, 2012 at 12:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit: Your references above to right-wing media personalities like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly whipping up the hate base on Dr. Tiller are examples of what concerns me most about "journalism" today: the disregard of professional ethical guidelines.

Of course, journalists have morphed into entertainers, haven't they, so that absolves them of following any guidelines or best-practices policies.

Lou B makes references to the media holding government accountable in Press Talk today (a worthy and longstanding mission of journalism), but my question is: who polices the media?

manthou — January 7, 2012 at 7:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Here's something that we can also blame on Pres Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/chimeric-monkeys-chimera-_n_1190664.html

Researchers at OHSU's Oregon National Primate Research Center have advanced the ability to "create" life in the laboratory much closer to humans than previously possible.

"According to New Scientist, researchers produced little Hex, Roku, and Chimero by taking cells from early-stage rhesus monkey embryos and combining them in a new embryo. UPI reports that scientists then implanted the mixed embryos into female monkeys who gave birth to "normal healthy monkey infants."

From the ONPRS's website (linked to in the above article) -
"We have developed models in the monkeys we study that allow us to ask key questions about aging, metabolic diseases like diabetes, reproductive enhancement, and many others. Much of this opportunity is due to our multi-generational, pedigreed colonies that started to breed here in the early 1960s. In each of the three Divisions, there are world-class research programs that relate to high-priority medical needs that are expected to increase in importance and funding emphasis over the coming decades. These include research in aging, AIDS, depression, infectious diseases, substance abuse, obesity, reproductive health, and stem cells."

Personally, I see congratulations being in order. Like it or not, many (if not most) advancements in the medical world's ability to treat human disease, etc, come from research like this. The success these researchers have attained puts us that much closer to being able to treat genetic/physical disorders and work toward eliminating those that keep a human from living a "complete" life.

Part of me is saddened that these monkeys are part of a research colony; they'll probably be subjected to some sort of further experimentation. I can sympathize with the radical groups that have broken into facilities like this and released the animals.

The cynical part of me, I suppose fueled by the sci-fi I read growing up, sees this as a major step toward people being able to design their own "perfect" child.

And then there's a paranoid view (which I won't discount) that this puts women much closer to making men unnecessary.

roger — January 7, 2012 at 7:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The former superintendent at Portland Public Schools, Vicky Phillips, is working for The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation now. They just released an interesting study on teacher evaluations which will be a hot topic in the staff rooms for weeks to come:

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/ja...

manthou — January 7, 2012 at 7:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger: The scientific community does a pretty good job of holding each other accountable when it comes to human subject research in this country. World-class research institutions have strict guidelines and scientists lose their job and credibility if a line is crossed. I do know folks who have led research teams at The Primate Center: the animals are treated humanely and there are guidelines to follow, too. Protections have progressed with the help of animal anti-cruelty activists, for sure.

I agree with you that we humans have benefitted from such research.

At OHSU, stem cells are helping children with fatal diseases function again. If that is creating a more perfect child, so be it.

As for men being unnecessary: women already are choosing the biological father by reviewing videos and biographical/personal statements in fertility clinics now. When we can produce babies without a sperm or egg, will we have a human being?

manthou — January 7, 2012 at 8:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou,

I also read Editor Lou's column with interest. The cost-cutting seems mainly cosmetic and pertains to the hard copy paper. Hopefully they don't cut reporters again - some of the new crop (Paris and Eric come to mind) are putting out good articles that actually tell us something. What he didn't address is the website. I wonder if they make enough off of internet advertising (the 360 Marketplace ads) to keep both sides running?

roger — January 7, 2012 at 8:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


That was a mildly interesting exchange between goldie and Editor Lou yesterday. What site was Lou referring to? I figure if it was just The Columbian getting slammed I could move on and forget it. But goldie's response was rather harsh - though I suspect directed mainly at nailingit (and perhaps manthou?), the Basement as a whole was described rather negatively. So my interest level went up. (For a short time, anyhow.)

Anyhow, I went to Lew Waters site, where goldie posts occasionally. Very boring stuff - just a bunch of people who agree with each other addressing nuances of their issues. And goldie is the liberal on that site - I'm expecting Lew and friends to revoke her "I'm a Conservative" card because she defends gay marriage. But nothing negative (from goldie) about The Columbian. (Lew probably doesn't allow it anymore, now that he and Editor Lou are good buds.) And none of Lew's links led me to anything.

roger — January 7, 2012 at 9:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger: Maybe Lou will answer your final question above today.

About the reduction in newspaper width. Have you noticed that many brands of toilet paper are getting narrower, too?

Honestly, I am not comparing the C to your favorite roll of TP. Cost-cutting ideas are cropping up everywhere.

manthou — January 7, 2012 at 9:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Onward to something equally as ridiculous - the bills being introduced by Repubs in The House and at state levels to drug test welfare recipients. Responses like this get me to like some of the Dems out there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/07/unemployment_n_1189989.html

"One of the most recent retorts comes from Georgia, where last month Democratic state Rep. Scott Holcomb introduced a bill requiring members of the local legislature to prove they're not Legislating Under the Influence."

"Assistant Minority Leader Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) called the Republican drug test scheme unfair and insulting. "I don't see anyone in the Republican majority demanding drug testing for folks who receive oil and gas subsidies," he said."

roger — January 7, 2012 at 9:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The Keystone XL pipeline discussion is picking up. Pres Obama has until late February to give his Yes/No decision - one that his staff suggested would be No due to the Repubs forcing this deadline on him in the recent "tax cut" extension legislation. I wonder if this changes anything?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/oil-industry-to-obama-approve-keystone-xl-pipeline-or-face-huge-consequences/2012/01/04/gIQAbu60aP_story.html

The head of the American Petroleum Institute says unions are joining them in supporting the project, and The Pres better approve it or else lose the support of Labor. Meanwhile, unnamed key liberal supporters say they'll stop the money flow to Pres Obama's reelection campaign if he does approve it.

roger — January 7, 2012 at 10:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Obama's plan should include putting it back on Big Oil. Make them come up with a fail-safe design. Tell the R's to go pound sand until he gets a plan comprehensive enough to approve/disapprove. If the approval process in Clark Co can take months, mine did, they should be able to drag this out forever and a day. Then after the election, he can do whatever-political immunity. Ain't that how it's supposed to work?

BTW-my captha is usedcitypig, if I'm reading it right. If you read this, I guessed right.

mrd — January 7, 2012 at 11:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says it is expanding the FBI's more than eight-decade-old definition of rape to reflect a better understanding of the crime and to broaden protections.
The new definition counts men as victims for the first time and drops the requirement that victims must have physically resisted their attackers.
Vice President Joe Biden, author of the Violence Against Women Act when he was in the Senate, said the new definition announced Friday is a victory for women and men "whose suffering has gone unaccounted for over 80 years." Calling rape a "devastating crime," the vice president said, "We can't solve it unless we know the full extent of it."
The change will increase the number of people counted as rape victims in FBI statistics but will not change federal or state laws or alter charges or prosecutions. It's an important shift because lawmakers and policymakers use crime statistics to allocate money and other resources for prevention and victim assistance.
The White House said the expanded definition has been long awaited as many states and research groups made similar changes in their definitions of rape over recent decades.
Since 1929, the FBI has defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. The revised definition covers any gender of victim or attacker and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. Physical resistance is not required. The Justice Department said the new definition mirrors the majority of state rape statutes now on the books.*

It's about time!

ELISI — January 7, 2012 at 2:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — January 7, 2012 at 9:47 a.m

I'm not too sure that I'm against drug testing for welfare recipients. If you are asking for a handout, why not have some rules? If they have a prescription, Then OK.

I know where I worked, I had to do it before I got hired and if I was off more than a month and if I got hurt on the job. As for drug testing congress, seems like a no-brainer. If they are making rules, they should be sober and lucid. YES!

Either that or they have to complete 15 captchas in a row, no refreshing.

hawkeye — January 7, 2012 at 3:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — January 7, 2012 at 3:59 p.m.,

No problem with drug testing where it makes sense. I did it for most of my military career, and as a defense contractor after retiring.

I don't see the relevance to welfare, however. The bill would have to be paid by us, and if they cancel the payments for a positive test, then how do the children involved get cared for? It's a damned if you do/don't situation - but I think the overall cost will go up if we do.

Making Congress do 15 Captchas w/o refreshing will be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Especially as they consider themselves above the law. But I do like the idea.

roger — January 7, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Elisi,

Amen. But one question - If the man dresses provocatively, can we say he asked for it? (Or is this just a bit tasteless? If so, my apologies.)

roger — January 7, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Mitt's going to take it on the chin tonight. These guys are gutting each other. Blood, guts, brain matter, Perry matter...this is going to be one for the ages! 1800ABC!

**Republican Debate: 'Mitt's Gonna Need To Wear A Flak Jacket Tonight' In New Hampshire**

Later in the afternoon, Gingrich's longtime aide, Rick Tyler, announced that the super PAC he now heads will soon release a 27-minute long video on Romney's days in private equity.

"It is breathtaking," he said, breathlessly. "It's a short film. It documents four case studies of Bain gutting businesses, taking all the assets and cleaning out people's pensions and firing all the people. That is the human toll of predatory paper shuffling, which is not capitalism."

Asked whether he thought the topic might come up Saturday night, he replied: "I hope... There is precious few moments and nobody has done it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/07/republican-debate-tonight-_n_1191648.html

nailingit — January 7, 2012 at 4:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou @ 7:35- The media is certainly a conduit, but shines the light on a bigger problem. It's what the pastors, bishops, etc. preach from their pulpits beginning Sunday and not stopping until the last bible study Saturday night. It's what the laymen teach in church/house bible studies across America every day. Racism, bigotry, disrespect for any ideas that promote something other than what their church teaches or promotes. Radical Conservative faith, historically has been the death nell of so many people, ideas, societies...It's now conjoined at the soul with corporate money as never before. The extreme intolerant narrow minded bigoted views from radical conservatives are threatening the very foundation our Country was built on. The restrictions, the mandates, the lack of freedom and choice they enact fly in the face of our constitution. Yet these same people who destroy our country, cite the constitution as their rational.

All in the name of Jesus.

nailingit — January 7, 2012 at 5:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Why drug test anyone unless they show signs of impairment? We don't drug test our Presidents or anyone with real power. But if you want to sweep a floor, turn a wrench or catch a fly ball then by God piss in a cup. It's wrong. It's invasive. It's intrusive. And most of all it's not necessary.

roger- I think the right is blowing this Keystone thing up. The few thousand it would employ and the inherent trade offs, the bark is louder than the bite. No decision until after the election. imfu opinion. :)

nailingit — January 7, 2012 at 5:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — January 7, 2012 at 5:59 p.m.

"But if you want to sweep a floor, turn a wrench or catch a fly ball then by God piss in a cup. It's wrong. It's invasive. It's intrusive. And most of all it's not necessary."

Apparently you have never worked in a factory. There is a very good reason for the drug tests and it's a safety thing. So you can push a broom, you can also walk in front of a forklift and if you aren't impaired, maybe the forklift driver is.

As far as anyone with real power goes, drug test their butts too. If they are making life altering decisions that affect me, you can bet your bippy, I want them tested often.

Makes my butt numb just thinking about it.

hawkeye — January 7, 2012 at 6:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Mitt's going to take it on the chin tonight.* Man, was I wrong. It's hands off Mitt night. I guessing corporate pac money contributed heavily to the GOP candidates "campaign funds" this last week. Pathetic! I should have known better than to trust a few republicans at this point in time for an honest debate.

With the exception of Mr. Paul. Dude is spot on when it comes to foreign policy and privacy issues. More than any Dem I've heard....my God...Rick Perry just said if elected he would send troops back into Iraq!!! I believe this is news! :)

What we are witnessing tonight is the coronation of Mitt Romney.

In light of the GOP candidates bottomless pockets selling their souls to Angel Moroni, my NH update is Romney by 22% Santorum #2 and Paul third within 10% points of Sanitorium. Gingrich 8% Huntsman 6% (I like this guy) and Perry 3 or 4 %.

nailingit — January 7, 2012 at 7:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye- Yes. If someone displays impairment. But to deny employment because someone tests positive for a taking few recreational/medical hits of pot the night before? If we had tests and laws to address levels and type is one thing. But to let Tom Dick & Harry demand your DNA/Body fluids is wrong. Do we demand congress, presidents, ambassadors, etc to piss in a cup for joe next door?

Of course your forklift analogy exists. It's common sense and I have experienced the environment you describe. Drug history, noticeable impairment, arrest record, I can see it. And I've worked the OSHA side of it.

I've found most of the people you describe doing something like walking in front of a forklift just not paying attention or wearing headphones. Workers have a way of dealing with fellow employees that put them in harm's way.:)) Been on that side also! :)

We drive 2 ton projectiles everyday, should we be forced to piss in a cup everyday to drive?

I understand where you are coming from. I've worked with a few drunks in my life. Drug tests won't touch that. It's seems to be somewhat acceptable to come in with a hangover, hell some brag about it. Test positive for a hit of pot that was taken a week ago and be refused an honest days wages? Ridiculous.

nailingit — January 7, 2012 at 7:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


We heard Santorum call Ron Paul a liar - repeatedly. And he was generally ridiculed by the others. Looks to me like they was an agreement to take down #3 because he's a loose cannon in the Repub world. Once they reduce Paul to being inconsequential (assuming they do so) then they can have the Mitt/Not Mitt showdown.

We heard Newt try to explain how being a military brat puts you on equal footing with a veteran to be Commander in Chief. (The obvious response that there is no relationship between having served and leading the Nation was missed.) Newt was actually pretty quiet - he spoke his piece, but didn't seem to have his heart in it. Pretty much the same with Perry - his best line was at the end. Everyone else was going to watch whatever championship they finally agreed was being played - Perry was gonna go do some shootin'! Probably at the Iranians that he wants to go back into Iraq and go after.

And as usual Huntsman said the most that made sense, and it didn't seem to matter. Something says his strategy to skip Iowa and go straight to New Hampshire didn't do much good.

Romney did, however, rub Steffie's nose in doodoo for persisting with a stupid "what if" question involving a state's power to pass laws - probably one of the highlights of the evening.

Nailingit is right - they put on what was pretty much a yawner, when there should have been a good fight if anyone else truly expects to take down Romney. And a behind the scenes fix probably has been made. But I'm not as sure that the one made is that Mitt's The Man. Rather, I'm thinking the word has been put out that the also rans need to start dropping so it can be Romney vs. Santorum.

roger — January 7, 2012 at 8:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*I understand where you are coming from. I've worked with a few drunks in my life.*

That doesn't sound right and hope it wasn't taken wrong! My point was I've witnessed more alcohol impairments in the workplace than drugs. I get what you are saying. I've always had a problem with the end justifying the means in most cases. I suppose this is one of them.

nailingit — January 7, 2012 at 8:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit, so you are saying that portable breathalyzers installed in a vehicle should be illegal too? No, they aren't forced to piss in a cup but breathe into a little machine is OK?

And yes, I've seen those idiots come in with a hella hangover and I don't like working around them or picking up their slack. I also don't think you can ask about drug history.

As for testing positive a week later, I wouldn't know but with today's technology, there should be a better way to test. Why don't you and drift work on that. Then fix that damn captcha thing.

hawkeye — January 7, 2012 at 8:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The drug test discussion started with welfare recipients - something that's actually having legislation proposed to do.

If there's a demonstrable on the job safety concern, then management should be able to direct drug testing. (And they better include breathalyzers for alcohol.) Seeing as how they'll be found liable in civil court if someone is injured by a drugged employee.

But I wouldn't agree with general testing "just because" - as is the case with the welfare recipients. (Didn't we used to call them welfare mothers? And didn't Santorum tell us he helped get rid of them? So just who are we going to drug test?) On the job - if you're too loaded to perform to standard, you'll get fired anyhow - we shouldn't have to resort to drug testing.

roger — January 7, 2012 at 8:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- I thought it was interesting that Paul repeatedly condemned Santorum's debt ceiling votes, repeating it violated the ethics code of the tea party. He really went out of his way to draw a contrast between the baggers and the only one that can beat Romney. These guys were paid off. And I bet it was enough for Newt to start his own library!

Signed sealed and delivered. It had to tick off conservatives when Mitt was taken back by the thought of contraception laws.

In the spirit of great Pentecostal/Assembly of God conservative leaders such as Jimmy Swaggert, Jim & Tammy Faye Baker, Benny Hinn and God bless you so Mr. Robertson...will the conservatives bring a third party candidate into the picture?

nailingit — January 7, 2012 at 8:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*As for testing positive a week later, I wouldn't know but with today's technology, there should be a better way to test. Why don't you and drift work on that. Then fix that damn captcha thing.*

Helluva idea hawk!

Drift?

nailingit — January 7, 2012 at 8:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"...it violated the ethics code of the tea party."

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

HEHEHEHEEHHE!!!

nailingit — January 7, 2012 at 8:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm not a geek so I can't help out on this darned CAPTCHA thing.

As far as drug testing goes I'm opposed, unless there's evidence of impaiment. I was the Safety Director for several years at a small industrial company (union shop). Both I and several other folks had training in recognizing signs of drug/alcohol impairement. If a person was suspected then a (trained) person from management and labor would have to make the observation, agree and then write it up before sending the suspected individual off for testing. I find that reasonable.

Cannabis is an issue, however. A hot UA for pot is not an indicator of impairment, nor drug abuse for that matter. The molecule found in urine is not THC, but a metabolite of. That metabolite likes to hang around in the fat cells for quite some time.

A blood test will reveal active THC in the system. There's a few problems with that, too. I took a cannabis capsule just before bed last night. This morning, my only impairement is I'm on my first cup of coffee. I'll bet you something shiny though, that a blood draw would show a rather high level of THC.

Surely you are aware of the current uproar over I-502 -- with the 5ng/ml cut off for cannabis impairement (driving)? For most recreational users that level -might- be a reasonable cut-off. For medicinal users, not. Like I just wrote, my current blood level is waaaay over 5ng/ml.

Oh, and here's something to chew on... I very seldom drive. When I know I will, I plan for it. I haven't (pretty much) taken myself from behind the wheel because of cannabis, but opiates. I'm subject to UAs. I have a narcotics contract with the VA. My last test results showed a very high level of the THC metabolite, and was clean for opiates. I hadn't administered any cannabis for well over 12 hours before the test. I had taken half a Vicodin that very morning.

...time for my second cup.

Drift — January 8, 2012 at 7:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The gloves are definitely off for the Repub debate this morning. Newt and Romney are accusing each other of spouting disingenuous pious BS. Ron Paul's inability to work with anyone else in Congress to get legislation passed was noted. Huntsman got jabbed by Romney for working for Pres Obama, and delivered a major counter on the chin - that this attitude of refusing to work together with someone you disagree with is why we're in such a mess right now. (Probably the best line of the morning - too bad it won't help him.) Gov Perry says all the rest are gov't insiders that have contributed to the spend spend spend mentality - that he's the only one who can lead the Tea Party to victory. Was it Santorum that said the reason Iran with nukes is so different from N. Korea and the USSR is because of their belief that the afterlife is better than this one? If so, how does that compare with his Christian beliefs?

There was an informal "beer drinker" poll early on (mostly designer beers - thought we were in P'Town instead of New Hampshire for a moment!). Romney, followed by Paul and Newt. Santorum didn't get a single vote. And I read somewhere else that Santorum has written New Hampshire off and is leaving for S. Carolina this morning.

And my own observation (irreverent and irrelevant). Given that the Repub party plays to the Religious Right, what were they doing holding this debate at 0900 on Sunday morning? Aren't people getting ready to go to church at this time?

roger — January 8, 2012 at 7:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Requiring a UA to receive social assistance or unemployment is simply a veiled manner to deny as many possible poor and working class folks money. Who's supporting this legislation? Oh, yea....

mrd — January 8, 2012 at 8:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


From an article in today's The Columbian on why our (local and state) land use policies are a reason we can't attract businesses. (And it's a very good article - definitely worth reading.)

"John Karpinski, an environmental attorney and veteran of the county’s urban growth boundary wars, doubts that Clark County’s latest wave of land-use angst will translate into concrete action.
"The county’s business and political leaders — those who hold influence over local zoning decisions — have had ample opportunity to set aside employment lands, Karpinski said, and instead they’ve largely caved to residential real-estate interests.
"The thoughtful land-planning that regional leaders now seek “should have been done 20 years ago,” he said. “If it had been done 20 years ago, we would have jobs.”

My one main question, though, is whether the majority of the people here truly want the industrial development on this side of the river.

Didn't Vancouver's growth start to take off after the I205 loop was completed in the early '80s? And wasn't most of this growth residential - people working in Oregon and wanting to live in a nice, peaceful suburb that had a natural buffer (the river) that kept many of Portland's problems away? (For example, I lived in Tacoma at the time, and we were experiencing an influx of LA gangs that were escaping Chief Gates and crew - didn't Portland also see this rise in gang activity then?) Is it just possible that zoning laws grew to reinforce this desire to be a sleepy bedroom community - one where people can take walks after dark, play in softball leagues during the summer, have their kids receive a good education in a safe environment, drive down 119th Ave to shop at the produce stands, etc, etc?

But I suppose it's much too late to be thinking along these lines.

roger — January 8, 2012 at 8:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Corportions are NOT people. Money is NOT speech!

January 20th: Occupy the Courts Day

Occupy the Courts will be a one day occupation of Federal courthouses across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Friday January 20, 2012.

Move to Amend is the group who has organized this latest spinoff on the Occupy movement. Radio host and author Thom Hartmann is participating from our neck of the woods.

http://movetoamend.org/occupythecourts

manthou — January 8, 2012 at 8:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawk- *nailingit, so you are saying that portable breathalyzers installed in a vehicle should be illegal too? No, they aren't forced to piss in a cup but breathe into a little machine is OK?*
I hate it when I can't give myself an answer let alone someone else. I'm big on road safety. I'll do what republicans do with conflict of thought...'Well, I think the states should be able to decide". :)

Drift- There doesn't seem to be a fair solution to this point. I guess technology will solve it eventually?

Mitt Romney, GOP Frontrunner, Benefits From Toothless Competition

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/mitt-romney-republican-debate_n_1192086.html?ref=politics

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 9:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Here's a CAPTCHA reframe for you: Brain puzzles are good for you. We are exercising our grey matter every time we attempt to decipher the jumble of visual or auditory input it presents. It keeps us alert and makes us smarter.

Not buying it? I tried.......

manthou — January 8, 2012 at 9:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Thanks for the link manthou. Unaccounted for $$$ has already played a big part in politics this year. I think it's biting the butt of some on the right. Whoa..I just heard that some Billionaire is donating millions to Gingrich!

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 9:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The wealthy have a lot at stake in this election, nailingit, and they want to keep their throne and the peons at bay.

manthou — January 8, 2012 at 9:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"Requiring a UA to receive social assistance or unemployment is simply a veiled manner to deny as many possible poor and working class folks money." mrd — January 8, 2012 at 8:20 a.m.

Bingo!!! I completely agree with this. But I'm also concerned that an underlying premise persists - that welfare recipients are slackers who would rather sit on their butts, have babies and not work.

Here's the link to WA state's page with a test to see if you qualify. I entered 2 adults, 0 children, and no income or money. Disqualified - no children. (Check if a few exceptions apply.) Bottom line is that in most cases you have to have children. Which means welfare is intended to ensure kids have food, clothing and a place to live.

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/tec/tec_calc.asp

Next, consider the cost of daycare and hours of operation. This is NOT a user-friendly business. In the military we began subsidizing daycare, and I had to consider this anytime I planned to keep soldiers late to work on something important. Imagine having to deal with this constraint when working one or more part time jobs and depending on public transportation.

There are numerous other roadblocks to "recovering" from being on welfare. And yes, it can be done - if you can get training, find jobs, and not have to worry about your kids getting into trouble.

So, to me the issue isn't necessarily one of how the welfare payments are being used. Rather, as MRD notes, it's an attack on welfare itself. Unemployment compensation is also in the spotlight, and recipients are being looked at as frauds. Do they get drug tested? How about people drawing SSI? How about all the public employees - aren't these people considered leeches who are avoiding having to get real jobs?

roger — January 8, 2012 at 9:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- Might as well include Medicaid/Medicare. Ironic if Medicare was canceled for drug use and the person could not get help because of it.

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift, (nice of you to drop by, by the way) I believe what you are saying to be true. I think one builds up a tolerance to pot and proper measurements are difficult to make as to how impaired a person might be. Until someone comes up with a semi-fool proof way of testing, legalizing it may prove difficult. I'm thinking some kind of eye test, dilation speed or something like that rather than blood or urine.

manthou, exercising brain matter is always good, eye strain is not.

nailingit, Newt needs all the money he can get however, it isn't going to do him any good. I think Huntsman is hanging back to see the destruction the others will create and hope most will fall out before he makes his move.

hawkeye — January 8, 2012 at 9:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Queen Nancy wants her job back!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/nancy-pelosi-barack-obama-congress-2012-election_n_1192410.html

She told Crowley The Pres needs to run against the do nothing Congress. Candy asked if this wouldn't also look bad for Nancy - she said yes, but does anyone really think she needs to worry about being reelected?

The real question should have been whether it was a do nothing Congress when Pelosi was Speaker. Other than a completely watered down health care bill, as I recall, almost anything of substance was tabled because they couldn't get enough support. And then Candy could have addressed her unwillingness to work with the Repubs, and asked why this differs from Boehner. And a few other questions along this line.

Let's see - Newt already used pious, so I guess I'll have to fall back on sanctimonious. (Which would have been a better choice of words, Newtie! I'm sure you lost a few Religious Right backers because they thought you were attacking religion.)

roger — January 8, 2012 at 9:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


There are folks out there in the work force -because- they use cannabis. People for whom standard pharmaceuticals and treatments haven't proved effective. Irv Rosenfeld is a stockbroker. The feds send him a tin of joints monthly.

It's a fine can of worms, eh?

Drift — January 8, 2012 at 9:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou - re: your post yesterday morning.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbobelian/2012/01/05/corporations-are-people-too-not-in-montana-at-least-for-now/

Montana had a voter referendum enacted to law 100 years ago banning political contributions from them. A business tried to use the US Supreme Court ruling to have the law overturned. The Montana Supreme Court upheld it.

More on this decision will surely follow. I wonder if the Feds will move as quickly as they did against Arizona?

roger — January 8, 2012 at 9:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


And my own observation (irreverent and irrelevant). Given that the Repub party plays to the Religious Right, what were they doing holding this debate at 0900 on Sunday morning? Aren't people getting ready to go to church at this time?

roger — January 8, 2012 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal | Ignore User I place on Obama's desk )

I bet American clergy are swearing today! Less moola in the plate!

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 9:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawk, I read the basement daily. As I've mentioned previously, I'm not much for getting involved in the political discussions. I don't do "religion" either.

;^)

Drift — January 8, 2012 at 9:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**My God! Baggers pillaging the holy land?!?**

Israel: 5 Alleged Jewish Extremists Indicted In Military Base Rampage

The attack shocked Israeli leaders, who called for a crackdown on Jewish radicals. Extremists are also suspected of vandalizing another military base and attacking Palestinian mosques, cars and farmlands over the past two years.

The violence is believed to be retaliation for government concessions to Palestinians.

Are Jews Warming to the Tea Party?
Researcher Suggests 'a Counter Voice' to Liberalism Is Emerging

A recent Internet survey of Jews, conducted by Windmueller, found that about 42% thought the Tea Party movement was “refreshing” versus an equal percentage that found it “alarming.” More support for the Tea Party idea came from Republicans, Orthodox Jews and males, and less from Democrats, Reform Jews and females.

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/138661/#ixzz1itnHzBQ7

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 12:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal



The Baggers have spread their cancer across the water!!! Think Cain playing Will Smith in Legend! Is this the pending fate of our world 2012? Baggers on the Mayan calendar?

MEET THE ISRAELI ‘TEA PARTY’ PROMOTING FREE MARKET IDEAS IN UNCHARTED TERRITORY

Almost every aspect of the economy is highly regulated and taxed in Israel. So what’s a free market proponent to do? Members of the Israeli Freedom Movement – a group inspired by the U.S. Tea Party – decided it was time to stand up for individual rights, so they sued the government.

Yes, tea party fever has made it to Israel. The movement launched this summer around the time a group of FreedomWorks activists traveled to Israel for **Glenn Beck’s Restoring Courage** events and made a special trip to Tel Aviv to meet with like-minded believers in individual rights. There they met Boaz Arad, a founder of the Israeli Freedom Movement, who impressed them with his knowledge of classical free-market thinkers including Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/meet-the-israeli-tea-party-promoting-free-market-ideas-in-uncharted-territory/

**Mormon conversions surge in Latin America**

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5378318/ns/world_news/t/mormon-conversions-surge-latin-america/#.Twn-nRw0i6Z

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 12:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I just ran across a Seattle Times article and learned that Washington state funds are used to subsidize abortions.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017171599_abortion06m.html

"Because federal law bans federal money for abortions, the state uses its own funds to pay for the procedure for Medicaid recipients...Of the 24,279 abortions performed in Washington in 2008 (the most recent year data is available), about half were publicly funded, according to state data."

Here are Washington Department of Health's statistics.

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehsphl/chs/chs-data/abortion/viewdown.htm

I can support using public funds to pay for abortion when health issues and rape are involved, but not for voluntary abortions. And it appears Washington state government, with its strong pro-choice outlook and the numbers involved, doesn't make this distinction.

So, in 2008 there were 90,720 live births and (as noted) 24,279 abortions. That's an 18% abortion rate.

One of the charts that especially got my attention is short on detail - the out of staters that got abortions here. The chart is for 2009 - 1096 people from out of state got abortions here. How many did we pay for?

One of the charts does a breakout by age for 2009. I checked, and teens - who I expected to be the largest group - are not. Of 22,672 abortions, "only" 3883 were performed on teens. The largest age group is the 20's, where over half (12,822) were performed.

Anyhow, back to 2008. There's no breakout presented on whether the abortions we paid for were 1st or 2nd trimester. A cost that I turned up was $500 to $1000 for a 1st trimester abortion, and $600 to $10,000 for a 2nd trimester one. So, rough math is that we paid at least $6 million for abortions from state funds - probably much higher.

If there is a silver lining in this, an abortion is much cheaper than a live birth, which can run $10,000 without complications. And I suppose we paid for a lot of those, too. But I find this a lot more acceptable than paying for "I don't want the inconvenience of a child" abortions - of which I suspect a large number were.

roger — January 8, 2012 at 2:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger, you referenced this was "Medicade" paid for. Isn't Medicade state funded only? Wouldn't that make their first paragraph moot? Also, I think it's really hard to qualify for Medicade. You have to have absolutely no income, I would guess these people are the bottom of the list types that get everything medically done at the emergency rooms.

hawkeye — January 8, 2012 at 3:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


So, OPB is looking at hosting a Republican candidate debate at their studio in March, but Mayor Sam is against it. Portland PD is already over budget due to Occupy, and he doesn't consider any publicity received from the debate worth the expense. If it happens, he wants it moved to around the airport, to save on police motorcade expense. OPB doesn't want to incur the expense of reserving another facility, given that the debates may be over by then if all the pretenders drop.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=144699110&ft;=3&f;=

Space at Embassy Suites is limited, the Holiday Hotel is a dump, and I haven't seen the Sheraton since they remodeled, but don't recall a large enough space there either.

I wouldn't be so certain the debates will be over - especially if the neoCons and Religious Right agree on their anti-Romney candidate and start backing him.

Maybe the City of Vancouver can get on board and play this to our advantage. Seeing as how we OWN the Hilton Center, offer to negotiate a contract with OPB that includes a no-fault cancellation clause if the debates are over with. That ought to get their attention.

And just maybe The Columbian can make bank too - co-sponsor the event at OUR hotel, and get quality press access in return.

But don't let John Laird attend - he'll call them all Hounds From Whinerville (amongst other things); probably to someone like Andrea Mitchell on national TV. (And if you'd visit The Basement once in a while, I wouldn't feel obligated to say such negative things about you, Mr. Laird.)

roger — January 8, 2012 at 3:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye,

I wondered about that. I tried looking for more info, but couldn't find it. Is it possible that abortion is predominately something resorted to by the lower end of the socio-economic scale? I'm not ready to go in that direction without more evidence.

For the sake of discussion, if I'm a single 20-something working a low paying job (say less than $30K per year) and have no health insurance - I'll be covered under Medicaid. Correct? If not, then who would pay?

It would be interesting to see if there's a significant change in numbers now that many of this age group can be carried on their parent's insurance to age 26. (Or does this coverage require them to live at their parents' home to qualify?)

roger — January 8, 2012 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The advanced form are called "nano-probes. Once in the bloodstream...well they took over Captain Picard as well as a good portion of the delta Quadrant. It's happening. The government knows a catastrophic event is about to take place and they are equipping roaches and insects to test the outer air post event! :)) :) : ( :(( :((((((((

**Cyborg Insect Breakthrough: Generating Power Through Body Chemistry**

An insect equipped with a sensor could measure the amount of noxious gas in a room, broadcast the finding, shut down and recharge for an hour, then take a new measurement and broadcast again."

Besides HI-MEMS, DARPA has looked into remotely controlling other animals, notably sharks, but insects are thought to be particularly versatile for their small size, simple biology and ability to fly.

The New Scientist video below, from 2008, demonstrates moths and June beetles being controlled with various degrees of precision. They're not quite spies or disaster-responders yet, but with technologies such as that described in the Case Western paper, that change soon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/07/cyborg-insect_n_1191767.html

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 3:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**THE BORG HAVE EMERGED! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!**

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 3:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- If I understand what the rational is, having a child is funded, so should aborting a child. This might be a reactive stance in light of some Republican controlled states that are trying to either outlaw abortion or make it impossible to provide or receive. No easy answer.

Abortions in many cases are a bummer to put it lightly. But the right to choose must remain.

At this point we should be able to understand "Obamacare", as well as what would happen if the SC reverses the personal mandate. It's disappointing the amount of time the Dems have devoted to healthcare vs what we know about it. I wonder if the many interests involved are sitting on a sliding carpet.

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 4:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger, I think you may be right. Medicade covers those of lower income. I know my inlaws don't make any money, (less than $2500 per month) and they make too much to be on Medicade. I would suspect (since I really don't know) but I think if you go into an ER for something and don't have any money, the hospital would try to get it from the state (Medicade).

hawkeye — January 8, 2012 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit,

Good stuff - I checked your link, and after reading the article scanned the rest of the page. The upper right corner tied into an article about scientists creating super-soldier ants. Oh no! Keep your cyborgs; I was having flashbacks to the 60's movies about giant insects taking over the world. But then I read the article, and ran into the following line.

