Obama Talks Purty

Speaking on the occasion of Lincoln’s 200th birthday, President Obama still saddens me with his willingness to invoke the state secrets privilege in defense of torturers (not that he does that here). But the man gives a good speech.

Update: Embedded video removed, since it seems to have exploded over at MSNBC. Sorry about that.

138 Responses to “Obama Talks Purty”

  1. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    I guess he should have run on a platform of voting for him so he can be elected and try for a Pyrrhic victory, rallying the Republican Party and basically getting zero done as we circle the drain because of the economic crisis?

    That’s an emotional response, as I sit here applying for jobs and contemplating having to add 20k to my debt. I have another emotional response about the question of what we have if we don’t have morals too…

    Maybe he’s looking at this as a Utilitarian. If you’re President, and now you are really responsible for leading the nation, and you only have a few moves and so much political capital at any one time, what do you do? What do you think will help your people the most? Maybe you decide to go for economic reform and see about other stuff when the time is more right?

  2. knarlyknight Says:

    I agree with Jayson. But perhaps Obama has not a utilitarian perspective but rather a slightly more selfish angle. I know, he doesn’t sound like that, and his persona does not suggest that at all, but we are starting to see his actions and they are mapping out a different aspect of who he is – not necessarily a mutually exclusive opposite to the Obama of the campaign trail, but certainly another dimension. State secrets invoked for torture makes him deserve to be under a microscope.

    Obama is addressed at the 5:30 minute mark of this video. Actually the whole thing is recommended, I had low expectations when I clicked play but it sort of blew me away. (Celente recommends Health industry and anything green economy related for a job search.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nJ7LM3iyNg

  3. shcb Says:

    I have to admit I didn’t watch the whole clip, I just don’t suffer long strings of platitudes by liberal politicians well no matter how artfully they can speak. Let’s face it you have to be good to say in one breath that in times past people relied on government too much and then in the next breath say that the last administration wanted libertarian style non involvement of government in people’s lives. What a crock, but if you have the ability to charm folks you can slide a snake oil advertisement into a eulogy.

    I am beginning to see that he really doesn’t know anything about economics of economies. The other day he said he couldn’t understand what was wrong with judges changing the terms of mortgages when people were close to being in default. He can’t understand that? We’re in for a long two years.

    And then we have the “green economy” here is a piece from the WSJ describing the wonderful things cap and trade is doing in California

    Mr. Schwarzenegger fits into that camp. He recently declared: “I recommend very strongly that we move forward . . . . You will always have people saying this will lose jobs.”

    Meanwhile, the state is losing jobs, a lot of them. California’s unemployment rate hit 9.3% in December, up from 4.9% in December 2006. There are now 1.5 million Californians out of work. The state has the fourth-highest housing foreclosure rate in the nation, has lost more businesses than any state in recent years, and is facing a $40 billion deficit. With cap and trade firmly in place, the economic situation is only likely to get worse.

    This is the beauty of federalism, you have 50 little test chambers you can try these things out in, if they don’t work you say “boy, glad I don’t live there” and don’t follow their lead. Now if the federal government follows the lead of California you can just substitute “other countries” for “other states” in this article.

    And finally here is an article from Pajamas’
    site on how the public (JBC included) is losing faith in the Chosen One.

    Consider the dialogue: Gone is the pie-in-the-sky talk about post-partisan politics, transcending space and time, and all that other nonsense. We just passed a spending bill which will — using contemporary monetary standards — cost more than Bush’s Iraq war and Roosevelt’s New Deal combined. It is, by far, the largest spending bill in American history. We could buy real estate on Mars for a fifth of the cost.

    As Charles Krauthammer put it, “So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared ‘we have chosen hope over fear.’ Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.”

  4. shcb Says:

    I’m sure this is a photo shopped picture (hope it is) but I thought it was funny anyway


  5. shcb Says:

    I said I would give Obama his due when he deserves it. It seems he is standing at least a little tiny bit firm on one little tiny bit of the stimulus bill. I don’t want the government telling people what they can and can’t make, it causes bad things. You would have thought that Bill Clinton’s ill conceived voyage into these waters (Enron) would have been lesson enough, but allas it wasn’t. now Obama at least had the ood sense to say he would limit executives pay, was even passionate about it in prepared speeches, he’s good at that, but he left himself some wiggle room, like he did with torture, and state secrets. I like that, give the useful idiots one the far left what they want and hope you don’t have to play your hole card, hope the last administration did a good enough job eliminating the threat that you can be the good guy and yet leave an opening in case you need it.

    Enter Dodd and Frank, the two guys the most responsible for Fannie and Freddy’s failure. Now these two jokers who in another time and place would be shoving a really sharp knife in their guts moments before the blade severs their heads are covering their tracks by villainizing all banking executives for the actions of a few. I would rather Obama threaten a veto than threaten a signing statement, but that would probably be too much to hope for. But it will be interesting to see what happens.

    “Mr. Gibbs may not like it, but it is going to be enforced,” Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said on CBS. “This is not an option. This is not, frankly, the Bush administration, where they’re going to issue a signing statement and refuse to enforce it. They will enforce it.”

    What a little weasel.

  6. shcb Says:

    the good sense, not the ood

  7. enkidu Says:

    Nice speech, so refreshing and uplifting to finally have someone competent at the wheel. I know there is some consternation as to his positions on state secrets and the review of interrogation procedures (which the useful idiots of the right think allows the bushies to get a pass, think again morans). I think we should let the legal reviews and process work for a while before abandoning all hope. So far so good, a couple big red flags, but it hasn’t been a month yet.

    ok wrong wing nutjob, I’ll bite: what Clinton-Enron connection are you talking about? Did bubba have a cute nickname for Ken Lay like bushie did? Kenny boy was always a shrubco favorite. I haven’t heard the wingnutosphere’s blame-Clinton-for-Enron bullshit. I am sure it is hilarious, please enlighten us.

    And when your links are to fox or pajamas, your quotes from the likes of krauthammer and your continued partisan delusions compress down to a black hole of willful ignorance, you should expect to be treated as the marginal party of bigotry, blockage and bullshit.

  8. knarlyknight Says:

    I didn’t think shcb post was worth a reply but that’s not a bad response. I already had raised an eyebrow and had a laugh at Clinton Enron insinuation, but of course there will be links as Enron was a pretty big entity let’s see how far it pales in comparison to the BushCo ties. As for the “marginal party of bigotry, blockage and bullshit” you forgot moral decreptitude and disregard for the rule of law:

    body searches undertaken for no legitimate security purpose, simply to sexually invade and humiliate the prisoners. This was a standardized Bush Administration tactic–the importance of which became apparent to me when I participated in some Capitol Hill negotiations with White House representatives relating to legislation creating criminal law accountability for contractors. The Bush White House vehemently objected to provisions of the law dealing with rape by instrumentality. When House negotiators pressed to know why, they were met first with silence and then an embarrassed acknowledgement that a key part of the Bush program included invasion of the bodies of prisoners in a way that might be deemed rape by instrumentality under existing federal and state criminal statutes. While these techniques have long been known, the role of health care professionals in implementing them is shocking.

  9. shcb Says:

    I’m sure it was before you started paying attention to politics. Clinton pushed legislation through that limited the amount a company could write off as compensation for salary to an arbitrary 1 million dollars. There is (was) no limit for how much a board could pay that executive in the form of stock. Add that to an increase in taxes on dividends and you had Enron, a company that was successful in what it did. But what happened was it was more profitable to investors to simply allow the company to reinvest than take the hit on taxes so Enron invested in things they knew nothing about and they made business decisions based of increasing stock prices instead of keeping the company healthy. Now Nancy P and Harry Reid, and cover my ass Dodd and Frank want to cut that in half, but of course the company can still pay whatever in the form of stock. So a failed policy by Clinton is being put on steroids by the current President of the United States and the dupes that are duping him.

    I watched this very thing destroy Samsonite, what was once a 10 acre assembly plant that symbolized manufacturing in Denver is literally a hole in the ground now because of these practices. While we were finishing the last job I did for them they were tearing the building down around us as we were crating tooling to be sent to Mexico.

    I know that is way above your understanding of politics and economics, sorry for not explaining if down at your level the first time. I forget who I am talking to sometimes.

  10. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    So wait, companies ruined themselves because they wanted to pay their executives more, but couldn’t pay them more cash, so they invested very badly in stocks and lost their asses?

  11. knarlyknight Says:

    Jayson – … , and it was all Clinton’s fault!

  12. shcb Says:

    I suppose that is one way of putting it, of course it is much more complicated than that and you would have to pay attention to understand, I know Enky can’t do that but maybe you two can. It seems elementary but I guess I’ve lived through it so maybe it just makes sense to me. And if I recall that was Robert Reich’s idea, not Clinton. Now Clinton liked it for political reasons because it made him a hero to the soak the rich crowd. Oh, did I mention Hollywood actors and professional athletes were specifically exempt?

  13. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    I guess I feel that falls in the ‘let them fail’ category?

    The problem that people develop with the CEO bonuses is that they seem to be dolled out regardless of failure. Which in turn makes people angry, which seems understandable because there has been a general precedent of the executives getting theirs regardless of how many rank and file people get laid off or have to suffer salary cuts or freezes etc. I feel its fairly understandable for people to be upset with that.

    What people seem to think is that the executive bonus seems to be less about rewarding success than institutionalizing greed.

    I don’t know if that was the case for Samsonite or not. I read on a Boston news site that Samsonite was in the middle of a major financial restructuring in 2001 and in the wake of the financial turmoil following 9/11 it’s lenders pulled out and the jobs went overseas.

    I feel like the question I asked above could be expressed in an analogy like: “The state puts a 65 mph speed limit on cars. I don’t give a shit about speed limits so I get a hovercraft and wreck it going 200 mph and cause property damage and injuries. Then I say it’s the governor’s fault. If he had let me drive a car as fast as I wanted to, I wouldn’t have tried a hovercraft, which I didn’t know how to pilot.”

    I feel with the Samsonite story what you’re telling me is that the most important thing was the CEO make over one million dollars a year. So whoever felt that went and made a bunch of really bad investments and ruined the company. The workers should have hung their ‘leaders’ there.

    On the other hand I see where shcb is coming from. It’s a little like Prohibition or the War on Drugs. People want what they want. If you make it hard to get they’ll still want it and they’ll start doing crazier and crazier shit to get it. It’s the ‘I don’t give a shit” in my hovercraft example. I don’t really know how to legislate against the more negative aspects of human psychology.

  14. leftbehind Says:

    I hate to break it to you two brain surgeons, but the Clinton-Enron connection has been public knowledge for quite some time. Whether or not you agree with SHCB’s assessment of that relationship, not knowing about it says volumes about your awareness of current events, but then again I don’t think anyone but JBC has too many illusions in that area.

    “Before its messy decline and fall, Enron had plenty of clout in George W. Bush’s Washington, from the personal ties between chairman Ken Lay and the President to the company’s alleged influence on Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force. But Enron’s cozy relationship with Washington didn’t start there. Documents obtained by TIME show the energy giant enjoyed much closer ties with Clinton Administration regulators than was generally known. Long before Cheney’s task force met with Enron officials and included their ideas in Bush’s energy plan, Clinton’s energy team was doing much the same thing. Drafting a 1995 plan to help facilitate cash flow and credit for energy producers, it asked for Enron’s input—and listened. The staff was directed to “rework the proposal to take into account the specific comments and suggestions you made,” Clinton Deputy Energy Secretary Bill White wrote an Enron official.

    Clinton officials also made efforts to help Enron get business overseas. Clinton Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary included Enron officials on trade missions to India, China, Pakistan and South Africa. White, returning from a 1994 trip to Mexico, wrote chairman Lay that “much opportunity” existed there for natural gas, and he sent a copy of Mexico’s energy plans. To persuade an Enron senior vice president to join a mission to Pakistan, White wrote, “I have strong personal relationships with the existing government.”

    Enron showed its gratitude. At Christmas 1995, documents show, it donated an unknown sum of cash in O’Leary’s name to a charity called “I Have a Dream.” And when Clinton ran for re-election a year later, the company made its largest single contribution ever—$100,000—to the President’s party. ” – Time Magazine, 2002


  15. leftbehind Says:

    You guys knew that Michael Stipe is gay, right?

  16. leftbehind Says:

    …and that little Katie Holmes from Dawson’s Creek had a baby. With Tom Cruise of all people!

  17. shcb Says:

    The Samsonite story started long before anyone outside Arkansas had even heard of Clinton and really ended way before 2001. It was totally tied to a bonus and wasn’t affected by Clinton’s law to the best of my knowledge but it is an example of what happens when you tie executives pay almost entirely to stock performance. In the simplest form it is like piece work, where a worker gets paid by the number of parts they produce, there is little incentive to look very far into the future.

    In the Samsonite case the Schwayder family sold the company to Beatrice foods, a company that knew nothing about the luggage business (sound familiar) they instituted business practices that didn’t make much sense and started to loose market share. They sold it to a holding company (remember Pretty Woman?) the holding company was indebted to it’s share holders and needed to get the stock prices up so they hired a guy that was noted for his ability to just that.

    He made one simple change, he changed the accounting to consider a suitcase sold when it left the warehouse. Before that, suitcases were sold like cars, Samsonite owned the suitcases sitting on the shelf at Sears and didn’t get paid until the sale was made at the retail level. Slowly but surely the “sales” of Samsonite cases was going up like it had when they first introduced the hard side luggage in the 40’s people started to notice and started to buy stock. The north parking lot that was, I’m guessing 50 acres, became so full of trailers loaded with cases that you could hardly find a place to park.

    When company execs started to complain he made them buy stock in the company or risk being fired. At some point a stock broker noticed a small drop in sales, he called the company to enquire what caused the drop, the perky voice told him that we had had a big snow storm so no shipments went out for 3 days. He was curious what shipments had to do with sales and started digging, then the house of cards collapsed. There was a year’s worth of sales in the parking lot, most of it quickly becoming out of style and no prospects of sales, so the stock plummeted. But the pres had gotten stocks to a target in the allotted time, he was paid several million in bonuses and ran like hell from the stock holders that had filed a class action suit against him, the justice department was also on his tail, last I heard he was in South America somewhere.

    This is what happens. Now government wasn’t the culprit here, but what they are doing now is resulting in this same behavior. When private companies do something stupid they fail, and other companies don’t do it so quickly, when government policies encourage the same behavior and they fail they bail the failed companies out and everyone does it.

  18. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    shcb, thanks for taking the time to tell the story. it’s sad to hear that. we lost Hoover in North Canton under the similar ‘general mismanagement’ type circumstances, I know how it is.

    I guess the question for me is whether the current situation merits the response. For me in looking at like declaring martial law during wartime. It feels like more drastic steps than what you’d consider ‘normal’ economic policy.

    I’m not sure the piece work analogy is apt for all things. I can see how, unfortunately, the Beatrice Foods guy thought it was.

  19. shcb Says:

    I suppose you’re right, letting the government bail you out is like inviting your mother in law to move in with you and your new bride. If the government now owns these companies to the point they can set wages then set them to a reasonable, market value and take all the stock options away. If the old guys don’t like those terms, let some young guys that will work for a couple million a year take over. It seems to me this plan is the worst of both worlds.

    Here is a blog with several interesting viewpoints:


    But, heck — why stop with the top 50, or at $500,000? For that matter, why stop with executive compensation? After all, we basically own these places now, right? Let’s make them raise their rates on savings accounts and lower their rates on credit card balances. Let’s require Citigroup to reduce its out-of-network ATM fees. Forget about toasters and iPods: how about requiring that every new Bank of America depositor receive a shiny new Chevy? That way, we can kill — I mean, stimulate two dead ducks with one bailout.

    Sound crazy? It’s not logically inconsistent with the current Obama plan. Before we go any further down this road, here’s a better idea: (a) avoid more caps on compensation, and (b) call a halt to bailouts. If Bank of America, Citigroup and G.M. all survive, Ken Lewis, Vikram Pandit and Rich Wagoner will finally have earned their keep.

    This is probably the least-worst result we can hope for, even if it means more disposable revenue for the likes of Sheldon Silver.

  20. shcb Says:

    don’t let that quote scare you, most of the others are reasonable.

  21. shcb Says:

    One small point (hate it when I think of these things right after I post something) I’m not against being a little rough with these guys, I would like there to be some negative consequences to the government having to help private companies this way. I also don’t care how a company compensates it workers, but there should be cause for reflection before you forget the long term aspects of business decisions. Now that is a little emoting, it is hard to make that work in reality, but government of all people shouldn’t make matters worse, they don’t have to.

  22. enkidu Says:

    Before you make broad claims about The Clinton/Enron Connection, you may want to ask yourself ‘is this something I heard from rush? or mike savage? or from charles krauthammer?’ Because I checked both wiki and snopes and you would be surprised to read that your supposed connection is ridiculous (as usual).

    Enron was donating $ 3:1 R:D, Ken Lay stayed at the white house (under both bushies, but not clinton), bush knew him personally and there were lots of other connections and scratching of backs. I am sure there are plenty of connections between people with money and politicians. The Clinton energy folks had contacts with Enron (they were a big energy company before they became a big scandal). When the preponderance of the money goes in one direction so clearly, all your hand waving won’t change reality. But when you color your information with partisan tripe so consistently, well, it’ll still be tripe.

    Amazing how wwnjs seem to forget that the $750 B ‘TARP’ money (not to mention the AIG bailout, the other cash infusions/giveaways) was rammed thru by shrubco. Just prior to the 08 election.

    Obama’s stimulus plan has larger tax cuts than bushie pushed thru and the stimulative spending (what was the rush approved bullshitting point? porkulus?) is actually going towards things like infrastructure and education, instead of useless wars and graft. Obama knuckled on almost all the R requests to the spending bill, but the Rs voted in lockstep against it.

    Funny how you guys weren’t all up in arms about shrubco nearly doubling the national debt to well over 10 Trillion dollars. But suddenly you can’t bear to spend some debt to help Main Street. Face it Rs, you just aren’t any good at government. It’ll be a miracle if we don’t have a Second Great Depression after Hoover2 “kept us safe!”

    ps – that ‘Nancy’s mouse’ meme is also bullshit. Just thought you should know.

  23. shcb Says:

    go back and look, I never mentioned anything about a connection between Bush, Clinton, or Enron, I was talking about policies, everyone else read that into my comments, as usual.

  24. shcb Says:

    That is what I was talking about when I said you can’t pay attention long enough to have a discussion on real issues, Jayson did, but not you.

  25. knarlyknight Says:

    To be fair, shcb, it was easy to read between the lines and think that you were insinuating that Clinton was in some manner responsible for the Enron scandal (and thus Bush less responsible) given that such screwball attacks on dems & libs are what we all have become accustomed to over the months and years (lord let there be peace before we add “decades”). But you made no such statement, and I see that you probably did not mean to insinuate that there were nefarious ties between Enron and Clinton that were anything close to enormous magnitude of the BushCo links to the Enron scandal… wow, just a perusal of a few pages of these articles rings back memories of the disgusting barrel of maggots that steered the BushCoEnron ship: http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/2002/Bush_and_Enron.html

  26. shcb Says:

    Sorry my friend but that dog don’t hunt. Face it, you guys got caught with your BHD’s down around your knees (or anti-BHD in LB’s case). Jayson didn’t have any trouble keeping up. Read your last post, you still can’t let it go, you could have made the point in the first two and a half lines and moved on but you just couldn’t stop yourself. Bush is in Texas and Lay is in the ground. Now I don’t mind discussing whatever anyone wants, but on occasion I would like to get off the subject of Bush bad, bad, bad. If you notice I’m giving Obama just a tiny bit of kudos. I even came to the defense of Clinton, trying to place blame where blame lies.

    Back to the subject. The President is going to sign this liberal wish list today in our fair city, thankfully far, far from me. It will be interesting to see if there is a sighing statement in the matter of executive pay. There is more to this than just the limit on pay, this is a power struggle between a few congressmen and the President. Coalitions are being formed as we speak, and at sometime the President is going to have to choose one over the other. Who wins this little stare down, and how it is won could impact the next two years at least.

  27. shcb Says:

    Look at Enky’s last post, he has had a theme now for a while that if the information comes from anything to the right of the Huffington post it must be a lie, how convenient, we just eliminate half the competition and the debate goes away. By the way, I have been going to Huffington on a regular basis lately, they have been doing the best job keeping updated raw data available for the Nancy and Harry’s wish list bill.

  28. shcb Says:

    what is “Nancy’s mouse”?

  29. leftbehind Says:

    Enky could be right. TIME is pretty “fringe…”

  30. leftbehind Says:

    …still, he should get that “deficit…bad” thing out of his system. That’s going to become a very unfashionable attitude over the next four years. Of course, the new line’s supposed to be “it’s okay to spend money you don’t have as long as it’s on good stuff.” Knarly’s been trying that one on his mom for years, but he’s still riding a Huffy.

  31. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, my point was made in the first sentence, and you got it, the rest was blowing smoke. It’s funny (in an odd way) how you react to that so automatically in putting up your wall.
    Enk, is that stench rotting vomit or seagull shit?

  32. enkidu Says:

    With all due respect (meaning none) my reading comprehension would seem to be better than yours, but when you contort the argument into semantic knots, that dog doesn’t hunt? You wwnjs want desperately to deflect any hint of blame or responsibility from your partisan misleaders. Clinton responsible for Enron? Then a bit about how it’s all Nancy P and Dodd’s fault! (stamps tiny little foot)
    When will you wwnjs grow up and actually admit some responsibility for the last 8 years? Answer: never

    If you had bothered to read what I wrote (instead of just glazing over and hawking the same old tired discredited wwnj talking points), I did mention Clinton energy officials had contacts with Enron, but trying to say Enron was all a result of Clinton’s decisions is beyond ludicrous. The wingnutosphere resounds with discredited tripe. You skew my words while shouting about how I skew yours. Whatever. When you link to nothing but extremist wwnj sites and hate radio memes are the only thing you seem capable of believing, then questioning where you get your info is more than valid.

  33. shcb Says:

    what is “Nancy’s mouse”

  34. leftbehind Says:

    Yeah, I always thought Time was pretty extreme, too. I should have pegged it as right wing hatchet-work when I had to borrow Knarly’s Prisonplanet decoder ring to read the damn thing. