This entry was posted on July 21, 2009 at 6:28 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Red, I believe you are once against conflating two different things – Joe said implying Trig was Bristol’s child rather than Sarah’s is no reflection on him, and indeed, it is not. We do not (or at least should not) visit the sins of the parent onto the child. What it would say about Sarah and Bristol depends on your personal moral code.
And If I stated someone’s mother was actually his grandmother, would that be an attack? Joe says it wasn’t an attack on Trig, which is a load of crap.
Just FYI, this would NOT be an attack on the CHILD.
For the record, I know someone who found out in adulthood that her older sister was actually her mother and the woman she thought was her mother was actually her grandmother and it was devastating to her. Not the mere fact, but the life-long lies.
Responding here, so others may view it before it passes into the unknown and unremembered:
Quote from ” 7/20 Free-For-All”
imnotblue Says:
July 21, 2009 at 11:29 am
I’m still waiting for responses from you on 2 or 3 other threads where you were proven wrong, and then bailed. But, as has been your habit… you run when cornered, and insult when you’ve got nothing else to say. At least you’re consistent.
unclearthur Says:
July 21, 2009 at 11:57 am
Oh please. Your life is one long Last Word Contest, isn’t it. Bet your coworkers avoid you like the plague. And clue? you’ve never proved anyone wrong in your pathetic little life.
Rant away, moron. I’m putting you on ‘ignore’.
Just to clarify, Art… when you said this on 7/17 Free-For-All:
Where on earth did you get ‘that he [Charlie Rangel] had no intention of supporting or voting for’ [his own bill to bring back the draft]?
And I brought up this information:
In 2003, Rangel introduced HR 163; legislation that would draft both men and women between the ages of 18-26 starting as early as June 2005. It was defeated 402-3 the following year in the House of Representatives, with Rangel voting against his own bill.
That wasn’t proving you wrong… even though, you were clearly wrong about Rangel not doing exactly what I said he was doing?
It must be nice to never be wrong… even when you’re wrong.
Just to recap… you don’t see things that don’t fit your spin, things you don’t see don’t exist, and if you deny/criticize/state that something IS, then that’s exactly how it IS, no matter what other facts or evidence proves contradictory.
But yet again… continue with the school yard insults, they really bolster your argument.
I’m just a kind-hearted giver. You’re so mired in your own hate an self-righteousness that you have trouble in a few key areas: civility, maturity, and honesty. I’m just trying to help you out… and by pointing out those things to you, and how it’s manifested… and perhaps you’ll be able to make a change for the better.
As I’ve always said, you don’t have to agree with me… a little decency and respect is all I ask. And together, Art… I’m gonna help you get there!
Imnot – Civility? MATURITY? honesty? From YOU? You could insist the sky was green, and stalk me from thread to thread insisting it was green and calling me a liar AFTER I pointed you to spectroscopic analysis that said otherwise. I’m tired of you ignoring me every F*CKING TIME I answer your boneheaded questions and repeating the same damned thing days later. I know it’s pointless to suggest you grow up, so try shutting up. You’re a bore, a brat and a bully.
Red, I have no comment about some anonymous idiot saying something stupid about abortion or anything else. I didn’t bring it up and it doesn’t relate to what I did mention: the questions involving Trig’s birth (nobody noticing Sarah was pregnant, Bristol out of school for several months, etc.).
You seem to consider all negative comments about the Palins in the same light, as well as all sources of it. If I don’t like something Sarah Palin says or does, or if I have questions about her murky backstory, I’m trashing her and everyone in her family. Conversely, cable news, newspapers, blogs and comment sections all carry the same gravity. So if some idiot Lefty/Righty leaves an anonymous crazy shot in a comments section, it gets the same attention from you as if Arianna Huffington or Rush Limbaugh said it.
The truth is, you’re not trying to have a real discussion about news and politics. Your role here is to shout to the heavens that conservatism is The Truth and liberalism is The Devil. I used to play that game and know it well.
I’m not sure I know this story, Joe. Have you mentioned it here?
I’ve made passing reference to it a couple times. I became a “born again Christian” as a teenager in 1979, at the end of the 1970s “Jesus Movement” and on the cusp of the Reagan Revolution. I remember sitting in church and being handed a “report card” comparing Reagan to Carter on biblical issues, with Reagan the winner. Ironic, really, because Carter popularized the term “born again”.
I used to be one of those people that believes biblical principles should be applied to government, and anyone who opposed that view was a threat. In my mind Republican equaled God and Democrat equaled Satan. It was a very simplistic POV and widespread throughout the Christian community. And that certainty made political debate with me impossible. If you disagreed with me, you were just wrong because I knew The Truth and you were “lost”.
By the way, I’m still a somewhat religious person, but my beliefs are much more complex now, with big doses of I Don’t Know involved.
Joe, just to be clear. I’m no huge Palin defender. I’ve never posted anything about her great qualities or fitness for Presidency. I am, however, repulsed by the attacks on her family, and I consider the Trig Truther b.s. to be an attack on the entire family, including Trig.
It also goes far beyond anonymous posters. Art spends countless hours on his lefty hate blogs, but has somehow never seen a post, article, etc. trashing Trig, when we all know they’re out there.
If you want to criticize Palin for her comments, fitness for office, etc… go right ahead. They’re fair game. Leave the family out of it.
And just because she brought them on state at the RNC convention doesn’t make them fair game. That would make Malia & Sasha fair game, too. THEY’RE NOT.
And I was a NOW member/clinic escort in those days. Strange how things work out. Did vote for Reagan, though, enthusiastically. Things went a bit awry after that. Still a good decade, though. Youth and all.
We simply disagree about the definition of “trashing”. I thought the Trig story had some pretty big holes in it, although the evidence still leans toward Sarah being the mother. Whether you believe Palin is the mother or grandmother simply does not reflect on Trig at all.
Your strict definition of “leaving the family out” means there can be no discussion of Sarh Palin as a mother in anything but positive terms, no matter how long the plane ride to Alaska is, or how often Levi was allowed to sleep with Bristol in her home.
Got news for you. If Barack and Michelle had murky or irresponsible stuff going on with their kids, I would talk about it.
“The evidence still leans toward Sarah being the mother.”
Oh my God. Are you freaking kidding me???
Trig was born April 18th.
Bristol’s baby was born December 28th.
DO THE MATH. Did she gave birth to a Downs Syndrome baby prematurely, get pregnant immediately afterwards (against the orders of every doctor in American), and then give birth again prematurely????
And you’re the one that posted repeatedly about Palin’s water breaking. Did she fake that???
Seems to me, if somebody had unequivocal evidence that Sarah Palin was not Trig’s mother then that would be a valid news item and worthy of the full gamut of critical and speculative remarks I’ve read here and elsewhere. Absent that evidence, though, such conjecture is distasteful, sexist, and downright cruel.
For those of you who are parents, can you think of anything more dehumanising than to be falsely accused in public of lying about being the mother or father of your child?
Regarding Rep. Rangel voting against his own bill: Not sure about House rules, but in the Senate parliamentary procedures, a member voting against a bill that loses has the right to offer a motion to bring it back for another vote without the bill first having to go through all of the requisite committees.
Art spends countless hours on his lefty hate blogs, but has somehow never seen a post, article, etc. trashing Trig, when we all know they’re out there.
Just to be clear, the blogs I read daily are:
Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo (and I ONLY read TPM – I don’t read the numerous ‘diaries’ that cluster around it akin to the ‘dailyKOS diaries.)
Political Animal at Washington Monthly
Balloon Juice (John Cole, a former neocon who has seen the light)
Kevin Drum, formerly of Political Animal, now blogging at Mother Jones
I sometimes read threefiftyeight.com because I love how Nate Silver can demolish rightwing talking points with cold hard fact. It was certainly more interesting during the election – I only wander over there rarely now, and usually when one of my other blogs link to it.
I used to read Americablog but stopped when John Aravosis became such a freaking pig about Hillary Clinton that it was revolting. Be for Obama all you want, but the hate thrown at Hillary was vile. I revisited recently and noticed that he’s now all hating on Obama for not repealing DADT and DOMA fast enough to suit John.
I visit HuffPo aperiodically, typically on Big News Item days, just to see what they’re saying about it, or watch the Comedy Central videos.
If you want to call those lefty hate sites, feel free, but it says a great deal more about you than it does about me.
Al, completely agree. It’s time to get off of this topic and move on as there is absolutely no redeeming social value in continuing this discussion.
We could always discuss VP Biden’s statment today about the beautiful women in the Ukraine. My question is why hasn’t anyone from NOW condemned the statement? Different standard perhaps???
My point is not to go over the Trig’s Mom topic, but to express that discussing does not constitute “trashing” the kid.
As far as the actual topic at hand, first of all, Red…chill. “Oh my God. Are you freaking kidding me” is your usual total-spastic reaction to anything you disagree with. Second, I don’t KNOW her water broke, I know she SAID it did…then she got on an 11 hour flight without saying anything about it to the crew, which led to the theory that she was trying to get home for somebody else’s birth, not her own.
Your time line is the main thing that deflates the rumor, but you’ve got to admit there’s a number of interesting events surrounding this birth. If nothing else, assuming Sarah was pregnant and her water broke before that flight, it’s another example of bizarre/irresponsible behavior from Sarah Palin.
How ’bout this? “ANCHORAGE, Alaska – An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees, in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week.”
Or this? “From ‘Socialized Medicine’ To ‘Dead Baby Juice,’ GOP Moderate Faces Down Rabid Right-Wing Conspiracies”
My favorite part:
The Swine Flu Epidemic Is A Conspiracy To Force AIDS-Infected Vaccines On The American Public. Audience member: “The virus was built and created in Fort Dix, a small bioweapons plant outside of Fort Dix. This was engineered. This thing didn’t just crop up in a cave or a swine farm. This thing was engineered, the virus. Pasteur International, one of the big vaccine companies in Chicago, has been caught sending AIDS-infected vaccines to Africa. Do you think I trust — I don’t trust you with anything. You think I’m going to trust you to put a needle full of dead baby juice and monkey kidneys? Cause that’s what this stuff is grown on, dead babies!”
Not sure why taking a flight while in early stages of labour would be considered “bizarre” or “irresponsible”. Reports are that a physician gave her the okie-dokie to take the flight.
Besides, Alaskans know how to deal with problems. She isn’t a wimp from the lower 48.
Not sure why taking a flight while in early stages of labour would be considered “bizarre” or “irresponsible”. Reports are that a physician gave her the okie-dokie to take the flight.
Most OB/GYNs wouldn’t give the okay to fly in the final month of pregnancy, particularly for a child already known to have developmental problems. And many airlines have restrictions – some as stringent as not allowing you to fly you’re more than seven months pregnant.
That ethics complaint will also be found to be baseless, just like the rest of ‘em. Such tactics only serve to scare away the best and brightest from public service.
That ethics complaint will also be found to be baseless, just like the rest of ‘em.
This was an investigator for the state personnel board and he found ‘probable cause’; just saying.
FWIW, I think the reasoning is kind of suspect: “An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, he wrote. “In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund.”"
Yeah, and an ordinary citizen wouldn’t be a lawsuit magnet like a public figure is, either. Ask Bill and Hillary Clinton.
That said, Palin herself bragged about how she made Alaskan government ethics the most stringent in the nation, so it’s kind of a case of being hoist on your own petard.
“Most OB/GYNs wouldn’t give the okay to fly in the final month of pregnancy, particularly for a child already known to have developmental problems.”
Not entirely accurate. Most would not give the OK if there ar pregnancy abnormalities, which is different from abnormalities such as Down Syndrome. The American College of OB/GYN does not recommend air travel for women who are past their 36th week, but that is not a hard-fast rule.
Also FWIW? I’m pretty sure Palin knew this was coming and that ‘profiting from your government position’ is one of the things she specifically outlawed in the new ethics guidelines and that has a lot to do with her getting out, where she is no longer bound by them.
“That said, Palin herself bragged about how she made Alaskan government ethics the most stringent in the nation, so it’s kind of a case of being hoist on your own petard.”
You’re right, of course, and that in itself is a sad thing. She straightened out a corrupt network of politicians, many of her own party. So she already had a target on her back from the local establishment for doing the right thing and becoming the VP nom created a national shooting gallery.
Still and all, Al, I think it’s at least HINKY that she took per diem from the state when she was staying at her own HOUSE in Wasilla. Per diem is supposed to reimburse you for the expenses incurred by government travel, and while she should certainly be able to claim mileage, per diem??
–So to be clear, the Clinton Legal Defense Fund…perfectly legal.
The Palin defense fund. Unethical and illegal.
A mom who has given birth to 4 children….has no idea what she’s doing.
Joeremi, who presumably hasn’t given birth….an expert.
Did it occur to you that she knows the birth process and her own body a little better than you do? And maybe she wanted HER DOCTOR to do the delivery, not some stranger?
Did it ever occur to YOU that reacting to her water breaking by hopping an 11 hour flight without alerting the crew to her condition was a really strange thing to do?
Here’s what I think about the per diem on her house: Apparently the state government doesn’t see anything wrong with it and it’s an acceptable practice. I view it much like I do how companies used to allow some employees use of their expense accounts for personal purposes, a practice that was widespread and continued for many years until it was no longer deemed to be tax deductible.
On the flip side, there may be expenses unique to being a governor of a very large state. If so, I’m ok with it but still it seems a bit shady. At the very least, clearly defined rules for its use should be made.
–So to be clear, the Clinton Legal Defense Fund…perfectly legal.
The Palin defense fund. Unethical and illegal.
Alaska has different ethics rules than the federal government, rules Palin BRAGGED about. I think it’s stupid, but she’s the one that was so frigging smug about it.
A mom who has given birth to 4 children….has no idea what she’s doing.
Anyone who’s done a little reading (and I realize that excludes you) knows that the more children you have, the quicker they come. A first child can take hours or even days to be born, but barring complications, subsequent children are born much faster.
I’ll leave off the medical reason to spare your blushes and just say that the moms get better with practice.
Here’s what I think about the per diem on her house: Apparently the state government doesn’t see anything wrong with it and it’s an acceptable practice.
Well, it wasn’t very acceptable in ’88, according the Washington Post story on Palin’s expenses:
In the past, per diem claims by Alaska state officials have carried political risks. In 1988, the head of the state Commerce Department was pilloried for collecting a per diem charge of $50 while staying in his Anchorage home, according to local news accounts. The commissioner, the late Tony Smith, resigned amid a series of controversies.
“It was quite the little scandal,” said Tony Knowles, the Democratic governor from 1994 to 2000. “I gave a direction to all my commissioners if they were ever in their house, whether it was Juneau or elsewhere, they were not to get a per diem because, clearly, it is and it looks like a scam — you pay yourself to live at home,” he said.
I view it much like I do how companies used to allow some employees use of their expense accounts for personal purposes, a practice that was widespread and continued for many years until it was no longer deemed to be tax deductible.
Duuude! what companies? I wanna work there. (Man, I HATE our new automated expense reporting system – it sux.)
FWIW, it apparently isn’t ILLEGAL to pay yourself to live at home (forestalling Red here), since the state only charged her back taxes on the per diem, but there’s simply no way to make it look legitimate.
“I know it’s pointless to suggest you grow up, so try shutting up.”
