90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Tornado Cleanup, Counterterrorism, British Soldier Murdered

Oklahoma’s monster tornado. The president on counterterrorism. A vote on gay Boy Scouts.

President Obama talks about national security, Thursday, May 23, 2013, at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)

President Obama talks about national security, Thursday, May 23, 2013, at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)

A tornado eating whole blocks, like Godzilla, tore open this week. Now it’s Oklahoma Strong, and the whole country looking on in awe at nature — humans included.

The hot seat stays hot in Washington. For Lois Lerner at the IRS. So hot she took the Fifth. For Apple CEO Tim Cook, on Apple’s cutting-edge tax avoidance.

The Boy Scouts of America take a vote and welcome gay members.

The president says the war on terror must end, but doesn’t end it.  A terrible attack in London.  With knives.

Up next On Point: Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Meredith Shiner, staff writer for Roll Call. (@meredithshiner)

Major Garrett, chief White House correspondent for CBS News and Correspondent-at-Large with the National Journal (@MajorCBS)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst

From Tom’s Reading List

ABC News: Thunderstorms Slow Oklahoma Tornado Cleanup — “The first of the funerals, for a 9-year-old girl killed at a Moore elementary school that took a direct hit in Monday’s storm, took place Thursday morning. A family photo showed the girl, Antonia Candelaria, beaming with a big smile and wearing a white sun hat. Early estimates indicate the tornado caused more than $2 billion of damage in Moore. Whole subdivisions in the fast-growing community of 56,000 people were destroyed.”

USA Today: Obama Outlines Counterterrorism Policy — ” In a sweeping speech about the future of counter-terrorism, President Obama outlined new rules Thursday for overseas drone strikes and revamped efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. The president discussed Afghanistan, Benghazi, and ongoing investigations of national security news leaks, while questioning the concept of the “global war on terror” that has prevailed since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

CNN: Holder: Drone Strikes Have Killed Four Americans Since 2009 — “In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, Attorney General Eric Holder said the United States specifically targeted and killed one American citizen, al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, in 2011 in Yemen, alleging he was plotting attacks against the United States. The letter provided new details about al-Awlaki’s alleged involvement in bomb plots targeting U.S. aviation. Holder also said the Obama administration was aware of three other Americans who had been killed in counterterrorism operations overseas.”

WBUR: FBI: Man Fatally Shot In Boston Bombing Probe — “Chechen immigrant living in Florida was fatally shot early Wednesday by investigators who were questioning him about his ties to one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects. The FBI says the man turned violent during a meeting with a Boston FBI agent and two Massachusetts state troopers.”

BBC: Woolwich Attack: The Suspected Attackers — “Details have begun to emerge about the two men suspected of brutally murdering a serving soldier in a street in Woolwich, southeast London. Sources have confirmed to the BBC both were known to the security services prior to the attack. Police have yet to release the names of the two suspects, who are both under arrest but currently receiving treatment for injures after being shot by armed police.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy
    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Not wright ring.  But they are now in-civil-ity defined.

       http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/05/incivility-defined-it-means-criticizing-obama.html

    • donniethebrasco

      If you are not right wing, you are wrong wing.

      • 1Brett1

        Or, in your case, just a plain old wing nut.

        • brettearle

          Good one.  As usual.

    • JobExperience

      More like a buffalo wing group
      Medea is probably braver than any writer on this page.

  • Mike_Card

    Law enforcement people shoot US citizens dead in the US; there is no rational reason to exempt US citizens in foreign countries, if they have acted similarly.  If some other jurisdiction has granted immunity, it is up to that jurisdiction to provide it.  Blame Yemen and get out of here.

    • JobExperience

      Be sure to display all your flag gear when you travel.
      And remember, “The righteous man is beset from all sides…”

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      it not right when they do it here either. you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist

      • 1Brett1

        Ah, yes, starting early with your “fear the police” meme. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          did i say that brett? you seem to be starting early with your sillyness

          • 1Brett1

            Was it a “don’t worry about terrorists” meme? …You do post a number of comments per week about how we should protect ourselves, that we can’t depend on police, that we can’t even trust police, that how would we protect ourselves against police/government if our guns are taken away, or some variation of that stuff. How should I interpret those comments of yours? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            does it have to be a meme?
            should we not protect ourselves?
            can we depend on the police?
            Can we trust them?
            these are the police that you want me to depend on and trust:
            http://www.wbur.org/2013/02/28/worcester-coerced-confession-lawsuit
            have you read that one? did it inspire the confidence you have in the police? should i sleep sound knowing these guys are on the job?

            i have never said anything about protecting ourselves from the police or government if our guns are taken. thats just a strawman you are fond of for some reason.  i like your phrase “or some variation of that stuff” it allows you to just make up whatever you want and attribute it to me.  

          • 1Brett1

            What is the difference, then, for example, in “can we depend on police?” and “can we trust them?”? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            in the first case they show up too late in the other they frame you for murder like the young lady in the link i posted. you did not want to answer any of those questions?

          • 1Brett1

            I didn’t open the link…I have learned that your links are, um, less than compelling. But, anyway, to answer you only question (why I might not want to answer your questions), it is because other than that one vacuous question, you didn’t ask any questions. You know when you think something, you actually have to write it down for others to understand, and that even goes for questions you’d like others to answer. 

            But, let me see, here, uh, I should arm myself because I might be framed by police? I should arm myself so that I can take the law into my own hands because the police don’t show up fast enough? …Sorry, I’m  just guessing what questions you think I’d like to answer…

            I don’t have a problem with people owning guns to protect themselves, if that is all you are asking. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol its hard to converse with you when you dont seem to read what was said. that was a link to a wbur article about my local police. give it a read
            then go back and read my post and answer any or all of the 4 questions there.(you did comment on the memes so just work on the other 3) they are the ones with the ? at the end. its funny that now you say there were not any questions when you asked for clarity on them already yet still have not answered them.
            so if you dont have any problem with people protecting themselves why argue with me when i suggest that?

          • Dataninja

            I wonder what your Police Chief would think about all your anti-police rants here on WBUR?

            Don’t think I’d be going for a CCW anytime soon if I where you..

            Maybe he’d like your weather report better?

            http://youtu.be/yN2_5jlpMFM

          • 1Brett1

            Your questions aren’t such/worthy of answer simply because you put a “?” after the sentence…and, no, I am not inclined to read a link in one of your comments; there’s no point because they lead the reader to either nowhere logically, or they make some ridiculous point. 

      • Mike_Card

        I’m not talking about shooters–I’m talking about behavior that gets people killed.

  • Unterthurn

    Building codes need to be improved to reflect the area’s storm conditions before the dwellings go up in. If that increases the cost of a home, the buyers will have to build smaller. 
    Tornados, hurricanes, and next comes the fire season out west. Next we will be talking about better forest maintenance.

    • donniethebrasco

       The magic bullet might be a steep gas tax.  Gas at $10/gallon.

  • SteveTheTeacher

    I would like to see On Point to take a critical look at President Obama’s speech at the National Defense University.

    While I am pleased that President Obama articulated a need to rein in US global war efforts, his comments regarding US drone policy are still absolutely unacceptable.  

    The President claimed that his administration’s killing of innocent men, women, and children will “… haunt us as long as we live…” but then went on to praise his drone killing program as an essential counter-terrorism tool.

    Even conservative estimates acknowledge that President Obama’s drone attacks have killed hundreds of innocent men, women, and children throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. 

    On Point Commentators: Is it acceptable to justify this killing on the grounds that these innocent people were near other people that the US wanted dead?

     Armed drones used for bombing attacks are weapons of mass destruction and the killing of innocent civilians is a war crime.
    I will join efforts to consult with those in the International Criminal Court and Spainish Judge Baltasar Garzón to bring war crimes charges against President Obama and those in the government who have taken a leadership role in the US drone killing program.

    President Obama stated “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the
    government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone, or with a
    shotgun — without due process.”  I question President Obama’s definition of “due process” given that fact that four US citizen’s were already killed under his drone program. 

    On Point Commentators:  What is there to stop this, or any future US president, from deciding that I, or any other harsh critic of his/her policies, no longer merit US citizenship and are, therefore, free game for a drone strike when abroad?

    • JobExperience

      Obama: I’ll use fewer drones but ship a million t-shirts to Pakistan with the caption “I’m with Stupid” and an arrow pointing at the next guy. (Well,, he can save the shipping because these shirts are mostly made in Pakistan, and shipped here. The arrow is pointing at him.)

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        lol maybe the arrow could point up and say “i am with you, dont shoot”

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          or “don’t hellfire me bro!”

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    Bad News,

    President Obama continues to defend killing Americans overseas with drones.

    Good News:

    “Doctors save Ohio boy by ‘printing’ an airway tube: at :

    http://news.yahoo.com/doctors-save-ohio-boy-printing-airway-tube-210701707.html

    Crazy News:

    Nigerian man and others murder English man because he was, “you people”.

    Stupid News:

    Most of what Yahoo puts on its “front page”.

    Good and Bad News:

    Melanoma seems to be increasing at a rate of about 3.1 % per year ( If this is true, we should be concerned ). New study says “Milk Thistle” may help the problem.

    http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=19405&Section=DISEASE&utm_source=DailyHealthBulletin&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Disease&utm_content=Body+Title&utm_campaign=DHB_130523

    Future News ?

    Can we hear a show about Graphene, as this material may end up being the most important material of the 21 century?

     
    It seems, excluding some exceptions, that the old adage; “No News is good news” although not news, is in fact News to some.

  • Ed75

    The brutal man who killed the soldier in England makes one point: if we’re killing many civilians in these drone attacks, and leaving others terrified, they are not justifiable and will just lead to more violence. (But, what else are we to do?)

    • Shag_Wevera

      Bravo, Ed75.  This can’t be stopped or defeated with force.

    • donniethebrasco

       I can’t stand any statement that the brutal killings in England are somehow our fault.

      It is the same kind of thinking that encourages Prius drivers think that they have any impact on “global climate change” (Warming ended in 2008).

      • Ed75

        I agree, the London killing and others like it can’t be justified in any way.

        • Don_B1

          The question should not be whether the London killing is “justifiable,” which it is not; the question is whether the killers are part of “blowback” generated by actions which the seekers of power in the Middle East (and elsewhere) can use to twist minds and acquire control over people who can be influenced to do such dastardly things.

      • Don_B1

        Warming of the Earth did NOT end in 2008; what did happen was that more of the heat captured by greenhouse gases was transported to the oceans. This is explained by Kevin Trenberth here:

        http://theconversation.com/global-warming-is-here-to-stay-whichever-way-you-look-at-it-14532

        Prius drivers DO have impacts favorable to slowing climate change:

        1) They show that electric hybrids are reasonable vehicles and not just some pipe dream.

        2) They are a step toward full electric vehicles which can run fully on sustainable energy as soon as the electric grid can provide it.

        Thus electric vehicles are shown to be acceptable as the car of the near future rather than some distant one.

    • donniethebrasco

       Are you saying that the slaying in England is Obama’s fault (aka DroneBoy)

      • Ed75

        Droneboy, that’s funny. He’s in a tough situation.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      you are just figuring this out?

      • Ed75

        Yes, hadn’t had my coffee yet … one of those days …

  • Shag_Wevera

    If mankind is moving inexorably forward, history will show our drone policy to be an abomination.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      We are moving forward but it is not inexorable or constant.  

      • Acnestes

        In 100 generations or so your descendents might even develop opposable thumbs.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          We Neanderthals were better hunters than you will ever be.  

          /humor

    • brettearle

      Since when is America, or any other major power or moderate power, guilty of anything other than tactics that will protest its own self-interests?

      When you say to yourself, or to others, “we’re better than that”, then you are not waking up to the way the World has always worked.

      We’re Miscreants–like everyone else.  And our Government  will violate international law if it feels it needs to–REGARDLESS of who’s in Office.

      • Shag_Wevera

        You mean we aren’t exceptional?!

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        I guess I am more idealistic than cynical.

  • StilllHere

    Obama’s IRS officials taking the 5th.
    Obama’s DOJ trampling on the 1st amendment again and again.
    Obama’s kill list.
    Obama’s enemies list.

    What’s the scandal going to be next week as this administration circles the drain?

    • brettearle

      Malignant bias based on primitive distortion and pathetic sensationalism.

    • Shag_Wevera

      Man, whaddaya gonna do if Hillary Clinton is the next president?

      • donniethebrasco

         Bend over and kiss my butt goodbye.

        • JobExperience

           Just a normal day except for the goodbye.
          He usually just says “Sweet.”

      • HonestDebate1

        What a despicable, incompetent, coattail riding, doormat. Would anyone actually vote for her? 

        • Shag_Wevera

          We’ll probably find out.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Keep working…

        …The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        invest in pant suit designers

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there!

          • 1Brett1

            That was funny…even the blind hog finds an acorn.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol even condescending in his compliments

          • 1Brett1

            You are known for your humor, I guess…

    • anamaria23

      Whatever this ineffectual, corrupt, three day workweek,  obstructionist, holier than thou excuse for a Congress   can up with. 
      I would have much more regard for their “outrage” if they showed as much concern  for the American people as they do for the rights of 501c4 groups on the right and the left who present themselves as something  they are not, then cry that they are being abused when questioned.
      Obama was declared the enemy on day one of his Presidency and has been regarded as such by the far right and far left ever since.

      • HonestDebate1

        You’re softening.

        • anamaria23

          The US Congress was once regarded as the greatest deliberative body in the world until Newt Gringrich got his foot in the door.

          • StilllHere

            Right, he’s the bogeyman.

          • anamaria23

            Google  ” Gingrich and the Destruction of Congresssional Expertise”   by Bruce Bartlett
            just for  starters.

        • anamaria23

          80% of the people agree with me.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        One of the largest hurdles to communication and understanding is this antiquated left-right paradigm.  The other is the duplicitous use of civility as an attack.

      • StilllHere

        These are not scandals made up by Congress.  When administration officials take the 5th, when lifelong diplomats say they are being targeted, when DOJ officials have to recuse themselves; this is the administration eating its own.

    • hennorama

      What’s the scandal going to be next week? - StilllHere’s StilllBornPosting?

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Is that an attempt at a “Gosnell” joke?

        • hennorama

          RWB – I would never make any sort of joke on that topic.

        • StilllHere

          Wouldn’t put it past her, she’s disgusting.

          • hennorama

            StilllHere – what a bravely indirect response to my comment.
            Your rock is StilllCalling.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    Tweet of the Week:

    Almost 100% of the bad news coming out of Washington was once a conspiracy theory

    https://twitter.com/mpeper/status/337334307800641536

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    LAUREN FRENCH: I think it’s really serious, depending on the groups that were targeted, you could say that this easily influenced the 2012 election. A lot of these groups’ applications were delayed to the point that they weren’t able to get their tax-exempt status until after the election and depending …

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2013/05/22/politico-reporter-irs-targeting-tea-party-easily-influenced-2012-elect#ixzz2UCwoXblN

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    Lerner was appointed head of the FEC’s enforcement division in 1986 and stayed in that position until 2001. In the late 1990s, the FEC launched an onerous investigation of the Christian Coalition, ultimately costing the organization hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours in lost work. The investigation was notable because the FEC alleged that the Christian Coalition was coordinating issue advocacy expenditures with a number of candidates for office. Aside from lacking proof this was happening, it was an open question whether the FEC had the authority to bring these charges.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irss-lerner-had-history-harassment-inappropriate-religious-inquiries-fec_725004.html

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    I’m quite surprised that no one has mentioned Section 1203 of the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which mandates terminations of IRS employees who commit any of what are known in the Service as the “10 Deadly Sins.” Passed in the 19990s after the last major Congressional hearings (Revenue Reform Act of 1998), section 1203 is the neutron bomb that hangs over employees. Violations of 1203 are supposed to be non-negotiable, with termination the only result, although I believe the Commissioner can mitigate and sometimes does, usually in cases involving non-wilfull understatement of tax liability.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/on-irc-section-1203.php

    • hennorama

      RWB – the following is from the exact same article, which was merely the opinion of someone describing themselves as:

      “…retired from a 35-year law enforcement career, 22 of which were at the IRS Criminal Investigation Division…” BUT who also writes that “(… I spent all but one year doing money laundering – narcotics, and organized crime cases – rather than tax.)”

      AND

      “I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know if these provisions would apply in the present case …”

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        The point is that there are laws and regulations in place that are specific to the matter of the scandal that are not being discussed.  Have you a greater understanding of Section 1203 of the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 since the IRS scandal came to light?  

  • madnomad554

    A functionally obsolete bridge collapses in Washington…but at least the Gravina Island Bridge to nowhere is shiny and new.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      the tappenzee could drop any minute

      • madnomad554

        Europe is covered in buildings and infrastructure well north of 1000 years old and would have more were it not for the two WW’s.

        But this country seems incapable of building very little that can get north of one century, let alone 1000 years. Bridges less than 100 years old falling down without the assistance of an earthquake or other natural disaster…sad, sad, sad   

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          thats because bridges like the tappenzee are designed only to last 50 years. that particular bridge in built on wooden supports that are infested with shipworms. we are like the pig that builds his house of straw. we probably could build structures that lasted forever but it would cost a fortune

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    Sen McCain gets one right:

    I have introduced the Television Consumer Freedom Act, which aims to provide consumers with the option to buy only those channels they want to watch. The bill includes no mandates. Rather, it sends a powerful message to cable and satellite companies, such as Cox and DirecTV, and television programmers, such as Disney-ABC and NBC-Universal: If you want to continue to enjoy government-afforded regulatory benefits, offer TV-watching Americans an a la carte approach to programming rather than the take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum we have today.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mccain-cable-tv-choice-20130523,0,1435979.story

    • donniethebrasco

       Sounds like you are a government regulation friendly person.
      ;)

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Have you ever heard about the FCC?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      mccain is not afraid to fight for the tough issues!

      • 1Brett1

        Or, not afraid to grandstand…he seems reasonable at times, and he seems to stand on principle at times no matter his alliances, which is commendable,. Then, invariably, McCain turns, as if his old POW injuries make him cranky/his sour grapes over losing the election make him bitter. He has a volatility and inconsistency–not to mention his hot-headedness–which would have made him a disaster as a president…and, of course, there was that laughable vice-presidential pick… 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          thats called being a maverick apparently

  • donniethebrasco

    Some unions now angry about health care overhaul

    http://news.yahoo.com/unions-now-angry-health-care-overhaul-074904729.html?bcmt=1369393981161-3151fa13-a806-4925-bb61-9cf34f0a058a&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container

    First they went after the rich people, but I’m not rich, so I did nothing.

    Then they came after the right-wingers, but I’m not right wing, so I did nothing.

    Then then went after the press, but I am not a reporter, so I did nothing.

    Then they came after me, and there was no one left.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    Roger Ailes responds to the administration’s attempt at imtimidation:

    The recent news about the FBI’s seizure of the phone and email records of Fox News employees, including James Rosen, calls into question whether the federal government is meeting its constitutional obligation to preserve and protect a free press in the United States. We reject the government’s efforts to criminalize the pursuit of investigative journalism and falsely characterize a Fox News reporter to a Federal judge as a “co-conspirator” in a crime. I know how concerned you are because so many of you have asked me: why should the government make me afraid to use a work phone or email account to gather news or even call a friend or family member? Well, they shouldn’t have done it. The administration’s attempt to intimidate Fox News and its employees will not succeed and their excuses will stand neither the test of law, the test of decency, nor the test of time. We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/05/23/fox-newss-roger-ailes-responds-to-justice-dept-investigation/

    • HonestDebate1

      Just a reminder: The IRS will be managing your health care.

    • brettearle

      Most of us do NOT want to see any administration doing this.

      But I wonder whether SCOTUS–had they looked at the evidence and the statute–would have done ANYTHING OTHER than to have upheld Holder’s decision.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        That is an interesting question.  But it won’t go that far.  This Administration is shedding political capital quickly. 

        • brettearle

          Honestly, now….

          Do you really think that you would be just as strident, had your chosen candidate been in office?

          Or are you a Paul kinda guy.

          You can answer candidly, without worrying about saving face.

          Your among Human Beings here [and no snide remarks to refute this last paragraph].

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I am “a Paul kinda guy.”  But I still would speak out against abuses of power even if he held the office of president.  More stridently if you can imagine.  
            I worry not about the opinion of others.  My self respect requires much that I try to live up to.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      James Rosen?

      I don’t want to blame the victim, but it’s pretty clear that James Rosen, the Fox News reporter under investigation by the Justice Department for his role in publishing classified data, is a bumbling fool. Not only did he communicate with his source in a way that was almost guaranteed to get both caught, but he announced to the world that the US had a source in the North Korean government for no good reason.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Yeah, they were asking for it. Being all reportery. Asking all those questions.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    Men and women of the Establishment Republican Party like Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who previously regarded the Tea Party Movement as something unpleasant and unsophisticated, are now trying to be their friends. That sound you just heard was thousands of Tea Party individuals choking with laughter at the thought of Susan Collins defending them. Same goes for Mitch McConnell and other majoritarian Republicans. Already well known is the GOP establishment had and has nothing but contempt for the Tea Party. As my grandfather used to say, “Cover your wallet,” as the GOP desperately tried to inject itself into the debate.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/22/Why-the-IRS-Went-After-the-Tea-Party-and-Not-Establishment-GOP

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Breitbart? Can’t you do any better?

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        They are the Gold Standard in news reporting currently.

  • donniethebrasco

    Any “false flag” kooks want to argue that the shooting in Florida of Tamerlan’s friend is part of the coverup?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      does seem a little strange to shoot a man who is in custody.

      • donniethebrasco

        You are part of the idiocracy.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          you dont think the whole story sounds strange? who gets shot when already in custody? at the very least some one really effed up and it should be looked into. i dont think you need to be kooky to find those things odd

  • HonestDebate1

    Why are unions now opposing Obamacare?

    The United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workersare calling for repeal. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (1.3 million strong) has gone on record with grave concerns.

    “UNITE HERE, a prominent hotel workers’ union, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters are also pushing for changes.” 

    There are others and the reason is clear. Obamacare kills jobs. 

    http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/300881-labor-unions-break-ranks-on-health-law

    Employers are going bare bones to avoid compliance. That mean less hours and less full time employees. 

    The polls are in the dirt.

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/23/poll-brutal-numbers-for-obamacare/

    • donniethebrasco

       He is backing out on the promise he made them.  When you promise everyone everything, you have to take something away.

    • Shag_Wevera

      Tough.  It’s the law of the land, passed by an elected government.  It is the will of the people.

      • HonestDebate1

        It is in no way, by any definition, the will of the people. No one voted for this.

        • Shag_Wevera

          Citizen’s elected representatives voted for it.

          • HonestDebate1

            Citizens were lied to about the cost, efficacy, insurance premiums, the mandate and the fact that it is a tax. The Representatives didn’t read it.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            We’re ALWAYS lied to about the cost, efficacy, practical applications, and negative impacts resulting from legislation on BOTH sides.
            What’s new Gregg?

          • HonestDebate1

            What’s new is the magnitude of defense of it for ideological reasons.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            New? After Iraq would cost us, what, $80B and I’m committing treason for not falling into line?

        • jefe68

          Well given that’s how our democracy works it was the will of the majority of the people.

          I want single payer myself.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         By your logic the Iraq War II was the will of the people.  It was authorized by an elected government.

        Pleazzzzze.

  • Ed75

    In this difficult time we can remember why Pope Francis took the name Francis: a cardinal whispered in his ear not to forget the poor, whom he had served so well as a cardinal, and he thought of St. Francis of Assissi. Then he thought of all the wars, and remembered that St. Francis was a man of peace (who also had an interesting contact with the Muslims.)

    • J__o__h__n

      What caused the tornado?  Oklahoma’s constitution bans gay marriage and recognition of any same sex partnerships.  Oklahoma does not protect gays from discrimination.  There are no abortion providers in 96% of its counties.  NARAL gives Oklahoma an F grade.  Perhaps natural disasters are just caused by nature and don’t have a supernatural agenda. 

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Maybe because:

        That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
        Matthew 5:45

        • jefe68

          Ah the world of wishful thinking.

        • J__o__h__n

          I support a literal reading of the bible and that only mentions sun and rain not tornados. 

          • 1Brett1

            Tornados didn’t exist during biblical times; God created them for moderns who are bent on promoting moral decay. 

      • jefe68

        You think?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        What caused the tornado?

        Maybe the OK congresscritters voting against aid for Hurricane Sandy victims.

        (h/t Rod Serling)

      • 1Brett1

        Naw, the admittance of “the gay” into the Boy Scouts caused the tornado.

        • J__o__h__n

          I didn’t know you could be punished for events that hadn’t happened yet.  That isn’t fair even by god standards. 

          • 1Brett1

            It was pre-emptive, just in case.

      • Ed75

        There’s not a one-to-one correspondence, of course. In 1 Samuel 6:8-12 the Isrealites debate whether an event was a punishment for their sin or the result of chance, it is always a question.

        In Luke Jesus is asked about a tower that fell and killed 18 people. He said ‘Do you think those that died were worse sinners than others?’ (I.e. chance events do happen.) ‘But if you sin, such things will happen to you.’ (I.e. sinful behavior leads to disaster). I’m paraphrasing.

  • donniethebrasco

    Woolwich:  How can you call these monsters, “alleged suspects?”  Your style sheets need work.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i think they are the actual suspects at this point

  • JobExperience

    Three of my compatriots have reported being “mediated” off the DRShow page (yesterday/this morning)to make room for fascist hate speech. They’re moving the goalposts.Can it happen here?
    (We know it can… look at the tracks of elephant dung.)

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      How are you feeling today?

  • HonestDebate1

    Will Obama fire Lois Lerner for pleading the fifth? He is angry and said he wants to get to the bottom of it and she is not cooperating.

    How about his lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler? She knew and kept him in the dark He had to learn about it in the press. What kind of lawyer does not inform the boss on a matter so corrupt? He said he was angry, fine. Fire her.

    Or AG Holder who approved the seizure of James Rosen’s emails? Why does he still have a job? Obama said: ”I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable, journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs.”

    • brettearle

      Lerner:

      Anyone who fires someone–simply because they are exercising their constitutional rights–would be guilty of jaded and unethical actions.

      Holder:

      Do you really believe that SCOTUS would have found that Holder made the wrong decision–based on evidence and law?

      • HonestDebate1

        Well evidently she waived them but that’s beside the point. She is standing in the way of his passionate obsession to get to the bottom of the abuse. He will not tolerate it. Right? 

        If the 1st amendment still has meaning then yes, the SCOTUS would rule against Holder. 

        What about Ruemmler?

        • brettearle

          Lerner:

          She didn’t waive her rights.  She exercised them.

          He can fire her for OTHER reasons.  But NOT for exercising her Rights.

          Holder:

          You must be the authority on whether the 1st Amendment still has meaning–based on Holder’s decision.

          I guess that must mean you were standing over Holder’s shoulder when he examined the evidence.

          And, too, it must mean that you are a recognized–or even an unrecognized– specialist on the history of, and the intricacies of, the 1st Amendment.

          • HonestDebate1

            I didn’t say she should be fired for exercising her rights. And she did waive them by testifying with an opening statement.

            Holder is quacks like a duck.

            Should anyone be fired?

          • brettearle

            You said that Lerner should be fired for pleading the Fifth.

            If she hadn’t waived her rights, by making an opening statement, the Committee would be compelling testimony. 

            It doesn’t matter what Issa, Gowdy, or any other committee members say.

            It matter what actions they take.

            Your comment about Holder completely ignores the entire fact that you and I do not know what the facts are.

            My guess is that any Justice Department, from any political point of view, would have done the same thing.

            And my guess is that any GOP Administration would be even more aggressive about Covert Action.

            “Holder is quacks like a duck”,
            tell us nothing–but nothing–about the facts.

          • HonestDebate1

            Alan Dershowitz is not a committee member.

            http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/301557-dershowitz-irs-chief-lerner-can-be-held-in-contempt-of-congress

            I guess I see what you’re getting at but Lerner should be fired for obstructing the investigation Obama so desperately wants to get to the bottom of. The fifth amendment is just the tool she attempted (and failed) to use to do it. 

            It’s like saying if she called Obama an incompetent boob under oath she shouldn’t be fired because she exercised her Constitutional rights under the 1st amendment.

          • brettearle

            Your boob analogy is pretty funny, I’ll say that.

    • Shag_Wevera

      I don’t know anyone outside the beltway and the right fringe who cares about this.

      • HonestDebate1

        Wow, you need to get out more.

      • donniethebrasco

         First they went after the rich people, but I’m not rich, so I did nothing.

        Then they came after the right-wingers, but I’m not right wing, so I did nothing.

        Then then went after the press, but I am not a reporter, so I did nothing.

        Then they came after me, and there was no one left.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Pauline Kael couldn’t believe Nixon had won, since no one she knew had voted for him. 

    • 1Brett1

      Hones Debate, from what I understand he can’t fire her. Well, he could probably abuse his power and interfere with the ongoing investigation and hearings. Is that what you want?

  • JobExperience

    Mister Smiff, got any inshuruns?
    *intended as reply to Honest…. honest? what a hoot…..
    Debate…. more like talk point parroting.

  • donniethebrasco

     It is so sad that the British police insisted on shooting those suspects in Woolwich.  There is no proof that they killed the man in the middle of the road.

    They should have asked them politely to come to the police station to talk with them.

    If the Muslim suspects came after them with knives, they should have just stayed in their police cars.  It is so sad when people get unnecessarily hurt.

  • Shag_Wevera

    The avalanche of the right wing’s trumped up scandals against the administration is becoming exhausting.  Benghazi, IRS, Vince Foster, Whitewater, etc. etc.

    The playbook never changes for them, does it?

    • HonestDebate1

      Defending the indefensible is what liberals do. The playbook never changes.

      • brettearle

        Again, a sweeping, thin, biased statement.

        Back it up.

        • HonestDebate1

          Read your comments.

          • brettearle

            You were addressing Shag.

            Wake up.

          • HonestDebate1

            You got me there, apologies. Read Shag’s comments. Is shag not defending the indefensible? 

      • DrewInGeorgia

        Attacking the defenseless is what those who currently call themselves Republican do.
        Who would Jesus back?

        • HonestDebate1

          As a non-Christian unaffiliated voter you are out of my area of expertise.

    • brettearle

      It was the Vince Foster manure that truly got to me!

      Hillary got him killed??

      When the moderate-extreme Right does NOT put a clamp down on the Extreme Right fringe, then there is perpetual pollution to the air waves.

      And it erodes clear-minded thinking and reasonable spirit even more.

      Hillary got Foster killed, my ____!  Pathetic.

      At least Benghazi, IRS, and Whitewater have shreds of concerns to them–even though they are blown far out of proportion as Scandals.

      But the Foster crap doesn’t even deserve a back-page insert in the “Enquirer”.

      I almost felt, at the time, that it was a Shame that the Airwaves couldn’t have found an EXCEPTION to the 1st Amendment–when the Foster fairy tale was poisoning the Media.

      • HonestDebate1

        Why are you digging up Foster? Who but nut jobs ever said Hillary got him killed? He killed himself.

        • brettearle

          First off, Shag brought it up.

          Read the Threads clearly–before you fire off blanks….

          Secondly,  the Foster fertilizer was all over the place–championed by salacious paranoids who are still part of the Media Right.

          And very few, from the Moderate Right at the time, ever denounced them.

          Pathetic.

          • HonestDebate1

            I read the thread, sorry I don’t take Shag as seriously as I take you. 

            And no, that’s nit the way I remember it. 

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      How sad it must be for you, that you can no longer control the convesation.  Well you still have Ezra Klien and Josh Marshall. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      you forgot the AP scandal

  • Michiganjf

    Yet another Interstate bridge collapses…

    How much longer will Republicans put petty politics ahead of our country’s infrastructure needs?

    They don’t want to “leave debt to the children of America??!!”

    Yeah, instead they’re content with leaving our children a dung heap compared to the fine country our grandparents left us Boomers!

    Vote OUT Republicans yet again in 2014!

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Unbelievable.  You sound like Barbabra Boxer blaming the GOP for bad weather.  Another straw man.

      No one is against safe bridges.

      It is the waste, fraud and abuse that comes with big government industry that pains many of us.  It is also the out of control power of the big government as indicated by the IRS scandal that pains many of us.

    • HonestDebate1

      We spent $814 billion on shovel ready jobs… or so we were told.

      • Ray in VT

        I don’t recall being told that.  Do you have a source for your number, Gregg?

        • HonestDebate1
          • Ray in VT

            So all of that went to “shovel ready jobs”?  Again, I don’t recall being told that.  Do you have a source for that?  One quote said over 100 shovel ready projects, so does that mean that all of the stimulus went there, as your post suggest?

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT – good luck getting Gregg Smith to back up his DishonestBlather.

            He cannot, so he will deflect or spin the Gregg Smith Response-O-Matic.

            Predicted response:

            [Semantics]

          • HonestDebate1

            I no longer am certain it is safe to speak out against my government so I anonymized all my previous comments and changed my moniker. I would appreciate it if you did not use my previous and real name. Thanks.

          • Ray in VT

            Do you think that that will protect you?  The NSA has been trawling the Web for some time.  All of what we have said here is likely to already be in some massive server farm.

          • HonestDebate1

            Not really, but you’ve got to start somewhere. Baby steps. Since you agree with my concern and have read my request I actually feel pretty confident you will give me the courtesy.Thanks.

          • Ray in VT

            I will, and you are welcome.

          • 1Brett1

            Hones Debate might just say, “thanks, Ray, I’m already super- paranoid,dude!”

          • DrewInGeorgia

            I wondered what was going on. You do realize that previous activity never goes away don’t you? Also, unless you’ve got some serious onion type routing going on your IP betrays you.

            And seriously man, do you really think that your usual line of dialogue is “speaking out against the government”? And people say I’m paranoid…

            I’m not trying to be antagonistic, I’ll respect your wishes regarding your moniker.

          • Ray in VT

            That’s why I’ve never revealed certain details about myself, including my given name, although I feel confident that if powers that be want to know who I am, then they can track me from here, but I don’t worry about it.

          • HonestDebate1

            Thanks Drew, I figured you would. According to Disqus all my previous comments are now completely anonymous including my IP. Who knows. Now I’m driving down the road logging in with various neighbor’s unsecured signals. oops gotta go.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Just be aware that the IP hopping will likely get you negative attention quicker than your usual commentary. Also, your MAC address will betray you. Best of luck.

          • HonestDebate1

            I can’t tell if you know I was joking, I was.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            You really are scared of your own shadow.

            You gotta change your media sources if that’s a perceived threat.

          • HonestDebate1

            If I was scared, I’d go away and keep my mouth shut. 

            What does TF stand for?

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – HA! Nuts!

            Are you “having a hissy”? A few of your select writings follow.

            [Gregg Smith] “I find your comment so bizarre and reasoning so warped I’m happy to let it speak for itself. I hope everybody reads it… but no one cares.”

            You wrote, “I no longer am certain it is safe to speak out against my government so I anonymized all my previous comments and changed my moniker.”

            What are you afraid of? What are you hiding? Why so fearful if you’ve done nothing wrong?

            You then wrote, “I would appreciate it if you did not use my previous and real name.”

            Yeahright let me get right on that.

            Allow me to quote a recent exchange:

            [hennorama]: “To be as clear as possible (again):

            “Gregg Smith – I have not been and will not be commenting on your posts, either directly or indirectly, until further notice. Any comments you make to me are unwelcome. Please stop. This forum allows you to make comments that are not direct responses to my posts. If you must comment on my remarks, please find a way to express yourself in a way that does not involve me directly.” – [hennorama] February 22, 2013

            YOUR RESPONSE, in part:

            [Gregg Smith] “This is not your blog. I don’t play by your rules. … It’s not about you.”

            ——-
            From May 17, 2013:

            “[Gregg Smith] “You are there one who had a hissy when I called you sir.”

            From May 15, 2013:

            “[Gregg Smith] “Just call me a monster and be done with it.”

            From May 10, 2013:

            “[Gregg Smith] “Call me what you want. … If I occasionally call you a piece of shit, it is only because it’s true despite how incredibly out-of-character it is for me to say.”

            From April 26, 2013:

            “[Gregg Smith] “You call me names (fine) …”

            REPEATING: “This is not your blog. I don’t play by your rules. … It’s not about you.”

          • HonestDebate1

            Please stop. Only a few regular commenters use their actual full name. Everybody has their reason, I have mine. It’s not my rule to respect people’s anonymity. It’s rule #1 in the paperback version of the online bloggers’ rules for etiquette.
            So, you are on record as seeing no distinction between rule #1 and rule #2:

            Express and defend your views in a quest to engage in open, honest debate.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – sorry, but I cannot keep track of the inconsistencies contained in all of your posts. I’ll simply quote your own words, again:

            “This is not your blog. I don’t play by your rules. … It’s not about you.”

            “Call me what you want. … If I occasionally call you a piece of shit, it is only because it’s true despite how incredibly out-of-character it is for me to say.”

          • Ray in VT

            Did you save all of those quotes for future reference?

          • HonestDebate1

            She has everything I’ve ever written. She’s obsessed.

          • Ray in VT

            I just find that it is helpful to use the words that another uses when attempting to debate them.  I usually rely on general memory and then search for an exact quote.  Maybe henn just likes to be super vigilant.

          • HonestDebate1

            Or anal. 

          • Ray in VT

            I don’t think that we need to start talking about people’s bedroom preferences.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yikes no. Rententive.

          • Ray in VT

            I know.  I was joking.

          • hennorama

            Accuracy is important.

          • hennorama

            Horse hockey.

          • HonestDebate1

            Love it, you?

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT – if you’re speaking of the Gregg Smith Response-O-Matic, “quotes”, here is the list to date:

            [Obama is destroying ____ (fill in the blank)]
            [That's sick]
            [That's silly]
            [Cherry picking]
            [Semantics]
            [Alrighty then]
            [Don't tell me what I think]
            [Google is not knowledge]
            [Smarty pants]
            [Whatever]
            [It's not about me]
            [Your premise is whacked]
            [You've jumped the shark]
            [Get me out of your head]

            Have I left anything else off the list?

          • Ray in VT

            Not that comes to mind.  Gotcha.  That’s one I think.

          • HonestDebate1

            Then you don’t want to remember. The entire “stimulus” was a lie. It did not even lower the unemployment rate and in fact the rate went higher than HIS OWN NUMBERS predicted it would without the “stimulus”. I doubt any of it went to infrastructure as promised. He pounded it over and over and over and over and over and over again. I don’t know how you missed it. He made a joke when called on it. He forgot about the bureaucracy.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4-vPrcDBo 

          • Ray in VT

            No, I don’t remember what you want me to remember, because that is not what happened.  Projections were made, and they didn’t keep the unemployment number as low as was hoped.  These things happen. 

            You might want to check some sources, such as http://www.recovery.gov or some reputable news site to get some real numbers.  $290.7 billion of that number went to various tax breaks and incentives.

          • HonestDebate1
          • Ray in VT

            and your point is?  Lots of projections and predictions don’t work out.  You often cite the CBO deficit projections from the early 1990s.  I’ll cite Bush’s projected numbers from the early 2000s.

            To argue that the stimulus was a lie because it did not deliver exactly as promised is a stretch, as far as I’m concerned.

            I do know, that they weren’t talking about the whole thing going to infrastructure projects, which is certainly what your initial comment seems to imply, and it is fairly easily discoverable what the numbers from that total ended up being and where the money went.

          • HonestDebate1

            The point was to back my claim: 

            It did not even lower the unemployment rate and in fact the rate went higher than HIS OWN NUMBERS predicted it would without the “stimulus”.

          • Ray in VT

            The studies out there seem fairly behind the idea that the stimulus did create somewhere north of 1.5 million jobs and helped states to alleviate a lot of state level cuts, and it seems to have done that.  I think that the take away is that things were worse than was said at the time, and/or the stimulus didn’t do as much.  Maybe that is because so much of it was tax cuts, which have been shown to not grow the economy.  At least that is what the report that the GOP tried to keep under wraps right before the election said.

        • 1Brett1

          Now, Ray, Gregg doesn’t wish to be called that anymore. As he put it to another neocon on one of yesterday’s On Point forum threads, “I have changed my handle because I no longer am sure it is safe to speak out against my government.” 

          • HonestDebate1

            Please Brett, Ray knows and I’ve gotten widespread support (even when accompanied by a good natured scoff) from everyone… except you. It’s deja vu. Of course you wrote you would honor my request too. I actually believe everyone else, maybe you can be the only one again. We’ll see.

            BTW, it’s “Mr. Debate” to you.

          • 1Brett1

            Dude, I was telling him. I hadn’t read your response to him yet, sorry. There was nothing inaccurate about my post, though. But make mountains out of molehills…this fits in with your feeling the need to “anonymize” yourself or run up and down your neighborhood trying to catch wireless signals of neighbors so “they” won’t come and find you.

            Your level of absurdity has reached new heights.

            It’s not so much that I “am the only one” as I just figured out your nonsense a little sooner than others, and others gave you more of a benefit of doubt longer. You treat hennorama pretty badly, too, as you do others. You get to that point with most anyone who disagrees with you, but keep honing that debate.

      • hennorama

        Gregg Smith – more DishonestBlather.

        AKA – a lie.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          Are you guys married?

          /humor

          • hennorama

            RWB – I am not married. Why do you ask? ;-)

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB
    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Another partisan Democrat that believes the truth no matter
      what the facts say. 

                 

      http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/268069/

      • Michiganjf

        The article you posted makes my point EXACTLY!!

        Why would Republicans oppose an infrastructure bank when America’s bridges are as deficient as this article claims??!!

        Take a look:

        https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#biw=1280&bih=919&sclient=psy-ab&q=infrastructure%20bank%20opposed&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=88ca4fef5188be1b&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.dmQ

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          FTA:
          It was not known what caused the collapse of the bridge about 60 miles north of Seattle in Skagit County, but State Patrol detectives and the patrol’s commercial vehicle enforcement bureau troopers were talking late Thursday night to a commercial truck driver whose rig was believed to have struck the structure.

          “It appears the commercial vehicle made contact with the bridge,” Washington State Trooper Mark Francis said. “Whether it was the cause” of the collapse or made contact as the bridge was falling “that will all come out in the wash. But it appears it hit the bridge.”

          Was it a Republican that drove his truck into the bridge?  How do you know?

      • jefe68

        Another partisan right winger that believes in ideological based memes no matter what the facts say. 

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          Could I be a non-partisan right winger?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Nope.

          • anamaria23

            How does that work,now?

    • brettearle

      I think it is unfair to blame a political party–anytime an accident, like that, occurs.

      Would you be interested in blaming Clinton for Bangladesh?

    • William

       The latest news report said a truck hit a span and caused the incident. The Republicans did try to eliminate 400 million dollar welfare check to PBS but that effort was blocked by the Democrats and Obama. “Big Bird” is more important than “infrastructure needs”.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        We don’t need no education. Wait, you do realize that Public Broadcasting isn’t strictly entertainment don’t you?

        • William

           400 million/4 billion over the next 10 years – that buys a lot of new bridges. You do realize that is really money don’t you?

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Oh yes, I certainly do realize “that is really money”. Seems to me the money to repair bridges and roads should come from the industries that most profit from their use. Public Broadcasting is all about airwaves, not highways. I know, I’m an idiot.
            Just trying to save you some time.

          • William

             PBS said they did not need the money too.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Yeah, somehow I don’t trust you to report what someone else means. Call me a stickler.

        • donniethebrasco

          PBS is in the tank for the (LEFT WING of the LEFT WING)^10 of the Democratic Party.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            And yet David Brooks is always on it.

    • donniethebrasco

      It’s George Bush’s fault, again?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

     Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional law expert, wrote a book on 5th amendment rights.  He claims Lerner has given up her 5th amendment rights by her opening statement.  He is a self admitted liberal Democrat.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/23/dershowitz_irs_chief_lerner_can_be_held_in_contempt.html

    • jefe68

      What does his political ideals have to do with law?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Are you serious?  Listen to his interview.  He explains — in small words and very clearly — how politics are intertwined in the Congressional hearing legal process. In fact, he said Lerner may have been using a political strategy to make her opening statement and hope politics give her cover against contempt of Congress.

        • jefe68

          I’m not taking about Lerner. It’s your liberal Democrat meme.

          And he was right. She should have evoked the 5th and said nothing else.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             If you watched the interview — Dershowitz offers up the fact that he is a “liberal Democrat” early in the interview.  He offers this information without any prodding.  He was simply offering this to indicate the strength of argument by removing any taint of bias.

            I am sorry you are offended that I repeated his acknowledgement of being a liberal Democrat.  I don’t think I would have mentioned it if he didn’t.

    • donniethebrasco

       Because it is legal to have an abortion.  That is based on political ideals.

  • jefe68

    On Thursday night another bridge collapsed. This time it was in Washington state, the Skagit River Bridge. Fortunately no one was killed. In the wake of this I found this statement by Robert Borosage to be spot on.

    Robert Borosage, director of the Campaign for American’s Future, tackled this exact subject by writing:

    There is an idiocy about our current national politics that is simply stupefying. We are sitting idly, watching, and suffering, as our nation disintegrates into a run-down backwater. Our airports are a global disgrace. Our railroads, broadband, energy grid are all outmoded by international standards. A bridge falls every other day. Our sewage systems are overwhelmed by normal use, and collapse in the extreme weather that has become the national norm.

    Sinkholes now are becoming a life-threatening peril.At the same time, over 20 million people are in need of full-time work. The construction industry has still not recovered from the housing collapse. The federal government can borrow money at interest rates near zero. Yet instead of grabbing this opportunity to rebuild the country, Washington is focused on cutting budgets, an austerity that clearly costs jobs and impedes the recovery.

    And concluded:
    …repairing roads and rail, building modern airports, keeping our broadband and energy grid at world class standards, making sure the sewers don’t leak, strengthening the sinews for the extreme weather that is upon us – this isn’t an ideological question. It is just common sense.That this isn’t getting done now reveals exactly how extreme, how corrupt, and how destructive our current politics are.

    I know the austerity crowd are going poo-poo this, but if you folks really think this America is a great nation, don’t you think we should have world-class infrastructure at the very least?

    • donniethebrasco

       This is why it is idiotic for us to pay for the dysfunctional economic ecosystem of methadone addicts and teenage mothers.

      • jefe68

        Are aware that comments like this make you look like a complete imbecile.

        • donniethebrasco

           We spend money on supporting methadone ecosystems, but not on getting people building roads.

      • sickofthechit

         What are your solutions to the methadone addicts and the teen mothers?

        • donniethebrasco

           Stop giving them money directly.  Put them in prison/hospitals and have them work to keep the place functioning.

          They should cook, clean rooms, take care of the grounds and have rewards for getting off of the drugs.

          The key metric is the cost to keep them.  It should be under $20,000 per year.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          c’mon lets work together we could pay the addicts to build the roads with methadone

        • John Cedar

          We could wean methadone addicts onto heroin.

    • donniethebrasco

      I suppose you have never met a government program that you didn’t like.

    • twenty_niner

      Here’s the real question:

      This day in 2008, the national debt was $9.81 T
      Today the national debt is $16.83 T

      Which means $7.02 T was tacked on the tab in 5 years time, which averages to $117 Billion / month.

      So: WTF happened to the $7.02 T?

      So: With all of that money borrowed, if just one month of borrowing per year were put into a nest egg for infrastructure, you’ld have over 1/2 Trillion dollars in the kitty.

      Borrowing doesn’t seem to be the problem. The real problem is accountability for what’s been borrowed, which is non-existent.

  • Ray in VT

    I saw this piece referenced this week, and I thought that it was interesting.  I also think that it well reflects my own experiences:

    http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/25/0956797612457686.abstract

    “Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement
    of free-market economics predicted rejection of
    climate science.”

    • donniethebrasco

       What can be done if there is climate change?

      Slowing use of fossil fuels will have minimal impact.

      Carbon Capture might be a viable option, but who pays for it?  Is it paid for with a carbon tax or cap and trade?

      I would bet that the most effective way to pursue carbon capture is through a quasi-government agency contracting with private companies competing for the most effective carbon capture method.

      Pursuing alternative energy and encouraging conservation is the equivalent of rearranging deck chairs on a sinking Titanic.  It is also throwing money down a rat hole.

      • Ray in VT

        Well, I guess that we should then do nothing, because any effort that doesn’t totally solve a problem isn’t worth doing or trying.

        • donniethebrasco

          We need to focus on what works and encourage improved performance.

          Carbon capture risks the same problems of high speed rail in CA, the “Big Dig” in MA, and government funding of alternative energy venture capital:  Lots of money spent and nothing to show for it.

          Remember Solyndra

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            You really have a sourcing problem when you present “evidence” of government waste.

    • donniethebrasco

      There has been only global cooling since 2008.

      • Ray in VT

        Global temperature anomaly in 2008: .5108 C
        Global temperature anomaly in 2012: .5724 C

        My math may not be that good, but .5724 is more than .5108, right?  Doesn’t seem like cooling to me.

        • jefe68

          People want the narrative they want.
          They will skew the numbers to support their narrative. I see this on both sids of the global warming debate. By the way to me there is no debate, the earth is warming. 

          However I saw some on global warming side use the tornado and that global warming caused it. Even when a huge contingent of climate scientists have said there is not enough data to come to any conclusions, yet.  

          • Ray in VT

            Agreed on all points.  People should definitely refrain from saying that global warming caused this storm or that storm.  Now, if one were to say that storms like Sandy are believed to become more likely due to warming ocean temperatures, then that, I think, is somewhat defensible based upon research and models and such that have come out of the scientific community, but that will still take years to play out and to be observed.

          • jefe68

            Well hurricanes are effected by global conditions, that’s a given. The rise in sea levels will effect storm surges.

            Tornadoes are local weather events. Hurricanes are not.

            What I find interesting is how so how many people do not understand the difference between weather and climate.

          • Ray in VT

            But it is colder today than is average for this date, so there must be no global warming, right?

          • HonestDebate1

            No but it’s colder today than the models predicted it would be with the CO2 levels we have. 

          • jefe68

            You don’t know the difference between weather and climate, do you.

          • HonestDebate1

            Were you addressing Ray?He was just joking.

          • Ray in VT

            So revise the models based upon experience and keep observing.  Probably some of the early ones were off, but better methods and data collection should improve accuracy:

            Allen said: “I think it’s interesting because so many people think that
            recent years have been unexpectedly cool. In fact, what we found was
            that a few years around the turn of the millennium were slightly warmer
            than forecast, and that temperatures have now reverted to what we were
            predicting back in the 1990s.”

            http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/27/climate-change-models-predict-remarkably-accurate-results/

          • jefe68

            Sarcasm…

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             ”They will skew the numbers to support their narrative.”

            LOL.  Have heard of ‘hide the decline’ exposed in climate gate?  The “team” DID skew the numbers to support their narrative.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

          • jefe68

            Not climate gate again.
            You need to get real here.

            It’s really pathetic, and they did not skew the numbers.

            Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the “Climategate” Manufactured Controversy

            The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             You clearly didn’t watch the video.  Dr. Muller explains very well the problem.  Notice, he focuses on the facts and scientific method.  The climategate emails point to problems in published papers.  Papers used to create propaganda used by the UN and Al Gore (the hockey stick).

            Interestingly, Dr. Muller is now loved by the warmists because he changed his ideas on surface temperature measurements.

            Funny, your link includes a clearing of Michael Mann by Penn State.  This is the same crowd that cleared Sandusky of any wrong doing. Why should we trust them?
             Have you heard of institutional white washing?

          • jefe68

            It includes a whole lot of scientific journals and academic investigation into climate gate which and it’s proven to be much to do about nothing.

            For the last time, you are doing exactly what I was positing about.

            Looking for things to support your narrative.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             So are you.

            See how that works.

          • nj_v2

            “…the same crowd…”

            Where do you get this sh*t?

          • nj_v2

            Regurgitation of the same debunked nonsense.

            Public self-embarrassment is no deterrent for clueless hacks like the WorriedOne.

            Sad.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             You didn’t watch.

            btw – Dr. Muller is loved by the warmists.  All he is doing in this video is exposing corruption of the science.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Do you trust the media to cover climate science honestly?

      No, they turn to dishonest propaganda.

      Look at what the WaPO did to this photo of a coal plant to make steam look like black soot.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/24/washington-posts-photo-phraud-its-deja-vu-all-over-again/#more-86978

      • Ray in VT

        I trust them more than I do Anthony Watts.  Is that the coal plant that Mitt Romney shuttered because it killed people?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           What does Romney’s actions have to do with media propaganda? 

          Did you look at the pictures?  They are fraud — it doesn’t matter who exposed the fraud.

          • nj_v2

            So, according to the WorriedOne, because the WaPo mis-captioned a photo—and, i suppose, because Al Gore lives in a big house and flies a lot in jets—climate change isn’t happening/doesn’t matter/is a communist plot/or whatever the hell the inane denialist argument is supposed to be.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             I never made any of those causal arguments.

            However, I will happily call out propaganda and hypocrites for what they are.

            Regarding climate change, I will stick to science.

            Also, I readily acknowledge issues with coal — beyond CO2.  I care about the environment.  I drive a hybrid.  I just prefer honesty.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      This paper has been taken down pending an ethics investigation of the author.  Ooops.

       http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/28/stephan-lewandowsky-flees-australia-in-wake-of-investigations/

      • Ray in VT

        That refers to another paper.  Oops.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Oops.. I guess I was overly excited.

          • Ray in VT

            No biggie.  I think that there is a legit issue, though, if he did not properly inform people that he talked to.  We covered this in research methods in grad. school.  At least in the U.S. subjects are supposed to be fully informed that they are being studied, although that can taint the answers.  Classic experiments like Milgrim’s Obedience study could not be done today in the manner that they were once upon a time.  So it might not have been professionally ethical, but he might have gotten more honest answers.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    CO2 at 400 ppm, that’s the news of the year. God help planet earth.

    I heard there is opposition to requiring that rebuilt homes in OK have storm cellars. Don’t want gub’mint regulation.

    Grateful to live in MA!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      because we already seem to have every possible regulation already or are our co2 levels different?

      • jefe68

        What?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          jefe and tf i know you are lazy but the least you could do was scroll up to see what that was in response to then it might make sense

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Of course! All those regulations! The one about banks not playing the wall st casino with FDIC money, the heavy regulation of credit default swaps, the one that keeps corporations from offshoring, the one limiting the leverage of investment banks, the one that makes media provide “equal time”……etc etc etc….oh no, sorry, those are the regs that we DON”T have anymore…ROTFL, another faux ‘n rush lo-info.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          way to be completly wrong. we were talking about the state of MA, not the feds. you know the state of MA, where strike anywhere matches, peashooters and shooting at human shaped targets are illegal. where unelected bureaucrats determine if you can exercise your basic civil rights.  where i have to stick a tiny green sticker on my turkey gun for some reason.  would you like to provide some examples of where we don’t have enough regulations in MA or just continue to make bizarre  and foolish characterizations?

          • TomK_in_Boston

            It was my post and I was talking about opposition to regulation in OK, buddy. I can’t help it if you were confused that I concluded that I was glad to live where we DO have regulations. I know that’s a mind-bending concept in faux/rush land.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yes you mentioned OK then said you loved MA. then i made a comment about MA. then you thought i was talking about federal regualtions, even though no one was discussing them, so you went on a rant about a bunch of federal regulations when no one said anything about any of those things. seems like you are just tilting at windmills for some reason

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          its funny how you rushed to judgement so quickly based on your wrong assumption. the State of MA relative to other states was the topic

    • Acnestes

      You ain’t kidding.  Did you catch this gem from the Norman, OK city manager?

      Seven third-graders died huddling in their classroom, asphyxiated by
      falling debris. When asked about that, the city manager says this:

      “Lives, you can’t count the cost or the value of lives, but you can
      count the cost of construction. It adds a significant amount of cost to
      construction. The taxpayers would have to determine whether they’re
      going to pay that or not.”

      Can’t wait to hear him address the parents of the dead children.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Yeah, that really shocked me, even in the current climate of “gub’mint can’t tell me what to do”. When you think it can’t get any crazier, it moves up a notch.

        The next level will be if the parents agree.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          How old was that school?

          I’m asking seriously, because I heard that there were changes to the building codes that mean that whatever school construction is done after this storm will be to a stricter code to some of these “straw houses” that were blown down.

          Sorta looking for someone to make a good map in the coming months about what’s remaining there and what codes proved effective.

          • Acnestes

            1950′s.  It was 57 years old, I read.

        • Acnestes

          They just might.  What are the lives of a few kids, even your own, next to teabag ideological purity?

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Maybe the procedure should be to run to the shelter at Wal-Mart.

    • nj_v2

      I especially like the web of patronage and nepotism, the layers of inefficiency and unnecessary redundancy in some public projects (seen this first hand over and over), and the endless excuses Gov. Patrick makes for the system failures he ultimately presides over.

      It’s all great!

      • donniethebrasco

         The government failed in XXX.  It isn’t because of incompetence.  So, we need to double their budget until the next time they fail.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        The explosion in biotech, internet and robotics, from startups to big cos, in MA sure is great. Kendall puts everything in the shade except silicon valley. The universities that make Boston the basic research capital of the world sure are great.  It’s great to be surrounded by the world’s greatest hospitals if you ever need one; they were amazing after the bombing. 

        Those and others too numerous to list are what matter to me. Yeah, I know about the patronage but somehow it doesn’t impact my life much. I’ve also had some really great constituent services from our elected officials.
        But hey, everyone has to focus on what’s important to them.

        Go Broonz!

  • Michiganjf

    More violent and costly storms is EXACTLY what climate change models have predicted for two decades!

    • donniethebrasco

      OK Chicken Little.

      Before 2008, there were no tornadoes.

      Since 2008, the earth has been cooling.

      Hence, you can’t say “global warming,” you have to say “climate change.”

      • nj_v2

        ^ Further blurring the line between ignorance and stupidity with finely crafted layers of inanity. A master at work.

        • jefe68

          Yeah, quite the master of the inane? And the level and quantity of the it is quite astonishing.

  • creaker

    So will the OK senators who voted down aid for Sandy also vote down aid to their own constituents?

    • TomK_in_Boston

      I think they want to aid their constituents and use the cost as ammo to insist on cutting something they want to cut anyway.

    • sickofthechit

      Don’t worry, the Schizophrenic Hypocrites will vote for aid. Remember, the East coast is liberal, not so OK

    • StilllHere

      yes, if it’s not paid for, coburn already said so

  • Bob

     Regarding the boy scouts – why are so many adults obsessing on the sexuality of children?

    • donniethebrasco

       One word – NAMBLA

      • HonestDebate1

        That’s a bad bad word.

        • sickofthechit

           What’s bad is that it is an actual organization.  For those who don’t know, it is the “National Man Boy Love Association”.  Now that is bad.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Yippee!! We have found common ground.

          • Ray in VT

            I thought that it was the National Association of Marlon Brandon Look Alikes.

  • sickofthechit

    IRS Scandal?  The scandal would have been if after seeing its funding and personnel cut year after year it did not figure out ways to more efficiently review applications by categories or types.  Who better to look at than groups who have expressed their desire to see you shut down, who claim they are “Taxed Enough Already?  If I had an overwhelming stack of applications and limited resources with which to review them you’re darn tootin I would scrutinize the most likely to be trying to scam the system.  charles a. bowsher

    • OnPointComments

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      • donniethebrasco

         Constitution, Shmonstitution.

        We know what is right, and Obama is always right and so is anyone who goes after the conservatives.

        Grasshoppers like to eat ants. (Aesop fables reference)

      • sickofthechit

         The question no one has answered yet is why these groups even pre-filed for this status.  Everything I have heard and read says these groups did not have to apply for approval, all they had to do was to file their returns at the end of the year and it would serve as their application.  Sounds to me like they were either ignorant of the law they sought protection from, or they were looking for a fight.

    • donniethebrasco

       I am sick of your chit.

      The Obama administration and the IRS says that it is a scandal.  Why do you refuse to admit that the IRS scrutiny of the American people is wrong?

      • jefe68

        I’m sick of your dumb act.

        • sickofthechit

           Thank you!

        • anamaria23

          It’s the child’s process.   They usually grow out of it.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I’m sorry, but I didn’t hear “audited” in there.

        The NAACP, Greenpeace, and the Pasadena Episcopal Church want to know where you and the right-wing media machine was when they were audited by Bush’s IRS.

  • sickofthechit

    I applaud the Boy Scouts for this important first step.  Good riddance to those who want to splinter off into a homophobic corps.

  • sickofthechit

    These drones, if they are to be used should be made more precise, and less destructive.

  • OnPointComments

    The IRS scandal isn’t getting better for President Obama with the passage of time.  We now know that Lois Lerner has had a history of abuse of conservative organizations when she worked at the Federal Election Commission and through her tenure at the IRS.  White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler knew about the IG report on April 24, and shared the information with WH Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other White House aides; this explains President Obama’s press conference answer that “he” didn’t know about the IG report when the question was about White House staff knowledge.  More and more conservatives are coming forth with tales of abuse after they donated to Republicans or joined conservative organizations.  The implications are clear:  disagree with President Obama’s agenda and you risk having the wrath of the government brought down upon you.

    • donniethebrasco

      Barack “Sgt. Schultz” Obama

      “I KNOW NOTHING!”

      • jefe68

        Don’t you mean you know nothing.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Sounds pretty desperate.

      The right-wing need to turn this into Whitewater, I mean.

      • donniethebrasco

         Whitewater, Vince Foster, Rose Law Billing Records, Benghazi, Johnny Chung, Marc Rich

        What is similar about all of these controversies?

        The Clintons and $$$$

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          You forgot Haircutgate and Travelgate.

          What’s similar is that all the fluffing in the world didn’t make those things as scandalous then as you and your want to pretend they were now.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there!

  • donniethebrasco

    Barack “Sgt. Schultz” Obama

    “I KNOW NOTHING!”
     

  • donniethebrasco

     First they went after the rich people, but I’m not rich, so I did nothing.

    Then they came after the right-wingers, but I’m not right wing, so I did nothing.

    Then then went after the press, but I am not a reporter, so I did nothing.

    Then they came after me, and there was no one left.
     

    • jefe68

      And now you go from inane to despicable.

    • brettearle

      If you’re the only one left, then Humanity did the right thing, by doing itself in.

  • Dab200

    There is no justifications for houses to have in-ground swimming pools but not in-ground safe shelters. I saw pre-tornado satellite photos of the area and sow many pools!

    • donniethebrasco

       It is so sad for the US to allow people to choose to do what they want.

      • Dab200

        Oh, no you misunderstood me. They can do whatever they want – full-blown freedom, which however, should ALSO apply after disaster strikes.  Why to reach for those tax money from the oppressive, over-encroaching Government?  You chose not to have shelter, insurance – bad luck!
        Freedom and personal responsibility!! Dig out on your own, why call the National Guard, any help services.

  • liztkung

    While being irritated by the mismanagement of the IRS department scrutinizing non-profit applications, I wonder while there is not equal outrage over the overly zealous vetting of cabinet and judge appointments, e.g. the 1,100 questions sent to the candidate to head the EPA (see NY Times, “Senate Confirma a Judge, but Rancor Remains, 5/24/13)

    • jefe68

      Because it fits the right wing narrative.
      It’s easy to be outraged about the IRS.

    • donniethebrasco

       Obama says that the IRS is wrong.  Why do people here continue to try and rationalize the crimes committed by the IRS.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        De-nile ain’t just a river in egypt.

      • hennorama

        hyperbole, but at least you didn’t lift it in its entirety from another author.

  • sickofthechit

    Our most powerful tool to combat terrorism is foreign aid in the form of food, water, education,and other humanitarian resources.  Those are the key tools for a truly successful “War” on Terror.  Answering might with greater might will never defeat the terrorists.  In fact it can be credibly argued that it only serves to make matters worse. charles a. bowsher

    • donniethebrasco

      90% of foreign aid goes to juntas and arms purchasing from US suppliers.  Mubarak became a billionaire off of US aid.

      You might feel good giving aid, but it goes to yacht repairs.

      http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/us-military-aid-paid-mubarak-yacht-repair-freedom

      • sickofthechit

         Surely we can get aid to the refugee camps in places like Turkey without so much inefficiency.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          Absolutely.  Large bags of food blessed by American iImams and wrapped in American Flags.  But that won’t solve the problem alone. 

    • brettearle

      Reducing Al Qaeda to individual cells, by wiping out its nerve centers makes sense.

      But Boston did happen.

      I think, though, that when you destroy the major tentacles of a network, eventually the tributaries fall off and scatter.

  • J__o__h__n

    Is the annoying pop-up really needed to inform people of other On Point shows?  The left margin has a link to prior shows including a index by topic.  The right margin has the day’s shows and the prior two shows.  The main home page which one has to visit first has seven shows linked. 

    • DrewInGeorgia

      It’s a losing battle, I admire that you keep up the fight though.

      • J__o__h__n

        I’m going to mention it from time to time when I can’t stand it any more. 

        • HonestDebate1

          Good but I’m actually glad you decided to end your boycott.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          I’ve been asked via pop up at least twenty times today “Is America Coming Undone?”.
          It’s depressing.
          Stupid pop-ups.

  • donniethebrasco

    It is so sad that the British police insisted on shooting those suspects
    in Woolwich.  There is no proof that they killed the man in the middle
    of the road.

    They should have asked them politely to come to the police station to talk with them.

    If the Muslim suspects came after them with knives, they should have
    just stayed in their police cars.  It is so sad when people get
    unnecessarily hurt.

  • J__o__h__n

    There is a difference between not blaming an entire group for these actions but they can’t be dismissed as isolated incidents.  They are not isolated incidents.  There is a violent faction of radical Islam.  Obviously that doesn’t mean that all or most Muslims are violent extremists. 

    • brettearle

      The more people think like you are thinking, the better off we are.

      Sadly, though, if there are more incidents like Boston, you will see less and less of Objectivity.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Have a little confidence in your fellow Americans.  There has not been a surge in violence against Moslems. 

        • brettearle

          I think that you are underestimating the primitive fear and the pervasive ignorance of any large population who feels threatened.

          People who feel threatened–such as many in the US currently do–are prone to unfair condemnation and a broad-brush sweeping indictment of “The Other”.

          So, NO, I do NOT have confidence in my fellow Americans.

          They are no different, in potential overreaction, than what the Americans did, with regard to the internment of the Japanese, during WWII.

          They are no different than any other populous–in the history of the World–who could be brought to the brink of revolutionary violence in the future.

          You underestimate the fear of people, in general—especially here in America.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            Perhaps I do. I have a high opinion of my fellow Americans, from personal experience. If people were the way you describe I would expect to see more lynching’s here in the Commonwealth.

          • brettearle

            What you are pointing out is the extreme.

            But fabric of a society can slowly ferment and become gangrenous.

            THAT’S when indiscriminate lynchings begin to take place. 

            It doesn’t seem like you a student of History.

            If you wish to see America as American Exceptionalism, then it could, very well, be to your peril.

    • anamaria23

      You think like a grown-up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/anita.paul.5680 Anita Paul

    I sometimes thing the War on Terror is like the War on Drugs.  Looking back after all the fear mongering attached to the War on Drugs.  What do we have communities devastated, demonized and the highest prison population in the world.  The irony is the War on Drugs was not started to protect the affected communities but those outside them and those communities constant fear of the other.

    • donniethebrasco

       Just let the Terrorists do what they are going to do.

      Give them a hug and they will stop the terror.

    • William

       Do you think there is a danger that “we can’t win the war on terror so just accept the small(er) attacks, 100 or so people killed each year as the cost of doing business?” As if, we have to accept Muslim terrorism because that is just how it is and “get over it?”

  • donniethebrasco

    Lois can’t take the 5th.  She is waiting to see what Obama gives her to keep quiet.

    What do you think that she will get for hush money?

    Our Lt. Governor got the Worcester Chamber of Commerce position so that he won’t be Governor after Deval Patrick takes over the AG position.

    • brettearle

       Even as satire, your Lois scenario is third rate.

  • Joe

    Maybe it’s time we listened to what these terrorists are saying – from bin Laden on, they all say the same thing – get out of the Middle East and stop killing innocent people. The right-wing saysthat the radicals hate us because of our freedoms – there is nothing to support this.  They hate us because we’re over there killing them, and because we support Israel 100% no matter what.  Let’s stop these policies and see what happens.

    • brettearle

      I think that you are only partially accurate.

      It is NOT all or nothing.

      Some of this Al Qaeda stuff harkens back centuries.

      To not see that Al Qeada’s motives are Messianic and Visionary is, I think, short-sighted and dangerous.

      Islamic extremism goes on in many places, around the world.  Africa has been an opportunistic location for Islamic Fundamentalism–for decades now.

      When incidents like 9/11 and Boston are not thwarted, it only emboldens this Radicalization.

      If you read more about the history of Islamic Fundamentalism, you would recognize that this movement  is an equal opportunity hater of the West…..

      because of our ideology
      our way of life
      our history of colonization or so-called colonization
      our theology

      Now if our policies are different–Oil, Israel, etc–you might see some mutability.

      But I doubt that you will  stop seeing the inexorable progress of the movement.

      In my view, it is dangerous to think the way that you are thinking.

      It is like Neville Chamberlain all over again.

  • donniethebrasco

    Still trying to rationalize the IRS actions?  This NPR network is loony.

    Just protecting their money, I suppose.

  • donniethebrasco

    Why try to get to the bottom of an Obama scandal?  Who would report it?

    • brettearle

      The answer is, Fox, WSJ, and TheWeeklyStandard.

      NONE of them have come up with proof that the President was directly responsible.

      None of them.

      But of course, you know more than they do.

      • donniethebrasco

         What did Obama know and when did he know it?

        Does he still not know about the IRS scandal?  When did he find out?  Did he know something was wrong, but said, don’t tell me about anything until after the election?

        • brettearle

          Do you want to tell us just where Fox, WSJ, or The Weekly Standard have published reports that suggest Obama is impeachable or otherwise broke the law?

          Or do you need to avoid my question, again–as to whether YOU know more than they do?

          After all, you have the contacts and the expertise and the experience that they don’t have.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        And the king didn’t kill St. Thomas Becket, he only asked “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?”

        • brettearle

          I like that one.

          But it doesn’t disprove my point.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            Your point is immaterial to the central point of guilt. If a president constantly spoke out against Yankees, he would not have to tell the IRS to punish groups for Yankees fans. That president’s word created a space for Yankee hatred. He need do nothing more but remind people to punish his enemies. The IRS would be guilty in a strict legal sense, but the president is guilty in the broader moral sense.

          • brettearle

            My point is not immaterial to the central point of guilt.

            Appearance of guilt can be exploited by political bias, originating from the other side –which believes that it IS guilt, when it may not be.

            If I were to resurrect every comment that a President has ever made–that is or sounds political–it is NOT true that any corresponding government action will support or refute what the President has averred or announced.

            Sometimes that can be true.

            Other times, it is the false suspicion of the opposition.

            For you to believe otherwise does not make you only an Independent or a Libertarian.

            It makes also makes you Biased.

  • donniethebrasco

    Why did Lerner take the 5th?  After making material comments about her role, she can’t take the 5th?

    • DrewInGeorgia

      I wish you’d exercise the Fifth. I got my hopes up yesterday when one of your typical inciting comments along with my reply were deleted. Guess I should know better than to hope for a Moderator to actually moderate.

      • donniethebrasco

         Typical left wing Obama-think.

        Don’t address conflict, ignore it and bury it.

        The AP and Fox News will have a harder time getting sources with the government spies pulling phone records of reporters doing their jobs.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Guess someone should have thought about that twelve years ago when they were busy throwing general privacy out the window in favor of safety.
          What a lack of foresight…

    • brettearle

      If that were true, the Committee would be compelling testimony.  But they aren’t going to do that.

      • donniethebrasco

         She will be back in front of them in June.

        They will either compel her to testify or there will be a special prosecutor.

  • nj_v2

    Weekly jackassery roundup;
    right-wing, Rethuglicon, idiot climate denialist, looney-tunes-conspiracy-theorist, “small-government” hypocrite edition:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323528404578452483656067190.html
    Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

    The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.

    “Of all of the world’s chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.…”

    (snipped)

    (This particular denialist idiotic argument refuted here:

     http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/05/09/wall-street-journals-idiocracy-co2-is-what-plan/193986

    and also slammed by Columbia Journalism Review here:

    http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_wsj_editorial_page_hits2.php)

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/12/rand-paul-un-has-secret-plot-to-confiscate-and-destroy-all-of-americas-guns/
    Rand Paul: UN has secret plot to ‘CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL’ of America’s guns

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Saturday warned President Barack Obama was working on behalf of “anti-American globalists” in the United Nations who were plotting against the U.S. Constitution.

    In a fundraising email sent on behalf of the National Association on Gun Rights, Paul alleged the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was a secret plot to completely disarm American civilians.

    “Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU,” Paul wrote. “So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps. But looking at previous attempts by the UN to pass global gun control, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.”…

    (snipped)

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/oklahoma-gop-sen-tom-coburn-will-seek-to
    Oklahoma GOP Sen. Tom Coburn Will Seek To Offset Tornado Aid

    Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn will seek to offset federal aid to victims of a massive tornado that blasted through Oklahoma City suburbs on Monday with cuts elsewhere in the budget.

    “That’s always been his position [to offset disaster aid],” a spokesman told the Huffington Post Monday night. “He supported offsets to the bill funding the OKC bombing recovery effort.”

    Coburn, who intends to retire in 2016, joined his fellow Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe (R) last year in supporting an amendment that would have substantially cut a package of $60 billion dollars intended for reconstruction of the East Coast in the wake of Superstorm Sandy. The measure eventually passed in two parts with most of the Senate Republican caucus in opposition, but not before New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and New York GOP Reps. Peter King and Michael Grimm offered scathing critiques that their party was abandoning stranded people in the wake of the storm.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/05/20/limbaugh_no_one_willing_to_impeach_the_first_black_president/
    Limbaugh: No one willing to impeach the first black president

    Rush announced on Monday that Obama is not in “any jeopardy” of impeachment — but only because he is black

    Rush Limbaugh announced on Monday that President Obama won’t be impeached over recent controversies and that “Benghazi is not going to touch” him. And no, it’s not because the talking points “scandal” wasn’t really, you know, scandalous, or that the Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus told impeachment-happy members of Congress to cool it until they have evidence to support their claims or any other reasons that are based in reality.

    It’s because Obama is black, and “the American people are not going to tolerate the first black president being removed from office,” according to Limbaugh.

    • donniethebrasco

      Very good articles.  This is the kind of stories that NPR tends to ignore.

      Where is the “No proof that the Tsarnaev Brother had anything to do with the Boston Marathon Bombing?”

    • HonestDebate1

      Do you disagree with Rush? He’s exactly right. Obama has been playing the race card since the campaign. Every policy disagreement is met with the claim of racism made up out of the blue. 

    • Ray in VT

      How about the one where one Virginia candidate for AG introduced a bill in the legislature in 2009 that would have required women to report miscarriages to the police within 24 hours:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/mark-obenshain-miscarriage-bill_n_3307578.html

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        You didn’t say if Obenshain was a Democrat or Republican. Don’t keep up in suspense!

        Seriously, though: AG of a not-small “purple” state is what they call in baseball a “prospect” at the AA level. It’s amazing how thoroughly these people have infiltrated the non-bigoted, non-misgynist, don’t-need-racists-to-win-elections GOP.

        • Ray in VT

          I didn’t say, so he must be a Democrat.

    • Bruce94

       I always look forward to reading your Jackassery report.  How about the one where John Boehner repeated his call for someone from the IRS to go to jail without first citing the specific law(s) allegedly broken.  No doubt, a new take by the spineless Speaker on due process. 

  • donniethebrasco

    Obama administration on the IRS scandal:

    “We are not corrupt, we are just dumb”

    • HonestDebate1

      When I read that I had to laugh at the desperation.

    • StilllHere

      He’s half right.

  • Jacob Kraft

    I don’t understand what is wrong with the IRS targeting.  You have a huge ton of groups named “tea party” something or other, all applying for a tax exemption that is NOT INTENDED FOR POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS.  It seems like a no-brainer that OF COURSE they should be singled out.  The very name of these groups implies that they will be conducting political action for which they are expressly prevented if they want 501(c)(3) status.  Have I misunderstood the issue?

    • donniethebrasco

       What about the MOVEON . ORG 501(c)4 status?

      • Jacob Kraft

        I agree!  MoveOn should not have been granted 501(c)(4) status.  It seems logical to me as a non-expert citizen that ALL political action groups should be 527 groups.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        They also have a PAC.

    • donniethebrasco

       You are still trying to rationalize the IRS actions?

      IDIOT

      Obama doesn’t agree with you.  The American people don’t agree with you.

      I’d love for Obama to take up your argument.

      • Jacob Kraft

        WOW!  Name calling?  Why? And you speak for the American people too! Amazing!

        Can you actually try to add to the discussion?  I just wanted to know if I misunderstood the issue.  I assume you think I did misunderstand, but you are just going to insult me instead of educating me.  I think ALL groups should be scrutinized thoroughly if they are applying for tax exempt status — both conservative AND liberal.

        • jefe68

          In my view all of these 501(c) groups that are political should be done away with.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            In your view everything is political.

          • 1Brett1

            Of the 70,000 applications flooding the IRS for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, only around 300 were organizations flagged for scrutiny; and, of that, only a third of those were Tea Partiers, hardly the scandal you poor, persecuted Tea Partiers are hyperbolizing about. And, NONE of those were denied their tax exempt status, but I digress…yes, you are right on, how dare anyone in their right mind consider a Tea Party organization as having anything to do with political influence/activities! [that last part was sarcasm, btw]

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Everything is political.
            Anything that’s not gets politicized.
            It sucks.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            My point exactly. And political bias creeps into schools, community groups, charities and even churches. It is divisive and corrosive. How do we change this?

          • jefe68

            No, not everything.
            Look your the tea party guy, so you might not want to through to much hubris around.

            So the tea party groups are not political now? Oh I get it there social clubs. 

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            Not exactly certain what you are trying to say, but, I will agree that the Tea Party is a political movement, but not a distinctly partisan one. I would fault the current system of overregulation of groups. My belief in freedom of speech would dictate that no one would be prevented from peaceably assembling, and petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances. Not a Tea Party or an Occupy group or Mosque one set of laws for everyone.
            As to the matter of hubris, I am a humble man that has much to be humble about.

    • Give_Me_Liberty_92

      “of course”? are you serious?

      there are two issues here. the biased targeting using “conservative” keywords to select applications for scrutiny, and the intrusiveness of the 30-questions form required by the IRS in their follow ups.

      if “tea party” applications really where a majority of the pool of 501 c4 applications, simple unbiased random selection from the same pool would have generated a fair representation of them without violating the first and the 14th amendment, randomly picking also progressive applications in proportion to their representation in the sample.

      instead, of course, if you are only looking for tea party applications you will end up finding a lot of tea party applications! duh…with the aggravating factor that you are biasing the sample based on the type of political speech (illegitimate), not whether or not there is a political component to their activity (legitimate, if not intrusive). and this is coming from a federal agency bound by the US constitution.

      additionally, if the IRS was really overwhelmed by the number of applications it would have tried to simplify its job, not to set itself up for litigation and even more workload: Do you really think a long -often illegal in its content- 30-question form is the minimally intrusive way for the IRS to assess the applications and streamline its workload? don’t you rather think that one or two bright line questions (e.g. what % of your budget is dedicated to political activity) asked to a random pool of applicants-or all applicants- would have sufficed?do you in good faith think that if the IRS was moved by a honest concern about streamlining the process it would have asked for so much more useless and irrelevant work to do??? doesn’t sound like they were just stonewalling and delaying their (inevitable, apparently, given the eventual outcomes) approval during an elections season? so, really? nothing wrong there?

      • Jacob Kraft

        If the IRS was legitimately overloaded with 501(c) applications then I absolutely think it is fair to review those applications using biased targeting on a fair set of political keywords.  Of course, by ‘fair set of political keywords’, I mean a set that includes conservative as well as liberal keywords.  

        I believe biasing is justified because the whole point of reviewing the application is to rule out organizations whose primary mission is political activism — those organizations need to apply for a different tax-exempt status and disclose their donors.  If you are looking for a thief within a random group of people, it is totally reasonable to pre-bias your sample by first looking at all the people with bags or backpacks — you wouldn’t just randomly pick out 100 people from the group.  Likewise, if you are looking to deny political groups from 501(c) status, it seems perfectly reasonable to pre-bias your sample to first look at groups that clearly have a political bias themselves — those groups are the most likely groups to be inappropriate candidates for 501(c) status.

        There is certainly a counter-argument to be made that coming up with a ‘fair set of keywords’ on which to bias the sample is not possible, and I might be inclined to agree with that assessment.  I personally would prefer that ALL applications be submitted to EQUAL scrutiny and if that means a backlog of months or even years before application approval, so be it!  

        As far as the 30 questions go, I have not made myself familiar with them so I am ignorant as to their appropriateness.  On the face, a mere 30 questions does not seem an unreasonable burden. But these questions apparently seem unrelated to the application and/or too intrusive?  I’ll have to research them now.

        One of the 30 questions mentioned within the discussion in ‘On Point’ regarded the religious affiliation of the group’s members.  Does this really sound nefarious to you?  Perhaps a group whose members all belong to a certain religious affiliation may be better served under a different tax exempt status for religious organizations.

        • Give_Me_Liberty_92

          while I may be agree in principle, yours is an unrealistic hypothetical, given that it is impossible to sample only “political applications” out of the 501c4 pool in a way that does not involve some consideration of the CONTENT of the speech, therefore you are left with a random sampling of the pool or the application of the questioning to the entire pool, the two only unbiased ways possible.

          what keywords would you use that would be equally applicable to groups of various orientation? there is none.

          there are certain practices/choices that are off the table for the government because  of our constitution, biasing a sample based on race, sex, political orientation is one of those.

          would you support stopping more cars with blacks driving if the government were to allege at some point that it has statistics showing a higher involvement of blacks in drunk driving? it’s called profiling. it may be good when IRS targets high earners or big deducters for auditing (there is no constitutional protection of tax dodgers), it is not when political speech is involved as selection criterium.

          as per the questioning, the government is stating officially that they were invasive/unnecessary and inappropriate, no need to deny that too.

          http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

          1

          Requests the names of donors.

          2

          Requests a list of all issues that are important to the organization and asks that
          the organization indicate its position regarding such issues.

          3

          Requests 1) the roles and activities of the audience and participants other than
          members in the activity and 2) the type of conversations and discussions
          members and participants had during the activity.

          4

          Asks whether the officer, director, etc., has run or will run for public office.

          5

          Requests the political affiliation of the officer, director, speakers, candidates
          supported, etc., or otherwise refers to the relationship with identified
          political party–related organizations.

          6

          Requests information regarding employment, other than for the organization,
          including hours worked.

          7

          Requests information regarding activities of another organization – not just
          the relationship of the other organization to the applicant

          • Jacob Kraft

            Agreed on the invasive questions as I have just finished reading the same report just a few moments ago.  

            Any argument based on political speech does not apply here as the issue is tax exempt status.  No one is denying these groups any rights guaranteed by the constitution.  Is tax exempt status specified as part of the constitution?

            Moreover, the 501(c)(3) tax exempt status explicit prohibits ANY political action by said groups which I assume includes ANY type of political speech.  501(c)(4) places strict limits on the types of political activities allowed by a group.  Are you suggesting that the tax code itself is unconstitutional because it limits political speech?  I don’t really think you are, but it is easy to draw that implication based on your argument.

            Filing for tax exempt status is a choice and you agree to abide by the terms of that tax exempt status.  If you don’t like it, you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, but you just won’t be recognized as tax exempt.

          • Give_Me_Liberty_92

            what is unconstitutional is singling out applicants BASED ON THE CONTENT of the speech (ie their political leaning), not the fact of whether they are -or not- engaging in some political activity (lawful with limits).

            Have a look at IRS form 1024, question 15. IRS already can know all they need to know there, by simply calculating the ratio between the money spent trying to influence legislation (question 15 line)  and the total budget reported in page 5. if they find applicants where that ratio is “substantially high” (defined by regulations, THAT is within their power to do so) they pull if for more scrutiny or they deny it. numbers are neutral. period. no need to bother with “tea party” keywords or other nonsense.

            bottom line: they were a bunch of dummies who overreached the way we know they can do sometime; whether because of incompetence or malice is the real question here. 

            it’s pretty clear to me, the treasury says so, the president said so. so I am not sure what or who you are trying to defend.  to me it’s simply unacceptable, whether they did it to the KKK or to OFA is irrelevant.        

            fromm the 501c4 tip sheet:
            Lobbying
            - 501(c)(4) organizations are permitted to have unlimited amounts of legislative activity as long as it is in furtherance of the exempt purpose.

            Political Activity
            - Political activity is permitted, but cannot be the organization’s primary purpose, and will in most cases incur a penalty tax.

            therefore, by evaluating the budget one can infer if the purpose is “primary” or not in an unbiased way.

          • Jacob Kraft

            Before this morning I was not aware that the Treasury Department report was available for review.  I was only aware of extreme media coverage of this issue which did not inform me of any of the issues.  

            With my limited knowledge, my original post was defending the practice of pulling out a subset of tax exempt applications based on a simple set of criteria (i.e. if it sounds like a political organization then it needs extra scrutiny).  If it can be done fairly then I still don’t see an issue with it, and now that I’ve actually gotten to read the report I can see that it was done unfairly.  

            Interestingly, the treasury department report does not seem to agree that profiling itself is inappropriate — they just say you can’t use the name or policy positions to single out the organization.  However, it appears that you can still use the BOLO list and apply it to the group’s activities.

            Page 10:
            http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

            “Recommendation 1: Ensure that the memorandum requiring the Director, Rulings and 
            Agreements, to approve all original entries and changes to criteria included on the BOLO listing 
            prior to implementation be formalized in the appropriate Internal Revenue Manual.”

            They are NOT recommending that the BOLO list go away!  They are simply formalizing it, as well as stating that it should not be applied to the group’s name or policy positions.  Am I wrong?  

            I would be very interested to see the full BOLO list.  Less than 1/3 of the targeted groups were targeted because of the conservative terms ‘tea party’, ’9/12′, or ‘patriots’…what about the other 2/3?  Do you believe they were all conservative organizations too?  I imagine the BOLO list contains quite a number of progressive names on it as well.

    • hennorama

      Jacob Kraft – I think the most objectionable issue here is that the IRS appears to have acted unequally. We expect them to screw with people, but they’re supposed to screw with everyone equally. I found this quote from a recent NY Times op-ed to be appropriate here:

      “One virtue of those hated things called bureaucracies is that they oblige everyone to follow a common set of rules, regardless of station or background; they are inherently equalizing.”

      See:
      http://wap.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/opinion/inequality-and-the-modern-culture-of-celebrity.html

      You might be interested in the following NY Times article from May 18, 2013, titled “Confusion and Staff Troubles Rife at I.R.S. Office in Ohio”.

      It’s an overview from “interviews with current and former employees and with lawyers who dealt with them, along with a review of I.R.S. documents”, that “paint[s] a more muddled picture of an understaffed Cincinnati outpost that was alienated from the broader
      I.R.S. culture and given little direction.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/us/politics/at-irs-unprepared-office-seemed-unclear-about-the-rules.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics

      An excerpt:

      “Overseen by a revolving cast of midlevel managers, stalled by miscommunication with I.R.S. lawyers and executives in Washington and confused about the rules they were enforcing, the Cincinnati specialists flagged virtually every application with Tea Party in its name. But their review went beyond conservative groups: more than 400 organizations came under scrutiny, including at least two dozen liberal-leaning ones and some that were seemingly apolitical.”

      “Over three years, as the office struggled with a growing caseload of advocacy groups seeking tax exemptions, responsibility for the cases moved from one group of specialists to another, and the Determinations Unit, which handles all nonprofit applications, was reorganized. One batch of cases sat ignored for months. Few if any of the employees were experts on tax law, contributing to waves of questionnaires about groups’ political activity and donors that top officials acknowledge were improper.”

      And for those who haven’t read the complete TIGTA report on the matter, it found,

      “[31] Of 298 cases reviewed, 89 were I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) organizations.” (page 12 of the report, page 18 of the .pdf below)

      “The Determinations Unit developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with the words Tea Party in their names. These applications (hereafter referred to as potential
      political cases) [13] were forwarded to a team of specialists [14] for review.” (page 5 of the report, page 11 of the .pdf below)

      This “team of specialists” had exactly ONE PERSON who was “assigned potential political cases” from April 2010 until sometime in December 2011. ONE PERSON.

      “[14] Initially, the team consisted of one specialist, but it was expanded to several specialists in December 2011. The EO function referred to this team as the advocacy team.” (page 13 of the report, page 19 of the .pdf below)

      See:
      http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

  • OnPointComments

    I’ve lost count of the number of lies that have been told by the Obama administration about the IRS scandal.  Every day brings new revelations.  At his daily press briefings, Jay Carney has told more stories than Mother Goose, and his stories are just as fanciful and fictitious.  The IRS, DOJ, EPA, FEC, FBI, OSHA, and other agencies all act as the administration’s henchmen.

    • donniethebrasco

       Are you saying that Obama is publicly saying one thing, “The IRS is wrong,” but behind close doors he saying, “Attaboy, Lerner.”

      • nj_v2

        Well, it would be, “Attagirl Learner,” but why let little factual details  get in your way?

        • StilllHere

          You’re pathetic.  Did you see her haircut?  Easy mistake to make.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Wow.

          • StilllHere

            What?  The pantsuit didn’t help either!

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            If you’re gonna make “Lerner isn’t as stereotypically femininely dressed and coiffed as a Fox Newsbunny” jokes, you have sorta misread the room.

            To say the least.

          • John Cedar

            Not playing to the audience in the room.
            Playing to the sensible few in the room.
            I am sure if I go back and look I will see where you took issue with Tyranipocrit’s trolling comments.

          • jimino

             StillStupid.  And so proud of it too.

          • jefe68

            Amazing, is it not.

    • anamaria23

      Please offer some solid proof.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Just wait.  Eric Holder says he will investigate — himself.  I’m sure he’ll have that report very soon.  After all, how many people does he need to talk to.

  • Don_B1

    BULL-FEATHERS, BULL-FEATHERS ! ! !

    The ARRA (Stimulus) of 2009 had less than $300 billion of “shovel-ready” jobs.

    The rest was around $300+ billion of tax cuts and $200 billion of support to the states for education and first responders.

    The amount of “shovel-ready” spending was cut so Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins would give “cover” for Arlen Spector to be the 60th vote for the bill. The Maine Senators required cuts in “shovel-ready” and state support with more in tax cuts.

    Talk about “honest” debate!

    • HonestDebate1

      But there were no shovel ready jobs.

      • Don_B1

        Actually there were, but I guess you never drove anywhere for the last four years to see the signs of work being done.

        There was less than initially claimed, mostly because those making the claims knew of projects that had been talked about for years and thought that more had been done to get them “ready.”

        But a lot of projects were ready and more were able to get ready. But the bigger problem was that the funding needed to be for longer than two years, and that would have allowed more projects, possibly that bridge in WA, to have qualified and got started.

        But that is one of the features of the “Infrastructure Bank,” which would get projects through the approval phase independently of final funding.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          HD didn’t drive past an infrastructure project funded by the stimulus?

          I guess for some people, that means “It didn’t happen to HD, so it doesn’t exist anywhere.”

          I mean, that’s the flip side of the same coin that gives us “I heard one person sell their foodstamps, so one of the most low-fraud programs is riddled with fraud everywhere”.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yea, and now I’m getting the numbers thrown at me. It’s odd that those posting the numbers do not post where the money in the end actually went. It wasn’t where they said it was supposed to go. 

            I just think it’s worth noting the stimulus was not executed as sold and “shovel-ready jobs” was the catch phrase that sold it. I was making a larger point not a literal one. I guess I had it coming.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – you wrote “It’s odd that those posting the numbers do not post where the money in the end actually went.”

            Horse hockey. Again.

            Of course, one expects this from an equine excrement expert such as yourself.

            Perhaps you missed this:

            “About $793.4B has been spent thus far.

            “The ARRA (the 2009 stimulus) was originally for $787 billion (since revised upward per the above), as follows:

            -$288 billion for tax cuts

            -$224 billion for unemployment benefits, education and health care

            -$275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans

            “Of the $275B allocated for job creation, a bit over $253B has been spent, with $37.7B going for Transportation, and $32.1B for Infrastructure.

            “See:
            http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx

            The reason you are “now … getting the numbers thrown at” you is because of the DishonestBlather you wrote -
            “We spent $814 billion on shovel ready jobs… or so we were told.”

            One question – was that statement “Honest”?

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s been discussed on this board already but Monday it will be fresh. Enough with the name calling.

            RWB’s link was better.  

            You looking at the trees again. The “stimulus” wasn’t about stimulus, infrastructure or need. It was about political payoffs, elections and ideology.

            http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2009/12/18/the-partisan-stimulus/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield

            It still would have been okay if it had worked.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – what a bunch of deflective nonsense. And you point to a long out of date conservative blog as evidence of your point? More DishonestBlather.

            Please answer the question. Repeating:

            “…you wrote – “We spent $814 billion on shovel ready jobs… or so we were told.”

            “One question – was that statement “Honest”?”

            As to “name calling” – to what are you referring?

          • HonestDebate1

            Mercatus is hardly a blog. The study was timely and now years later the numbers are even worse. Be Honest.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – yet more deflection. Repeating (again):

            Please answer the question.

            “…you wrote – “We spent $814 billion on shovel ready jobs… or so we were told.”

            “One question – was that statement “Honest”?”

          • HonestDebate1

            You should try to be more like me.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – I’ll put you down for “No, because I, Gregg Smith, am afraid to answer the question.”

        • 1Brett1

          Look, Don, if he goes out on his front porch of his 100 acres and whatever isn’t right in front of him, it doesn’t exist! That’s why he doesn’t see any trace of modern racism, women’s reproductive rights being gradually taken away, the workforce being given the shaft, education being a prevalent path to modern success, or anything else he doesn’t see. And, if he don’t see it, it ain’t worth nobody seein’ no-how!

      • jefe68

        You have to be kidding.

        Here’s one of thousands: Skagit River bridge on Washington State’major north-south artery collapsed.

        http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/video-of-bridge-collapse-north-of-seattle/

        • HonestDebate1

           ”Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.” – President Obama

          • jefe68

            You know the level of inanity I see when the subject of repairing and upgrading the infrastructure, which I think should includ all of it, not just roads and bridges, really is astounding.

            The government can borrow at levels that are at records lows and yet people go on about austerity.
            We are fast, and I mean fast, on our way to being a third or even fourth rate nation interms of our infrastructure across a wide swath of areas. From roads, bridges and rail lines to broadband and the electrical grid. Then there are the gas and oil pipelines, water mains, sewer mains and treatment to add to the list.

            Of course these are not all “shovel ready”. Whatever that means.

            If we had this attitude on the eve of WW2 we would have lost the war.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            The entire NE rail corridor is shovel ready. Imagine doing to those 1920s tracks what the Chinese are doing. High speed rail would make air travel between Boston and NY uncompetitive and would put a dent in air all the way to DC. That would be great! I want to take my government back and do it.

          • HonestDebate1

            Jeffe, I like infrastructure. In a nutshell, here’s what I am trying to say. It’s a talking point to promote Keynesian thinking holding the gullible emotionally hostage by singing “My Fair Lady” and demanding light-rail for ransom. 

            I actually don’t want the bridges to fall down but I can see why you would think that.

          • jefe68

            Because you have not intoned that sentiment perhaps?

            You can’t have it both ways. If you want the infrastructure to be in good shape we need to spend money. It’s a good return on investment. 
            In one sentence you say you “I like infrastructure” and then in the next you poo-poo spending to get it done. So Mr. Austerity, how do you propose to get it done? 
            You want to wait for bridges to fall and for sewer systems to fail?
            How about the state of the airports? 

            And why pray tell is light rail such an issue for right wingers? I mean do you think that cities should just be these giant traffic jams? What’s the point in that? What is the point.
            How is it productive for people to spend hours in their cars everyday getting to and from work?

          • HonestDebate1

            And paying off unions by auctioning off projects to the highestbidder, helps things how? 

          • StilllHere

            Using Barry’s own words to shoot down these losers.  Classic.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            So what? We know world’s worst negotiator conservadem BHO is quick to agree with the other side. That doesn’t change the reality. All you have to do is look around any American city, interstate, rail line, airport, etc and you’ll see all the “shovel ready” projects you want. Actually, as Don_B1 said, plenty of good projects were done under the ARRA. Maybe they are invisible in the faux/rush alt universe. That’s why it was so important in turning around the bush jobs debacle, even tho it was too small and diluted with tax cuts instead of spending. 

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      I really miss official Washington’s fascination with having to make Snowe and Collins happy, in the Senators’  bi-curious phase.

      With sometime-friends like those (and Max Baucus), who needs political enemies?

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there!

    • hennorama

      Don_B1 – from recovery.gov:

      “Estimated American Recovery and Reinvestment Act tax, entitlement, and contract, grant, and loan expenditures have been increased from $787B to $840B to be consistent with the President’s 2012 budget and with scoring changes made by the Congressional Budget Office since the enactment of the Recovery Act in February 2009.”

      About $793.4B has been spent thus far.

      The ARRA (the 2009 stimulus) was originally for $787 billion (since revised upward per the above), as follows:

      -$288 billion for tax cuts

      -$224 billion for unemployment benefits, education and health care

      -$275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans

      Of the $275B allocated for job creation, a bit over $253B has been spent, with $37.7B going for Transportation, and $32.1B for Infrastructure.

      See:
      http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx

    • TomK_in_Boston

      LOL, it’s hard to have a discussion with people who adjust the facts to fit the ideology.

      Absent ideological blinders, it’s obvious that the “failed stimulus” didn’t fail, not that will change their lo-info “minds”.

      http://cloudfront.mediamattersaction.org/static/images/privsec709thru111.jpg

      Now we can move on to the latest expert from Redstate Community College proving that human activity isn’t warming the planet.

  • OnPointComments

    “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”  –Eric Holder testimony under oath before Congress.  Holder signed the search warrant for Fox reporter James Rosen.  Perjury.

    • brettearle

      What are you talking about?

      Search warrants and prosecution are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

      What are you talking about?

      • OnPointComments

        The DOJ accusing James Rosen of being a criminal co-conspirator is “potential prosecution of the press.”  Holder signing the search warrant for Rosen’s phone records is proof that Holder was involved in charging Rosen.

        • hennorama

          OPC – The search warrant in question was part of the investigation of the alleged “leaker”, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim.

          Kim was investigated by the FBI and DOJ, and has been charged with Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information 18 U.S.C. §793(d) (the Espionage Act), and making False Statements 18 U.S.C. §1001(a)(2). Note that the affidavit that is the basis for the
          “controversy” involves allegations of violation of 18 U.S.C. §793(d) (the Espionage Act), and that the investigation has apparently involved Mr. Rosen and others.

          Mr. Rosen has not been named in the investigation of the Kim case (unless his name is part of the [redacted]@gmail.com account’s designation).

          Mr. Rosen has not been “named a criminal co conspirator”.

          Mr. Rosen has not been “charged” with any crime.

          Mr. Rosen has not been accused of any crime.

          Mr. Rosen has not been the “target” of any investigation.

          Mr. Rosen was not searched.

          AG Eric Holder did not “[sign] the search warrant for Fox reporter James Rosen”. Rather, he “signed off on” (as in “approved”) the pursuit of a search warrant.

          Federal Magistrate Judge Alan Kay signed the the search warrant. By the way – Magistrate Judge Kay was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge in September 1991, during the Pres. Bush I administration.

          • OnPointComments

            Wake up and smell the coffee.
             
            “However, it’s something else entirely to go after a reporter who receives the leak. That’s what federal prosecutors are doing to James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News. And they’re going after him not as a witness to a crime—nor as a pressure tactic to get him to give up his source (in this case, the source has already been caught)—but rather, in the words of a Justice Department affidavit, as “an aider, an abettor, and/or a co-conspirator”: in short, as someone who might be indicted under the Espionage Act.”
             
            http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/05/james_rosen_named_a_co_conspirator_why_is_barack_obama_s_justice_department.html 
             
            “Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed off on the warrant that allowed the Justice Department to search Fox News reporter James Rosen’s personal email, NBC News’ Michael Isikoff reported Thursday.
             
            “The report places Holder at the center of one of the most controversial clashes between the press and the government in recent memory. The warrant he approved named Rosen as a “co-conspirator” in a leak investigation, causing many to warn that the Justice Department was potentially criminalizing journalism. The warrant also approved the tracking of Rosen’s movements in and out of the State Department, as well as his communications with his source, Stephen Kim.”
             
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/eric-holder-fox-news-james-rosen-warrant_n_3328663.html 
             
            “Justice Department’s scrutiny of Fox News reporter James Rosen in leak case draws fire”
             http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-20/local/39391158_1_justice-department-classified-information-crime 
             
            “Why the Government Surveillance of Fox’s James Rosen Is Troubling”
             http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/obama-fbi-spying-fox-james-rosen

          • hennorama

            OPC – my points were similar to that of [brettearle], who wrote “Search warrants and prosecution are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.”

            I’m not disputing that Mr. Rosen may have been affected by the investigation of the activities of alleged “leaker”, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. Rather, I am disputing your usage of the words “accusing” and “charging”. There is no basis for their use in this legal context.

            You wrote “The DOJ accusing James Rosen of being a criminal co-conspirator is “potential prosecution of the press.” Holder signing the search warrant for Rosen’s phone records is proof that Holder was involved in charging Rosen.”

            In law, there are important and quite distinct meanings to the words “accuse” and “charge”, as follows:

            “charge

            Definition of charge
            verb
            [with object]

            2 formally accuse (someone) of something, especially an offence under law

            Source:http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/charge?q=charge
            ———-
            “charge

            “n. 1) in a criminal case, the specific statement of what crime the party is accused (charged with) contained in the indictment or criminal complaint. 2) in jury trials, the oral instructions by the judge to the jurors just before the jury begins deliberations. This charge is based on jury instructions submitted by attorneys on both sides and agreed upon by the trial judge. 3) a fee for services.

            Source:http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=176
            ———-
            “accuse

            Definition of accuse
            verb

            [with object] (often accuse someone of)
            charge (someone) with an offence or crime

            Source:http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/accuse?q=accuse

          • OnPointComments

            From the warrant:  “there is probably cause to believe that the Reporter has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. 793 (Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information), at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator of Mr. Kim.”  “Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter, we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials…”  “…there is probably cause to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim) has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. 793 either as Mr. Kim’s co-conspirator and/or abettor.”

            I’m sure you’ll agree that Holder’s statement that “potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of” is patently false since he signed the search warrant.

          • HonestDebate1

            And GWB nominated the backtracking blundering Democrat, Doug Shulman. The libs have been trying to make hay out of that too. Bill Clinton nominated Mr. Slam Dunk. I don’t understand why it matters.

            There is a reason they went to a lowly magistrate Judge instead of a District Judge. There is a reason the first judge denied the warrant. So they told the second Judge there was probable cause Rosen was a co-conspirator in an Espionage Act thing and voila. It stinks to high heaven.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith AKA HeDebatesNot – TYFYR.

            Your statements “And GWB nominated the backtracking blundering Democrat, Doug Shulman. The libs have been trying to make hay out of that too.” imply that my comments were “making hay” of something.

            As one realizes that you are likely more expert at “making hay” than are others, please enlighten us as to the exact meaning intended by those statements.

            Please also provide a source for your repeated claim “…the first judge denied the warrant”, as you have yet to do so. Remember to be “honest”.

            Rather than waiting for the unlikely replies to the above, one shall proceed with a few points:

            #1 It’s fair to conclude that you think there is some import to my statements “Federal Magistrate Judge (FMJ) Alan Kay signed the the search warrant. By the way – Magistrate Judge Kay was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge in September 1991, during the Pres. Bush I administration.”

            There is – Magistrate Judge Kay has extensive experience at the U.S. District Court, D.C since 1991, as indicated.

            Magistrate Judge Kay is both a former public defender and a former Federal prosecutor. Perhaps the most notable cases he has presided over were the habeas corpus cases of several detainees at Guantanamo.

            #2 It is also fair to conclude that you are under the erroneous impression that FMJ’s are Presidential appointees, as you made reference to various Presidential nominations in your comment.

            They are not.

            FMJs are appointed solely by the U.S. District Court Judges of the District in which they serve, for terms of up to eight years. FMJs can be reappointed.

            (The “… during the Pres. Bush I administration” reference was a hemoglobin-hued herring, which you bit on, and hard).

            #3 You apparently consider Federal Magistrate Judges to be “lowly”. This is erroneous. They serve very important functions, including issuing search warrants, presiding over initial appearances, as well as complete trials.

            See:
            http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_magistrate.html

            As you seem to be completely lacking in knowledge of the Federal Magistrate Judge system, as well as Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 41. Search and Seizure, one must advise you to limit your commentary to more familiar topics, such as hay, horse hockey, and honking honey’s horns.

          • HonestDebate1

            The DOJ first went to a district court judge who ruled they had to inform Rosen about monitoring his email. The DOJ wanted a warrant to monitor the emails indefinitely. The proven good soldier U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen kicked it down a notch and appealed the decision to a Magistrate Judge. He spiced it up with a 1917 oldie but goodie and a co-conspirtiter fabrication. 

            It’s a totem pole thing. Magistrate Judges are at the bottom.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – please note that one has not forgotten that you wrote “There is a reason the first judge denied the warrant.”

            This is false.

            The original request for a search warrant was indeed granted by the Court. Federal Magistrate Judge (FMJ) Alan Kay, who was “the first judge” signed it. (see page 12 of the .pdf below)

            FMJ Kay approved the original warrant request, and indicated that “immediate notification may have an adverse result” and authorized “the officer executing this warrant to delay notice…”for 30 days”. (same as above)

            The DOJ then moved for “Clarification Of Notice Obligations Of E-mail Search Warrant”, since they did not agree with the 30 day requirement. (see pages 15 through 18 of the .pdf below)

            FMJ Kay then contacted Gregg A. Maisel of the USA’s Office, and “indicated that he had checked the box on the face of the warrant in error and believed that the law was clear that the Government had no notice obligation for the warrant regardless of whether or not the issuing judge checked the box on the face of the warrant delaying notice.” (see page 57)

            FMJ Kay then annotated a copy of the original approved warrant, indicating that the notice box was “Checked in error.” (see page 54)

            As one might imagine, this muddle needed to be clarified by an independent third party, which led to the involvement of Judge John M. Facciola, who wrote an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

            Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting the alleged leaker, Mr, Kim, then appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia granted USA Machen’s request to overturn Judge Facciola’s order.

            See:http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/703604/doc24.pdf

          • HonestDebate1

            No, I am not false. All of the above happened after the first judge denied the request.

          • HonestDebate1

            BTW, the unlikely replies thing is funny coming from you given your recent and past history. You have a track record of ignoring, changing the subject or getting snarky when cornered. I cornered you on Benghazi, you ran. I cornered you on the IRS, you ignored. I even cornered you about Obama issuing an EO to end deportations of certain illegals. You really are funny.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith AKA HeDebatesNot – TYFYR. I’m glad you enjoyed my “humor”.

            I’ll put you down for, “No, I, Gregg Smith, am afraid to respond to direct inquiries. The only tactics I, Gregg Smith, know are to ignore the inquiry, try to change the subject, and to get snarky. Despite the fact that I have repeatedly written that ‘I don’t care about some perceived victory on a stupid blog’, I will also try to change the subject by bringing up some of my perceived victories on this stupid blog”.

          • HonestDebate1

            Humor? That’s rich, you use an awful lot of quotation marks.

            There was no one on the ground in Benghazi who blamed the video for murder. You’ll right a book to defend the lie but hide when you are proven wrong.

            To be intellectually honest you should demand Obama answer if he knew about the IRS thing. And now that’s it’s clear people in the White House did know, you should be curious about his parsing. 

            But you ran. It’s loony and evidently I’m not the only one who thinks so.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith AKA HeDebatesNot – TYFYR.

            It is difficult to understand your words, as they are odd and unclear. For example: “Humor? That’s rich, you use an awful lot of quotation marks.”

            Exactly what were you attempting to communicate with these words?

            Rather than waiting for the unlikely reply to the above, as none has yet been forthcoming, one shall proceed with a few points:

            #1 My use of the term “humor” was a response to your prior remark “BTW, the unlikely replies thing is funny coming from you …” Sorry if you were unable to understand this simple reference, as indicated by your use of a question mark.

            #2 You still have not explained my previous inquiry, which was (with emphasis added):

            [Your statements “And GWB nominated the backtracking blundering Democrat, Doug Shulman. The libs have been trying to make hay out of that too.” imply that my comments were “making hay” of something.
            As one realizes that you are likely more expert at “making hay” than are others, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US AS TO THE EXACT MEANING INTENDED BY THOSE STATEMENTS.]

            #3 You appear to believe that having the last word on a topic means that you have won the argument. I disagree.

            Quoting you here:

            “I am quite happy to reply without rebuttal and have the last word.”

            See:http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/02/21/feminine-mystique#comment-807394388

            #4 I disagree with all of your following words:

            “There was no one on the ground in Benghazi who blamed the video for murder. You’ll right a book to defend the lie but hide when you are proven wrong.
            To be intellectually honest you should demand Obama answer if he knew about the IRS thing. And now that’s it’s clear people in the White House did know, you should be curious about his parsing.
            But you ran. It’s loony and evidently I’m not the only one who thinks so.”

            #5 Is “right a book” the opposite of “wrong a book”? Just curious.

          • HonestDebate1

            You had the last word if I recall, but whatever. It’s there for anyone who cares.

          • hennorama

            Word.

  • Don_B1

    I guess he knows his butt is NOT sweet!

    Now I am experiencing DISQUS! ! ! ! I might apologize, but not for DISQus!

  • mctommy

    I so love this show, but I’m getting increasingly tired of Tom Ashbrook’s interruption of guests when a station ID or transition is approaching.  He reached a new low today by crashing into a great discussion between Major and Meredith at the end of the show. Listen to a tape of the last five minutes. It’s unnecessary, rude and annoying. Stop! 

    • brettearle

      If we were to point out the faults of every consummate professional–broadcaster or otherwise–then we would wind up being negative, for the sake of being negative.

      I think we’re quite lucky to have a guy a like Tom Ashbrook, in our midst–warts and all.

      And those warts are miniscule, compared to his enormous breadth and high-wired Intellect.

      • zzowee

        I agree completely. While it would be “rude” by casual conversation standards, Tom’s management keeps the discussion on point, which is immensely valuable when covering complex topics.

  • donniethebrasco

    Obama’s gaffe:

    In a long-awaited speech at the National Defense University, Barack Obama claimed that the nature of international terror attacks threatening the United States has changed since Sept. 11, 2001, with ‘no large-scale attacks’ on America occurring since then.

    But his definition of ‘large-scale attacks,’ his speech made clear, doesn’t include the 2013 Boston Marathon attack that wounded hundreds, the 2012 Benghazi terror attack that injured dozens and killed four, and
    the 2009 attack at Fort Hood that killed 13 and injured 30.

    All those attacks had the potential to leave far more American bodies in their wake than they actually did.

    • OnPointComments

      According to the Obama administration, the Fort Hood attack by a radical Islamist screaming “Allahu Akbar” was workplace violence and doesn’t count.

      • jimino

        What legal obligation does any government have to compensate victims of terrorism?  The answer is “none” in the absence of some special legislation.

        On the other hand, those hurt in the course of employment, and their survivors, are entitled to workers compensation without expecting, waiting for, or getting special treatment.

        If these victims were NOT injured during the course of employment (which any non-moron can plainly understand is the case), to whom would they seek redress for their injuries?

    • jimino

      So you equate what happened in with the Boston Marathon bombing and Ft Hood shooting, and an attack in a troubled foreign country to what happened on 9-11-01 in New York, D.C. and Pennsylvania.

      I can’t think of anyone with the possible exception of 4 brainwashed individuals who would agree.

    • hennorama

      donniethebrasco – at least have the courtesy of attributing the words you quote to the original source, rather than having it appear to be your own nonsensical thoughts.

      Your quote IN ITS ENTIRETY was lifted from this article:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329815/Obama-stretches-terror-definitions-national-security-speech-claims-large-scale-attacks-United-States-9-11.html

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i really think they maxed out those pressure cookers and was always surprised that guy got so many rounds off on a military base. what actually happened is more important than what may have happened. i dont count the underhwere or shoe bombers or times square bombers as attacks since they were foiled by the american public

      • 1Brett1

        How many terrorist attacks have been thwarted by US intelligence vs. citizen reporting? I mean, you obviously have inside information on all of that; you must know?

        Sentence 1) Rhetorical question
        Sentence 2) Sarcasm

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          someday brett you will have the rhetorical skills to not have to identfy the devices you use.  are you trying to say that the “US intelligence” has thwarted terror attacks in the US and not told us? maybe the TSA catches terrorists all the time and just keeps it a secret because they would not want any distraction in the media form their junk touching problems?
          there have been a few stories where the fbi monitors people then gives them fake bombs and arrests them. i am not sure if those count either since its not clear they could accomplish anything without the help and encouragement of the FBI. whats the point of communicating with only sarcasm and rhetorical questions?

          • 1Brett1

            What devices do I use? 

            Am I trying to say US intelligence keeps secrets (which they don’t make public every investigation they are working on; that’s common knowledge), or was I saying that attacks thwarted by US intelligence far exceed any efforts by ordinary citizens? 

            And what is that nonsense about TSA keeping secrets/using such as a prevention of media distraction? Where do you get such nonsense?

            What are your sources about FBI planting bombs on people then arresting them? …Such nonsense upon nonsense…On second thought, your “sources” 100% of the time either turn out to be no sources at all or sources of such dubious origin they are laughable.

            Why do you respond if you see no point in responding. Besides, I’ve told you I will identify when I’m being sarcastic or rhetorical, so you either can be assured of such to increase your understanding of my intent or you can ignore them altogether.

  • OnPointComments

    Senator Obama about US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, 2007:
     
    “Although he seemed to be a capable attorney, he seemed to conceive his role as being the President’s attorney, instead of being the people’s attorney, and part of the role of the Attorney General is to say to the Executive Branch ‘here are the limits of your power, here are the things you can’t do.’  I don’t think Alberto Gonzalez ever told the president that there was something he could not do, and so as a consequence when the White House decides that uh… that a US attorney is now carrying out the political vendettas of uh… of the White House, then there are some questions as to whether Gonzalez was encouraged to fire these individuals.  You’ve got a situation in terms the FBI where the procedures used for issuing national security letters seemed to have been uh… completely sloppy and and, and, based on erroneous facts.  There doesn’t seem to be any oversight there.  What you get a sense of is an Attorney General who saw himself as an enabler of the administration as opposed to somebody who was actually trying to look out for the American people’s interests.  And for that reason I think it’s time for him to step down and for another Attorney General who can exercise some independence to be put for the remainder of this president’s term.”
     
    2008-2013:  Obama recess appointments ruled unconstitutional.  DOJ Fast & Furious.  IRS targets conservatives.  EPA targets conservatives.  Federal court rules Obama administration secret FBI letters unconstitutional.  Religious organizations mandated to provide contraception.  Leaking of private tax information.  Journalists’ phone records seized.  Sebelius extorts money for Obamacare.  
     
    Six years later, May 16, 2013:  “I have complete confidence in Eric Holder as attorney general.” –President Barack Obama

  • DrewInGeorgia
  • Trond33

    In reference to the show earlier in the week about the North American oil boom.  A number of commenters attempted to make the point that “green is not green,” that there is pollution involved in the original manufacturing of green equipment.

    While this argument holds true for “green” vehicles, such as electric vehicles, it is a false argument for green power generating equipment, such as wind turbines and solar panels.  

    Considered on a macro level – the first “generation” of green power generating equipment relied upon fossil fuel for its creation.  The second generation of such equipment relied partly upon fossil fuel and on offsets by the previous generation of green equipment.  Somewhere around the 2.5 generation, new green power generating equipment is pollution neutral, completely offset by the previous generations that have repaid their original pollution and are now paying into the positive side of the equation.  Currently, thanks to China’s colossal investment in this industry, we are around the third generation.  

    New green power generating equipment is by its very nature now carbon neutral, and will continue to be so into the future.  Another strong argument for increasing investment and development of green equipment. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       I think you missed the point.  If you understand your argument correctly you are concentrating on CO2 emissions as ‘green’.

      There is much more to it.  There are about 50 toxic chemicals used in the manufacture of solar cells.  If these are not used or disposed of properly they can do major environmental damage.  Further, the solar panels must be disposed of properly after their 20 year lifespan or they will be another potential source of pollution.

      I’m not arguing that these problems can’t be solved but they need consideration in the life cycle analysis.

      • Trond33

        While there is validity in your argument, on a worldwide macro scale, it is negated.  Sure there are toxic chemicals in manufacturing of green power generating equipment, but one has to look at the associated cost.  The green equipment is replacing traditional fossil that have even higher numbers of toxic chemicals.  It is a trade off, what is ultimately better.

        My overall argument that “…”green is not green,” that there is pollution involved in the original manufacturing of green equipment…” is a false argument, does in fact stand true. 

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          You are ignoring one factor in your green begets green nirvana: cost.   Our goal should be to develop technologies that are “cheaper than coal”.  Only then we will have a solution that will scale and truly make an impact.

          And don’t tell me solar is competitive today.  Solar here in MA — after the subsidies –is only competitive when the state mandates utilities purchase all solar power at $.27/khw wholesale vs. $.037/khw.  A 7X markup.  Who pays?  The rate payers — including the poor.  No, this doesn’t scale.

          http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323485704578258172660564886.html

          • Trond33

            No, no, you are straying outside my argument and dragging in other issues.  Focus on my original argument.  Contesting an argument by dragging in externalities is not a valid argument.  It is only useful to drag attention away from the original argument, which underscores the validity of the original argument. 

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            OK.  However, you should have included nuclear power generating equipment along with solar and wind since  nuclear also meets your definition of ‘green’: no CO2 emissions while generating power.

            And even better, nuclear power is scalable.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            they should lease their roof space then they can get lower electricity rates

  • WorriedfortheCountry

     Ray, you posted a link to a Guardian article on a recent paper that defended the accuracy of Climate models (circa late ’90s) predicting the last decade of climate.

    Here is an analysis of said paper for your digestion.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/global-warming-predictions-prove-accurate-guardian/

    Here is your original link:
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/27/climate-change-models-predict-remarkably-accurate-results/

    • Ray in VT

      It is what it is.  Myles says that the forecast was right for 1996-2012, although if the current stabilization continues, then it will be out of range in a few years.  Many scientists have said that warming may not be continual and that pauses may occur.  This may be a pause, or it may be a stabilization.  Only time will tell.  The current thinking is that the excess heat energy is being cycled into the deep ocean, and that sort of effect was not anticipated. Ultimately models are a best guess based upon what is known and what can be best thought to occur given that and other known changing factors.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Yes, it is what it is.

        But can we believe Dr. Allen?  Can we believe him when he says this on March 26, 2013?

        “Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.
        But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower. Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.”

        http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/myles-allen-was-wrong-before-he-was-right-lol-yeh-id-hide-that-behind-a-paywall-too/

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

        • Ray in VT

          Sure.  Higher estimates look iffy based upon the past several years.  5 degrees would be pretty bad, but even the lower end of 1.5 or so could cause some pretty significant changes that could harm some regions and people significantly, especially given that 1.5 would be an average and some areas would likely see more than that.  It would not take too great of a temperature increase to severely impact the ski industry in the Northeast, heavily impacting the economy.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I’m just happy to hear the scientists — including the warmist scientists — admit that the science isn’t settled.  Now if only the media would get with the program all would be good.

          • Ray in VT

            I don’t think that such statements do anything to alter the science that says that the planet is warming and that human activities are playing a role.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             I’d change it to “planet has been warming” — we still  don’t know about the future.  The ‘human’ contribution to past and any potential future warming is the key question to be answered.

          • jefe68

            Well one thing is known. If the trend continues there will weaker tornadoes in the Midwest as they need those large cold air fronts from the North.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             I guess that is true IF the warming reduces the contrasts in air masses.

          • Ray in VT

            That is true.  The future is notoriously hard to predict.  I know that you are skeptical regarding what you consider to be the more alarmist positions of some, and I also generally attempt to stay away from extreme positions.  You know that I am also skeptical of many of the skeptics and their positions, given what I consider to be some concerns regarding their sources of funding and ties.  Ultimately what contribution human activities are making may take quite a while to accurately determine.  My worry is that if we take the low-ball approach and are wrong, then we could be royally screwed, and I know that you have great concerns about measures that could hurt economic activity and growth, should those higher predictions and worse outcomes not be the case.  Ultimately I think that we need to do what we can in the short run, and I think that there is a lot that we can do, personally and in terms of governmental action, in order to reduce what harms that we know that we are doing as well as what we may be doing, and to continue to study and revise what we know about the state of the climate and how it is changing.

          • HonestDebate1

            And you were hassling me about Phil Jones!

  • Trond33

    The United States is held hostage by the military industrial complex.  It is big business and reaping great profits.  Underpinning a propaganda war of fear to win the minds of The People.  I said so in 2001 and will say it again, this is what is financially and morally bankrupting the US.  No longer can the US afford global intervention and increasingly the US is seen as part of the problem, not part of the solution. 

  • StilllHere

    Could we hear more about how great Northern Europe is from the liberals here?  Better hurry up before Stockholm is burned to the ground.

    • jefe68

      There is really something seriously wrong with you.

      • StilllHere

        wanker

    • Ray in VT

      Could we perhaps hear how great the Bible Belt and the Deep South are, considering that those regions have been pretty consistently run by conservatives for a century or more.  For instance, how much better is Alabama than Massachusetts.

      • StilllHere

        Is Alabama currently on fire?

        • jefe68

          Not yet.

      • jefe68

        What that comment tells me is this guy knows nothing or refuses to look at what was and is the root causes of the riots in Stockholm. They are in a neighborhood that is poor and predominately immigrant with high unemployment. It does not take much to set off a spark. Add ot that the upsurge in anti-Muslim right wing rhetoric in Europe, and you have the recipe for this kind of rioting.

        It happened in Brixton in the 80′s, in LA in the 90′s and it can and will happen here as more people are left on the sidelines and are living in larger slums.

        The difference in cites such as Stockholm and Paris is the poor are housed in high rise estates away from the city centers. 

        People like this still character like to muckrake.
        They like throwing fule on the fire, kind of social arsonist. 

        • jimino

          I guess that’s what Sweden gets for stepping up to the plate and accommodating more than 10x, per capita, the number of refugees from countries torn apart by our war on terror, than the land of the free and the home of the brave does.

      • HonestDebate1

        I love Mobile during Mardi Gras! Montgomery has a kicking music scene too. The Tuscaloosa frat party gigs were a hoot and who could forget that night at the “War Eagle” in Auburn when we had to tow the truck the last 200 miles from Nashville the night before only to find out the bass player had split the band? 

        Thanks for the memories. I love Alabama.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        the southern man don’t want you around anyhow

    • Tyranipocrit

       most people here are brainwashed dumb obtuse myopic jerk off tea bagging idiot conservatives.  Shut the F-up!

      • pete18

        Meds must have run out.

        • StilllHere

          maybe he saw an internet video that radicalized him

        • Tyranipocrit

          hahahahahah–du du dot! u sia dit again,.. that one never gets old for you huh. heee heee heee.

  • hennorama

    Today is the first day that 89,000 IRS employees are being furloughed, due to sequestration.

    See:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sequester-hits-irs-89000-employees-furloughed/story?id=19022630#.UZPGD6LUnDk

    FTA:

    “The first furlough days will include May 24, June 14, July 5, July 22 and August 30, with another two days possible in August or September.

    “On these days, all operations directed at the public, including toll-free help and Taxpayer Assistance Centers, will be closed.

    “According to the IRS Data Book, these furloughed services were used by more than 97 million taxpayers in the 2012 fiscal year. The agency processed more than 237 million tax returns and provided $373 billion in refunds to taxpayers, while collecting $2.5 trillion for the federal government.

    “IT and security personnel may be required to work though the agency-wide furlough days, but will still have to include alternative off days into their schedules.”

    It’s doubtful that these fabulously fun furloughs, combined with the recent controversy, will help improve morale at the IRS. No doubt these factors will not improve the ultimate performance of their thankless duties.

    • OnPointComments

      I doubt you’ll find many who will weep with you over the plight of the IRS.  I’ve dealt with the IRS for decades, and have friends at Fortune 500 and midsize companies who deal with them constantly.  It would be charitable to say that the employees of the IRS are not the best and the brightest.  I and my friends have witnessed IRS agents who show up to examine records carrying a portable TV to watch, fall asleep at the desk, don’t return after lunch, don’t show up for appointments, don’t return phone calls or emails or regular mail, and drag out investigations interminably.  And that’s just their poor work ethic.  God help you if you end up with one of the IRS agents who doesn’t understand the tax law, and there are a lot of them out there.
       
      Perhaps they can use their fabulously fun furloughs to bond with their bud Lois Lerner while she enjoys her taxpayer-paid vacation after refusing to testify about what happened at the division she headed.

      • hennorama

        OPC – TY for your response.

        I am not “weep[ing] … over the plight of the IRS.” Rather, I am pointing out a fact that few likely know – the IRS is furloughing employees, starting today.

        In addition, as TF pointed out “Cutting the government’s accounts receivable department ..” makes little sense.

        The point of the sequester is deficit reduction. Reducing the work hours of those who collect 93 percent of Federal revenues, process the forms (one complaint was delayed processing of tax-exempt applications, remember?), and try to root out tax cheats, will likely result in revenue reductions exceeding the salary savings.