"(The researchers wanted to study the behavior of the P. morrisi they had collected, but they were killed in the lab by other ants.)"

So - never mind.

roger — January 8, 2012 at 5:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*....just thinking...*

i've been cruising the fb stuff, laird's column, letters, etc, and it occurred to me that our society as a whole, and congress in particular, is becoming so combative that we're almost to the 'exchanging blows' stage.

i have a proposal...

can we make an agreement here in our beloved basement, to remove from our posts those comments that cast aspersions on our opponent's motives?

that means we need to assume that he has good motives, even though his ideas are diametrically opposed to our own. i am as guilty as anyone in doing this, ESPECIALLY concerning obama.

but, if we can just try to give the other side, no matter how much we feel otherwise, the benefit of the doubt concerning why they want what they want, wouldn't it be a VAST improvement?

how about it guys....you willing?

DeeLittle — January 8, 2012 at 5:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit,

Abortion is an area where I side with conservatives. There are reasons to justify abortion, but I don't buy the "woman's choice" argument. And I've always been amazed that when you add the death penalty to the discussion, both sides are pro- one and anti- the other. Whatever.

The thing that I'm also "amused" (disgusted?) by is that the neoCon Repubs are all carrying on about states rights under The Constitution. I believe their main objection to Roe vs. Wade is that The Supreme Court is interfering with state sovereignty. But they're more than happy to pass laws banning using federal monies for abortion, making a declaration that marriage is "one man one woman", and applying a bogus interpretation of the interstate commerce clause to ban marijuana and arrest people in states that have partially legalized it. Among other things.

And my Steelers have me completely disgusted. They let T-Bone beat them - passing the ball!

roger — January 8, 2012 at 5:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle,

I'll try if you will. Your first job is to properly write our President's name. The opposite of respect is......

hawkeye — January 8, 2012 at 5:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh, Roger

I'm in favor of both.

hawkeye — January 8, 2012 at 5:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle,

I'm in. Though I reserve the right to belittle the Outsiders - especially the young blonde from Seattle who likes to lecture people. The one who quotes from the gospel according to Ann Coulter and (probably) wants to grow anorexic and be her understudy.

The problem is, there are some topics that tend to push buttons and set people off. Like religion.

And there are shades of belittling. A perfect example was Mr. Basil and frobert, who spent as much time insulting each other as arguing. I'm quite certain both positively enjoyed this exchange. And they're probably continuing it somewhere else, where people like us can't interfere by butting into the conversation.

So....

roger — January 8, 2012 at 5:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*So, to me the issue isn't necessarily one of how the welfare payments are being used. Rather, as MRD notes, it's an attack on welfare itself. Unemployment compensation is also in the spotlight, and recipients are being looked at as frauds*.

As most conservatives would love to portray anyone receiving any type of assistance a leech sucking off the gov's teat, statistics really don't match their reality. As the newt and Santorum "stepped into it" ala Perry last week in New Hampshire, apparently their handlers were remiss in telling them only 1/3 of food stamp recipients are black, and most of those work and still qualify to get EBT cards. The working poor-aren't these the folks these clowns say they really want to help?

There is an ad in today's Columbian. For $9/hr, your gas, your insurance, your reliable car, you can get 25 hours a week working from 2-6 AM weekdays, and 4-8 AM weekends-or something like that, you can get a job. $225/week less expenses. If this is indicative of the 200,000 jobs created last month, there ain't much to get fired up about. Replacing millions of jobs with these worthless ones ain't gonna cut it. Retail anyone?

mrd — January 8, 2012 at 5:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd,

As a follow on, there was a study released in the early 90s. Remember the "welfare mothers" - code for inner city black woman having child after child with different fathers? The ones that I believe Santorum is so proud of helping run off the roles? Well, an analysis showed that 72% of welfare recipients were whites. And compared to the race in society percentages, this was the highest representation.

roger — January 8, 2012 at 6:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle,

I just thought of something else. If nailingit chooses to hit us with another Go Lakers - I'm going to feel obligated to belittle his knowledge of basketball, sports and the universe in general.

roger — January 8, 2012 at 6:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Tre Arrow is back!!! It seems he's sitting on a ledge in downtown P'Town "screaming" about something.

Maybe he wants to know where Occupy Portland disappeared to?

roger — January 8, 2012 at 6:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye,

I favor an extremely limited application of both. And this application should be defined at the federal level. I've got a problem with places like Texas that take pride in executing people - no matter how much they deserve it. And the stats from Washington that I posted earlier - 18% of the fetuses conceived in 2008 were aborted? I'll be generous and say half were justified by medical reasons, etc. Sorry, but I fail to see a lot of difference between a "convenience" abortion and that self-centered girl in Florida who had her daughter killed (if she didn't do it herself) because she wanted to be a party girl.

roger — January 8, 2012 at 6:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


kool-aid kool-aid tastes great! kool-aid kool-aid **can't wait!**

*can we make an agreement here in our beloved basement, to remove from our posts those comments that cast aspersions on our opponent's motives?
that means we need to assume that he has good motives, even though his ideas are diametrically opposed to our own. i am as guilty as anyone in doing this, ESPECIALLY concerning obama.*

This request is every bit as weird as ELISI"S Counsel with a Swaggert moment. Motives are what drive people in their decision making. Motives speak to values. This is most certainly a kool-aid moment in the basement! BEWARE! When the right is down they want to blur the lines of reasoning and motivation on all society! A stepford moment! For God's sake don't fall into the trap!
Beck's cool! Limbaugh's cool! Robertson is cool! No way! KKK...cast aspersion? OMG! :)

Some motives stink and they need to be called out. Are we to assume Hitler's motives were "good"? Is it wrong to cast "aspersion" on them? Absolutely ridiculous.

Imho :)

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 6:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*i am as guilty as anyone in doing this, ESPECIALLY concerning obama.*

You got that right though!

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 6:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger @ 5:20- I checked out the ants also and started to get excited. I remember a jungle movie with giant white army ants devouring villages! Creepy! (I wonder if that's how the Iraqi's felt!)

As to *but I don't buy the "woman's choice" argument.* It's hard for most guys to put themselves in the mindset of a woman's body. I've always thought if I were born a hot woman I would spend a lot of time with mirrors and be a strong supporter of same sex relationships!

If I was coming back as a person and had a choice as to who to be...George Clooney for a guy and Rachel Maddow for a woman!

But my hormones and stuff would be different, so hell I don't know.

I do know if I had the ability to get pregnant, I would want control over my body. The other alternative is letting the United States government have control?! Nah!

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 6:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- To clarify...the Maddow decision is not "hotness" based so much on a personal hotness level, as it is based on the base of hotness she attracts. If that makes any sense!

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 7:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


...as to George, the world is his!

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 7:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


That or a behind the scenes doctor who discovered how to save the world...

Ron Saul?

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 7:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit,

Say again?

I think I lost you at giant white ants and Iraqis.

roger — January 8, 2012 at 8:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit,

I suppose it could be worse -

You could want to return as Donnie and Marie Osmond.

Though after seeing the latest diet food commercial she's on, I have to say Marie is looking a lot better at 50 than she ever did in her younger days... I sure wish I could find some of that wonder drug.

roger — January 8, 2012 at 8:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nail-
I'd like to hear your take on this-
If a woman has COMPLETE control over her unborn fetus and she has the COMPLETE control over any decision whether to abort the fetus or to carry the fetus to term. Why should then, the father of the fetus be left hanging in the wind, and liable for the cost of the child, based solely on her decision? Seems unfair the father would/could be on the hook for support of the kid with no input on the pregnancy. What, if any rights, should he have on the choice to terminate the fetus?
As I understand abortion, in 99% of the cases, abortion is the last, most extreme, act of birth control. No one seems able to definitively state at what point a fetus is a living being, therefore it seems to follow that killing an embryo, at any stage of development, may be the act of taking a life. Can you say, and feel, with absolute certainty, abortion isn't killing an unborne person? I can't.

mrd — January 8, 2012 at 8:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd- *Can you say, and feel, with absolute certainty, abortion isn't killing an unborne person? I can't.* I can't either.

It's how a person is defined. If I look at the initial stage of pregnancy I can't visually tell. As for the father, does the right to keep the child come to bear? I'm sure there's significant legal precedent to address most or all of this. Abortion is more than a bummer.

Again, if I had the capacity to carry a child, I would want the decision to be mine rather than Congress. At state or Federal level.

Government intervention into our personal lives instructing us what to do and when to do it is more than a bummer also. Back to back room abortions in America? I don' think so. The Baggers already want to strip our most vulnerable and future seniors of guaranteed health care.

I'll be damned if they should control a citizens right when or when not to have children.

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 11:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit,

I suppose it could be worse -

You could want to return as Donnie and Marie Osmond.

LOL! Yeah, it could be worse! I'd be a little confused but talented! I suppose the bishopric would demand double tithing, and the thing with polygamy would become confusing as hell!

Marie's last batch of plastic surgery started to morph her into a catwoman of sorts. A little freakish but I'm down with it!

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 11:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd- *Seems unfair the father would/could be on the hook for support of the kid with no input on the pregnancy.*

Well, the father had input to a degree! :)

Sorry to seem flippant. I don't have much of a worthy take on this I know. The practice of physically unneeded abortions I find more than troubling. But I find government intervention at this level more than improper as well as dangerous.

nailingit — January 8, 2012 at 11:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*I'll try if you will. Your first job is to properly write our President's name. The opposite of respect is......*

i'm making an assumption here, but i *think* you're referring to the non-capitalization of the 'o'....if you will notice, i capitalize no name or 1st word in a sentence...only exception is God. surely you don't compare obama to God.

*If nailingit chooses to hit us with another Go Lakers - I'm going to feel obligated to belittle his knowledge of basketball, sports and the universe in general.*

while i am genetically required to support the lakers (la native), feel free to pounce to your heart's delight: he's on perm ignore. oh, and GO DENVER! :)

DeeLittle — January 9, 2012 at 1:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Man. The C-Tran article sure brought out the hate. Speaking of which...Hey "DeeLittle". I noticed a detailed response to something you said from Jim Moeller. One of your personal attack/hate rants? I noticed your comments no longer appear, and Jim is tutoring you in some very basics.

nailingit — January 9, 2012 at 7:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Well, it looks like our "civility" agreement isn't going anywhere.

Whatever.

Which brings up - HEY MATT!!! Is Allen permanently banned? I've no idea about the history, but there was a real hatred between him and sportyjames. Some of the comments (from both) were more that a little overboard, but I noticed that sporty was usually the one who initiated the exchanges. Allen was a good contributor here - if there's a way, I'd like to see him back. (Sporty I don't care about - the way I saw it, his sole purpose for posting was to attack Allen.)

roger — January 9, 2012 at 8:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- Allen was banned on Veteran's Day last year. At the time some inquired as to specifics but C policy is to not to give detail if I remember correctly. I believe he posts on FB. aka Allen Hoff.

nailingit — January 9, 2012 at 9:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**ROGER**

if your comment is about my posts, please point out where i've violated it. i can't see it, and your perspective would be very helpful. thanks.

DeeLittle — January 9, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle,

My comment wasn't directed at you only - rather, it was made based on my observation that the response to your call for civility didn't get much agreement.

To review:

I'll play nice with fellow Basement members, but will continue with my sarcastic comments about those I've labelled Outsiders.

Hawkeye wants a little respect for our Pres from you.

Nailingit says you've got an ulterior motive. And some other stuff that I didn't bother to read.

You say what Nailingit says doesn't matter because you've got him on permanent block.

Not a very positive start, was it?

roger — January 9, 2012 at 11:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


well... the great wall of china wasn't...uh, the berlin wall...darn! aha! the glaciers didn't all melt in one day!

DeeLittle — January 9, 2012 at 1:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Forum Login