*Sigh* This is what I get for just caring too much.
Art, you’ve passed that particular lie (that you answer questions) off before… and as I quote above, you’re wrong. You were wrong about Rangel… and you’re now wrong that I’ve never proved you wrong. If you have a problem with me wanting to engage you, tough. You are the absolute stereotypical Liberal… you can dish it out, but sure can’t take it. But as long as you insist on being so condescending and intolerant, not to mention factually wrong, or at least just wrong in my opinion… I will quote, comment, and reply to you until I’m content.
You don’t like it? Complain to someone else. Free speech is a b!tch… isn’t it?
Al Says:
July 21, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Interesting… I didn’t know that. However, Rangel also commented that he thought it was “unfair” of the Republicans to make people vote on his bill… and suggested that they were “playing politics” in calling the vote. Seems to me, he had no intention of voting on it… just using it as a political statement to garner support with certain voting groups.
unclearthur Says:
July 21, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Isn’t is tough for you to say that you don’t visit far-left hate sites… and then POST SOMETHING FROM THINK PROGRESS?
OOPS! You forgot to mention that you apparently visit that site too!
Congressman Rangel did say that and, from his point of view, it was unfair. They were playing politics… but that’s what happens in politics. You’ll find other quotes from Mr. Rangel in which he elaborates on why he believes the draft would be a good thing and I, while I believe he’s wrong, I have no reason to think he’s being disingenuous.
In my mind, Al… putting forth legislation that you’re not going to vote for (as he didn’t), that know will never make it out of congress, and that you’re not seriously trying to encourage, for the purpose of tricking your consistency is disingenuous.
IMO, Rangel was doing this so he could appeal to his minority supporters (which he has many of), by putting forth the old argument (despite missing evidence) that the military is comprised of mostly minority and/or poor men and women. With that in mind, suggesting that he’s going to push for the draft says, “Now, instead of you people, we’ll get the rich white guys to fight instead!”
Essentially he puts up a false argument to anger the crowd, and then his own solution to “fix” the problem, making him look like a hero. The problem is, of course, that he’s not going to get the draft passed… so he can say whatever he wants, with little to no consequences. That’s what makes it so disingenuous… and why (again, IMO) he was so upset when the Republicans tried to get him to vote on it… they called his bluff.
(PS- Sorry for the misleading quote/reference… I sometimes do that when there’s not a particular sentence or thought I’m responding to, but the whole thing. Cuts down on needless re-posting and saves space… and that’s why I include the time-stamp, so someone else can reference the original post as needed.)
Art, you’ve passed that particular lie (that you answer questions) off before… and as I quote above, you’re wrong. You were wrong about Rangel… and you’re now wrong that I’ve never proved you wrong.
You are wrong on the facts. Rangel voted against the bill he sponsored (probably for the reason Al mentioned), yet he has SAID (as I pointed out on the other thread) he plans to reintroduce it and he lists it as one of his issues on his own website. GIVEN THAT, I take him at his own word that he’s FOR it. So not only did you NOT ‘prove me wrong’ on that issue, you don’t prove me wrong on proving you wrong. (You sad little creature – this is really important to you, isn’t it?)
by putting forth the old argument (despite missing evidence) that the military is comprised of mostly minority and/or poor men and women.
Minorities, particularly blacks, make up far more of the military than their representation in the general population – 22 percent to 13 percent. That is a simple fact. No one said the military is MOSTLY minority – it would be damned weird if it was.
Isn’t is tough for you to say that you don’t visit far-left hate sites… and then POST SOMETHING FROM THINK PROGRESS?
ThinkProgress is a HATE site now? Wow, are you warped. EVERYONE is linking to that hilarious video. I suggest you go watch it – you might find some kindred spirits in that crazed crowd of lunatics. “Dead baby juice”!
And why do all the worst haters fling the word ‘hate’ around so much?
Cavuto lives to have these nuts on the air-this guy and Meme Roth. Sort of a self-loathing thing, perhaps. If she was morbidly obese, maybe. Far as I can tell she’s no worse than C. Everett Koop or Joycelin Elders, it’s just that we choose to have a bone up over fat these day.
It’s not like she smokes, or anything. Horrors.
Cavuto lives to have these nuts on the air-this guy and Meme Roth.
I found the teeshirt particularly loathsome. Do you suppose he walks around in public wearing that? Or did he hide it under a shirt until he got to the studio?
I would pay money to watch Meghan McCain take him on.
Well… no I’m not. I may be wrong (read: different view) on opinion… but not the facts. If I were wrong on the “facts,” you could point to some “facts” that I’ve said are one way, but are the other. Instead, you need to say:
“GIVEN THAT, I take him at his own word that he’s FOR it.”
A courtesy you extol on only a certain few. But more importantly, if you’re “taking him at his own word,” you’re accepting his view, which is your opinion… not a fact.
The fact is… Rangel voted AGAINST his bill, something you attacked me for saying he did. Yet again, I quote you:
Where on earth did you get ‘that he [Charlie Rangel] had no intention of supporting or voting for’ [his own bill to bring back the draft]?
Now, whether or not he plans to support it in the future is up for debate… although, as I recall, the article you linked to said he’d introduce it in the first 6 months… which have passed. But, since we don’t know the future, it’s tough to argue. The point remains, however, he put up the bill, didn’t vote to support it, and at this time has no concrete plans to reintroduce it.
“(You sad little creature – this is really important to you, isn’t it?)”
Since you don’t seem to get it… I’ll point this out for you. Is this really necessary? Is this helping your argument, making you feel better, allowing you to think you’ve “hurt” me? For God’s sake, Grow UP! Or at least get some new material… it’s like getting insulted on “Nickelodeon”… be a man, already.
“Minorities, particularly blacks, make up far more of the military than their representation in the general population…”
Link me up… I’d like to see where those stats come from, please.
“ThinkProgress is a HATE site now?”
Hate site now… hate site then… whatever. But tell me (I know, I know, you hate answering questions), since we’re talking about left-wing hate sites… why don’t you tell me which left-wing sites out there you consider hate sites. We know which ones you DON’T consider hate sites… so which ones are? This is all for perspective… to better understand where you’re coming from.
“EVERYONE is linking to that hilarious video.”
Who is “everyone?”
“And why do all the worst haters fling the word ‘hate’ around so much?”
I dunno…why don’t you tell me. And while you’re at it… tell me what I hate, and give me an example or two.
“How ’bout this? Fox news interviews a guy in a ‘no chubbies’ teeshirt…”
So? They’re not allowed to interview people? There is an interesting argument to be made here (although, the guy did it goof-ily… but is that the news network’s responsibility, to make sure the guy doesn’t make a fool of himself?). One of the biggest health problems in America is obesity, and to have someone in charge of the country’s heath overweight herself, seems contradictory. You’d have trouble seeing a cancer specialist who smoked, wouldn’t you? But anyway… they did the interview, they didn’t put his shirt on.
This is all for perspective… to better understand where you’re coming from.
Forget it, Ace. You’re not even on the same planet.
Link me up… I’d like to see where those stats come from, please.
You know there’s a wonderful new technology available? it’s called ‘google’ and you type stuff in and it SHOWS you were to find related material! It’s really awesome… you should try it.
But since I’m pretty sure that’s beyond your technical expertise, here ya go:
From 1997 Business Publications:
Every year since the Vietnam War, around 20 percent of the first term enlistees entering the armed forces are black, well above the African-American fraction of the population (14 percent of the prime age group). Why? Because blacks see in the military services opportunities often unavailable to them in civilian America. African Americans see the armed services as practicing equal opportunity, and as having far higher percentages of black supervisors than those found in any other occupation. Moreover, blacks are not recruited or employed solely or even mainly in combat organizations. While African Americans are 30 percent of the army’s enlisted force, they hold more than 30 percent of the non-combat specialties. The medical career field, for example, is disproportionately black. Blacks are thus not over-represented in the combat arms; about 20 percent of today’s army recruits are black, but fewer than 10 percent of those enlistees destined for infantry training are black. Blacks, in other words, are not recruited solely as warriors and usually choose careers that have civilian transferability.(1)
More recently, blacks are less willing to join the military, which is a problem for military recruiters. From 2005:
WASHINGTON – Fewer African-Americans are joining the Army, a trend likely to make it harder to keep the all-volunteer military at full strength.
The percentage of African-Americans among all those who signed up for active-duty Army service fell from 24 percent in 2000 to 14 percent in 2005, according to Army statistics. That’s the lowest percentage since 1973, when the draft ended and the all-volunteer military began, say David R. Segal and Mady Wechsler Segal, sociologists with the University of Maryland’s Center for Research on Military Organization.
In the past, African-Americans have enlisted at higher rates than their overall percentage of the U.S. population, which was 12.9 percent in the 2000 census.
“These trends may spell trouble for the Army, which has depended on blacks to meet its recruiting goals and re-enlistment targets,” the Segals wrote in a November study.
In 1974, blacks made up 27 percent of new Army recruits and 21 percent of new Marine recruits, 16 percent of Air Force enlistees and 10 percent of Navy enlistees, according to the study.
“Basically, what has happened over time with the all-volunteer force is that the Army has become sort of dependent on the overrepresentation of African-American recruits, who have been more inclined to stay,” David Segal said in an interview.
Nothing yet, Chips. The budget hasn’t officially passed the legislature yet, and may already be dead in the water. People are up in arms over a proposal for early release/home detention for some prisoners in our hugely over-crowded and expensive penal system. Stay tuned.
I hope your position will remain safe…Perhaps the best way to deal with your state’s politicians is to keep them locked in the chamber with only bread & water until the state budget is passed.
No cell phones, no motor cars, not a single luxury (you get the drift)
Forget it, Ace. You’re not even on the same planet.
Nope… I’m on Earth. It’s nice here… and where are you? How’s the weather there?
As for the articles (gee… I hope asking you to back up your statement wasn’t too taxing for you… I know providing evidence and example when you say something can be tough, and perhaps I should just “take your word for it” because, you know, you’re never wrong… but there I go again, those “journalism classes” kicking in when least expected… I just hope you’re okay):
The first article is pretty interesting… the second, I’m going to have to pass on, or at least take with a very large gain of salt… but I don’t have one that big, so I’ll probably just pass. Reason? Well… note the publication source, and remember that this came out in the height of the “there aren’t enough volunteers” chorus coming from the left (which was false), and being that this is a proclaimed “progressive” site, my skepticism meter is way high.
The first article is pretty interesting… the second, I’m going to have to pass on, or at least take with a very large gain of salt… but I don’t have one that big, so I’ll probably just pass
If you’re willing to accept article 1, then you admit that blacks make up a much larger portion of the military than their representation in the general population (between 13-14 percent).
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but you did challenge me on the fact.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but you did challenge me on the fact.
Well, I’ve seen articles that have contradicted that information… so I wanted to see your information. I’m glad you provided me some info, because I already had reason to doubt the stuff I had seen (it was from a right-wing group, who had their own agenda to push).
It [the article] doesn’t necessarily change anything (and I’d like to see some more current data… although I think the poor vs. wealthy statistic is more relevant than the racial stats), but it’s nice to have support for your comments.
I don’t think that’s asking too much… do you?
Now onto the issue of “civility”… nah, not enough time…
Well, I’ve seen articles that have contradicted that information… so I wanted to see your information. I’m glad you provided me some info, because I already had reason to doubt the stuff I had seen (it was from a right-wing group, who had their own agenda to push).
yeah, I found many of those sites when googling for demographics – it’s kind of disturbing that there are people who are so racist that they have to make stuff up about other demographics to make themselves feel good.
…it’s kind of disturbing that there are people who are so racist that they have to make stuff up about other demographics to make themselves feel good.
Like Barbra Boxer, who apparently sees all black people as a group, not a group of individuals?
I’m not saying they “made it up,” and certainly not because of “racism.” They were able to find “friendly facts” to support their thesis… just as the Democrats and Liberals do. It should be real easy to determine the answer to this question… very obvious statistic should be available… but they’re not, and that throws the whole thing into question.
It should be real easy to determine the answer to this question… very obvious statistic should be available… but they’re not, and that throws the whole thing into question.
They are available – I found many DoD sites that had statistics in PDF files that I didn’t feel like downloading. The trick is, you can play games with ‘recruiting’ figures versus ‘retention’ figures. Blacks don’t sign up for the service in much greater numbers than their representation in the population (about 1.03 was the figure I saw; that is, they were three percent more likely to sign up than a random white guy), but they STAY in the service longer than the average white guy, usually in specialties, so their numbers in the service at any given time are higher than their recruitment figures wold lead you to believe.
Also their staying in specialty longer than the average white guy who signed up at the same time means they rise farther and you are more like to find black senior enlisted personnel in greater numbers in some specialties than white senior enlisted personnel.
Okay, so back to our original debate… if all that’s true, wouldn’t Rangel be playing politics with the information, in trying to suggest that poor minorities are target more heavily my the military? It would seem they’re “targeted” the same, but stay longer… by choice! Shouldn’t they’re commitment to the country, and the apparently equality on display within military ranks be something worth celebrating?
wouldn’t Rangel be playing politics with the information, in trying to suggest that poor minorities are target more heavily my the military? It would seem they’re “targeted” the same, but stay longer… by choice!
He’s not saying they’re ‘targeted’ more, he’s saying that they bear more than their proportional share of the work (and risk) of defending the country and he’s right, they do. Doesn’t matter whether or not it’s their choice.
The point is, it’s just mentally easier for powerful white guys to put minorities at risk than, say, the sons and daughters of their colleagues and friends.
Well… I think it would be easier for anyone to put “someone else” at risk, than their own sons and daughters. That’s human nature.
But the facts don’t back up his assertion. If minorities are carrying more of the burden, as you said, it’s THEIR choice to do so! If it’s the retention level that’s higher among blacks because they appreciate the structure, and the military tends to be “more color blind,” then it’s their decision that keeps them in that position. More over, if there are more blacks in leadership positions… doesn’t that damage the notion that it’s white guys sending them into battle… doesn’t that suggest there are a lot of minorities participating in making those decisions?
July 21, 2009 at 10:48 am
That stupid white bar is missing from It’s The Economy on MSNBC. Good riddance.
July 21, 2009 at 10:55 am
It’s back. Never mind. I hate that thing.
July 21, 2009 at 11:47 am
Joeremi should have been aborted.
But I’m not attacking him.
July 21, 2009 at 11:55 am
Your sister is really your mother, Red. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
July 21, 2009 at 11:59 am
Red, you’re making Art look good. No small accomplishment, young man.
July 21, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Well, according to Joe, saying Trig should have been aborted isn’t an attack on Trig.
So me saying Joe should have been aborted couldn’t be an attack on Joe, right?
July 21, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Red, I believe you are once against conflating two different things – Joe said implying Trig was Bristol’s child rather than Sarah’s is no reflection on him, and indeed, it is not. We do not (or at least should not) visit the sins of the parent onto the child. What it would say about Sarah and Bristol depends on your personal moral code.
July 21, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Complete nonsense, Art. And I notice you completely skated around the “you should have been aborted” issue.
I guess that’s somehow not an attack on Trig either.
July 21, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Now back to cable news…
Why isn’t Your World in HD yet??? You would think, with MSNBC all HD that FNC would finally get the rest of the programming in HD.
July 21, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Complete nonsense, Art. And I notice you completely skated around the “you should have been aborted” issue.
I guess that’s somehow not an attack on Trig either.
You are truly certifiable. Joe never said anything about how anyone should have been aborted – YOU did.
July 21, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Hey Red, drinking again are we?
July 21, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I warned him about that bong, but who listens to me?
July 21, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I guess I’ve been listening to too many of those 70s songs Joe mentioned a few days ago.
You’re right. I brought up the abortion comments, because I wanted clarification from Joe, which he has still failed to give.
If I stated someone’s mother was actually his grandmother, would that be an attack? Joe says it wasn’t an attack on Trig, which is a load of crap.
So, one final time…. “Trig should have been aborted”. Is this an attack on Trig, or not?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
July 21, 2009 at 2:58 pm
So, one final time…. “Trig should have been aborted”. Is this an attack on Trig, or not?
Sure it is, but who outside your own sick mind is even saying that? No one here, that’s for sure.
July 21, 2009 at 3:00 pm
And If I stated someone’s mother was actually his grandmother, would that be an attack? Joe says it wasn’t an attack on Trig, which is a load of crap.
Just FYI, this would NOT be an attack on the CHILD.
For the record, I know someone who found out in adulthood that her older sister was actually her mother and the woman she thought was her mother was actually her grandmother and it was devastating to her. Not the mere fact, but the life-long lies.
July 21, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Responding here, so others may view it before it passes into the unknown and unremembered:
Quote from ” 7/20 Free-For-All”
Just to clarify, Art… when you said this on 7/17 Free-For-All:
Where on earth did you get ‘that he [Charlie Rangel] had no intention of supporting or voting for’ [his own bill to bring back the draft]?
And I brought up this information:
That wasn’t proving you wrong… even though, you were clearly wrong about Rangel not doing exactly what I said he was doing?
It must be nice to never be wrong… even when you’re wrong.
Just to recap… you don’t see things that don’t fit your spin, things you don’t see don’t exist, and if you deny/criticize/state that something IS, then that’s exactly how it IS, no matter what other facts or evidence proves contradictory.
But yet again… continue with the school yard insults, they really bolster your argument.
July 21, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Imnot – What is the MATTER with you? Seriously.
July 21, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I’m just a kind-hearted giver. You’re so mired in your own hate an self-righteousness that you have trouble in a few key areas: civility, maturity, and honesty. I’m just trying to help you out… and by pointing out those things to you, and how it’s manifested… and perhaps you’ll be able to make a change for the better.
As I’ve always said, you don’t have to agree with me… a little decency and respect is all I ask. And together, Art… I’m gonna help you get there!
July 21, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Imnot – Civility? MATURITY? honesty? From YOU? You could insist the sky was green, and stalk me from thread to thread insisting it was green and calling me a liar AFTER I pointed you to spectroscopic analysis that said otherwise. I’m tired of you ignoring me every F*CKING TIME I answer your boneheaded questions and repeating the same damned thing days later. I know it’s pointless to suggest you grow up, so try shutting up. You’re a bore, a brat and a bully.
July 21, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Red, I have no comment about some anonymous idiot saying something stupid about abortion or anything else. I didn’t bring it up and it doesn’t relate to what I did mention: the questions involving Trig’s birth (nobody noticing Sarah was pregnant, Bristol out of school for several months, etc.).
You seem to consider all negative comments about the Palins in the same light, as well as all sources of it. If I don’t like something Sarah Palin says or does, or if I have questions about her murky backstory, I’m trashing her and everyone in her family. Conversely, cable news, newspapers, blogs and comment sections all carry the same gravity. So if some idiot Lefty/Righty leaves an anonymous crazy shot in a comments section, it gets the same attention from you as if Arianna Huffington or Rush Limbaugh said it.
The truth is, you’re not trying to have a real discussion about news and politics. Your role here is to shout to the heavens that conservatism is The Truth and liberalism is The Devil. I used to play that game and know it well.
July 21, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I used to play that game and know it well.
I’m not sure I know this story, Joe. Have you mentioned it here?
July 21, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I’m not sure I know this story, Joe. Have you mentioned it here?
I’ve made passing reference to it a couple times. I became a “born again Christian” as a teenager in 1979, at the end of the 1970s “Jesus Movement” and on the cusp of the Reagan Revolution. I remember sitting in church and being handed a “report card” comparing Reagan to Carter on biblical issues, with Reagan the winner. Ironic, really, because Carter popularized the term “born again”.
I used to be one of those people that believes biblical principles should be applied to government, and anyone who opposed that view was a threat. In my mind Republican equaled God and Democrat equaled Satan. It was a very simplistic POV and widespread throughout the Christian community. And that certainty made political debate with me impossible. If you disagreed with me, you were just wrong because I knew The Truth and you were “lost”.
By the way, I’m still a somewhat religious person, but my beliefs are much more complex now, with big doses of I Don’t Know involved.
July 21, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I became a “born again Christian” as a teenager in 1979
Aw. I spent the seventies and eighties in a far more enjoyable, if slightly disreputable, manner.
July 21, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Joe, just to be clear. I’m no huge Palin defender. I’ve never posted anything about her great qualities or fitness for Presidency. I am, however, repulsed by the attacks on her family, and I consider the Trig Truther b.s. to be an attack on the entire family, including Trig.
It also goes far beyond anonymous posters. Art spends countless hours on his lefty hate blogs, but has somehow never seen a post, article, etc. trashing Trig, when we all know they’re out there.
If you want to criticize Palin for her comments, fitness for office, etc… go right ahead. They’re fair game. Leave the family out of it.
And just because she brought them on state at the RNC convention doesn’t make them fair game. That would make Malia & Sasha fair game, too. THEY’RE NOT.
July 21, 2009 at 4:48 pm
And I was a NOW member/clinic escort in those days. Strange how things work out. Did vote for Reagan, though, enthusiastically. Things went a bit awry after that. Still a good decade, though. Youth and all.
July 21, 2009 at 4:54 pm
We simply disagree about the definition of “trashing”. I thought the Trig story had some pretty big holes in it, although the evidence still leans toward Sarah being the mother. Whether you believe Palin is the mother or grandmother simply does not reflect on Trig at all.
Your strict definition of “leaving the family out” means there can be no discussion of Sarh Palin as a mother in anything but positive terms, no matter how long the plane ride to Alaska is, or how often Levi was allowed to sleep with Bristol in her home.
Got news for you. If Barack and Michelle had murky or irresponsible stuff going on with their kids, I would talk about it.
July 21, 2009 at 5:03 pm
“The evidence still leans toward Sarah being the mother.”
Oh my God. Are you freaking kidding me???
Trig was born April 18th.
Bristol’s baby was born December 28th.
DO THE MATH. Did she gave birth to a Downs Syndrome baby prematurely, get pregnant immediately afterwards (against the orders of every doctor in American), and then give birth again prematurely????
And you’re the one that posted repeatedly about Palin’s water breaking. Did she fake that???
July 21, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Seems to me, if somebody had unequivocal evidence that Sarah Palin was not Trig’s mother then that would be a valid news item and worthy of the full gamut of critical and speculative remarks I’ve read here and elsewhere. Absent that evidence, though, such conjecture is distasteful, sexist, and downright cruel.
For those of you who are parents, can you think of anything more dehumanising than to be falsely accused in public of lying about being the mother or father of your child?
The whole discussion is sickening.
July 21, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Regarding Rep. Rangel voting against his own bill: Not sure about House rules, but in the Senate parliamentary procedures, a member voting against a bill that loses has the right to offer a motion to bring it back for another vote without the bill first having to go through all of the requisite committees.
July 21, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Art spends countless hours on his lefty hate blogs, but has somehow never seen a post, article, etc. trashing Trig, when we all know they’re out there.
Just to be clear, the blogs I read daily are:
Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo (and I ONLY read TPM – I don’t read the numerous ‘diaries’ that cluster around it akin to the ‘dailyKOS diaries.)
Political Animal at Washington Monthly
Balloon Juice (John Cole, a former neocon who has seen the light)
Kevin Drum, formerly of Political Animal, now blogging at Mother Jones
I sometimes read threefiftyeight.com because I love how Nate Silver can demolish rightwing talking points with cold hard fact. It was certainly more interesting during the election – I only wander over there rarely now, and usually when one of my other blogs link to it.
I used to read Americablog but stopped when John Aravosis became such a freaking pig about Hillary Clinton that it was revolting. Be for Obama all you want, but the hate thrown at Hillary was vile. I revisited recently and noticed that he’s now all hating on Obama for not repealing DADT and DOMA fast enough to suit John.
I visit HuffPo aperiodically, typically on Big News Item days, just to see what they’re saying about it, or watch the Comedy Central videos.
If you want to call those lefty hate sites, feel free, but it says a great deal more about you than it does about me.
July 21, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I consider the Trig Truther b.s. to be an attack on the entire family, including Trig.
FWIW, I find the Truther nonsense on a par with the weirdass ‘Birthers’.
July 21, 2009 at 5:54 pm
The whole discussion is sickening.
Al, completely agree. It’s time to get off of this topic and move on as there is absolutely no redeeming social value in continuing this discussion.
We could always discuss VP Biden’s statment today about the beautiful women in the Ukraine. My question is why hasn’t anyone from NOW condemned the statement? Different standard perhaps???
July 21, 2009 at 5:54 pm
My point is not to go over the Trig’s Mom topic, but to express that discussing does not constitute “trashing” the kid.
As far as the actual topic at hand, first of all, Red…chill. “Oh my God. Are you freaking kidding me” is your usual total-spastic reaction to anything you disagree with. Second, I don’t KNOW her water broke, I know she SAID it did…then she got on an 11 hour flight without saying anything about it to the crew, which led to the theory that she was trying to get home for somebody else’s birth, not her own.
Your time line is the main thing that deflates the rumor, but you’ve got to admit there’s a number of interesting events surrounding this birth. If nothing else, assuming Sarah was pregnant and her water broke before that flight, it’s another example of bizarre/irresponsible behavior from Sarah Palin.
July 21, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Or maybe I just like conspiracy theories! (Inside joke for someone here.)
July 21, 2009 at 6:10 pm
It’s time to get off of this topic and move on
How ’bout this? “ANCHORAGE, Alaska – An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees, in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week.”
Heh.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_ethics_complaint
July 21, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Or this? “From ‘Socialized Medicine’ To ‘Dead Baby Juice,’ GOP Moderate Faces Down Rabid Right-Wing Conspiracies”
My favorite part:
There’s video at http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/21/castle-townhall/
July 21, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Not sure why taking a flight while in early stages of labour would be considered “bizarre” or “irresponsible”. Reports are that a physician gave her the okie-dokie to take the flight.
Besides, Alaskans know how to deal with problems. She isn’t a wimp from the lower 48.
July 21, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Not sure why taking a flight while in early stages of labour would be considered “bizarre” or “irresponsible”. Reports are that a physician gave her the okie-dokie to take the flight.
Most OB/GYNs wouldn’t give the okay to fly in the final month of pregnancy, particularly for a child already known to have developmental problems. And many airlines have restrictions – some as stringent as not allowing you to fly you’re more than seven months pregnant.
July 21, 2009 at 6:22 pm
That ethics complaint will also be found to be baseless, just like the rest of ‘em. Such tactics only serve to scare away the best and brightest from public service.
July 21, 2009 at 6:27 pm
That ethics complaint will also be found to be baseless, just like the rest of ‘em.
This was an investigator for the state personnel board and he found ‘probable cause’; just saying.
FWIW, I think the reasoning is kind of suspect: “An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, he wrote. “In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund.”"
Yeah, and an ordinary citizen wouldn’t be a lawsuit magnet like a public figure is, either. Ask Bill and Hillary Clinton.
That said, Palin herself bragged about how she made Alaskan government ethics the most stringent in the nation, so it’s kind of a case of being hoist on your own petard.
July 21, 2009 at 6:29 pm
She isn’t a wimp from the lower 48.
You mean “the outside.”
July 21, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“Most OB/GYNs wouldn’t give the okay to fly in the final month of pregnancy, particularly for a child already known to have developmental problems.”
Not entirely accurate. Most would not give the OK if there ar pregnancy abnormalities, which is different from abnormalities such as Down Syndrome. The American College of OB/GYN does not recommend air travel for women who are past their 36th week, but that is not a hard-fast rule.
July 21, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Also FWIW? I’m pretty sure Palin knew this was coming and that ‘profiting from your government position’ is one of the things she specifically outlawed in the new ethics guidelines and that has a lot to do with her getting out, where she is no longer bound by them.
July 21, 2009 at 6:30 pm
The American College of OB/GYN does not recommend air travel for women who are past their 36th week, but that is not a hard-fast rule.
Yeah, but the airlines have their own varying guidelines; few crews want to be delivering a baby mid-flight, and who can blame them?
July 21, 2009 at 6:37 pm
“That said, Palin herself bragged about how she made Alaskan government ethics the most stringent in the nation, so it’s kind of a case of being hoist on your own petard.”
You’re right, of course, and that in itself is a sad thing. She straightened out a corrupt network of politicians, many of her own party. So she already had a target on her back from the local establishment for doing the right thing and becoming the VP nom created a national shooting gallery.
July 21, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Still and all, Al, I think it’s at least HINKY that she took per diem from the state when she was staying at her own HOUSE in Wasilla. Per diem is supposed to reimburse you for the expenses incurred by government travel, and while she should certainly be able to claim mileage, per diem??
July 21, 2009 at 6:48 pm
That per diem struck me to be somewhat odd, too, but I honestly don’t know.
July 21, 2009 at 6:53 pm
–So to be clear, the Clinton Legal Defense Fund…perfectly legal.
The Palin defense fund. Unethical and illegal.
A mom who has given birth to 4 children….has no idea what she’s doing.
Joeremi, who presumably hasn’t given birth….an expert.
Did it occur to you that she knows the birth process and her own body a little better than you do? And maybe she wanted HER DOCTOR to do the delivery, not some stranger?
July 21, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Did it ever occur to YOU that reacting to her water breaking by hopping an 11 hour flight without alerting the crew to her condition was a really strange thing to do?
July 21, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Here’s what I think about the per diem on her house: Apparently the state government doesn’t see anything wrong with it and it’s an acceptable practice. I view it much like I do how companies used to allow some employees use of their expense accounts for personal purposes, a practice that was widespread and continued for many years until it was no longer deemed to be tax deductible.
On the flip side, there may be expenses unique to being a governor of a very large state. If so, I’m ok with it but still it seems a bit shady. At the very least, clearly defined rules for its use should be made.
July 21, 2009 at 7:21 pm
–So to be clear, the Clinton Legal Defense Fund…perfectly legal.
The Palin defense fund. Unethical and illegal.
Alaska has different ethics rules than the federal government, rules Palin BRAGGED about. I think it’s stupid, but she’s the one that was so frigging smug about it.
A mom who has given birth to 4 children….has no idea what she’s doing.
Anyone who’s done a little reading (and I realize that excludes you) knows that the more children you have, the quicker they come. A first child can take hours or even days to be born, but barring complications, subsequent children are born much faster.
I’ll leave off the medical reason to spare your blushes and just say that the moms get better with practice.
July 21, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Here’s what I think about the per diem on her house: Apparently the state government doesn’t see anything wrong with it and it’s an acceptable practice.
Well, it wasn’t very acceptable in ’88, according the Washington Post story on Palin’s expenses:
I view it much like I do how companies used to allow some employees use of their expense accounts for personal purposes, a practice that was widespread and continued for many years until it was no longer deemed to be tax deductible.
Duuude! what companies? I wanna work there. (Man, I HATE our new automated expense reporting system – it sux.)
FWIW, it apparently isn’t ILLEGAL to pay yourself to live at home (forestalling Red here), since the state only charged her back taxes on the per diem, but there’s simply no way to make it look legitimate.
July 21, 2009 at 7:28 pm
the moms get better with practice
Such a gentleman. I thought about ‘splainin that one myself, but it would inevitably take us further off-topic.
July 21, 2009 at 7:30 pm
but it would inevitably take us further off-topic.
Topic? there’s a topic?
July 21, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Adolescent rituals in the Belgian Congo. Or, you know, whatever.
July 21, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Adolescent rituals in the Belgian Congo.
Laural…gettin’ weirder.
July 21, 2009 at 7:45 pm
igettin’ weirder
Tip of the iceberg, Chuck.
July 21, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Just not, you know, echinacea and whatnot.
July 21, 2009 at 8:12 pm
“I know it’s pointless to suggest you grow up, so try shutting up.”
*Sigh* This is what I get for just caring too much.
Art, you’ve passed that particular lie (that you answer questions) off before… and as I quote above, you’re wrong. You were wrong about Rangel… and you’re now wrong that I’ve never proved you wrong. If you have a problem with me wanting to engage you, tough. You are the absolute stereotypical Liberal… you can dish it out, but sure can’t take it. But as long as you insist on being so condescending and intolerant, not to mention factually wrong, or at least just wrong in my opinion… I will quote, comment, and reply to you until I’m content.
You don’t like it? Complain to someone else. Free speech is a b!tch… isn’t it?
Al Says:
July 21, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Interesting… I didn’t know that. However, Rangel also commented that he thought it was “unfair” of the Republicans to make people vote on his bill… and suggested that they were “playing politics” in calling the vote. Seems to me, he had no intention of voting on it… just using it as a political statement to garner support with certain voting groups.
unclearthur Says:
July 21, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Isn’t is tough for you to say that you don’t visit far-left hate sites… and then POST SOMETHING FROM THINK PROGRESS?
OOPS! You forgot to mention that you apparently visit that site too!
July 21, 2009 at 8:41 pm
“Al Says:
July 21, 2009 at 5:44 pm”
Interesting”…
No I didn’t say that.
July 21, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Ah, I get it. Duh.
Congressman Rangel did say that and, from his point of view, it was unfair. They were playing politics… but that’s what happens in politics. You’ll find other quotes from Mr. Rangel in which he elaborates on why he believes the draft would be a good thing and I, while I believe he’s wrong, I have no reason to think he’s being disingenuous.
July 21, 2009 at 8:56 pm
In my mind, Al… putting forth legislation that you’re not going to vote for (as he didn’t), that know will never make it out of congress, and that you’re not seriously trying to encourage, for the purpose of tricking your consistency is disingenuous.
IMO, Rangel was doing this so he could appeal to his minority supporters (which he has many of), by putting forth the old argument (despite missing evidence) that the military is comprised of mostly minority and/or poor men and women. With that in mind, suggesting that he’s going to push for the draft says, “Now, instead of you people, we’ll get the rich white guys to fight instead!”
Essentially he puts up a false argument to anger the crowd, and then his own solution to “fix” the problem, making him look like a hero. The problem is, of course, that he’s not going to get the draft passed… so he can say whatever he wants, with little to no consequences. That’s what makes it so disingenuous… and why (again, IMO) he was so upset when the Republicans tried to get him to vote on it… they called his bluff.
(PS- Sorry for the misleading quote/reference… I sometimes do that when there’s not a particular sentence or thought I’m responding to, but the whole thing. Cuts down on needless re-posting and saves space… and that’s why I include the time-stamp, so someone else can reference the original post as needed.)
July 21, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Art, you’ve passed that particular lie (that you answer questions) off before… and as I quote above, you’re wrong. You were wrong about Rangel… and you’re now wrong that I’ve never proved you wrong.
You are wrong on the facts. Rangel voted against the bill he sponsored (probably for the reason Al mentioned), yet he has SAID (as I pointed out on the other thread) he plans to reintroduce it and he lists it as one of his issues on his own website. GIVEN THAT, I take him at his own word that he’s FOR it. So not only did you NOT ‘prove me wrong’ on that issue, you don’t prove me wrong on proving you wrong. (You sad little creature – this is really important to you, isn’t it?)
by putting forth the old argument (despite missing evidence) that the military is comprised of mostly minority and/or poor men and women.
Minorities, particularly blacks, make up far more of the military than their representation in the general population – 22 percent to 13 percent. That is a simple fact. No one said the military is MOSTLY minority – it would be damned weird if it was.
Isn’t is tough for you to say that you don’t visit far-left hate sites… and then POST SOMETHING FROM THINK PROGRESS?
ThinkProgress is a HATE site now? Wow, are you warped. EVERYONE is linking to that hilarious video. I suggest you go watch it – you might find some kindred spirits in that crazed crowd of lunatics. “Dead baby juice”!
And why do all the worst haters fling the word ‘hate’ around so much?
July 21, 2009 at 9:49 pm
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/former_fox_news_producer_sentenced_to_10_years_in_child_porn_case_122224.asp
Consider this chum for the waters.
July 21, 2009 at 10:00 pm
He had a prior conviction? Was this prior to being hired by FNC, or did they keep him on through the first one? Scum.
July 21, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Consider this chum for the waters.
How ’bout this? Fox news interviews a guy in a ‘no chubbies’ teeshirt who says the Surgeon General designee is too FAT for the job.
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3006771&ref=fpblg
July 22, 2009 at 7:39 am
Cavuto lives to have these nuts on the air-this guy and Meme Roth. Sort of a self-loathing thing, perhaps. If she was morbidly obese, maybe. Far as I can tell she’s no worse than C. Everett Koop or Joycelin Elders, it’s just that we choose to have a bone up over fat these day.
It’s not like she smokes, or anything. Horrors.
July 22, 2009 at 7:56 am
Cavuto lives to have these nuts on the air-this guy and Meme Roth.
I found the teeshirt particularly loathsome. Do you suppose he walks around in public wearing that? Or did he hide it under a shirt until he got to the studio?
I would pay money to watch Meghan McCain take him on.
It’s not like she smokes, or anything. Horrors.
… watch it… *puff*
July 22, 2009 at 8:29 am
You are wrong on the facts.
Well… no I’m not. I may be wrong (read: different view) on opinion… but not the facts. If I were wrong on the “facts,” you could point to some “facts” that I’ve said are one way, but are the other. Instead, you need to say:
“GIVEN THAT, I take him at his own word that he’s FOR it.”
A courtesy you extol on only a certain few. But more importantly, if you’re “taking him at his own word,” you’re accepting his view, which is your opinion… not a fact.
The fact is… Rangel voted AGAINST his bill, something you attacked me for saying he did. Yet again, I quote you:
Now, whether or not he plans to support it in the future is up for debate… although, as I recall, the article you linked to said he’d introduce it in the first 6 months… which have passed. But, since we don’t know the future, it’s tough to argue. The point remains, however, he put up the bill, didn’t vote to support it, and at this time has no concrete plans to reintroduce it.
“(You sad little creature – this is really important to you, isn’t it?)”
Since you don’t seem to get it… I’ll point this out for you. Is this really necessary? Is this helping your argument, making you feel better, allowing you to think you’ve “hurt” me? For God’s sake, Grow UP! Or at least get some new material… it’s like getting insulted on “Nickelodeon”… be a man, already.
“Minorities, particularly blacks, make up far more of the military than their representation in the general population…”
Link me up… I’d like to see where those stats come from, please.
“ThinkProgress is a HATE site now?”
Hate site now… hate site then… whatever. But tell me (I know, I know, you hate answering questions), since we’re talking about left-wing hate sites… why don’t you tell me which left-wing sites out there you consider hate sites. We know which ones you DON’T consider hate sites… so which ones are? This is all for perspective… to better understand where you’re coming from.
“EVERYONE is linking to that hilarious video.”
Who is “everyone?”
“And why do all the worst haters fling the word ‘hate’ around so much?”
I dunno…why don’t you tell me. And while you’re at it… tell me what I hate, and give me an example or two.
“How ’bout this? Fox news interviews a guy in a ‘no chubbies’ teeshirt…”
So? They’re not allowed to interview people? There is an interesting argument to be made here (although, the guy did it goof-ily… but is that the news network’s responsibility, to make sure the guy doesn’t make a fool of himself?). One of the biggest health problems in America is obesity, and to have someone in charge of the country’s heath overweight herself, seems contradictory. You’d have trouble seeing a cancer specialist who smoked, wouldn’t you? But anyway… they did the interview, they didn’t put his shirt on.
joeremi Says:
July 21, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Scum.
Ditto.
July 22, 2009 at 9:44 am
This is all for perspective… to better understand where you’re coming from.
Forget it, Ace. You’re not even on the same planet.
Link me up… I’d like to see where those stats come from, please.
You know there’s a wonderful new technology available? it’s called ‘google’ and you type stuff in and it SHOWS you were to find related material! It’s really awesome… you should try it.
But since I’m pretty sure that’s beyond your technical expertise, here ya go:
From 1997 Business Publications:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_n48/ai_19657030/
More recently, blacks are less willing to join the military, which is a problem for military recruiters. From 2005:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1221-04.htm
This is the last time I’m doing your homework for you, bubba.
July 22, 2009 at 9:56 am
Joe…any news on your job with the new budget cuts? I hope your position is safe. Trust me, being newly unemployed is not fun.
Hope you make/made it past the budget knife.
July 22, 2009 at 10:10 am
Nothing yet, Chips. The budget hasn’t officially passed the legislature yet, and may already be dead in the water. People are up in arms over a proposal for early release/home detention for some prisoners in our hugely over-crowded and expensive penal system. Stay tuned.
July 22, 2009 at 10:31 am
I hope your position will remain safe…Perhaps the best way to deal with your state’s politicians is to keep them locked in the chamber with only bread & water until the state budget is passed.
No cell phones, no motor cars, not a single luxury (you get the drift)
July 22, 2009 at 8:28 pm
unclearthur Says:
July 22, 2009 at 9:44 am
Forget it, Ace. You’re not even on the same planet.
Nope… I’m on Earth. It’s nice here… and where are you? How’s the weather there?
As for the articles (gee… I hope asking you to back up your statement wasn’t too taxing for you… I know providing evidence and example when you say something can be tough, and perhaps I should just “take your word for it” because, you know, you’re never wrong… but there I go again, those “journalism classes” kicking in when least expected… I just hope you’re okay):
The first article is pretty interesting… the second, I’m going to have to pass on, or at least take with a very large gain of salt… but I don’t have one that big, so I’ll probably just pass. Reason? Well… note the publication source, and remember that this came out in the height of the “there aren’t enough volunteers” chorus coming from the left (which was false), and being that this is a proclaimed “progressive” site, my skepticism meter is way high.
July 22, 2009 at 8:58 pm
The first article is pretty interesting… the second, I’m going to have to pass on, or at least take with a very large gain of salt… but I don’t have one that big, so I’ll probably just pass
If you’re willing to accept article 1, then you admit that blacks make up a much larger portion of the military than their representation in the general population (between 13-14 percent).
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but you did challenge me on the fact.
July 22, 2009 at 9:02 pm
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but you did challenge me on the fact.
Well, I’ve seen articles that have contradicted that information… so I wanted to see your information. I’m glad you provided me some info, because I already had reason to doubt the stuff I had seen (it was from a right-wing group, who had their own agenda to push).
It [the article] doesn’t necessarily change anything (and I’d like to see some more current data… although I think the poor vs. wealthy statistic is more relevant than the racial stats), but it’s nice to have support for your comments.
I don’t think that’s asking too much… do you?
Now onto the issue of “civility”… nah, not enough time…
July 22, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Well, I’ve seen articles that have contradicted that information… so I wanted to see your information. I’m glad you provided me some info, because I already had reason to doubt the stuff I had seen (it was from a right-wing group, who had their own agenda to push).
yeah, I found many of those sites when googling for demographics – it’s kind of disturbing that there are people who are so racist that they have to make stuff up about other demographics to make themselves feel good.
July 22, 2009 at 9:21 pm
…it’s kind of disturbing that there are people who are so racist that they have to make stuff up about other demographics to make themselves feel good.
Like Barbra Boxer, who apparently sees all black people as a group, not a group of individuals?
I’m not saying they “made it up,” and certainly not because of “racism.” They were able to find “friendly facts” to support their thesis… just as the Democrats and Liberals do. It should be real easy to determine the answer to this question… very obvious statistic should be available… but they’re not, and that throws the whole thing into question.
July 22, 2009 at 9:29 pm
It should be real easy to determine the answer to this question… very obvious statistic should be available… but they’re not, and that throws the whole thing into question.
They are available – I found many DoD sites that had statistics in PDF files that I didn’t feel like downloading. The trick is, you can play games with ‘recruiting’ figures versus ‘retention’ figures. Blacks don’t sign up for the service in much greater numbers than their representation in the population (about 1.03 was the figure I saw; that is, they were three percent more likely to sign up than a random white guy), but they STAY in the service longer than the average white guy, usually in specialties, so their numbers in the service at any given time are higher than their recruitment figures wold lead you to believe.
Also their staying in specialty longer than the average white guy who signed up at the same time means they rise farther and you are more like to find black senior enlisted personnel in greater numbers in some specialties than white senior enlisted personnel.
July 23, 2009 at 6:12 am
Okay, so back to our original debate… if all that’s true, wouldn’t Rangel be playing politics with the information, in trying to suggest that poor minorities are target more heavily my the military? It would seem they’re “targeted” the same, but stay longer… by choice! Shouldn’t they’re commitment to the country, and the apparently equality on display within military ranks be something worth celebrating?
July 23, 2009 at 10:20 am
wouldn’t Rangel be playing politics with the information, in trying to suggest that poor minorities are target more heavily my the military? It would seem they’re “targeted” the same, but stay longer… by choice!
He’s not saying they’re ‘targeted’ more, he’s saying that they bear more than their proportional share of the work (and risk) of defending the country and he’s right, they do. Doesn’t matter whether or not it’s their choice.
The point is, it’s just mentally easier for powerful white guys to put minorities at risk than, say, the sons and daughters of their colleagues and friends.
July 23, 2009 at 10:46 am
Well… I think it would be easier for anyone to put “someone else” at risk, than their own sons and daughters. That’s human nature.
But the facts don’t back up his assertion. If minorities are carrying more of the burden, as you said, it’s THEIR choice to do so! If it’s the retention level that’s higher among blacks because they appreciate the structure, and the military tends to be “more color blind,” then it’s their decision that keeps them in that position. More over, if there are more blacks in leadership positions… doesn’t that damage the notion that it’s white guys sending them into battle… doesn’t that suggest there are a lot of minorities participating in making those decisions?