        In other words, adding to the deficit rather than reducing it.

        And of course I share your disdain of those in the IRS who may have a poor work ethic or a lack of skill, and your frustrations in dealing with such employees.

        But as a deficit reduction measure, this is also “not the best and the brightest”.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          i thought the point of the sequester was to put the screws to the american people to convince us all we need more govt spending?

          • 1Brett1

            That was a miss, but keep trying. Developing one’s humor takes time; don’t get discouraged.

        • HonestDebate1

          The government’s accounts always receive when all is said and done, furlough or no furlough. 

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Cutting the government’s accounts receivable department is something that Tom and Jack touched on in today’s show.

      What will it take for public radio to make it part of the narrative when we talk deficit, starting, oh, six months ago? Because us dirty hippies have been all over it.

      • hennorama

        TF – TY for your response.

        There will be lower tax collections due to fewer audits, lower payroll and income taxes paid by the IRS workers, etc. etc. etc. If memory serves, this nonsense is similar to the budget cuts and furloughs imposed by Dee Guvinator, Ahhhnold Schwarzenegger in California a few years ago.

        (a quick search found this Policy Brief, published about 8 months into the 2009 CA budget cuts):

        http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/californiabudget/furloughs09.pdf

        Excerpts:

        “Furloughs of workers in revenue-generating departments like the Franchise Tax Board and the proportional reduction in funds to the Board of Equalization are projected to result in a loss of $363 million in tax collections in FY 09–10 and $312 million in the subsequent years. In addition, licensing bureaus have reported increased backlogs, which will result in delayed revenue into special funds.”

        AND:

        “Subtracting the Losses

        “The furloughs are projected to result in losses of state tax revenue that will offset a significant part of the savings. The pay reduction will result directly in a loss of $60 million in state income tax payments.

        “The Franchise Tax Board (FTB) estimates that the loss of work time for audits due to furloughs will result in an additional loss or delay of $231 million in income tax collections in FY 09–10

        “It further projects a loss or delay of $211 million in FY 10–11 and $264 million in FY 11–12 to the General Fund; $54 million of this would be recouped in subsequent years. Adding up the lost income taxes and adjusting for the collection of delayed funds, the General Fund will see a total loss of $652 million.

        “While the Board of Equalization (BOE) is not required to furlough its workers, it is taking a proportional budget cut of $24 million. It estimates that these cuts will result in a loss or delay of a $264 million in sales taxes and fees, of which $156 million would have gone to the General Fund.

        “If we assume that the delayed revenue to the BOE is paid back over two years, it would translate into a total
        loss of General Fund revenue of $423 million in FY 09–10 and $312 million over the following years, for a total loss of $735 million.”

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Ahnuld may actually turn out to be this country’s last celebrity governor. That may be the end of an era.

          I mean, he wouldn’t have gotten there without all the worst people calling themselves his friends (coughEnroncough).

          Got in over his head, too, as you’ve noted.

          But he wanted to actually governate. And did some real policy things in the middle. That puts him a lap ahead of many folks callng themselves right-wing.

          Imagine how bad that would have been in CA if he were a run-it-to-ruin it Republican, like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.

          • hennorama

            TF – TY for your response.

            Looking back at Schwarzenegger’s time as CA Governor, one can give him credit for two things:

            #1 Backing the landmark climate regulations included in CA Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act, which passed in 2006 and is the reason that there is now a well-functioning Cap-and-Trade Program in that state. Last week’s auction produced record prices.

            See:http://theenergycollective.com/silviomarcacci/229331/california-s-third-cap-and-trade-auction-sells-out-record-price

            #2 Schwarzenegger tried just about everything possible to deal with California’s budget problems, and failed miserably on all fronts. This pointed out the problems with the budget process and resultant fiscal nightmare, which led to the repeal of the 2/3 majority requirement for budget approval.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      maybe the irs should go on strike. i am sure the public outcry would have them back on the job in no time

      • 1Brett1

        Now, see, that was funny! 

  • twenty_niner

    Kyoto was rejected by the Senate because there were no binding emmission targets for the third world. At that time, the US was producing 23% of the global CO2 emmissions with China at around 14%. Now, the US is a distant second to China at 15%, compared to China’s 26%.

    Factor in human-rights abuses, IP theft, slave labor to make our iCrap, toxic-smog bombs that make it all the way to Japan, and rivers filled covered for miles with pig carcasses:

    LIBERALS!!!! you’re fighting the wrong fight! You’re all worked up about Rush Limbaugh, and Reagan, and Rand Paul, and Fox, and the Tea Party, and Red States, and the Constitution. These are small potatoes.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Those are good fights, 29er, and there’s the fight against voodoo econ class warfare. Unfortunately, you do have to go through faux/rush to get to them.

      I understand abt the 3′rd world and CO2. Fact remains, we’re f***ed at 400ppm and rising, and I wish the USA would lead. If nothing else, it would position us in the technologies that will be increasingly important.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         It isn’t clear that 400ppm is problematic.  However, if you are concerned about CO2  there is good news.  We are in compliance with the 1997 Kyoto treaty even though we didn’t sign it.

        The largest CO2 power generation technology is nuclear.  It was developed by the US.  After 40 years of obstruction by activists we have ceded our lead to other countries –  mostly China and South Korea.  So sad.

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/22/america_no_longer_leads_in_nuclear_technology_118505.html

        • TomK_in_Boston

          It’s clear to everyone who hasn’t been brainwashed by the media bought by the fossil fuel industry. And remember, it’s not stopping at 400.

          I think you mean CO2-free tech or something like that. It’s true, with the prospect of climate Armageddon, even Sendai doesn’t look so bad.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Sorry, I follow the science and not the spin.  The science isn’t ‘settled’ — it never was — and since there has been no warming in 17 years in land based measurements and 23 years in the satellite measurements even the warmist scientists are scrambling to understand what they ‘thought they understood’.

            Sendai?  Is that a Fukishima reference?  btw – I concede fission nuclear isn’t nirvana.  What kills me is the retardation of progress because of the false fears.  I’m hopeful that molten salt reactors will be developed soon to solve the cost, safety and waste issues.  We could have had them now and be a lot further along.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Please, no TP. Science is never “settled” on something as complex as climate. It’s standard high school debate tactics to say it’s not “settled”, so we can forget it. Science proceeds by a sequence of best guesses. The best current guess is that the planet is in deep trouble with 400 ppm. No responsible person will ignore that.

            Sendai is closest city to fukushima, as in “sendai earthquake”, and home to friends of mine.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I never said we should ignore it.  Certainly study it.  I just disagree with your assessment that the “best current guess” is 400ppm means we are in deep trouble.  Sure, many scientists do believe that and many do not.  However, many scientists that WERE very concerned are less concerned as the new data comes in.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Sorry, it’s not some do/some don’t. False equivalence. The real climate scientists think there is a problem, overall. And remember, anyone who says there is NOT a problem would get a flood of fossil fuel money.

            All you have to do is look at historical climate vs CO2 and you are very concerned.  Not to “study”, to do something. You don’t try to spin it away and say things will be different this time. 

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Correlation is not causality.

            So the “real climate scientists” are the ones that  believe what you believe?

            And don’t forget to blame the Kochs.

            IMHO, climate science is in its infancy.  Also, IMHO the fear mongering and chicken little propaganda promoted by a few scientist activists, politicians and the media hurts their cause because we can no longer trust them.

            I suspect we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one because neither of use can prove who is correct.

          • Tyranipocrit

            oil pig brainwashed rush alter boy

          • Tyranipocrit

            the science is–blah blah–shut the F up idiot!

        • Tyranipocrit

           yeah why dont you argue over petty numbers.  wake the F–up!

    • Tyranipocrit

       i hear what you are saying about China–i really do.  But your heroes are ar tof ther problem–your tea bags and fat pigs are the ones sending all the jobs to china and working very close with china to pollute and destroy.  The chinese gov and many chinese people tend to think more like tea bags then they do “liberals”.  So if all these things are a problem as you say–it is you dirty tea bags causing the problem.  STOP allowing corporations and the !% from avoiding taxes and getting tax incentives to export jobs to china–stop allowing our scrotums from exploiting the wrteched chinese.

      • twenty_niner

        “your tea bags and fat pigs are the ones sending all the jobs to china”

        Actually it was Bill Clinton and Al Gore who campaigned hard to get China Most Favored Nation Status, and succeeded. Globalization has been a bipartisan effort. The only major politician I can recall campaigning against it was Ross Perot.

        Further, a lot of the “tea bags” as you refer to them, refuse to buy imports, and actively seek out products made in the US. I suggest you do the same:

        http://store.americangusset.com/

        • Tyranipocrit

          you suggest i do the same do ya–well guss what tea bag–i buy local and organic–i suggest you do the same. dont give political bullshit–you forgot to mention nixon, reagan, bush one and two and cheny and all your neo con friends in corporate fascism. what about you kock friends? why would you parrot gore and clinton to me–/. how limited is your mind? what makes you think i care about them or that i would even disagree? Your problem is your think the 2 party sytem is actually a 2 party system.

  • zzowee

    There should be a whole program about the long view. Those are my favorite shows/episodes.

    Actually, I’m hoping they do one about what constitutes terrorism. It’s time we looked at the area where the micro meets the macro: mental illness and personal discontent overlapping with political motivations.

  • JONBOSTON

    Incredible that On-Point didn’t even highlight in its lead the IRS testimony when Ms Lerner took the fifth. What’s become of this program? Does it now take its cues from the NYT which relegated Ms Lerner’s testimony to page 6 of the business section? Nevertheless I was glad to see that Major Garrett was on today’s program. He’s one of the few members of the mainstream media who hasn’t abdicated the media’s past guiding principle of impartiality, objectivity, and desire for accuracy. Not coincidentally he’s the former White House correspondent for Fox News, which will get the respect it deserves as a news organization when the Obama stain on this republic has been finally wiped clean. Too often Fox’s detractors conflate commentary on Fox News (O’Reilly, Hannity) with hard news reporting ( Brett Baer at 6, Shephard Smith and Chris Wallace’s Fox Sunday News ). Never has the prevailing bias of the media been so closely aligned with the ideological aims and political interests of the party in power. Witness the corrosive effect this has had on the once admired New York Times. Witness On-Point’s Jack Beatty, who maintains a false pretense of objectivity when he’s nothing more than a pathetic shill for Obama and the Democrat Party. It’s gotten so bad and he’s become so predictable that I literally shout out his comments before he’s made them. 

    • OnPointComments

      Even the New York Times has had its eyes opened to the unconstitutional actions of the Obama administration.
       
      “Only Nixon Harmed a Free Press More”
       http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/21/obama-the-media-and-national-security/only-nixon-harmed-a-free-press-more 
       
      Excerpt:
       
      “The search warrant filed to investigate the Fox News reporter James Rosen proved as many had suspected: President Obama wants to make it a crime for a reporter to talk to a leaker. It is a further example of how President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom.
       
      “The government’s subpoena of The Associated Press’s phone records was bad enough. But the disclosure of the search warrant in the Rosen case shows President Obama has delved into territory never before reached by previous presidents.
       
      “The Justice Department obtained Rosen’s e-mail by using a search warrant in which it alleged that Rosen was a co-conspirator with a government adviser named Stephen Kim.”
       
      “Another Chilling Leak Investigation”
       http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/another-chilling-leak-investigation.html 
       
      Excerpt:
       
      “With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.”

      • Tyranipocrit

         Fox is not free press–its a criimnal abomination.  How soo we forget it was rupert murdoch who spied on other journalists and ministers.  It has never once released news or truth–it is a hate organization and spreads lies harmful to society–it should be dismantled.  And it should be monitored very closely along with all republicans, and tea bags and all thE 1%–WHO HAVE MADE IT THIER MISSION TO DESTROY AMERICA.  The IRS was doing its job.  Obama should monitor all terrorist organizations–that includes FOx news and the fat man.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Yeah, the OnceAdmiredNYT’s Bill Keller is saying,

      “The president should announce that he has told the Justice Department to appoint an independent investigator with bulldog instincts and bipartisan credibility. The list of candidates could start with Kenneth Starr, who chased down the scandals, real and imagined, of the Clinton presidency.”

      What a fekking hoot. Who couldaknode that he would say “Get back a panel of everyone who hunted the last Democratic president to hunt this one; Ken Starr did such a good job last time”.

      • OnPointComments

        I doubt that Attorney General Eric Holder will do a complete and impartial investigation of his own violations of the US Constitution, as he has been charged to do by President Obama.
         
        Only a true knave could believe that the decision to investigate and charge Fox News reporter James Rosen, after the administration had publicly complained about Fox News and excluded the news organization from press meetings, is coincidence.  But I have no doubt that there will be some who believe this, and who also believe that it was simply serendipity that caused Lois Lerner, with her history of attacking conservative organizations, to direct the IRS to target conservatives.

    • 1Brett1

      Please…Beatty a shill for “Obama and the Democrat[ic]” Party? He’s a Democrat, but I’ve heard him criticize Obama and Democrats a lot in his commentary. 

      But paint with your broad brush; you’ll get admirers like the “StillHere” lady and “OnPointComments” who’ll suck up to anybody with an axe to grind against any and all things “liberal.” Yeah, that’s impressive.

      • JONBOSTON

        If you ever contributed anything to this blog that would be impressive too. Are you intellectually capable of making an argument that focuses on the points raised by the poster rather than focus on the poster? I doubt it. Let me guess-another low information voter? Or am I giving you too much credit?

        • 1Brett1

          If you necons made any valid points then I would. 

          Considering your pissy tone and various potshots, then your subsequent questioning about why I don’t reply with substance, is it any wonder you aren’t going to promote reasonable discourse from me? 

          I’m beginning to think neocons are just clods who walk around like bulls in china shops and wonder why dishes are being broken.

          • JONBOSTON

            I guess I gave you too much credit. 

          • 1Brett1

            back atcha

    • Gregg Smith

      ..

      • hennorama

        a ghastly ghost guest appearance?

        • 1Brett1

          Oops…now the government is gonna come and herd him down a hole for his views! And to think of all that running up and down his street trying to get a wifi signal off his neighbors so he can keep his crusade clandestine! All wasted efforts now!

          • HonestDebate1

            My studio computer was still logged in to an account that wasn’t supposed to exist. I blame Obama.

          • 1Brett1

            Sloppy! You were supposed to go up and down your street in a zig-zag pattern getting a wifi signal off of your neighbors, HD! …Well, when “they” come for you, don’t go crying on here, “where’s my Rush, NOW? Why have you forsaken me?!?!”

          • hennorama

            Blame Canada.

    • HonestDebate1

      Dr. Ben Carson was asked about the mainstream media and their lack of journalistic decency a while back. He said the media will not change until the day they suddenly realize they are defending things that will take them down with the rest of us. I’m paraphrasing. It hit home with me. That was well before all this hell broke loose. 

      Maybe the light is coming on. One can always hope.

      • OnPointComments

        In my opinion, most of the main stream media are partially responsible for the errant actions of the Obama administration.  From the day Barack Obama announced his candidacy, media acolytes reported everything Obama did in only the most glowing terms, ignored all shortcomings, and abandoned any semblance of objectivity and skepticism.  It’s no wonder that his administration believed it could even attack the press and get away with it.  It’s reassuring to find that even adoring sycophants draw the line somewhere.
         
        Our founding fathers and the writers of the Constitution knew the importance of a free and questioning press that would inform the citizens about all sides of an issue without governmental interference. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “If it were left to me to decide whether we should have a government without a free press or a free press without a government, I would prefer the latter.”  The press abandoned its responsibility for a while, but maybe it has finally reassumed its pivotal role.

        • jefe68

          Have you ever read any of the news items from the past? Because if you had you would know that there is a long history of news organizations being extremely partisan. Particularly in the 19th century starting with the Adams/Jefferson presidential campaigns.

          Papers in opposition to Andrew Jackson in 1828 attacked him for marrying a woman before her divorce had been finalized.  He was the violator of marital virtue, a seducer.  Jackson, one paper declared, “tore from a husband the wife of his bosom.”  Pro-Jackson newspapers insisted on the general’s innocence, and accused his critics of violating his privacy.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            I remember all sorts of newspapers named Republican and Democrat, and (I’m showing off here) I think there was even a Rock Island Independent. The idea that a newspaper was not affiliated with one party was so notable that it was put in the name!

            The right wants it both ways: Old-school partisan output with the veneer of unbiased modern stuff.

          • HonestDebate1

            One can be partisan and fair. They are not mutually exclusive.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        What the hell does Ben (The Next Black President) Carson know about the press?

        And there’s more than a hint of humor in a rightwing advocacy media-promoted “potential president” talking about the media who dares to not get on bended knee for everything right-wing as the problem.

    • jefe68

      You could turn it off. I do it all the time.

  • anon

    ABC News: “The 20-year-old son of a former aide to President George W. Bush was charged in a Washington, D.C., suburb on Friday, accused by police of killing a man with a hatchet. Claude Alexander Allen III, of Gaithersburg, was arrested by Montgomery County police and online court records show he’s been charged with first-degree murder…”

    If this was an average day, this was one of at least 40 murders in the US on this day. Will it get international attention? If not, why not?

    • hennorama

      anon – if there was video of it, perhaps.

      Otherwise, it does not help the sensationalist media imperative of “if it bleeds, it leads”.

    • 1Brett1

      Was he a Muslim? Was he part of any extremist group? Was the young man of some dark-skinned ancestry who killed a White person? Were there children also killed in the incident who had (including, but not limited to) some heartland back story where their mother and they had just moved from the midwest and she was coming from her job at the nursing home to take them to Bible study class? Did one someone in the incident die trying to save a mentally challenged man? 

      And, as hennorama said, there was no video…So, sorry, I don’t guess this story makes the grade…

    • Tyranipocrit

      Bush family tards and every one associated with them are criminals and terrorists that belong in our darkest dungeons–forever to be forgotten.

  • anon

    And an American 20-year-old was arrested for stabbing to death four of his relatives in the Czech Republic and then trying to burn the bodies. (This did make it onto the BBC World news website.)

    • jefe68

      What’s your point? That bad things happen and they don’t make it into the news?

      By the way there is a difference between a crime of passion  which is what you are describing, and the killing of a squady walking on the sidewalk by two men brandishing knives and cleavers with the inent to murder a solder. 

      • anon

        My point is that when editors ignore thousands of murders and give extraordinary attention to the ones that involve Muslims, then they create a belief that Muslims are inherently violent and bloodthirsty and that no one else does these things – both of which are untrue.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

     Save the bridges.  Ban all trucks!!!

    • Tyranipocrit

      save the planet–ban republicans and tea bags.  Save America–ban worriedforcounntry and tards like him.

      • hennorama

        Now wait just a cotton picking minute here – I need my Lipton Flo-Thru tea bags!  Making sun tea would be so much more inconvenient without them.

        • 1Brett1

          The Tea Partiers are just envious of your sun tea-making freedoms! I stand with you, though; we, the people, need to take back our sun tea freedoms! First they came for our coffee, and we did nothing. Then they came for our orange juice, and we stood by and let them. Now they are here for our tea…

          • HonestDebate1

            That was a great article by Kirstin Powers.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.” 
        Voltaire

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          you gotta love voltaire

        • Tyranipocrit

          thine enemy is thyself

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            This above all: to thine own self be true,
            And it must follow, as the night the day,
            Thou canst not then be false to any man.
            Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    how long till they ban knives in england?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Where’s Piers Morgan when you need him?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i think they got enough signatures yet he still has not been deported as far as i know

      • Tyranipocrit

         sit down.

    • Tyranipocrit

       when will prosecute gun toting murders in America?  When wil we prosecute corporate killers in America?  When will we prosecute war criminals such as Bush and Cheny and rummy and all those idiots.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        great questions. i hope its soon but i kinda doubt it

    • 1Brett1

      I, for one, applaud your courage to ask these important questions. 

      (I am using humor in the form of sarcasm, here, FB, to illustrate how ridiculous your inane comments like this are. Sarcasm is a form using words that actually mean the opposite of the composer’s intention…since you requested I explain how I use humor.) 

      Now, mind you, I use humor in many forms; I just chose sarcasm in this reply. I’ll label other forms of humor when I use them so that you can get familiar with different forms of my humor. Oh, and humor isn’t only defined by what you think is funny, just to clarify.

      You don’t have to thank me for taking the effort to increase your comprehension. 

      Thanks for being a good sport; and, I almost forgot, I don’t care who you are, your comment was funny! (See, you’re starting to get the hang of this humor thing.)

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        hint: good sarcasm need not be identified.

        • 1Brett1

          You’re the one asking me to identify my sarcasm; I was just accommodating you.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            nope, i asked you to improve it.  wrong again, its like you go out of your way to be wrong.
            your bad energy, incoherence and bad attitude make you a waste of my time i don’t think i will bother with you anymore unless you make a logical point or say something actually amusing

          • 1Brett1

            Nope, you asked me to identify my sarcasm. 

            You keep saying I am wasting your time and you won’t respond, but you keep responding. Are you always so conflicted and contradictory? 

    • http://www.facebook.com/jac.flasche Jac Flasche

       Perhaps they can regulate knifes to little dull ones that brake after you stab someone ten times?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        well for sure we need to ban any black knives. since black guns are so much more dangerous than their lighter stocked brethern the same must be true of knives

  • OnPointComments

    “THERE’S A FLY IN MY SOUP”
     http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer052413.php3#.UZ-_VLWsjTo 
     
    Excerpt:
     
    “Horrible customer service.” That’s what the newly fired IRS commissioner averred was the agency’s only sin in singling out conservative political groups for discriminatory treatment.
     
    “In such grim proceedings one should be grateful for unintended humor. Horrible customer service is when every patron in a restaurant finds a fly in his soup. But when the maitre d’ screens patrons for their politics and only conservatives find flies paddlewheeling through their consomme, the problem is not poor service. It is harassment and invidious discrimination.”

  • OnPointComments

    The Friday afternoon news dumps are always informative.
     
    “Justice Department defends handling of journalist email search”
    http://preview.reuters.com/2013/5/24/justice-department-defends-handling-of-journalist 
     
    Excerpt:
     
    “WASHINGTON – The U.S. Justice Department said on Friday that senior officials including Attorney General Eric Holder vetted a decision to search an email account belonging to a Fox News reporter whose story on North Korea prompted a leak investigation.
     
    “The May 2010 search warrant for a Google email account belonging to James Rosen was revealed on Monday by The Washington Post and drew immediate concern from journalists because it describes Rosen as a suspected “co-conspirator” in the leak of secret government information.
     
    “The latest Justice Department statement said the highest levels of the department were involved in the search warrant used in Kim’s case. The process included discussions Holder took part in, according to the statement.”
     
    Does anyone still believe that Attorney General Eric Holder wasn’t lying when he testified under oath “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”

    • HonestDebate1

      Holder is Obama’s closest ally but how is it possible for him to remain AG after this?

  • Tyranipocrit

    jack–Fox is NOT a news gathering organization.  Please.

  • Tyranipocrit

    what are the values of the west caller?  we cant agree on our values.  Are the values of the west–idiot warped terrorizing values of the tea bags and republicans who walk around seething and drooling and killing?  American values–carbet bombing, murderous drone warfare–torture, systematic rape!

  • Tyranipocrit

    the problem with these anti–westerners–and angry victims of american/british terror-actin out in terror–is that they are attacking the wrong people.  Why do they go after ordinary people?  (as we do)–why dont they go after those responsible–in DC.–at the top.  Why dont they go after the 1%–these are the people responsible. 

    so to all you moronic “terrorists”–you are attacking the wrong people.  What good does that do?  what does it accomplish?  You enmies suck a the teat of the 1%–they live in board rooms and DC halls of terror and perpetual war.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      why would british terrorists blame DC?

      • Tyranipocrit

        what the hell are you talking about buddy boy?

    • http://www.facebook.com/jac.flasche Jac Flasche

       Well what the hell do you think 9/11 was?  It followed your advise to a T.  How do you feel about it?

      • Tyranipocrit

        i dont what the f you are talking about–do you?

  • OnPointComments

    I absolutely agree with the quote attributed (perhaps incorrectly) to Voltaire that states “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” but, having said that, at least one of the commenters on here is just plain loony. 

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      While maybe not a direct quote, Voltaire’s quote is words to live by.

  • Dana85

    The soporific platitudes degassing from the ever, in her own mind, so clever Meredith Shiner are a clear indication that she has either never cracked open a Koran or is willfully covering up what it contains. Just to scratch the surface:

    Koran 4:89: “Take not unbelievers as
    friends until they fly in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, seize them, kill them wherever you find them”

    Koran 8:12: “Instill terror in the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off
    their heads and cut off fingers and toes.”

    Koran 9:5: “Fight and kill the disbelievers”

  • stillin

    I used to like to read and comment during my break/lunch at my school…but I see they changed my computer so I can’t, it looks very different on this site now. I am just so proud of my Bill of Rights, rights…talk about censorship.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jac.flasche Jac Flasche

    I must first say that I supported Obama financially in the election.  I, like many others was once again forced by the facade of a choice to vote for the lesser of two evils. But the man has gone too far.  He has personally ordered the murder of three innocent American teenagers.
    You can find the evidence and particulars detailed here.

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

    I have just started a petition on the white house site to bring Obama to trial for the murder of these innocent kids. Of course he his a lawyer and we can assume that he has his ass well covered legally, and will never actually be brought to trial, but I am attempting to utilize this petition to make the public aware of the dangerous direction that the Gov has taken since Carter left office.

    PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION TO BRING OBAMA TO TRIAL FOR MURDER.  You will be acting on the side of the angels I assure you.  And please share this link and get people to sign.  Enough is enough.  Thank you kindly for any consideration.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/bring-president-obama-trial-murder-three-innocent-american-teenagers-suggest-death-sentence/4Rmj79Zt

  • http://www.facebook.com/jac.flasche Jac Flasche

     I must first say that I supported Obama financially in the election.  I, like many others was once again forced by the facade of a choice to vote for the lesser of two evils. But the man has gone too far.  He has personally ordered the murder of three innocent American teenagers.
    You can find the evidence and particulars detailed here.

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

    I have just started a petition on the white house site to bring Obama to trial for the murder of these innocent kids. Of course he his a lawyer and we can assume that he has his ass well covered legally and will never actually be brought to trial, but I am attempting to utilize this petition to make the public aware of the dangerous direction that the Gov has taken since Carter left office.

    PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION TO BRING OBAMA TO TRIAL FOR MURDER.  You will be acting on the side of the angels I assure you.  And please share this link and get people to sign.  Enough is enough.  Thank you kindly for any considration

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/bring-president-obama-trial-murder-three-innocent-american-teenagers-suggest-death

    • http://www.facebook.com/jac.flasche Jac Flasche

       The white house site lost no time in taking my petition to bring the president to trial for the murder of these kids down. It didn’t quite take them a half hour. Now that is what I call freedom of speech.  What an obscene joke this government has become.

    • brettearle

      Are you suggesting, perhaps, that other Presidents wouldn’t commit, or haven’t committed similar acts?

      DO YOU, OR I, HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY COVERT ACTS HAVE BEEN ENGINEERED BY THE CIA AND BY OTHER US SPECIAL SECURITY FORCES–WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN NUMEROUS DEATHS?

      Do you actually believe that the Constitution prevents this action–if, indeed, it is in the dire interests of National Security?

      I will not say that I approve of such measures, myself.

      But if you are that outraged, then petition Congress to change the Constitution, my friend.

      Otherwise, whether you like it or not, or whether I like it or not, the Law of the Land permits it.

      President Obama is not going to be impeached, anytime soon.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jac.flasche Jac Flasche

         I would find it hard to believe that Carter or Eisenhower ordered such star-chamber murders. As for the others? Who knows for sure.  If accused Reagan would have just shrugged and pleaded he couldn’t remember or didn’t know.  Clinton would have lied through his teeth and said he didn’t, and probably believed himself even if he did. Bush would have given some stupid reason that only played to the audience of Fox, but Obama is the golden boy who can just, as you say, claim legality or legal ambiguity that they would have twisted to justify such attrocites.

        Just because money special interests write all most all the laws, and change those they don’t like via their stooges in Congress (see recent Apple love fest, or the one with J Diamond of JP Morgan.)  The whole thing is a farce set up to entangle any return to sanity in their web and endlessly deflect any real prosecution of their heinous acts. And when someone responds to outrage with the kind of reasoning you have, it only plays into their game.  They will always win their game, they make the rules up as they go along, and call it law, and people say, “Oh murdering that innocent person isn’t a crime, look here is the law.”  Forest for the trees pehaps?

        • brettearle

          The point is priority.

          If you are someone who wishes to be an activist for Revolution–then show me what you are doing to change the laws.

          Otherwise, speak only based on a double standard.

          I never said that I favor such actions.  In fact, I say above that I don’t.

          Don’t set up strawmen and then ascribe positions to me–simply because I, or others, might disagree with you.

          I can’t help it if your Ego has a difficult time handling different points of view–to the point where you try to alter the argument to fit your oblique perceptions.

          I am simply–AND CLEARLY–pointing out that our country and many other countries, throughout history, operate on a level of self-interest that often encourage:

          atrocity
          legalized murder
          mass murder
          torture

          arbitrary abuse of power–internationally and nationally

          exploitation of the lower classes.

          I have stated this, in the “On Point” threads, a number of times.

          If you think you can change human nature, in the future–the kind of Human Nature that has been so prevalent in the history of Mankind–then please show us how.

          Speak now or forever hold your Peace.

          • brettearle

            Eisenhower ordered the CIA to assassinate the Prime Minister of Congo.

  • Michiganjf

    Why can’t the crappy Disqus service get replies in the right spot?

  • Michiganjf

    Why can’t the crappy Disqus service get replies in the right spot?

  • Michiganjf

    Why can’t the crappy Disqus service get replies in the right spot?

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Try replying on the Dashboard.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        NPR’s comment board runs a more stable version of Disqus. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have mentioned this. I guess the switch would be too painful for On Point to bare. Hmmm, that sounds eerily familiar.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jac.flasche Jac Flasche

    Why do I like president Obama? I watched his speech where he was
    interrupted by that pink person, and I found him charming. I felt
    somehow increased by just having the very little that a citizen of no
    particular distinction has to do with watching his president explain
    policy, which he did clearly and intelligently and handled the
    interruptions masterfully. I mean masterfully, he was so cool, and
    empathic and seemingly neutral in attitude if not policy. Almost
    detached.
    And yet, I understand entirely now, that this persistent
    infatuation I have for him is insane. I keep expecting him to act like a
    populist and he is an elitist. Not in a good sense, like Gore Vidal, or
    Chris Hedges, either. I keep expecting him to be Bernie Sanders, but
    he is like a cross between Clinton and Bush, and not in a good way, like
    President Lincoln. I mean a righteous path makes everybody equally
    angry kind of way — not like that. I would like to believe that was the
    case, which itself makes no sense because of how many times he has
    failed to be a populist in the past, but I am so charmed by him that
    even now, I want to cut him a break. I mean I do not want to look
    directly at the fact as to how the Ben Laden thing was handled, and how
    four apparently INNOCENT American teenagers were murdered for no clear
    reasons with the use of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of
    hardware and weapons. It’s like something Caligula would do. It makes me
    think that things are not at all what they seem to me. It makes me
    think that perhaps the reason I am charmed by Obama is because he is a
    psychopath. A controlled one, there is no doubt, a cool one. Aren’t
    they supposed to be extra charming and cool, and not always bad. But
    always amoral. And quite frankly President Obama’s actions stink of
    amorality. Could it possibly be something as heinous as an enraged but
    totally suppressed killer lurking beneath that cool, for all these
    years. . . after the Muslims in Indonesia used to bully him and taunt
    him publicly and he had to maintain his cool. And now unknown to that
    charming urbane, erudite, patient, vulnerable but strong: man that I
    love, there is an enraged suppressed complex that is going to kill
    Muslim teens like the ones that taunted him, so many years ago. And
    this persona is so not-him that he is totally unaware of its existence,
    but it is a subliminal genius at contriving situations that end in the
    death of the scape-goats for those long gone and never repaid taunters.
    Anyway, something like that. I know that is ridiculous but how do you
    explain what happened, and why have they not explained it. I mean
    Benghazi, I don’t even see what the fuss is, but this needs explaining.
    But nobody is explaining anything.

    Now with Ben Laden, there
    were too many explanations, too many reasons that things were done the
    way they were, and none of them are reasonable.

    That the public
    would be ill served by a trial and execution is the same kind of
    reasoning that had the Supreme Court appoint Bush president. It’s just a
    lie. The public could have gone on for a year with the recount, no one
    wanted to end things but the NeoCons and we know how they operated. I
    would say look what they have wrought, but that would be like not
    realizing that it was the one percent who have done all the rotten
    wroughting. And despite the charm there is no doubt in my mind that
    Obama was also primarily a tool of the owners of the financial markets,
    hedge fund managers, and assorted interests of that sort. I always
    thought that: that he was the lesser of two evils, but now I know that
    he is evil. There is no denying it. A person is evil if they dominate
    others who do not wish to be dominated, and killing those teens and
    other innocents in the pursuit of no goal that ever made any sense was
    the supreme act of brutal domination. From the beginning anything
    beyond the initial assault when they missed Bin Laden was just a
    windfall for the big boys, and a lot of other contractors. Our leaders
    and their owners have ruined the economy and caused the undying hatred
    of millions if not more. Someone hates us and hates our nation and I
    think the worse of them are some of our elected officials and the people
    who own them. Either they are traitors or the public is the enemy.
    That is the only thing that can explain their consistent actions against
    the best interests of their own nation, and in pursuit of nothing but
    personal gain.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    My point exactly.  And political bias creeps into schools, community groups, charities and even churches.  It is divisive and corrosive.  How do we change this? 

    • DrewInGeorgia

      I wish I knew. The first step would be to start tamping down our individual egos and over-inflated senses of self worth. Since this is what our country is basically centered around, a starting point is difficult to imagine. Capitalism is as Capitalism does.

      “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but rather by what one owns.”~Jimmy Carter

      If we could flip the script to read “Human Identity is no longer defined by what one owns but rather by what one does”, we’d be there.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        That is a very Conservative Idea you are supporting. I offer this quote from Jonah Goldberg of National Review:

        And since I’m already in rant mode, let me add that it really pisses me off. I resent utterly and totally the politicization of everything. I hate it to my core. It is arguably the single most right-wing thing about me. The idea that people can refer to a left-wing clothing line or a right-wing pizza company strikes me as grotesquely ludicrous and ludicrously grotesque. It’s like referring to a “Presbyterian fastball” or a “Fabian cloud.”
        The Catholic Church in America is becoming more “right wing” not because it has changed its dogma, but because under Obamacare the imperium of domestic liberalism is expanding once again. An army of Lois Lerners are spilling over the defensive walls of the Church and demanding yet more compliance.
        And, yet, when the Church or a craft store or a fast-food chicken joint resists, they are labeled the aggressors in the culture war. It’s like when the Roman legions would invade Germania. The barbarians would fight back and the Romans would respond “we cannot let this assault on Rome stand!”
        I am a conservative because I think politics should infect as little of life as possible. And because I am a conservative I resent to the core of my being the fact that everything must either bend to the winds of the Left or be broken by them. The third choice is to become “right wing” which in itself is a kind of surrender because it accedes to the demand that everything become political. But it’s the best choice we’ve got.

        I’ll take up the argument about the problems with capitalism is socialism in future.

  • 1Brett1

    The law outlawing abortion after twenty weeks in Arizona was struck down this week by a US Court of Appeals. Cries of “foul” subsequently have abounded by conservatives in Congress who not only have supported restricting reproductive rights but who have frequently cited “states’ rights” as something akin to being sacrosanct.

    Of course, now, congressional Republicans–an eight-MALE panel, I might add–have decided to work on putting together a Federal bill outlawing abortion after twenty weeks. The bill is being sponsored, and the efforts are being led, (in a House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, mind you) by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona). There are no females on the panel.

    I relate this story because Republicans tend to applaud states rights and advocate for the Federal government to stay out of states’ affairs, interestingly, especially when states restrict reproductive rights. Their response to this Arizona bill being struck down, however, was to attempt imposing a Federal law where a state law they favored was struck down…so much for their “states’ rights” allegiance. It seems they use principle only when it suits them.

    In other Republican news, Republican candidate for Attorney General in Virginia, Sen. Mark Obenshain, introduced legislation in 2009 to force women to report miscarriages to police within 24 hours or face a year in jail. This has come to new light during his recent election campaign.  

    These and other stories about Republican legislators’ attempts to restrict women’s reproductive rights (and even to criminalize them in some cases) do NOT represent a pattern and in NO way indicate Republican leaders have declared a war on women’s rights; that’s all just liberal hyperbole and propaganda. Where do libs get such nonsense? From the liberal-elite, mainstream media, no doubt? Of course, it might have been that Nazi-esque, eugenics-promoting Planned Parenthood?  

    [**Futo Buddy** This is an example of a serious comment of mine. I did, however, end with a little bit of irony and a dash of satire, mocking how neocons on this forum have claimed that there are no Republican legislators attempting to restrict women's rights...We'll go over the subtle differences between irony, satire, mockery, and sarcasm later...I know it's hard, but you'll get it; don't worry.]  

    • jefe68

      Did you read about the hearings with this committee?
      These men are living in the dark ages.

      Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told a female witness that she should have carried her pregnancy to term even though doctors had discovered the fetus had no brain function. 

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/louie-gohmert-abortion-ban_n_3332823.html

      • 1Brett1

        I saw that…he was so crass; it’s unconscionable.

    • HonestDebate1

      The legislative process, what a novel idea in this day in age.

      I’m pro-choice within reason. That means I believe it is acceptable to take a life up to a certain point in gestation. I have the guts to be honest. 

      Hiding behind euphemisms like “reproductive rights” is not honest. You are advocating the right to terminate, just say it.

      • 1Brett1

        Blah, blah, blah…no, you’re wrong, HornyFor Debate1, “reproductive rights” is a term that is inclusive of ALL rights with regard to reproductive issues, as in the right for a woman not to be forced to have a vaginal probe, the right for a woman not to be forced to report a miscarriage to police, the right for a woman not to be forced to have an ultrasound, the right for a woman to receive information that her clinical advisor could share with her without that clinician’s fear of reprisals from funding sources, the right for a woman to have access to ALL services regarding her reproductive needs, etc., no matter what those needs are, and, yes, a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, and that right should be a private matter between her and her doctor. There’s nothing dishonest about that term or in how I express my opinions about such issues.

        You are the dishonest one by pretending you’re pro-choice yet you have no problem with any of the Republican initiatives to restrict reproductive services to women. You feign such courage, yet you are so cagy in expressing so many of your opinions on social issues. You either have your head in the sand/your fingers in your ears about how aggressively Republicans have gone after reproductive rights of women or you are being dishonest about any awareness you might have about Republican efforts.

        By the way, I only mentioned a couple of Republican shenanigans in my initial comment on this matter. There are more stories of Republicans trying to restrict reproductive rights of women in such a draconian way in Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia…to name only a few of the red meat states that have Republican leadership engaging in such oppressive and overreaching activities.

        • HonestDebate1

          Termination is not a reproductive service, that’s all.

          • 1Brett1

            Yes, it is; to say otherwise means one wishes to involve the state in a woman’s private decisions. The need to terminate a pregnancy can mean health for future pregnancies a woman might want, for both mother and future child. Do you wish to make those private medical issues something a Republican legislator is privy to?

          • HonestDebate1

            Wow, so now it’s just Republicans, tell that to Stupek’s crew.

            I already told you I’m pro-choice so I don’t get your point.

            But I said within reason. So if you can make the case that waiting 8 1/2 months, turning the baby breech in the womb, delivering feet first all but the head, jamming scissors in the back to the skull through the neck and sucking the brains out can in any way ever benefit the health of the mother then I am listening. 

          • 1Brett1

            Stupek? Seriously? That isn’t even worth a response. How many other “Democrats” can you cite? 

            The scenario you describe…is that the only possible abortion scenario of late-term abortions? Besides, did I say ALL abortions protect the woman’s health? My point was, and I was clear, that women’s decisions should be kept private between her and her doctor. To snoop into whether her reason to terminate was valid in your mind (or any legislator’s mind) is to invade her privacy.

          • HonestDebate1

            Here is a clue, Stupak’s coalition of 16 (not including himself) are not the only pro life Democrats. 

            You are being contentiously argumentative. We agree about abortion is the first trimester. Take yes for an answer.

            I was just pointing out “the health of the mother” can be a red herring. that is the sticking point in the debate over the ban of late term abortions.

            I also think a 12 year old should be required to get parental consent. I’m really out on a limb.

          • 1Brett1

            There are some Democrats, yes, who oppose abortion.Stupek’s 16 were mostly Republican. When it comes to undermining Roe v. Wade, it is Repbulicans who are the predominant culprits. 

            Again, is the only way you can feel like you have the upper hand in a “debate” is make the other person’s opinions into “all” ideas?

          • HonestDebate1

            Obama issued a meaningless signing statement to Stupak to get his coalition’s votes for Obamacare. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. His crew were all Democrats.

            Who said anything about “all” ideas?

          • 1Brett1

            Nice way to side- step the talk about abortion to “Obamacare.” 

            Stupak needed a face saver so he could vote for Obamacare; he’d painted himself into a corner. Obama’s “signing statement” didn’t change his position, or the position of the Feds on abortion one bit. Stupak caved because he was losing the confidence of his constiuents.

          • HonestDebate1

            He and his coalition of pro-life Democrats you said were Republicans.

          • 1Brett1

            Um…Was I saying that only Republicans are against legal abortion? Were there only Republicans with Stupak’s group? No to both.

            But, anyway, the Stupak deal, as I said, was political theatre; it’s only purpose was to pander to various constituents and for certain congressional leaders to get themselves in the limelight. It didn’t have anything to do with restricting reproductive laws; it was a reiteration of the laws already in place, which was obstructive of Stupak in my view; the process had to make sure he got to dance in the spotlight instead of going forward.

            Are there Democrats around the country going after either overturning laws protecting reproductive rights or out-and-out creating bills that restrict those rights, or are those efforts coming from Republicans? Or are you going to again find that errant, outlying Democrat who supported something once in the past that was insignificant/irrelevant to abortion rights and tell me I’m wrong? “Gotcha!”

          • HonestDebate1

            Not one, not most, not any. And I didn’t even get to the Senate.

  • pete18

    A government not deserving of your trust:

    “Obama’s in­cred­ibly shrinking presidency is a reminder that politics
    is a transactional business, that trust is the currency of the
    transactions and that the currency has been debased. For example:

    Obama
    says: Trust me, I do not advocate universal preschool simply to swell
    the ranks of unionized, dues-paying, Democrat-funding teachers. Trust
    me, I know something not known by the social scientists who say the
    benefits of such preschool are small and evanescent.

    Obama says:
    Trust me, the science of global warming is settled. And trust me that,
    although my plans to combat global warming, whenever the inexplicable
    16-year pause of it ends, would vastly expand government’s regulatory
    powers, as chief executive I guarantee that these powers will be used
    justly.

    Obama says: Trust me. Although I am head of the executive branch, I am not responsible for the IRS portion of this branch.

    Obama says: Trust me, my desire to overturn a Supreme Court opinion (Citizens United)
    that expanded First Amendment protection of political speech, and my
    desire to “seriously consider” amending the First Amendment to expand
    the government’s power to regulate the quantity, content and timing of
    political advocacy, should be untainted by what the IRS did to suppress
    advocacy by my opponents.”

    George Will in The Washington Post:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-obamas-tapped-out-trust/2013/05/16/4c50ff12-be5e-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html
     

  • HonestDebate1

    Roger Ailes speaks:

    Dear colleagues,

    The recent news about the FBI’s seizure of the phone and email records of Fox News employees, including James Rosen, calls into question whether the federal government is meeting its constitutional obligation to preserve and protect a free press in the United States. We reject the government’s efforts to criminalize the pursuit of investigative journalism and falsely characterize a Fox News reporter to a Federal judge as a “co-conspirator” in a crime. I know how concerned you are because so many of you have asked me: why should the government make me afraid to use a work phone or email account to gather news or even call a friend or family member? Well, they shouldn’t have done it. The administration’s attempt to intimidate Fox News and its employees will not succeed and their excuses will stand neither the test of law, the test of decency, nor the test of time. We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth.I am proud of your tireless effort to report the news over the last 17 years. I stand with you, I support you and I thank you for your reporting with courageous optimism. Too many Americans fought and died to protect our unique American right of press freedom. We can’t and we won’t forget that. To be an American journalist is not only a great responsibility, but also a great honor. To be a Fox journalist is a high honor, not a high crime. Even this memo of support will cause some to demonize us and try to find irrelevant things to cause us to waver. We will not waver.As Fox News employees, we sometimes are forced to stand alone, but even then when we know we are reporting what is true and what is right, we stand proud and fearless. Thank you for your hard work and all your efforts.Sincerely,Roger Ailes

    • brettearle

      That is all well and good.

      And, indeed, it makes sense.

      But I doubt very, very seriously that Mr. Ailes, or you, know the true evidence in the case–THAT WOULD MAKE THE GOVERNMENT GO OUT ON A LIMB LIKE THAT.

      Wake up.

      If I’m wrong, I’m perfectly willing to admit and say it.

      But my strong belief is that Holder was NOT EXAGGERATING when he said that the American people’s safety, welfare, and security were in harm’s
      way–on an EMERGENCY (or developing emergency) basis.

      Otherwise, HOLDER WOULD KNOW THAT A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE WOULD CALL FOR HIS OFFICIAL RESIGNATION AND WOULD BEGIN PROCEEDINGS TO ACCOMPLISH JUST THAT.

      C’mon….If you want to look naive, by letting your bias get in the way of the Truth and promote a false scandal,
      go ahead.  I won’t stand in your way.

      It simply makes the Right look brutish, narrow, and kneejerk-ish.

      • HonestDebate1

        That’s fine but let me ask you, is it naive to give this Justice Department the benefit of doubt? I think it is. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong but we now know for a fact Holder lied under oath. It’s ironic that is was the Democrat Guam tipper that elicited it with his question.

        • brettearle

          It is not totally naive to give the Justice Department, the benefit of the doubt.

          That does not mean, however, that the Justice Department might always play by the rules.

          But with all the Media Politicization that swirl around and about, all stories with potential controversy in them–recently, if not for years–I doubt that DOJ would try something egregious. 

          Holder’s Testimony:

          If he perjured himself, then why aren’t proceedings beginning against him?

          Politics haven’t stopped the Republicans, yet.   And Politics won’t. 

          • HonestDebate1

            If he doesn’t resign then hopefully perjury charges will ensue.

          • brettearle

            He is clearly NOT resigning.

            And I would bet that you would not have the COURAGE to put your money where your mouth is–with regard to whether he will be indicted for perjury….should anyone challenge you with a real live bet.

          • HonestDebate1

            I wouldn’t bet a dime. Holder will probably get a promotion.

          • brettearle

            You cover up the likely Truth, to what I say, with Spin-like Cynicism:

            The Republicans
            will NOT indict him for perjury–because they can’t prove that he lied.

            And, what’s more, he may, very likely, NOT have lied.

          • HonestDebate1

            He undeniably lied. It’s a lack of GOP balls that will save him.

          • brettearle

            BEEEE

            SSSSS

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the justice dept does seem to lie, a lot. besides the failure to play by the rules you identified consider their insistance on keeping cannabis a schedule one drug despite everyone knowing that is BS

          • brettearle

            Seem to lie or lie?

            What possible lies are you talking about?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            it does lie. the seems was in referance to how often it is. i mentioned one of my personal favorite justice dept lies.

          • brettearle

            I ask you, again…..

            WHAT lies?

            Name them….

          • 1Brett1

            Oh, well, you tried…I’m just surprisedhe didn’t put up some link that has no relevancy to your request for him to back up what he’s claiming.He’s prone to that.

          • brettearle

             Like

             uncovering

            the

            underbelly

            of

            a

             rock

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the one where they say cannabis is dangerous and has no possible medical use. why do i have to repeat myself?

          • brettearle

             ?

            Medical

            Marijuana

            is

            legal

            in

            places

            ?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the discus wont let me reply below. so you  know its a lie and i know its a lie and 17 odd states know its a lie. yet the justice dept insists its the truth.
            so if they are willing to blatently lie to everyone even when we all know they  are telling a lie then they are liars and should not be trusted. 

      • hennorama

        brettearle - pssst – subtract “knee”

        • brettearle

          Keyed-up klaptrappers keenly kook Kismet with Knee-jerk Karma.

          • HonestDebate1

            Nah, just irrelevant, gratuitous nastiness.

          • hennorama

            brettearle – Seriously, do NOT get me started on THAT again.

          • brettearle

            henn…pssstt

            Do NOT spoil my fun….even if it’s only My fun.

            [So it shall be written.....so it shall be done....]

    • jimino

      Propagandists have always been respected and followed by their target audience.  That’s what the do.  So you’re part of a large crowd.

      Roger Ailes?  You gotta be kidding.

      • HonestDebate1

        Large audiences are not gained and kept by being dishonest. It never works.

        • 1Brett1

          Wait, what? I thought you said it was working just fine for you? (Well, except for the “large” part, I guess, so scratch that). 

          It seems to work just fine for Fox. Besides, I thought you had prattled on about how MSNBC was dishonest (it might have been another neocon) one time…don’t they have a “large audience”? 

          But, maybe you’re right; maybe the market should just take care of itself and shenanigans in journalism should just be left to the consequences of which you speak (“Large audiences are not gained and kept by being dishonest. It never works.”) If Fox, CNN, or any other “news” outlet is dishonest, maybe the loss of an audience will make them tow the line. Maybe the world is that simplistic and one dimensional. Maybe propaganda doesn’t work at all…well, except, of course, for those liberalzzz who love ‘em some dishonesty and deception. Amiright?

          • HonestDebate1

            3 people watch MSNBC. You were joking about them having a large audience, right? Surely you aren’t that out of touch. Glenn Beck has more paid subscribers to his webTV than MSNBC has viewers who get it free. CNN has 4 viewers. And they keep doubling down on partisan reporting and losing more ground. A gazilion watch fair and balanced Fox. Rush has septillions of listeners, Randi Rhodes, not so much. 

            I maintain that cannot happen over the long haul with dishonesty. It’s impossible.

            And you are right.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            whats funny about the foxnews vs msnbc ratings debate is that not many people watch 24 hour news channels at all

          • HonestDebate1

            True but a week or two ago (maybe still) Fox was the highest rated network on all of cable eclipsing USA Network for the first time.

          • 1Brett1

            And yet you claim that journalistic dishonesty would cause an outlet to lose its audience? Pshaw, I say! It hasn’t happened with Fox.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            for what time slot? lemme know when they beat out ellen or the voice

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      WTF is anyone just posting Roger Ailes shite here?

      He’s got a whole goddamn network to do his bidding. This place doesn’t need it. He’s not Poor Widdle Woger Ailes, whom nobody will listen to.

      And please, the less crap about Fox and News in the same sentence, the better.

      • HonestDebate1

        It’s the news of the day and folks here are in a liberal bubble. I’m just trying to help. 

  • HonestDebate1

    Typically the tactics of tyrants is to reward those who tow the line, those that take an arrow for the team. Discipline is paramount for cover-ups and secrecy. Conversely, justice requires transparency. It requires a leader who wants truth.

    Lois Lerner took one for the team and now is on leave with pay. Now maybe she can take that trip to Paris.

    Victoria Nuland scrubbed every reference to Al Qaeda from the Benghazi talking points and was instrumental in shaping the narrative that was a lie. She has been promoted to Assistant  Secretary of State to Europe and Eurasia.

    Sarah Hall Ingram was the IRS official in charge of targeting Conservatives. She has been promoted and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office.

    Terrific.

    • 1Brett1

      There were 70,000 applications for 501(c)(4) status. 300 were flagged for scrutiny by the IRS; of that, only around 100 were conservative groups (2/3 were not). Of those 100 Tea Party groups, 100% of them were approved to get their tax-exempt status.

      I don’t think the IRS should target any group by virtue of their political status, but my beef with the IRS is that they didn’t scrutinize enough of the liberal organizations applying for the same status. That should be looked at closely. In fact, the gaming of the system by political organizations (both Tea Partiers and liberal groups alike) should be reviewed and the law should be changed.

      But, again, you never talk about any problem with the law or with the pretense that any of these groups portray themselves as “social welfare” groups (on both sides of the spectrum of political leanings), just this trumped up idea that conservatives are being unduly persecuted…Such dishonesty from the “honest one.”

      • HonestDebate1

        I know the numbers.

        So now honesty is determined by what you think (demonstrably untrue) I didn’t say? How’s that work?

        Hey, what you just now didn’t say was a dishonest statement!

        Gotcha’.

        • 1Brett1

          This isn’t the first and only time you’ve commented on the topic, nor is it the first time I’ve commented on this topic. Both your and my opinions of each others’ views are shaped over a fairly long time on this forum. 

          You’ve said repeatedly before that the Republicans’ effort to restrict women’s rights didn’t exist, was nonsense made up by liberals. You’ve also repeatedly said you are pro-choice, but you’ve consistently not had a problem with Republican efforts to restrict women’s rights. You even offered one time that women should have the right to choose, choose to not get pregnant, that is…you didn’t “gotcha” anything. Your claiming so doesn’t make something so.

          • HonestDebate1

            Wrong thread. 

            Please don’t tell me what I think.

            I’ve never said the Republicans’ effort to restrict women’s rights didn’t exist, was nonsense made up by liberals. Ever. I have said the notion Republicans want in your bedroom (the preferred talking point wording) is nonsense made up by liberals and it is. We (Republicans AND Democrats) restrict women’s rights to sell their bodies, to inject certain drugs and many other things.

            I’ve never said I had no problem with Republicans on the issue. I might even be a Republican if not for my disagreement. And I don’t know why you harp on Republicans. there is more room in the Republican party for pro-chpoicers than there is in the Democrat party for Pro-lifers. Bush’s cabinet was full of pro-choice Republicans.

            The “choose not to get pregnant” thing was not me but I certainly concur.

          • 1Brett1

            I’m not telling you what you think, just what you’ve said in the past. 

            Anybody who has read your comments in the past knows what you’ve said about the “Republican war on women” being nonsense (of course I am paraphrasing) that was prevalent in the last series of elections and after. Why are you afraid to just say what you think rather weasel out of it by characterizing aspects of this issue as what you didn’t say? 

            As far as the rest of your comment, it’s nonsense, and I never said that NO Republicans are pro-choice, but keep building those straw men of absolutes; they are so  ”high-school debate team” tactics.

          • HonestDebate1

            There is no Republican war on women, that’s nonsense. Women are Republicans too.

          • 1Brett1

            “Fair enough” …”perhaps that’s a valid point”…”but the foundation upon which you build those points is completely false.”

          • HonestDebate1

            Equal pay? Have you looked at Obama’s payroll? You aren’t going to make the silly claim about Liliy Ledbetter again are you?

          • 1Brett1

            Gotcha…well, gotchagotcha, not gotchagotcha.

          • jefe68

            Funny, 100% of the women I know think so.

            Honest debate my foot. 

          • HonestDebate1

            Not me. Most women I know are kicking ass in the marketplace and in total control of their lives.

          • StilllHere

            100% of the women I know don’t believe that MSM/Democrap meme, and I mostly know independent women who work.

          • jefe68

            The troll knows women, 
            and their worken ladies at that…

          • HonestDebate1

            .

          • 1Brett1

            I have to give you some credit; at least you don’t pretend like you don’t say this crap. HD1, however…

          • 1Brett1

            Gotcha!

          • HonestDebate1

            The issue is abortion. In the liberal mind women’s rights begin and end with it. If someone opposes abortion then that’s the same as a war on women. I just think that’s a very shallow view. 

            BTW, there is no legitimate effort underway to overturn Roe v Wade. It’s a straw man.

            The notion af a Republican war on women is nonsense. And I never said the things you said I repeatedly said. Ever. They are completely different issues.

          • 1Brett1

            What were the things I said I thought you thought I said you said again?

             

          • HonestDebate1

            “You’ve said repeatedly before that the Republicans’ effort to restrict women’s rights didn’t exist, was nonsense made up by liberals.”

            “… but you’ve consistently not had a problem with Republican efforts to restrict women’s rights.”

          • 1Brett1

            The secondthingwasaccusingyou of not sayingsomething…haveyou had a problem with Repbulicans’ restricting women’s rights and and expressed it?The first thinghad to dowith your”thereis nowaronwomen’s rights” 

        • 1Brett1

          Sorry about the thread mistake; we;ve mostly been talking about abortion issues. I was getting it off my e-mail along with the abortion thread, and when you start  with the “what you think I think I said you said” stuff, with no other association, it gets confusing. 

          Where was your “gotcha” again? What part of my comment was wrong? Were there not 70,000 applications for 501(c)(4)s? Were there not 300 scrutinized? Were there not around 100 conservative applicants subjected to scrutiny? Is 100 not 1/3 of 300? Did those 100 conservative groups not get their tax-exempt status? Should liberal groups applying for such tax-exempt status not be scrutinized? Have you ever criticized  the lax criteria for 501(c)(4) status? 

          Did you “gotcha” me because I think you are so obviously partisan but I feel you pretend to be non-partisan, only interested in “honest debate”? 

          Where was that “gotcha” again?

          • HonestDebate1

            No probs on there thread,

            It was actually closer to 500 (471, I think). Them there are examples like the groups that waited years, gave up, withdrew, submitted a new application under the name “Greenhouse Solutions” and was approved in two weeks. It seems to me you are trying to imply there was nothing to see here.

            However, “gotcha’” wasn’t meant as a “boy I really got you” at all. I wasn’t even referring to the IRS. It was a snarky “Alrighty then, if that’s what you say”. It was in regards to your claim I was dishonest by not saying something when you assume what I’ve not said. I see no purpose in running that one to ground so whatever.

            Is that what you were asking?

          • 1Brett1

            Um…….WHA?!?!

          • HonestDebate1

            I guess not.

      • hennorama

        1Brett1
        – While I agree with the theme of your post, I need to point out
        some significant errors.

        There
        were NOT “70,000 applications for 501(c)(4) status.” Rather,
        there were about “70,000 applications for [tax-exempt] status.”
        These included application for all four I.R.C. §§ 501(c)(3)–(6)
        Tax-Exempt designations. From the recent TIGTA report:

        Figure
        2: Number of Applications for I.R.C. §§ 501(c)(3)–(6) Tax-Exempt
        Status Received by the IRS

        Fiscal
        I.R.C. Subsection

        Year
        501(c)(3) 501(c)(4) 501(c)(5) 501(c)(6)

        2009
        65,179 1,751 543 1,828

        2010
        59,486 1,735 290 1,637

        2011
        58,712 2,265 409 1,836

        2012
        66,543 3,357 1,081 2,338

        See:http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf
        (the TIGTA report)

        Keep
        in mind that these are Federal fiscal year reporting periods, which
        begin on October 1 of the prior year, and end on September 30 of the
        reporting year.

        Also,
        per the report “Of 298 cases reviewed, 89 were I.R.C. § 501(c)(3)
        organizations.”

        And
        per the IRS website: “The TIGTA report reflects that 300 cases were
        centralized. Approximately 70 of those cases included the name Tea
        Party. The remaining cases included organizations of all political
        views. The current number of centralized cases is approximately 470.”

        See:http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(c)-Organizations

        ———-

        The
        problem is NOT with the underlying law, but rather with the IRS
        regulation. The law says, in order to be tax-exempt, so-called
        “social welfare organizations” need to be “operated EXCLUSIVELY
        for the promotion of social welfare.”

        Unfortunately,
        the IRS regulations read as follows:

        “(2)
        Promotion of social welfare—(i) In general. An organization is
        operated EXCLUSIVELY for the promotion of social welfare if it is
        PRIMARILY engaged in promoting in some way the common good and
        general welfare of the people of the community.”

        See:http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Treasury_Regulations,_Subchapter_A,_Sec._1.501(c)(4)-1

        This
        is the problem the IRS employees have been dealing with –
        “exclusively” is the law, but they are enforcing the regulation,
        which reads “primarily”, and DOES NOT DEFINE “PRIMARILY”.

        Lawrence
        O’Donnell of MSNBC has been all over the problem:

        “As
        O’Donnell has been saying since Monday, the so-called IRS scandal
        is only the consequence of an older and more basic problem with the
        organization’s reading of the tax code–specifically, with its
        reading of Section 501(c)(4), which exempts social welfare groups
        from paying taxes.

        “The
        law defines such groups as “civic leagues or organizations not
        organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of
        social welfare.” Since 1959, the IRS has been reading “exclusively”
        as “primarily.”

        “By
        doing that they made IRS agents judges of political activity,
        investigators of political activity,” O’Donnell explained in the
        Rewrite Thursday. “IRS agents were then forced to evaluate just how
        political a given 501(c)(4) organization might be. And it is very
        clear that if the words “Tea Party” or the name of any political
        party at all appears in the title of your 501(c)(4) you absolutely do
        not qualify for 501(c)(4) status under the law.”

        See:http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/16/odonnell-reminds-politicians-of-the-real-irs-scandal/

        (watch
        the video starting from about 02:35)

        And:http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/13/odonnell-the-real-irs-scandal-happened-in-1959/

        (watch
        the video starting from about 02:22)

        • 1Brett1

          Thanks, henn, for adding details and clarity. I always appreciate your contributions to these “conversations” if I could call them that (with the neocons, it’s more like a paintball game)…That’s an interesting distinction between the law and IRS regulation. I knew that “exclusively” had been altered in 1959 (I think it was) to “primarily,” but I thought the law and regulation were one in the same…Anyway, it seems too many organizations are gaming the system/jumping on the proverbial bandwagon and otherwise abusing the spirit of what non-profit, tax-exempt, social-welfare programs are for and how they should function. It seems only Tea Partiers (and the neocons on this forum) are silly enough to try making anyone believe such political organizations are doing any genuine, community, social- welfare work.

          I helped start a 501 (c)(3) organization years ago (a community garden, teaching garden with weekly lectures on everything from attracting beneficial predatory insects to the huge topic of permaculture, and it was also a CSA cooperative). I also have worked at various times in my life for private, non-profit, human-service organizations.

          There are many valuable variations on these types of organizations, and having tax-exempt status is a valuable help to many of them, as they operate on a shoestring budget; but, come on, these political organizations that say they are performing community-outreach, social-welfare functions…pfft, and they clamor for transparency in government.

    • bikengr

      What is wrong with America? It is illogical, self-serving or even deceptive derailments of discussion. I despair for our future while individuals are eager to poison debate and impede productive efforts. Let’s look at what HonestDebate1 just wrote. “Sarah Hall Ingram was the IRS official in charge of targeting Conservatives.” Really? Was that her job title? Is that equivalent to saying that Bush was the leader in charge of lying us into war and so many thousands dead? Please document that this was her actual job, or apologise for misleading hyperbole.

      In fact, HAS it been established that conservatives were unduly targeted? Seems to me that if they made 75% of applications, they should receive 75% of the investigations. I’m not saying that this was the case, but neither have I heard that it is not. Let us look at the facts, and think hard about whether it should be easy for groups with highly political intent to get a social welfare tax break. And to hide their donor list.

      Nothing is “terrific” in what you wrote, and in fact it looks to me like you don’t care about facts or a good solution. It would be great if you would demonstrate that you are not simply a polarizing partisan hack, maybe by rolling back your sarcasm and distortion, and proposing a positive path forward.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        “What is wrong with America?”
        Capitalism. Or Americans. Take your pick.
        Which came first, the exploited or the exploiter?
        No I’m not a commie, just sick of the self-delusion.

        • brettearle

          I think it’s fairer to say, `Capitalism Out of Control’ rather than simply Capitalism.

          Of course, the `Out of Control’ part was inevitable.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Exactly my point. Capitalism would be the ideal system if we could remove human nature from the equation.

        • John Cedar

           …the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all.

      • HonestDebate1

        She was in charge of targeting Conservatives.

      • brettearle

        The Citizens United decision was, apparently, behind the overwhelming number of tax-exempt status applications that were from conservative groups, as opposed to otherwise.

      • JONBOSTON

         Talk about “illogical, self-serving or even deceptive derailments of discussion”.  Classic example of engaging in a “willing suspension of disbelief” with comments that are frankly, moronic. Lois Lerner has already admitted on behalf of the IRS that they targeted conservative groups. What more proof do you need? And challenging a comment made about Ingram’s responsibility in the IRS mess by asking about her job title is a definite head scratcher. 

        • bikengr

          I don’t doubt that conservative groups were targeted. (Probably some liberal groups were too.) Were conservative groups the majority of applications? Then they should receive the majority of the scrutiny. Something not discussed in any of the news reports I’ve seen.       Name calling is not in the playbook for reasoned discussion, by the way.

  • Outside_of_the_Box

    If you haven’t figured it out yet, Obama (and all Presidents) are mostly puppets for show.
    Regardless of what they may want or not want to do personally, and there’s no way to know for sure, they are subject to higher powers like special interests, political gridlock, etc
    The US is not a democracy.
    It is crony capitalism at best.
    People need to snap out of their media-induced trances and see things for what they really are.
    No singular issue is more important than this hard reality.
    If MSM was really interested in reporting on truth, they would focus on this.
    How does the system really function?
    Who are the real power players?
    What do the majority of people actually want, and why aren’t they getting it?
    What are US local and foreign policy interests, and are they the interests of the US people?
    Everything else is a distraction, unless we focus our collective attention on these fundamental questions.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      this will answer most of those questions
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/69020197/Untitled

      • Outside_of_the_Box

        Not really.
        It just says the income inequality is growing – rich richer/poor poorer.
        Nothing new.
        And doesn’t address the above questions.

  • HonestDebate1

    An explanation about Rush for Ray:

    I’m not sure you are still going back to last week’s open line Friday board so I wanted to put this here. I wrote:

    “I didn’t say he was 99.6% right.”

    So you quoted me (emphasis mine):

    “He is only documented to be almost always right 99.6% of the time” – you from earlier in this thread.

    You quoted me accurately and still missed it. I am really surprised but maybe you’re just playing along. How is it possible to be “almost always” right a certain percentage of the time? How does that circular logic work? The slightest analytical parsing shows it to be completely and utterly impossible. How does one miss what is so obvious? It’s not because you are dumb, you clearly are not. Any idiot can recognize that’s it’s a joke but a very intelligent ideologue can miss it if pre-conceived spoon-fed notions rule their mind.

    The Sullivan Group exists but Tom Sullivan is a buddy of Rush’s who has substitute hosted for him many times. The joke is designed to tweak liberals into knee-jerk conclusions, the more outraged they get the more outed as humorless ideologues they are. Rush sits back and laughs. I do too, it’s hilarious. So rather than debate the issues people get worked up  and pathetic websites misquote him and write pieces with headlines like “Rush lies to 13 year old girl”. And that is what forms the opinions of others who never realize they are being played.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    400 ppm CO2 is the big news.

    Global warming is really hitting Australia. For anyone who has fallen for the fossil fuel industry propaganda that there really is a debate on this matter, here are some great links (I know, they won’t change any lo-info minds).

    http://climatecommission.gov.au/videos/question-about-debate-between-ipcc-experts-and-sceptics-answered/

    http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-angry-summer/

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Statists rejoice!!!!!

      Let’s celebrate the propaganda arm of the Australian government that worships at the warmist altar and uses government power to reject all criticism and scientific debate.

      The actions of the Oz Climate Commission reminds me of Nixon who wanted to cut off funding to MIT because he didn’t agree with their politics.  Hmmmm.

      “There is actually nothing more becoming of a research institution than researchers willing to engage the public with the results of their scientific research. In democracies, it is OK to crtiique government ”

      http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2013/03/thou-shall-not-critique-the-australian-climate-commission-2558154.html

      • TomK_in_Boston

        I concede that you’re an expert on all the blogs that deny the obvious, Worried. But really, the best guess is that we’re screwing the planet. Before you say “science isn’t done by consensus”, I am a scientist and I don’t need advice on how it’s done. The “consensus” usually contains a lot of truth. It is overthrown when someone has a great idea and convincing evidence. That doesn’t mean that some wingnut without a great idea or convincing evidence is just as believable as the real scientists.

        Follow the money.

        • pete18

          What kind of scientist are you? Is that your profession?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Hey Tom I watched the video on your first link and it is complete propaganda.  Too bad there is no DATE on the video so we really don’t know when he made those silly statements.

      I guess it isn’t surprising that the Oz government hired a propagandist to head their propaganda agency.

      The truth is the warmists are afraid to debate in public.  There is one recent exception — Dr. Gavin Schmidt from NASA — although for some bizarre reason he refused to appear on camera with Dr. Spenser.

      Apparently Stossel invited 10 ‘natural warming’ deniers and only Dr. Schmidt agreed.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/03/stossel-show-schmidt-spencer-ridley-on-global-warming/

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Ugh. I want to read all of the commentary but you folks are writing novels. I don’t wish for shorter comments, just more time.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Keep it pithy.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        I’m certain I frequently fail but I do continue to try.

    • 1Brett1

      It was the best of times. It was the worst of times…

      • DrewInGeorgia

        For some reason that made me think about the fact that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    • hennorama

      Drew – Forget this nonsense.  Focus on being happy.  

      The stuff that stresses you out now won’t matter in 5 years, much less 15 or 50.

      You don’t get more time, and lost time is never found.

      • brettearle

        Maybe this is extraneous.

        But I have always felt that Sleep can be so restorative that lost time is somehow `found’ in this activity.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          I’ve been telling my chronic insomnia that for thirty years but it just won’t listen.
          What I wouldn’t give for eight straight hours.

          • brettearle

            There are many quiet, mild, or moderate relaxants that are available, OTC or by prescription.

            The right MD would know.  There are, in fact, sleep disorder specialists.  But you probably know that.

            Not all MDs are clueless.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            I appreciate the suggestions. Unfortunately though, I live in the middle of the woods and thirty miles (or more) from the nearest medical facilities. Being homeless, impoverished, and uninsured don’t help matters either. I truly do appreciate the thought though.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        I appreciate it. Believe it or not “this nonsense” doesn’t stress me out. It’s cathartic sometimes.

        You’re right, the sole thing that stresses me out now won’t matter years from now. Provided that is I can come up with the roughly $150,000.00 it will take to buy my name back. Not complaining, just saying.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brennan-Moriarty/100000655771831 Brennan Moriarty

    Both Conservatives and Liberals want “normalcy” pre-written rite? Not mere “nominal” but vis-a-vis homegrown patriotism, Manifested per DestiNation; with a road-map that grounds the danger and taps the energy that WE ARE MISSING [3rd degree p.o.w. lone-wolf...A-Mend-meant = pre-sent in a sense :TIME: of  innocents].
    Can’t we use drones on tornados? have we tried? and quantified?
    Since the _Majority_ of boys do like girls, why can’t they “have” that “civility”? it’s normal; deployment -some scouts ^will go^ to San Francisco to find their real world. What about the Majority and the git’LESS normative secondary MINORITY?  are we blind? it that ..it? ignorance? The “ig-normal” spy sigh territory? terror story?
    Before Moses crossed that water, he looked down at his blackberry and said “People, I got a tweet here; it says NORMALLY!!! :) love thy neighbor; and GENERALLY :| / :( ? worship the true God ONLY.” and Moses was like “People, the LORD HAS SPOKEN!” now let’s do this thang^.
    Qualification: not political butt kissing, that’s what we vote for.

    I’m ready to be drafted, sponsored and to serve “the center”
    it’s More than a vortex: it’s a Unified Theory. all comments are absolutely REQUIRED, the vocal [qualified!] communication and written expectations, well this is it, sign me up scotty.

    • John Cedar

       That doesn’t even rhyme.

  • JONBOSTON

    Something is seriously wrong with the Democrat party , liberalism and the mainstream media. Where are the voices of outrage at the Obama administration’s on-going subversion of democracy? where is the self-criticism by the remaining few “adults” in the Democrat party? Why isn’t the NYT, the ACLU and other left wing organizations rising up in indignation? Does principle and country matter anymore?

     Just some of the most recent outrages:

    The IRS targets self-styled groups that support low taxes, limited government, the Constitution, and patriotism and Jack Beatty sloughs it off as “short staffing”. And the head of the IRS at the time describes it as “horrible  customer service”. And Senator Max Baucus  in 2011 demands that the IRS investigate the Tea Party and then leads a Senate investigation of the IRS for doing what he and other Democrat senators implored the IRS to do. Simply disgraceful. 

    In 2010 the Attorney General signs an affidavit submitted before a federal judge in Washington to support a search warrant that labels a Fox News reporter as a “co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act for doing his job as a journalist. Yet Holder recently swore before Congress that he never did such a thing. Does anyone seriously wonder why FNS was targeted in 2010 when Obama went out of his way to demonize and delegitimize Fox News, one of the few remaining media organizations that isn’t totally aligned with the ideological aims and political interests of the party in power. Interesting how the very same administration had no problem with leaks of classified information by its National Security Council to the NYT to promote the death of Bin Ladin, the Stuxnet virus in Iran’s nuclear program and other ” Obama successes”. 

    Voter ID laws have been upheld as constitutional by the US Supreme Court but liberals claim without any demonstrable proof , that voter ID laws suppress minority vote. But why do they remain silent when IRS targeting of conservative groups suppress conservative vote?

     Four valiant Americans , including an American ambassador, die in Benghazi and the NY Times could care less to ask Obama what he did ,where he was , and what he ordered on the night of the attack. And his senior advisor ( Dan Pfeiffer) dismissed as “irrelevant” questions asking about Obama’s actions that night.

    And Senator Levin hauls before his committee Apple’s president to rail against one of the most successful American companies that has done more to contribute to the well being of Americans than Senator Levin ever will. And what was Levin’s complaint–merely that Apple was paying all the corporate taxes it lawfully had to.

     And we have a president who is willfully disengaged from everything to avoid any responsibility for anything that happens during his administration. No leadership, no grace, no respect for the views of those who harbor good faith objections to his policies. Obama has created a “climate of intolerance ” against those who offer any opposition to his presidency and dare to question his administration policies. As Charles Krauthammer said on Friday, it’s not a crime for Obama to run an “ad hominem presidency. It’s merely shameful”. 

    For a start, it would be great if Obama (a) instructed everyone in his administration to grant full cooperation to Congress, inspectors general and the FBI in whatever investigations transpired . Bush did this in the Valerie Plame incident and let it be known to senior officials that pleading the Fifth was unacceptable (b) asked the State Department Accountability Review Board to go question Hillary Clinton and other senior officials whom they never bothered to interview about Benghazi(c) ordered his own staff to come clean on their roles in the IRS and Benghazi scandals(d) fired Holder for lying to Congress about his role in targeting Fox News (e) held a press conference and answered all questions on Benghazi, the IRS, spying on reporters and the HHS shakedown of healthcare companies without impugning the motives of those asking tough questions (f) and fired any member of his communication team who misled the media and the American people. But unfortunately, I doubt this president is capable of doing this.

    • pete18

      Well said!

    • brettearle

      –Benghazi was bungled.  But the President called in a Counter-terrorism group, 3 days after the incident.  That’s aside from saying, shortly after the incident, that Benghazi MAY have been an act of Terror.

      –The Citizens United decision attracted many more conservative groups for exemption than liberal ones.

      The acting IRS commissioner–a Bush II appointee–was
      removed.

      Taking the 5th Amendment is NOT an admission of guilt.  What’s more, Lerner was suspended with pay.

      Low level civil servants can make mistakes, can make idiotic political decisions, while being in denial…..WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE LEAD OF  HIGH-LEVEL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

      –If Fox News can prove that the Fox journalist didn’t know that the Leak violated national security–if it did, indeed, violate national security–then indeed DOJ made the wrong move.

      However, the DOJ may have been within their Rights to have tried to have found that out.

      Stuxnet and Bin Laden were leaks AFTER the fact.  In the case of this Holder decision, the DOJ claims that the Security risk was ON-GOING.  THERE’S A DIFFERENCE.

      Senator Levin has the right to criticize existing tax policy–especially policy that is not especially popular with the American people.

      Your claims are grossly biased and overstated–with regard to the White House dodging responsibility.

      If I were a betting man–but I am not, perhaps unfortunately, with anything–I would wager $1,000 right here and now–that I COULD INSTANTLY PROVE THAT OBAMA AND HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE FREQUENTLY CRITICIZED BY MSM, ALMOST EVERY DAY….IF NOT EVERY DAY.

      For the most part, you don’t know what you are talking about. 

      You only SOUND convincing–because what you say is well-written.

      The only thing, that I might come close to agreeing with you on, is Voter Registration.

      • HonestDebate1

        I thought he sounded brilliantly convincing and I had my volume down on the computer. Different strokes.

    • hennorama

      JONBOSTON – so many errors, so little time…. “For a start, it would be great if” you presented accurate information about your Fautrages.

      #1 The name of the Democratic Party is the Democratic Party.

      #2 The IRS did not “target” “…self-styled groups that support low taxes, limited government, the Constitution, and patriotism.”

      The TIGTA report indicated this was the “Breakdown of Potential Political Cases by Organization Name”

      Other: 202
      9/12: 12
      Patriots: 13
      Tea Party: 72

      #3 AG Holder did NOT sign “…an affidavit submitted before a federal judge in Washington to support a search warrant that labels a Fox News reporter as a “co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act for doing his job as a journalist.”

      #4 AG Holder did NOT “recently [swear] before Congress that he never did such a thing”.

      AG Holder’s comments to the Judiciary Committee referred to the possibility of prosecuting journalists for publishing classified information, but that is not the crime the DOJ’s warrant wrote about (“there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim) violated 18 U.S.C. § 793 (d) either as Mr. Kim’s co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor, and that evidence of that crime is likely contained within the [redacted]@gmail.com account.”). The DOJ investigators were expressing concern that “the Reporter” may have solicited the disclosure of classified information, and NOT the subsequent publication of it.

      Time and space constraints force me to stop here, but that should not be read an an indication that you have made no further errors, as quite the opposite is the case.

      • JONBOSTON

        I’ll give you this much credit. You’re one of the few posters on the left that is able to post anything intelligent on this board. Nevertheless, your comments demonstrate the kind of parsing of words and language that makes me sick. In the meantime you blindly ignore what’s happening in with this administration. You can’t see the forest for the trees. So be it.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Yep. Parsing, above all else.

          I’ll ask my “Jew lawyer” friend if he takes exception to being called a Jew Lawyer.

          There are two reasons many of us don’t go into detail like Henno does is:

          1) There are only so many hours in the day.

          2) This isn’t some gasbag show where every long-winded arglebargle right-wing post needs to be refuted in exacting, painful detail every single time, in  order to keep the mushy middle “moderates” from being persuaded.

          • HonestDebate1

            If Henny refuted anything that would be different. For instance I could counter your reason #1 by pointing out there are leap years which give an extra 24 hours. I could give you the origins, dictionary definitions and the last and next occurrences. I could point out that there really isn’t an extra day, it’s actually spread out over four years so there are more that 24 hours in a day.

            http://www.timeanddate.com/date/leapyear.html

            I could then explain Einstein’s theory of relativity to point out the time was different for the Mars rover as it traveled through space towards it’s destination. I could then tell you about Sojourner, Spirit, Curiosity and the rest to contrast and compare.

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

            And then there is Daylight savings time and of course the equinox. You did say “day” and not “night”, right?

            According to Merium Webster: “the time of light between one night and the next”

            So in reality every day is a different amount of time. 

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

            And I would use nothing but the facts. Proven, irrefutable facts… that mean nothing.

        • hennorama

          JONBOSTON – TY for your response and your kind words.

          You wrote “ … your comments demonstrate the kind of parsing of words and language that makes me sick.”

          Allow me to point out that “parsing of words” in the ENTIRE BASIS of the recent IRS kerfuffle. Had the IRS not “parsed” the word “exclusively” as meaning “primarily” as follows, there would be no issue with what various groups being involved in ““potential significant political campaign intervention”:

          “(2) Promotion of social welfare—(i) In general. An organization is operated EXCLUSIVELY for the promotion of social welfare if it is PRIMARILY engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.”

          See:http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Treasury_Regulations,_Subchapter_A,_Sec._1.501(c)(4)-1

          As to my “parsing” your words, it certainly is important as to whether or not AG Holder “signs an affidavit …” as you (and many others) are disputing his credibility. Your statement was factually inaccurate, which was my point. The same point was made about your statement “…Holder recently swore before Congress that he never did such a thing”, as it too was factually inaccurate.

          The reason for pointing this out is that if you are basing a conclusion or forming an opinion based on inaccurate information, the resulting conclusion or opinion are therefore baseless.

          If such baseless conclusion or opinion were then likened to a diseased “tree” in the “forest”, then the “forest” as a whole is at risk of infection. In other words, the “tree” makes the “forest” sick.

          That explains why you are sick – the baseless conclusions and opinions you have expressed. You might be well-advised to trace your sickness back to the source of the inaccuracies you expressed.

          • John Cedar

            Forgive me as I get all my news from Fox, fair and balanced. But in addition to the overwhelming statistical evidence showing the IRS targeted groups that would not promote Obama, didn’t the IRS also ADMIT to such targeting?

            It seems the entire crackpotisphere has been exposed to the virus and is now keying on the IRS ruling from 50+ years back, instead of joining Obama and finding the targeting outrageous.

            We know that argument is disingenuous, but at the same time wonder if the IRS has ever changed the a literal word of the tax code before [yes they have]? If they are charged with interpreting the code on a daily basis [yes they are]? And most importantly, if putting the word back as it was originally, if the not-for-profits Tea Party groups are operated EXCLUSIVELY for the promotion of social welfare. YES…yes they are!

          • hennorama

            John Cedar – TY for your response.

            Your comment is difficult to follow, and given the relative scarcity of your prior comments, one is reluctant to make inferences as to intended meanings from such stream-of-consciousness musings.

            You have introduced a new claim that “…the IRS targeted groups that would not promote Obama…” Please provide ANY evidence as to this characterization of “groups that would not promote Obama…”

            Talk about “crackpotisphere”.

            You also make a claim of some sort of universal knowledge – “We know …” Unless you are using the majestic plural/royal pronoun “We”, of course. If such is the case, please elaborate as to your qualifications to use such a term.

            As you both ask and answer your own questions, further response seems precluded.

          • JONBOSTON

            I appreciate your points but you appear to be so lost in legalistic gymnastics that you’re missing the broader picture. Obama has never stopped campaigning– rather than reach out to those who disagree with him , he instead chooses to demonize them and accuse them of bad faith. Charles Krauthammer, who I admire greatly, expressed it well in Friday’s Washington Post when he said , referring to the IRS and reporter leak scandals:
            “..But when some bureaucrat is looking for cues from above, it matters when the president of the United States denounces the S.Ct decision that allowed the proliferation of 501)c)4s and specifically calls the resulting “special interest groups ” running ads to help Republicans ” not just a threat to Democrats–that’s a threat to our democracy.” It’s especially telling when it comes amid letters from Democrat Senators to the IRS urging aggressive scrutiny of 501(c) 4 applications….A White House can powerfully shape other perceptions as well. For years the administration has conducted a  concerted campaign to demonize Fox News, delegitimizing it as a news organization, even urging its ostracism. Then (surprise) its own Justice Dept. takes the unprecedented step of naming a Fox reporter as a co-conspirator in  a leak case–when no reporter has ever been prosecuted for merely soliciting information–in order to invade his and Fox’s private and journalistic communications.”

          • hennorama

            JONBOSTON – TY for your response.

            I disagree with much of Mr. Krauthammer’s opinion as quoted.

            I have not missed “the broader picture” but rather have simply focused on errors in various arguments and commentary.

            I have expressed some opinions on various matters. Most recently as to the IRS matter, I wrote to another poster:

            “I think the most objectionable issue here is that the IRS appears to have acted unequally. We expect them to screw with people, but they’re supposed to screw with everyone equally. I found this quote from a recent NY Times op-ed to be appropriate here:

            “One virtue of those hated things called bureaucracies is that they oblige everyone to follow a common set of rules, regardless of station or background; they are inherently equalizing.”

            As to the Kim investigation and the tangential involvement of Mr. Rosen, I wrote:

            “I have expressed no conclusions or opinions on this matter, as I am still weighing the evidence.” And “

            I have also written extensively on the topic of the CIA/diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, and the unfortunate events of last last September.

            The fact that I choose to dispute various claims does not mean I have missed anything. Far from it.

            Again, many of my points demonstrate the factual inaccuracies that form the basis of various arguments, opinions, and conclusions that have been expressed. Without these inaccuracies, many of these arguments, opinions, and conclusions fall apart.

        • jefe68

          Yeah, and you’re such a prince.

          • JONBOSTON

            just so you know, I wasn’t thinking of you and your comments when I was referring to “one of the few posters on the left”..

      • OnPointComments

        I don’t believe that Eric Holder was being forthright and honest when he testified “With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy…the focus should be on those people who break their oath and put the American people at risk, not reporters who gather this information, that should not be the focus of these investigations.”  The DOJ focused on the reporter who gathered the information.  Perhaps some will engage in further parsing and semantics, and rationalize that Holder said “should not be the focus,” instead of “will not be the focus” or “was not the focus,” but it’s clear to me that his answer was purposely dishonest.  Using Holder’s standard, the press won’t be prosecuted for disclosure of material, but the press will be prosecuted for obtaining the information in the first place.

        • hennorama

          OPC – TY for your response. Apologies for not replying to your similar recent response.

          One must point out that “parsing and semantics” are a large part of any attorney’s job.

          In the case of AG Holder, please note the start of the quote you chose:

          “With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material …”

          As stated in a response to [JONBOSTON],

          “AG Holder’s comments to the Judiciary Committee referred to the possibility of prosecuting journalists for publishing classified information, but that is not the crime the DOJ’s warrant wrote about (“there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. 793 (Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information)”. The DOJ investigators were expressing concern that “the Reporter” may have solicited the disclosure of classified information, and NOT the subsequent publication of it.”

          In addition, it is quite clear that the alleged leaker was “the focus of these investigations” with regard to the kerfuffle over Mr. Rosen’s involvement in the investigation of Mr. Kim, who has been charged with multiple violations of the law.

          One must also point out that in your quote from AG Holder’s May 15, 2013 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, you left off (with your use of ellipses), the following:

          “…in fact my view is quite the opposite. What I’ve proposed during my confirmation, what the Obama administration supported, during, uh, 2009, and I understand Senator Schumer is now introducing a bill that we are going to support as well, that the press should have a shield law with regard to the press’s ability to gather information and to disseminate it.”

          You can watch the relevant questioning and testimony beginning at about 02:12:55 into this webcast video (AG Holder’s quoted remarks are at about 02:17:55):

          http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/wmedia/judiciary/full/fullcomm_05152013.wvx

          You are also putting words into AG Holder’s mouth when you write “Using Holder’s standard, the press won’t be prosecuted for disclosure of material, but the press will be prosecuted for obtaining the information in the first place.” If you can find some instance of it being “Holder’s standard” that “the press will be prosecuted for obtaining the information in the first place”, please present it.

          • OnPointComments

            Perhaps AG Holder didn’t think that the potential prosecution of Rosen was germane to his statement “With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I’ve ever been involved in.”  Possibly Holder believed that the potential prosecution of Rosen was for obtaining the top secret information, not for disclosing the information, although it begs to question why the DOJ didn’t proceed with Rosen’s prosecution.  Maybe Holder really did believe the secret subpoena of AP phone records was entirely different from the secret subpoena of Rosen’s phone records and emails that he authorized, so he didn’t bring up the latter as an example to justify DOJ actions.  Perhaps, possibly, maybe; there comes a point where only the most naïve person can believe what AG Holder says.
             
            As the ACLU stated, “The fundamental issue is that the government has lost a sense of proportion in enforcing our national security laws, and that should be of enormous concern to us all.”  I agree.

          • hennorama

            OPC – I share the concern.

            But as AG Holder is an attorney, he is paid to split hairs, and to be precise in his language and his interpretation of the letters of the law. His testimony reflects this, and that is my point.

      • OnPointComments

        The IRS targeted conservative groups.  You may choose another verb, but the agency has admitted its guilt.  The fact that the IRS investigated other cases does not absolve it of the guilt it admitted by automatically investigating 100% of the groups with conservative names.

        • hennorama

          OPC – TY again for your response.

          One must point out the use of the pejorative terms “admitted its guilt”, “absolve”, and “the guilt it admitted”.

          There is no definitive proof of the repeated claim of “investigating 100% of the groups with conservative names.”

          The TIGTA report indicated the following (EMPHASIS ADDED):

          “While the team of specialists reviewed applications from a variety of organizations, we determined DURING OUR REVIEW OF STATISTICAL SAMPLES of I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) tax-exempt applications that all cases with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists.[19]”

          “[19] We determined this through two statistical samples of 338 (7.5 PERCENT) from a universe of 4,510 I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) tax-exempt applications filed during May 2010 through May 2012 that were not forwarded to the team of specialists. See Appendix I for details on our sampling methodology.”

          See:
          http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf (page 8)

          The IRS has compiled a list of “Approved Tax-Exempt Applications For Advocacy Organizations” that had previously been “centralized”. In IRS-speak, “Since centralization, more than 175 applications have been approved to date. As with all applications for tax-exempt status that are approved, the names of organizations whose applications have been approved are publicly available.”

          See:
          http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/Approved%20Tax%20Exempt%20Applications%20For%20Advocacy%20Organizations%20through%20May%209%202013.pdf

          And:
          http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501(c)-Organizations

          • OnPointComments

            Do you have reason to believe that TIGTA’s sampling methodology was invalid?  In this instance, the sample showed that “all cases with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists.”  All.  100%.  The IRS admitted that it was guilty of singling out conservative organizations for additional review.
             
            If there was not any guilt, why did the IRS apologize? 

          • hennorama

            OPC – TY for your response.

            No, I don’t have any particular objection to the TIGTA’s methodology, although one must point out that the TIGTA used a 90 percent confidence level and/or calculated a 90 percent confidence interval in all cases of sampling. This means there is a 10 percent chance that they are wrong. Ten times out of 100, the true result will not be included within their specified interval.

            You wrote in your prior comment, “The IRS targeted conservative groups” and “The fact that the IRS investigated other cases does not absolve it of the guilt it admitted by automatically investigating 100% of the groups with conservative names.”

            You now have switched from referring to “targeted conservative groups” and “automatically investigating 100% of the groups with conservative names” to

            “the sample showed that “all cases with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists.” All. 100%.“

            Perhaps you “considered the Tea Party criterion as a shorthand term for all [“conservative groups” or “groups with conservative names”] in the same way that “Determinations Unit employees stated that they considered the Tea Party criterion as a shorthand term for all potential political cases” as was reported by the TIGTA.

            FYI – the TIGTA report NEVER used the word “conservative”.

            Do you have a source for the basis of your statement “The IRS admitted that it was guilty of singling out conservative organizations for additional review” and the basis of your question “If there was not any guilt, why did the IRS apologize?”

            What I’m interested in is a transcript of testimony, or other oral or written statements, and not opinions.

            Thanks again for your response.

      • HonestDebate1

        Other: 202 
        9/12: 12
        Patriots: 13
        Tea Party: 72

        Just one should be enough to send someone to jail, no?

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – as you both asked and answered your own question, further response is unneeded.

          • HonestDebate1

            Perfect, thanks.

      • JONBOSTON

        I guess where I take issue with in your comments is that even if Holder merely vetted but did not sign the affidavit in support of a search warrant , “what difference does it make”? Same with whether or not Holder was under oath when testifying before Congress? Do we need the US AG to be under oath in order to get the truth out of him? I hope to God not. 

        • HonestDebate1

          My understanding is Holder was under oath because the committee specifically waived the no oath courtesy.
           
          Here he is being sworn in:

          http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/rtxznq8.jpg?w=720&h=480&crop=1

          But you are correct that it makes little difference. It’s still a felony punishable for up to 5 years even if he wasn’t under oath. 

          Huffpo and even Tavis Smiley are calling for his resignation, not that it means much.

        • hennorama

          JONBOSTON – TY again for your response.

          You asked “what difference does it make”?

          When there are charges being bandied about that the AG is guilty of perjury due to his testimony, it matters as to exactly what was said and done.

          The point is that the search warrant in the Kim case, in which “the Reporter” is said to be involved, was not about “the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material”, but rather the affidavit indicates that “there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim) violated 18 U.S.C. § 793 (d) either as Mr. Kim’s co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor, and that evidence of that crime is likely contained withing the [redacted]@gmail.com account.”

          Here is 18 U.S.C. § 793 (d), for your reading pleasure:

          “18 USC § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

          “(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or”

          Source:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

          BTW, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793 (d) is one of the charges against Mr. Kim, the alleged leaker. As you might imagine, his defense attorneys have been “parsing [the] words and language” of this code section.

          Thank you again for your response.

          • JONBOSTON

            Like I said , what difference does it make? We have a very politicized DOJ-which is an awful thing to have.

  • HonestDebate1

    Apple doesn’t play in the political arena, they don’t give to the DNC like say, Microsoft. So they are brought in for harassment.  With that backdrop, consider Gibson guitars as compared to Martin guitars.

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052313-657569-gibson-guitar-raid-like-tea-party-intimidation.htm?p=full

    And then that got me thinking, so I looked at some big donors and noticed Lockheed Martin. And that reminded me of Obama’s efforts to hassle Boeing. This administration does not tolerate enemies and enemies are defined as anyone who doesn’t support him financially or otherwise.

    Recent events are bringing clarity to his tactics.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      More IBD editorial crap. Once more, that’s sooooo suprising!

      • 1Brett1

        I know, and as if these companies the HornyForDebate1 mentions did nothing to warrant scrutiny of their behaviors…

        • HonestDebate1

          Yes they did. Microsoft is a top 10 Democrat donor and Apple is not. Lockheed Martin is another top 10 Democrat donor, Boeing is not and dared to want to build a plant in SC. Gibson is not top 10 but they donated to Republicans and Martin to Democrats. That’s what they did different. The East Indian Rosewood was the same. You must be a Fender guy.

          • 1Brett1

            “Yes they did.” Wha?! You misunderstood what I meant when I said the companies scrutinized actually did something to warrant scrutiny…

            Actually, I mostly play Gibsons, although I also have a Martin D-18 acoustic and a Fender Tele electric. Both of those guitars are sweet, but I have always liked the sound and playability of Gibson acoustics and electrics. Other guitars (than Gibson) are more versatile in their sound; one can get more tonal variations out of them. But, nothing quite sounds like a Gibson. 

            I love my J-45 Roundshoulder…I’m pretty fond of my SG and Les Paul too (although the Les Paul is not a comfortable guitar for standing up and playing hours on end), and for the last ten years I have mostly played acoustic. 

            Both the SG and Les Paul have a distinct sound that has a lot of presence and…well, balls. People tend to also remark more about how they like my playing when I play Gibsons. I do like the “chicken pluckin’” sound of my Tele, though. It has less versatility than a Strat, but I sold my Strat last year to buy an antique Slingerland ’62 Gene Krupa model drum kit…I wish I still had my Strat at times.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m not a guitar guy but I like all the ones you cite. And nothing against Gibson but I love a chicken pickin Tele and think it’s a much harder technique than making a sustaining Les Paul sound good. My friend just sold his ’58 strat for $12K. I think he got taken. Another friend has Doc Watson’s mandolin from the cover of his first album but wants the moon for it.

            Gibson was shaken down by Obama, that was my main point.

          • 1Brett1

            I don’t really want to argue with you over the “shaken down” bit, but I think that’s a bit overdone a phrase for what happened. 

            A ’58 Strat for $12K! Yeah, that’s almost like stealing it! I’ve seen ones in mint condition with all original parts go for the mid-50k range at the high end….the thing about Les Pauls is that they sound how they sound and that’s it. A Strat, on the other hand, can sound like a whole array of other guitars in the right hands. As you say, it takes a certain finesse to bring out various subtleties in both Teles and Strats…by the way, I use all different kinds of flat picks and finger picks, but I only use my fingers on my Tele; I can get all kinds of things out of it that way

          • HonestDebate1

            It wasn’t in mint condition and in fact was pretty rough cosmetically but it was original and played perfectly. He mostly left it at home and brought cheap guitars on the road but he did bring it on occasion. I used to tease him about the finish and threaten to take a can of spray paint to it. He never thought it was funny.

          • 1Brett1

            By the way, oh, HD1, I never have asked you about some of your gear…I do like the old school stuff, from Hammond B3s (with a Leslie) to Fender Rhodes, even a Moog. And, of course, nothing sounds, or responds physically, like a good piano…With today’s technology, keyboardists have it kind of sweet in that they have a lot of choices–and, hey, nobody wants to tote around a Hammond B3 with a Leslie!! 

            When I think back on some of the bands I was in in the late ’60s and early-mid ’70s, and all of that hauling, I think that we must’ve been committed. We had stacks of amps, drum kits that were really more than any drummer needs, PAs that were stadium sized, and keyboard players who would insist on bringing their Hammonds with Leslies, a Fender Rhodes, a minimoog…man. Now, it’s a small PA, a couple of acoustic guitars, a few microphones, and that’s it. The other players just show up with their acoustic instruments and either plug in to the PA or rely on a condenser mic.

          • HonestDebate1

            We could get along if you stuck to music.

            I’m a piano player at heart and carried a Kawai electric Grand for years and years. I still have it but it sits in the studio, I’m in the process of restringing it. Now I use a sampled piano, a Yamaha P-250.

            My first keyboard was a RMI, Rick Wakeman played one on the six wives solo on Yessongs. I’ve had a couple of Fender Rhodes and a few classic synths like an ARP String Ensemble, Oberheim OBX-a (I had Van Halen’s stuff down pat, especially 1984) and of course a Mini Moog. I actually didn’t own the Moog but played one for years. The guy I mentioned that sold his strat has one that doesn’t work. I’m trying to buy it. They sounded great but in reality were very moody and unpredictable.

            And there’s the usual fare of Korgs, and Rolands. The 80′s were tough on keyboard players because you had to have a bunch. I think I got up to using 5 as a rig. 

            I have a 1953 Hammond C2 and a Leslie 147R. The only difference between the B and the C is the cabinet and the 2 did not have the percussion tab like the 3. I used to bring it to the bigger Percy Sledge shows. There’s nothing like it. there are not a lot of old school Hammond players out there. I’m learning to kick bass with my feet. My father-in-law was great when he was alive. He played old standards on a M3. He taught me a lot. the technique is completely different. there’s no sustain pedal so I never use one with Organ patches on keyboards. I’m used to playing the down beat with my left hand but on a Hammond you play the back beat with the left hand and the down beat with your foot. That alone is a mind blower for me.

            I’ve got a few videos of me playing some Santana  (“Victory is Won”) and some Percy stuff but I guess I better not post them.

      • HonestDebate1

        You know what, and I swear it’s true, I almost preemptively referenced your 100% guaranteed stock reply but I didn’t want to insult you. You cannot refute what IBD wrote and you don’t seem curious about the inconsistency of Obama’s tactics. 

        BTW I cited two other related examples of my own and on one I even linked HuffPo. Don’t tell me you don’t trust them or me either. Say it ain’t so.

        You might have missed it when I asked previously, what sources do you trust?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          What do I trust?

          “Not any overserved, over-repeated, overcovered crap coming through the right wing advocacy media” is my stock answer.

          The day NPR needs some fool like you to blather in entirety the wisdom of an IBD editorial is never.

          NPR is fully invested in not pissing off the hacks at the IBD.

          Stop trying to move the goalposts rightward by your reposting of all that crap, and I’ll stop pointing it out.

          • HonestDebate1

            Alrighty then.

          • jefe68

            You can change your name, but you are still the same master of inanity.

            Honest debate indeed.

          • pete18

            You didn’t answer the question, what media sources do you trust?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            I can’t care less to answer questions from you about media sources.

            I’ve been reading real media crit since before Matt Drudge killed Vince Foster.

          • pete18

            Really? Seems like a simple question that would be easy to answer and make your critiques about other people’s sources have more validity. Unless of course you realize that your “trusted media sources” would be just as easy to poke holes in as the ones you are discrediting and therefore would invalidate your whole line of attack.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            What I see myself doing is telling everyone that a full portapotty tipped over smells and they shouldn’t step in the leakage.

            Y’see, it doesn’t matter what someone like you thinks when so many right-wingers here have a track record of putting up crap here and asking us to eat it like ice cream. At that point it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

            I manage to be well informed without linking to stupid things, and point out when others fail to do so.

            “Invalidate” me by having others stop click-pimping crappy right-wing editorials (the memes of which are getting all over the mainstream media anyway).

          • pete18

            See above.

          • HonestDebate1

            And all the while the IBD article is factually beyond reproach. You just disagree with the opinion drawn from the facts cited. That’s fine.

          • pete18

             In response to your post below:  That’s a lovely bit of partisan opinion, which  still didn’t answer the question. What media do you view as reliable and trustworthy? You’re not afraid to answer the question are you?

          • StilllHere

            Whatever agrees with his view.  The dude is a waste.

        • 1Brett1

          Let’s see, now, MasterDebater, did that there Huffpo artcicle open with, 

          “IRS Scandal: The inexplicable raid nearly two years ago on a guitar maker for using allegedly illegal wood that its competitors also used was another targeting by this administration of its political enemies.”?

          …Naw, there weren’t nothin’ distorted about that hit piece…

          Also, mentioning the Huffpo piece in the way that you did along with your opinion piece implies that the Huffpo piece was in agreement and had a similar tone and tenor of the pathetically partisan one you linked, which is dishonest.

          • HonestDebate1

            Gotcha’.

          • 1Brett1

            Gotcha back atcha. Double gotcha! Triple gotcha…goochy, goochy goo

    • OnPointComments

      I find it odd that the government brought in Apple for harrassment, the company that pays the most tax dollars into the Treasury, and didn’t choose a company like GE that has recently paid zero taxes despite making billions in profit.  Or perhaps it’s not so odd, considering that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is the President’s advisor on business.  Looks like we need to change “FOB” from “Friend of Bill” to “Friend of Barack.”

      • HonestDebate1

        “FOB”, perfect! 

    • John Cedar

      Apple was chosen because thier tax returns are largely innocent. The corporatists [democrats] as well as the GOP, are hoping that everyone assumes GE,  Microsoft and other Democrat backers have tax returns that are just as innocent. And since taxes are so boring, they are probably going to get away with it, and no other companies will be questioned.

      So the goal is to get some support from the public, to have people begrudgingly agree that these big companies are paying their taxes legitimately according to the law.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Trains crashe, bridge falls down. That’s not a surprise, it’s obvious, it’s our choice

    http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/businessinsider-20130524-infrastructure.png

    If we don’t spend on infrastructure, we’ll get a 3′rd world infrastructure. A great USA isn’t free!

    • John Cedar

      Is that one of those silly GDP graphs again?
      Here is an idea…instead of labeling the shaded areas as “recession” lets label the white areas as “all time historical gargantuan unimaginable GDP rivaled by no other country now, or at any time in history”.
      Then label the gray area as “runner up all time historical gargantuan unimaginable GDP rivaled by no other country now, or at any time in history”.
      That way, for the few that do not see the obvious, it might be clearer that prudent expenditures on infrastructure do not need to track our GDP.

      • hennorama

        John Cedar – if your objection is limited to comparing Total Public Construction Spending (TLPBLCONS in FRED-speak) to GDP, allow me to present the graph of Total Public Construction Spending without any GDP comparison:

  • davecm

    Oh! how I wished George Bush was pres. right now and these events were taking place under his admin. We would see the hypocrisy of many being proven on this site clearly!!!
    To many, Obama can do no wrong!!!
    In fact, many believe as Jamie Foxx does, that President Barack Obama is our ”our lord and savior.”
    History is repeating itself and America will as stated many times on this show recently, is metastasizing into a America coming undone or as Obama states, fundamentally changing.
    In my observation, heading in the wrong direction, FAST!
    Yet! we will be shown that fact in the passage of time and I am sure Bush will be blamed for that too!!
    Homosexuals in the Boy Scouts is liken to a cancer in the human body. It will start off small and grow until it destroys the body.
    What parent would see the benefits of their 12 yr. old sleeping in a tent with a 17 yr. old that may have the hots for him????
    This is a disgrace!!!!!!! But!!! allowing them in is not the issue!
    The issue is acceptance!
    Mark my words, bank on this happening.
    The Scout oath will be challenged by the Homosexual crowd.
    A lawsuit will arise to strikeout the phrase, “morally straight” and the undoing of America will continue! Count on it to happen!
    They want acceptance of a practice that is Biblically condemned. That is why they changed the name from homosexual to gay, it sounds better.
    No matter, all this will be solved one day in the coming future.

    • hennorama

      davecm – thank you for once again for your persistent passionate punctuation.  It is unfailingly entertaining.

      • HonestDebate1

        Playing grammar cop causes mistakes nearly every time, that’s entertaining too. I think it’s a karma thing.

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – let’s say I was both doubly “for” [davecm]‘s persistent passionate punctuation., and notably silent as to grammar.

          “Proper punctuation is both the sign and the cause of clear thinking.”
          ― Lynne Truss, Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m just picking’, and I make more mistakes than most. That was an awesome book. I miss James Kilpatrick and his Saturday columns too.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – no worries.

            I’m more of a William Safire fan. Recent events remind me of one of his most famous quotes:

            “The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right.”

            (Thinking of the 501(c)(4) nonsense).

            And one cannot fail to cite his droll

            “Is sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don’t know and I don’t care.”

            Confirmation source:http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_safire.html#3uWJeVV0XsRl22pu.99

          • HonestDebate1

            James Kilpatrick wrote a weekly column on grammar. Safire did not, but he did employ good grammar. I was talking about grammar but I liked Safire’s politics better.

            Do you have to be snarky about everything? Quit addressing me by Gregg Smith, my moniker is Honest Debate1, if you don’t want to use it then just  don’t use it. But stop with the petty crap.

          • davecm

            All this attention about grammar is like being more worried about the food on the buffet table on the titanic.

          • HonestDebate1

            Ain’t no doubting that.

          • davecm

            I was never to good at grammar or maybe proper punctuation, but! I do have what some lack… common sense. It has served my family well!
            As for being a sign and cause of clear thinking, a man’s contribution to society is more on his actions than his words. 
             

          • hennorama

            davecm – I really do appreciate your passion, and that was the main point of my comment.

            Furthermore, I agree with you – common sense isn’t.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      There is the origin of suffering, which is attachment to desire

  • TomK_in_Boston

    An amazing thing happened today – on “Face the Nation” the corporate media actually said what real scientists believe about global warming, without referring to some fringe bloggers and saying “on the other hand”. I can’t remember ever seeing that! Congrats to Bob Schieffer.
    “The panel — consisting of CBS meteorologist David Bernard, Chief Climatologist for Climate Central Heidi Cullen, TIME journalist Jeffrey Kluger, and President of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd — didn’t shy away from addressing the overall patterns that indicate global climate change is driven by human production of carbon dioxide. “We’re getting a level of consensus on thousands of peer reviewed studies over decades that have established the human contribution to climate change,” Kluger told host Bob Schieffer.”

    • hennorama

      TomK_in_Boston – the panelists are obviously shills for the “climate nuts” and therefore must be dismissed out of hand.
      (tongue firmly in cheek here).

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Clearly they were natural variation denialists.

      • HonestDebate1

        I agree but I’m more concerned about the shills for Holder, Clinton and Obama.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      maybe they will stop calling cannabis marijuana

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      You enjoyed that alarmist propaganda? From whom?  A  a writer for Time, a weather academic, the head of a alarmist advocacy website and a weatherman (who seemed a little uncomfortable with the alarmism).  Was Bill Nye unavailable?

      No mention of the latest science — the inaccuracy of the previous models, the lack of warming for the last 17 years (23 using satellite data), the ‘missing’ heat.

      Too bad Scott Pelley promised last week that CBS news will stop making bad journalistic mistakes.  I guess ole Bob Schieffer didn’t get the memo.

      They put up a temperature chart for the US temp anomaly from 2012.  Too bad they didn’t put up the 2013 chart.  Brrrrr.
      http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/YearTDeptUS.png

      Kind of funny when ole Bob was baiting the guests into blaming the OK tornado on global warming.  None would take it except the only climate scientist on the panel and she said the “jury is still out”.   But wait, Ms. Cullen isn’t just a scientist, she is the CEO of an climate change alarmist website.  I was curious to see who funds her website.  I was dismayed to find about a dozen different government agencies give her funding.  So it turns out I, as a taxpayer, fund that crap.

      As you say — follow the money.

      Speaking of money.  How much did algore make off this scam?  $500M? $1B?

      How about the head of the IPCC, Raj Pachuiri or Canada’s David Suzuki?

      How about the $75M in taxpayer cash the EPA sprinkles around spreading manure?
      http://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/igms_egf.nsf/recipient2?OpenView

      Yes, follow the money.

      • davecm

        Al Gore started company before Obama was elected,first time, that had a fair percent investment in the Chicago Climate Exchange.
        http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629
        In one report, if Obama could have passed this mess, Al’s company could have pocketed close to a trillion.
        Look who is in bed with who!

        • HonestDebate1

          Luckily for him, Algore had a plan B and sold his failed TV network to oil tycoons. I don’t blame him, it takes a lot of money to fly around in private jets and pay the electric bill for his energy hogging 10K square foot house.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Typical high school level diversion. I don’t care about gore, I care about physics. If the vast majority of doctors told you you’d get cancer if you kept doing what you were doing, I don’t think you’d say “it’s not ‘settled’” or “medicine isn’t done by consensus” or “a guy on the internet funded by the company said it’s no problem”. Geez! 

            I hear smoking doesn’t cause cancer, either.

            Anyway, again, congrats to Scheiffer for some rare truth telling by the corporate media.

          • HonestDebate1
          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Please, more right-wing media critshit from Noozebusters!

            It makes taking you unserious so easy.

          • HonestDebate1

            So Newsbusters cites several experts with charts and graphs in an effort to balance CBS and you have a problem with that. I take it you trust CBS. Go right ahead.

    • JONBOSTON

      I tune out from much of the climate change debate. My feelings are why not just assume it’s happening or can happen and adopt common sense solutions that don’t bankrupt this country.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Before you can develop solutions you need to define the problem.  Is the problem warming? is it cooling? is it CO2 emissions?

        Energy security (a steady supply of cheap energy) is a real problem in the US and has cost us multiple $100s of billions over the past few decades (or more).  I believe there are solutions to the energy security problem that will also reduce CO2 emissions.  The key is to develop alternatives that are ‘cheaper than coal’.

        Perhaps there is hope for common ground.

    • jefe68

      It seems that the conservative white male contingent posting here are proving the viability of some stats:
      When it comes to climate change denial, not all human beings are created equal. As a recent study shows, conservative white males are less likely to believe in climate change.

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-conservative-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics

      • HonestDebate1

        And they have bigger biceps too. What do you conclude from it?

        • jefe68

          That you are one lame dude.

          • HonestDebate1

            I have a very smooth gait.

      • jefe68

        And for those who think they are “down trodden” 
        white guys, Louis CK has a few words:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

        • HonestDebate1

          That’s sick.

          • jefe68

            The truth hurts.

          • HonestDebate1

            Do you remember the Wisconsin State Fair? To bad Louis CK was not there.

            http://www.businessinsider.com/race-war-heats-up-at-wisconsin-state-fairwait-the-race-war-2011-8

            If you want the truth then find me an example of white mobs attacking blacks for being black. The truth is it doesn’t happen but there is a rash of black mobs attacking whites in Philadelphia, Chicago, Utica, Jacksonville, St. Louis, Wilmington (Delaware), Greenville (South Carolina), Grand Rapids, Peoria, Springfield (Ohio), Newark, Boston and Brooklyn.

            http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/busting-out-all-over-black-mob-violence/#YFMXhu8HPxB1caOw.99 .

            http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0809/Flash-mob-attacks-Rising-concern-over-black-teen-involvement?nav=A378933-csm_article-bottomRelated

            How about joining me in denouncing racially motivated violence.

          • jefe68

            Wow, you really don’t get it do you. You are so clueless about race, so utterly ridiculous . So lost in your own white world of entitlement that one just does not know where to start. And, you have absolute no sense of humor.

            You post garbage in response to a comedian poking fun at white people.
            It is astonishing, really is.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uvg-ug9CvE

          • jefe68
          • HonestDebate1

            Perfect follow up to my last comment, thanks.

            Do yourself a favor and pull down the CK thing, it doesn’t belong on the same page.

          • jefe68

            Do yourself a favor, stop telling people what to do…

          • HonestDebate1

            For comedy to work there needs to be an element of truth. Louis CK had no truth unless you go back 50 years.

            You said truth hurts. I gave you truth, not funny truth, but you don’t want to see it. You’d rather laugh at lies.

            Regarding Chapelle, he’s a genius. His TV show was brilliant. IMHO he’ the best thing to come along since Richard Pryor or Lenny Bruce. Louis CK is no David Chapelle.

            I have no idea what point you are trying to make. You certainly don’t have a handle on race.

          • jefe68

            Then why are you making such a fuss?

          • HonestDebate1

            Revenge? Is that what you want?

          • 1Brett1

            How is it that hate crime laws are excessive, ridiculous, and unnecessary, as crime is crime (which I’ve heard you say many times), white on black crime as not racially motivated but black on white crime is racially motivated and needs denouncing? 

            Isn’t all crime bad? Doesn’t all crime need denouncing? Isn’t it just a tad racially biased to say that racism is a non-issue, white on black crime is just crime, that color of skin is not to be judged but then black on white crime is to be singled out and denounced as “racially motivated violence”?

          • HonestDebate1

            “white on black crime as not racially motivated but black on white crime is racially motivated and needs denouncing? “

            That’s even bizarre for you. You are judging crime by the color of skin now? Who said black on white crime (who said crime, I’m talking violence) is never racially motivated? Here’s a clue, maybe it is maybe it’s not. I object to the stupid, mind-numbed racist view that you can tell purely by the color of skin.

            Who said anything about stupid-assed hate crime laws? I denounce all racially motivated violence. I single out squat.
            My reply was to Jeffe who posted a video of some jerk ranting about whites as if they are all racist. He was saying in the future they’ll get what they deserve. It’s sick when one considers the backdrop of black mobs all over the country preying on innocent whites. Show me (I haven’t seen it) an epidemic of white mobs beating blacks and I’ll do what you nor Jeffe would and denounce all racially motivated violence. Ya’ll would rather make your entire comments about me, just look atcha’.

          • 1Brett1

            Back with the “never”/”always” straw men. If hate crimes shouldn’t be denounced, then…never mind. Your obtuseness is nothing more than a debate tactic…forget it.

          • HonestDebate1

            What kind of tangent are you on? Just read what I wrote and stop telling me what I think.

          • 1Brett1

            um, you sure seemed to be using skin color to mention “racially motivated violence”I guess you want it both ways.

          • HonestDebate1

            “Using skin color to mention…” yea that’s the same thing. Nope, I’m not in a vacuum.I gave links and links within the links citing, first hand accounts of quotes and evidence.

          • HonestDebate1

            From below: You are the one saying all, not me. 

        • 1Brett1

          Now, jefe, a comedian making fun of white stereotypes is, A) by virtue of his/her material content, not funny, B)  perpetuating falsehoods, and, well, C) sick for promoting racism. However, a comedian making fun of black stereotypes, well, now, that’s A) hysterically funny, B) absolute truth, and C) as righteous as rain because all of that stuff is true about black people…can you not see my non-racist, superior viewpoint? Besides, it’s just plain funny to make fun of black people, everybody knows that! Who in their right mind would make fun of white people? That’s just divisive! 

          • HonestDebate1

            What a sick position, you own it.

            For hilarious fun making of white people check out Chapelle and Pryor below.

          • 1Brett1

            If your point from all of your comments in all of this thread was simply that Louis CK just isn’t funny, then you went through some contortions to get there…but, I’ll play along; let me ask you, in what way do you think Pryor is making fun of white people? Be specific, please, as (and forgive my denseness and lack of understanding of your views) I am curious to know what you specifically find funny about Pryor’s skit. I mean I know what I find funny about it; I’m just wondering if you find something funny about it that is different than my own  sense of humor/why certain things are funny. 

          • 1Brett1

            Also, do you remember Chappelle’s skit about a black, blind guy who was raised by white, southern supremacists/racists and thought he was white because nobody told him he was black? I thought that was brilliant…anyway, what do you think the point to that skit was? 

        • HonestDebate1

          Any time I see someone make the implication that if you are white then you must be a racist I reply, “that’s sick”. I’ll do it every time.

          Honest debate over race is no longer possible and it gripes me. If you and Jeffe want to conclude from all I’ve ever written that I just don’t like white people being made fun of then have at it. I hardly see the point of going there. I don’t want to take the time for you. 

          But I do want to nutshell the comedy thing. The dude wasn’t just not funny, he was portraying blacks as victims. Chappelle and Pryor were not. Their characters had all the power, all the ultimate cool.  

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Unbelievable. And yes, in rich white boy paradise, AKA USA, they feel very sorry for themselves. I mean, they keep getting more and more of the income, so they end up with more of the taxes, how unfair is that?!

        OTOH, the not-rich white males are getting screwed, and some of the righties here don’t exactly strike me as romney types. But, their primary concern seems to be that the 1% aren’t inflicted with any “shared sacrifice”.

        • pete18

          Spoken like a true “scientist.”

          • jefe68

            You keep digging a deeper and deeper hole with the inanity of your comments.

          • pete18

             Wow, you really got nothin’, do you?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            he was either going to have to call it inane or hyperbole

          • jefe68

            Well if you keep doing both what else could it be called? Dumb, stupid, flippant,
            ignorant would work as well.

          • StilllHere

            He’s got a limited vocabulary to match the intellect.

          • jefe68

            And you have something?
            You have to be kidding.

          • StilllHere

            He doesn’t.  Ignorant troll.

          • jefe68

            You really have nothing.

      • pete18

         I guess when you can’t argue the case this all you have left.

        • jefe68

          Well now, seemed to hit a nerve.

          • pete18

            As I said.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    The predictability of the anti-science gang is amazing. You start talking about physics, and in 3 or 4 posts they’re always on to “algore is a fat rich guy”. High school would be a step up.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Let’s talk stats without you invoking flat earther or denialist.

    • jefe68

      I find it hilarious myself. One could almost start a drinking game with how long it takes these folks to mention Al Gore.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    A tenacious statistician forces the UK Met office to admit that the claim of significant global warming is untenable.  Ouch!!!

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/27/met-office-admits-claims-of-significant-temperature-rise-unt.html

    You don’t even need high school stats to understand this.  TomK — this is for you.
    “How Scientific Is Climate Science”

    http://www.informath.org/media/a42.htm

  • HonestDebate1

    I’ve admired the writing skills of PJ O’Rourke since he wrote that article on Ecstasy in Rolling Stone and compared it to his acid hey days by talking about the God’s peeling his skull like an orange and vomiting the encyclopedia Britannica into his head. He called Ecstasy “St. Joseph’s baby acid”. No point really. 

    But he did write a good piece in The Weekly Standard this week. Is Obama stupid?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/stupid_729235.html?nopager=1

  • pete18

    Being that this article was written by a white man about a white man it can’t possibly be true, but for those that still draw their conclusions based on facts, logic and real science you might find it of interest:
    “The
    scientific backing for the global warming scare comes from climate
    science.  Climate science is a weak science.  The atmosphere is chaotic
    and difficult to define with scientific theories.  Attempts to predict
    the future of the climate and to quantify the effects of carbon dioxide
    are speculative and influenced by ideological biases of the various
    scientists.  In climate science there are strong elements attempting to
    enforce uniformity of opinion.  Scientists that depart from the
    prevailing climate political correctness are sanctioned.”

    “The pressure that is building on climate doctrine is the failure of the Earth to warm,
    a trend that has now continued for 16 years.  The longer warming is
    stalled, in the face of constantly increasing CO2, the harder it becomes
    for the believers to continue believing.  Compounding the failure of
    the Earth to warm is the failure of the oceans to warm
    for the last 10 years.  Normally, failure of the Earth to warm would be
    explained by saying that the ocean is sucking up the energy flux that
    would cause the atmosphere to warm.  But if the ocean is not warming
    either, that explanation won’t work.  (Some persistent believers in
    ocean warming are now searching for the missing warmth in the deep
    ocean, a part of the ocean that is largely beyond the vision of most
    monitoring systems.)”
    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/is_roy_spencer_the_worlds_most_important_scientist.html?utm_source=feedly#ixzz2UYFPBmpQ
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    • jefe68

      This is sad and pathetic. The American Thinker blog, that’s the link you are using? Really?

      • pete18

         Again, this is an article for people interested in facts, logic, and scientific debate, not you. Unless there are some facts or arguments that you think are faulty and you want to counter with something specific other than that you don’t like the source.

        • jefe68

          Facts? It’s my impression that you are not interested in a debate. You just want to engage in this tit for tat nonsense. No matter what link I post, you would find fault in it. Even if it was this one: http://climate.nasa.gov/

          or this one: http://www.climatecentral.org/

          and perhaps this one: http://www.noaa.gov/

          Again, the American thinker blog is your source, and it’s not one that one would call interested in facts.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             You clearly didn’t read the article.  It was a well thought out piece by a trained physicist and member of the AMS and AGU.

            Why is NASA and the EPA spending money on climate research and climate propaganda?  Talk about mission creep.  We already fund NOAA for climate research.  NASAs involvement should be limited to satellite delivery.

          • HonestDebate1

            Isn’t NASA spending money on a Muslim outreach initiative too?

          • jefe68

            I did read article and found it to be rehashing all the right wing talking points on global warming. It’s nothing new.

            That you think it’s a well thought out piece is no surprise. The rest of your comment is also telling.

            Mission creep, what a load of bunk.

          • pete18

            Given that you posted an article that tried to make an issue
            out of the race and gender of people who were skeptical of the group-think on global warming, it’s hard to take your “impression” about who it is that is “interested”
            in debate very seriously.

             

            As both you and Tom “Aristotle” K should know, who it is that believes in something has no bearing on whether it’s true or not. It is my impression that someone that who makes an orgasmic fuss over such irrelevant
            matters isn’t at all interested in serious debate about anything. However, if you can point to anything specific in any in any of your links that addresses
            the serious problem of the lack of any warming over the last 16 years, despite the continuing increases in CO2 over that same period of time, I’d be happy to
            discuss it.

          • jefe68

            And yet all the white men complaining about what I posted on global warming here seem to back up the findings. Conservative and white…

            I never said I was interested in debating Global Warming, did I. I’m not. As far as I’m concerned it’s well beyond the debate of is it happening or are humans a large part of the cause. I posted links of sites with plenty of information on the subject.

            You’re not interested in doing your own leg work so be it.
             
            I could post links to peer reviewed papers and you lot would still say it was not evidence or that it was tired some conspiracy. 

          • pete18

             ”I could post links to peer reviewed papers and you lot would still say it was not evidence or that it was tied some conspiracy.”

            No, I would respond specifically to your points and have a debate about ideas with you. I’m sure we would not end up agreeing on anything but the ideas would be honestly explored, which to me is the point of these forums. However, given the the infantile and obtuse nature of your posts, it’s clear you are not capable of an honest debate about much of anything except how much you hate conservatives.

  • Guest

    Is anyone surprised that the rules for Congress are different from the rules for the rest of us?

    “CONGRESS’S OBAMACARE EXEMPTION”

    “The President intervenes to give Members and staff a break.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324635904578644202946287548.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    “The lesson for Americans is that Democrats who passed ObamaCare didn’t even understand what they were doing to themselves, much less to everyone else. But you can bet Democrats will never extend to ordinary Americans the same fixes that they are now claiming for themselves. The real class divide in President Obama’s America is between the political class and everyone else.”

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 24, 2014
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, left, talks with Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-Covina at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Monday, April 21, 2014. Hernandez proposed a constitutional amendment that would ask voters to again allow public colleges to use race and ethnicity when considering college applicants. The proposal stalled this year after backlash from Asian Americans. (AP)

California as Exhibit A for what happens when a state bans affirmative action in college admissions. We’ll look at race, college and California.

Apr 24, 2014
A Buddhist monk lights the funeral pyre of Nepalese mountaineer Ang Kaji Sherpa, killed in an avalanche on Mount Everest, during his funeral ceremony in Katmandu, Nepal, Monday, April 21, 2014.  (AP)

A Sherpa boycott on Everest after a deadly avalanche. We’ll look at climbing, culture, life, death and money at the top of the world.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 23, 2014
Attendees of the 2013 Argentina International Coaching Federation meet for networking and coaching training. (ICF)

The booming business of life coaches. Everybody seems to have one these days. Therapists are feeling the pinch. We look at the life coach craze.

 
Apr 23, 2014
In this Thursday, Dec. 20, 2012, file photo, Chet Kanojia, founder and CEO of Aereo, Inc., shows a tablet displaying his company's technology, in New York. Aereo is one of several startups created to deliver traditional media over the Internet without licensing agreements. (AP)

The Supreme Court looks at Aereo, the little startup that could cut your cable cord and up-end TV as we’ve known it. We look at the battle. Plus: a state ban on affirmative action in college admissions is upheld. We’ll examine the implications.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Up At Everest Base Camp, ‘People Still Don’t Know The Ramifications’
Thursday, Apr 24, 2014

With a satellite phone call from Mount Everest’s Base Camp, climber and filmmaker David Breashears informs us that the Everest climbing season “is over.”

More »
Comment
 
The Week In Seven Soundbites: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Holy week with an unholy shooter. South Koreans scramble to save hundreds. Putin plays to the crowd in questioning. Seven days gave us seven sounds.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Space moon oceans, Gabriel García Márquez and the problems with depressing weeks in the news. Also: important / unnecessary infographics that help explain everyone’s favorite 1980′s power ballad.

More »
Comment