Wow, this is awesome and inspiring.

You’ve handled yourself extremely well here TBogg, and I want to commend you for that. Your humanity is on full display, and that’s a beautiful thing.

Thank you sir.

Doing without mostly. You?

Well, I made it to 1, but I ain’t gonna make it to 1:30 lol. (eyes are closing as I’m typing this lol)

Niters to all. Be well.

Hey Suz, and I’ll second ratfood thoughts.

Howdy ratfood, and pups.

Heh, and I even made the point without being potty mouthed.

I guess it IS possible. lol

I may be hammered for this, but dammit, WTF is up with the African American community on this issue.

After what they went through, I mean IDENTICAL, regarding multi-racial marriages, AA support should be 95%+.

Unbelievable. And yet poll after poll after poll after poll has shown the same thing. Outright rejection with now some support, but still not overwhelming support.

Maybe I’m wrong but when I hear a pastor in NC talking about the lesbians and queers marrying and how it ain’t natural, it sounds A LOT LIKE the pastors I heard in the 60′s talking about “the negroes” marrying out of their race, and how it just ain’t natural.

To live through that, to overcome that, and then…. to support the exact same kine of discrimination against another group???

I just understand people very well I guess. I’m constantly amazed.

The whole problem here is Barrett.

If the Democrats had chosen, oh, I dunno, say RUSS FEINGOLD, and let him go out and make a populist case after Walker’s bullshit, I’d bet dollars to donut holes that Feingold would be up 10 points. And all the money in the world wouldn’t help Walker.

But when you’ve got someone who can’t even at least TALK a good game, it’s over. I know Russ has made errors (I believe we ALL have) but I’d bet he would be mopping the floor with Walker’s ass right now.

Or, really, anyone that could at least talk a good progressive game. Hell, Obama would beat the shit out of Walker. And Obama is about as progressive as Ronald Reagan on a conservative day. But he at least can talk a good progressive game.

That’s ALL it would’ve taken for the D’s to accopmlish this. Instead, they put forth, the one candidate who can’t/won’t talk a good progressive game.

Almost sounds like they didnt want to win, doesn’t it???

David, I’m not trying to be a professional troll, as the one you linked to most certainly is, but you DID make an error. The kind of error that a professional troll like that jackass would gleefully point out and make a big deal out of as if to show you don’t know what you’re talking about.

It’s just a simple math/semantics error, but professional troll jackasses live for that shit so I hope you’ll fix it.

CTJ’s preliminary estimates show that Obama’s proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts for the first $250,000 or $200,000 of income a taxpayer makes would save between $60 billion and $70 billion in 2013 compared to the GOP proposal to extend all the tax cuts, depending on economic conditions. Leader Pelosi’s proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts for the first $1 million of income would save 43 percent less revenue than Obama’s proposal.

The semantics here make the numbers different. It says the additional revenue under Pelosi’s plan would be 43% less than under Obama’s proposal. That says it will be 43% LESS, not 43% OF Obama’s proposal. You took 43% OF Obama’s proposal, and that’s not what’s being said here.

For example, your figure of $25.8 billion is 43% OF $60 billion.
$34.2 billion is 43% LESS THAN $60 billion.

Likewise, your figure of $30.1 billion is 43% OF $70 billion.
$39.9 billion is 43% LESS THAN $70 billion.

So, it works out to them saying the new savings would be in the neighborhood of $34.2 to $39.9 billion.

It’s an easy error to make, but one trolls will jump on in a heartbeat.

Just think of it this way, 43% less means you subtract 43%. So, you have to subtract 43% from 60billion, not multiply 43% times 60 billion.

I swear sometimes I hear him talk, and I’m nodding my head, getting into it, ready to stand up and applaud even.

Then I hear him talk and I’m shaking my head, getting more and more pissed, and ready to stand up and throw a brick at my TV.

Strange dude.

Obama is going to have trouble reversing it, and it may mean that his lucrative think tank/highly-paid speaking tour will begin shortly after the election.

The only possible better result, from a progressive point of view, would be if a progressive third party candidate won. Short of that, THIS would be the absolute best result, long term, for progressives. It’s too bad so many progressives are just like corporate CEO’s and refuse to think long term, only short term.

This is more of a symbolic step than anything;

Yeah, looking at it, I get the same feeling. So the Jamie Dimon’s of the world would no lonber actually sit on the BoD of Regional Fed Banks. The Jamie Dimon’s of the world will still have almost as much influece as if they did even after this.

If you want to do something radical, make the Fed a public entity, instead of a private bank.

Yeah, I’m not seeing ANYONE propose that. Except maybe that loon Ron Paul. (How the hell can he be so RIGHT on a couple of issues yet be soooooooooooooooooooo WRONG on so many more???? It’s a head scratcher.)

One way to deal with a cold is to go on three day bender. When you wake up on the fourth day, after the hangover, it’ll be like you never really had a cold.

Or not.

The sad part is there probably isn’t any way of stopping this kind of corruption without violating some peoples rights. Which strikes many as wrong. But I just don’t see how else you do it. At least I don’t see any other way to do it effectively.

I mean, don’t most of us consider it a right to be able choose where we work??? No, I don’t mean we consider it a right to work whereever we want, I mean if we are offered X number of jobs, isn’t it considered our right to accept the one we want? If feels like that’s a right, but maybe not. If it’s not, it feels like it ought to be.

It just feels wrong for the government to tell any citizen “you can’t work at X Corp” no matter how badly you want to and how badly they want you to.

Yet anything short of that just doesn’t seem like it work.

Haha, best answer so far!!!

I like that plan.

Isn’t the “drone program” against international law??

Maybe that’s why they can’t/won’t ever “officially” admit it?

And still, TODAY, they do something in the right direction, and you, and the US Senate, say MORE sanctions.

So again, please tell me, why should they EVER do the right thing in response to diplomacy???

And “Iran constantly uses inflammatory rhetoric toward Israel, and literally arms it’s enemies.” Israel has enemies??? Wow, now, THAT, that is just hard to believe. I can’t imagine why.

Oh fuck it.

Go ahead, call me all the names you want, I don’t mind. I call lots of peoples names myself, mostly asshole.

But you’ll never find a bigoted word about Jews or Judaism post by me anywhere on this internet. And I challenge you to provide one.

And I will always continue to blame those that are responsible for whatever actions or stances I’m talking about. If the US Senate vote today was anything but a response to Israel, I’ll kiss your ass, give you a week to draw a crowd, and let you videotape it.

If you don’t like Israel getting blamed for the shit it does, maybe, you know, they could stop doing stupid shit.

Because it’s just plain stupid when you’re in diplomacy with another soveriegn country, and you wish to get that other soveriegn country to behave in a certain way, then when they do, you PUNISH THEM MORE! That’s idiocy, and the only way it makes sense is if war and regime change are your real motives anyway.

Unless, of course, regime change and war is your ulterior motive anyway. In which case, why bother with diplomacy? Why waste the time and money on it???

And if that is your real motive, then you are, by definition, a zionist. An asshole too.