Let’s see….it’s up to the individual, dontchaknow, it’s a state issue. Got that? Shall he clarify?

State issues are a matter of individual decision doncha see? as long as you’re carrying a 2nd amendment proviso with you.

Considering Alaska is the home of Sarah Palin, I expect very little from voters up there. Look at how Joe Miller has pursued his entire campaign. This is the guy with the active duty moonlighting security detail, right? All that flies up there. Why are you surprised by him or his statements, why is any of this idiocy news?

Just more fearmongering of the teabaggers, nothing to see here. Really, the whole lesser of two evils thing and the MSM focusing on how loony the teabaggers are isn’t going to work. Let’s focus on what an incompetent leader Obama has been and what we’re going to do for the next two years instead.

But it’s a federal issue too!

Have you heard the Land Commissioner ad that says the 2nd Amendment is the foundation of TX….wow, I was so confused….

Mornin’, BT, pups

Sheesh, can we at least have a short and cartoon before the clip starts if we’re gonna hafta put up with the likes of Miller?

Ick, no, haven’t seen that one, but several of the ads up here feature guns. And that ‘we should choose our own doctors’ – guess that one’s running against insurance companies? Most assume the listener has no idea about the facts.

The first thing to do is find a primary challenger to Mr. Bipartisan.

I’ve just heard it on the radio; another really ugly one against Lloyd Doggett….what a mess.

Are there any pols who aren’t neoliberals out there? Until we find that person it’s gonna be the same ol’ same ol’.

In that case, I guess I had better install a cannon on my front porch and put a sign reading “Come and take it!”

Rachel was far too polite in characterizing this interview and its strangeness.

This footage of Joe Miller allowing an interview as he supposedly went from the roof to a car waiting at the curb should be used as an example of what not to do for decades to come.

Miller looked like a worm trying to wiggle his way through out of doing the interview.

He’s been flying under the radar by the national “media” but Peter DeFazio comes to mind. He’s been very critical of Obama’s economic team and Pelosi’s weak leadership in the House. Is he perfect? Who is? He supported a public option and only supported Obama’s Health Insurance Reform after gaining important concessions to Medicare issues important to the Pacific Northwest. Kuccinich, Grayson, etc. are all non-starters.

he would vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The economy is crumbling, but no matter, let’s make a major effort to get this resolved first.

What did the ad against Doggett say? Since we’re all in the Austin area, I’m certain he feels pretty safe, but his vote for the HCR really made me question how liberal he really is. He shouldn’t have voted for it. He kept his vote all secret until the very end knowing that it wouldn’t be terribly popular. He is a party Democrat as best I can tell. I will be voting for whatever Indepedent candidate is on the ballot in lieu of him.

Got a reminder of what a wonderful piece of crap the HCR was yesterday when my company’s HR used it as the catchall buzz phrase for why they did away with our HMO co-pay only health care plan. Based on the trends I see for my company, their coverage on the POS has gone from 90% to 80% (next year) to the logical 70% the following… I’m certain at that point they will take whatever piddly hit they get for not providing health care and will cast everyone to the “exchanges” for their plans going forward.

Really disappointed.

Morning BT, Firepups:

Miller looked wild-eyed, stressed, and obviously insane. Given the “stomp on non-believers” posture of the baggers these days, Maddow was bold to take on the assignment. But the real shit of it is that this jagoff just might win – along with a few other baggers around the country. Just surreal.

Joe Miller:

The individual is free to decide sexual orientation for him- or herself.

The states should decide whether or not they should have any rights as couples.

The federal government should decide for everyone by amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage and deny Americans their rights.

And the funniest thing about the whole thing is that assholes like Joe Miller are only using the issue to get votes from the wingnuts. I doubt that there would ever be a serious effort to ban gay marriage at the federal level via a Constitutional amendment.

What are you talking about, look at Wall Street, business is booming! ;-)

I always found it odd going to our HR presentations on looking at employee feedback and all the “onshore” segments are miserable, but for some strange reason all the “offshored” segments are all smiles, candy canes and rainbows.

Things are moving along as expected, we’ll be hollowed out entirely by 2012 or 2014.

…he would vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I would vote for a constitutional amendment abolishing the Senate.

Oh yeah, Joe Miller is a common punk. I suppose that means he would fit right in with the rest of the Senate Republicans.

Touché.

Nor is there any serious effort to tie your (a), (b), and (c) together, as though that could be done.

No matter, it’s the noise that attracts the wingnuts’ attention. No one has time for logic.

The thing is that most of the ‘baggers, mainstream Republicans, neoliberals and establishment Democrats think the voting public is stupid. For the most part, they’re right.

An even more urgent amendment — time limits for SC justices. 12 years at the most.

Sad but true.

Hear! Hear! No more lifetime appointments. Either that or an easy way to remove them when they prove themselves bought by the private sector.

Almost snorted my coffee there, LOL.

The framers did an outstanding job, with their elaborate system of checks and balances, devising a system to protect the young republice. For about 200 years the system worked, but an overlooked danger is now making itself felt — the unchecked influence of the Supreme Court.

If the system is to last another 100 years, that major deficiency needs to be addressed.

There was another great segment on when she was talking to Miller supporters and all of them said they were mad at Obama because he is “anti-gun”. When she asked them to cite specifically how he’s anti-gun, not one of them could do so, (of course not because Obama has never pushed anything “anti-gun”). They fell back on the old “I don’t have all of the information but I just know that he’s “anti-gun”. One went as far as to suggest that you google Obama, guns, and Holder and that would show her everything she needed to know, Well, when you do that, all of the links are either right wing publications, speculating on when Obama is going to ban guns, conspiracy theorists like infowars warning that Obama will ban all guns, (despite what he says, apparently that’s to lull us into complacency), and more reputable sources discussing why Obama ISN’T pro gun control. Between Alex Jones, FOX “News” and the Chamber members, the ‘baggers are whipped into a paranoid frenzy. How do you fight that? All reason has been removed from the equation.

Off to swim in the great capitalist cesspool.

US KIA Afghanistan: 1,352

US KIA Irak: 4.426

Iraki, Afghan and Pakistani casualties: estimates vary to over 1.5M

US MBS 2010: 37,076 and counting

Lives in the Balance

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things

Namaste

Oh hells yes. Perhaps the original concept for SC longevity was sound, but not any longer. There are some points in favor of the steadfastness that can come from the slow turnover rate of SC Justices – helping prevent “fad” legislation comes to mind – but when the court becomes the fad, as it has today, the intended reasons for its slow turnover rate are undermined.
We are left with no choice but to place term limits on the Justices.

We are left with no choice but to place term limits on the Justices.

That seeems to be the only rational approach. An initiative supporting that might get support across the entire political spectrum, if the rollout were devised well.

You don’t fight it, at least you don’t fight it very effectively, using any method I know of. I’ve tried pounding, forceful logic. I’ve tried emotional appeals. I’ve tried framing it in religious terms. I’ve tried a converstional kind of “shock therapy”– an in-your-face kind of verbal exasperation intended to make someone rethink what they just said.
In the end, the only thing that has shown some short-term success is subversion. (I agree with them that O is a lousy president, but challenge them when they just parrot Fox News. I act like I’m tbaggier than they are because of my hatred for Glen Beck, etc)
The only long-term solution seems to be outliving the whackos…but that requires a way to prevent their insanity from spreading to future generations.

I don’t think so. With conservatives in control of the court, and with none of the conservatives Justices looking to step down any time soon, I don’t think the Republicans in Congress will have any motivation to support term limits for the court.
But, if any conservative Justice is replaced with one that isn’t right-wing enough…boy howdy the screaming for term limits will begin.

Don’t be so hard on yourselves.

If the economic misery is widespread enough, remedies for what caused the disaster will be looked into. The significance of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United will surely be noted. Term limits for the Supreme Court are the appropriate remedy.

It’s the dead-enders who have no vision of the future that you need to be concerned about.

For once I have no reason to complain about a Blue Texan post.

If you Google “Obama” and “Guns” it’ll take you straight to World Nut Daily which has incessantly declared that he was coming right to your door this minute to take away your guns.

Rache (as if you didn’t know) RULES!

Anyone interested in learning more about Peter DeFazio he’s being interviewed on Portland Progressive radio.

http://620kpoj.com/main.html

Diaappointed?

The A, B and C were my summations of Miller’s nonsense during this pathetic attempt to do the interview and evade it, too.

Just want to clarify that they’re not my A, B and C. That’s the best I could make out of what Miller said and has been saying.

Otherwise, I think we agree. There’s no way to tie them together because A is inaccurate, and B and C are contradictory.

lol no it’s a good thing. I only complain when he writes something that grossly offends my sense of fairness and intellectual honesty; in this case I think his criticism is right on the mark.

Rachel is amazing!

You have created a list of different ways to “discuss” issues with conservatives (whether just traditional conservatives or the more radical T-Party types), and your list of approaches mirrors mine.

Like you, here & there I have managed to actually have some kind of a sane or logical discussion – esp if I preface it by saying that I don’t like Obama and am not into Democratic pom-pom waving – but even with these conversations, I end up feeling like the person is still fully and wholly committed to voting ReThug, no matter what.

KKKarl Rove and his mendacious minions have done an excellent job in brainwashing conservatives to never ever under any circumstances vote anything but R, no matter what.

I’m not saying Ds are any better these days. But I see more flexibility in the mind-set of more Democratic/liberal voters; more willingness to consider alternatives and other options seriously.

That “traditional” Republicans could countenance voting for some, if not all, of these stark raving ignorant nutcaes is quite sad. At least vote for a 3rd party candidate or not at all.

Check out Spitzer’s interview from last night about the real unemployment numbers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H64gc2DZRo

Why can’t Rachel talk about these sorts of things instead of talking about the crazies on the right. That’s for the fearmongering.

I know what you mean. It’s like the birther idiocy. There’s absolutely not one iota of an inkling of factual reality to any of that, but rightwingers willfully and gleefully and purposefully latch onto this crap because it’s what they want to believe. Plus, of course, RushGlennBillo, et al, will barf out this crap as facts, and that’s that.

Some part of this “gun nut” junk is just another way to gin up *some* of these fanatics with a more “socially acceptable” way to “hate” Obama, but really most them hate Obama simply because he’s an AA. Don’t care what anyone says in response to my last sentence, it’s true.

We here at FDL wouldn’t mind at all if conservatives “hated” or “disapproved” of Obama because of his crappy leadership, his kowtowing to corporations at the expense of citizens, etc etc. The annoying thing is that fanatical conservatives froth at the mouth about nothing real; it’s just ginned up crap.

sigh…

Why can’t Rachel talk about these sorts of things instead of talking about the crazies on the right. That’s for the fearmongering.

Agree, but probably Rachel’s Oligarch zillionaire boss, Jeffery Immelt, doesn’t “like” discussing what Spitzer has to offer. As we see, the Oligarchs are on a roll peddling fear. It’s an easy tool for manipulation. I’m sure Immelt is well aware of that.

As with all of the corporate-owned rightwing media, view MSNBC with the dictum “caveat emptor” in mind.

Both she and Keith were amazing for most of the hcr debate, but then both ended up back off the Democrats’ bs and started pointing out the obvious focusing on the lunacy that is the wingnuttery of the right. They’ve been far less than interesting/effective for months now because of it.

I know what you mean. It’s like the birther idiocy. There’s absolutely not one iota of an inkling of factual reality to any of that, but rightwingers willfully and gleefully and purposefully latch onto this crap because it’s what they want to believe.

I’ve been told explicitly by a birther (a family member, sadly enough) that they KNOW that its crap, but they don’t care. Their only concern is removing Obama from office by any means necessary, and if its fake birth certificates, false allegations of socialism, or whatever else it takes, they are OK with it. I told them that what they are advocating comes mighty close to sedition, and I didn’t want any part of it or their conspiracies.

I find that I’m seriously concerned that we are in fact in the early stages of Civil War Take 2.

Christ on a cracker, you actually accused a family member of sedition? That is hilarious and sad. Sedition is nothing but a made up crime invented by the government to scare people and suppress critical speech. I can’t believe you went there.

According to Wikipedia:

In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order.

Their intent is to overthrow the established oprder by any means necessary. How is it NOT sedition?

Joe Miller sez that whether or not I’m gay is a state issue.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

I’m sure you are exaggerating when you say “by any means necessary.” Would that include, say, assassination? I doubt it. They are talking about mounting a legal challenge in the government’s own court that Obama doesn’t satisfy the government’s own requirements; that hardly exhausts all the potential means. But more to the point, I’m not claiming that the government wouldn’t call it sedition. I’m saying it is pitiful for you to invoke sedition as an argument against your family. It is like one slave telling another that he shouldn’t revolt because his master says revolts are seditious. It’s crazy.

Please read the above as “that hardly exhausts all the potential means and hardly suggests any intent of insurrection–it is playing by the rules.”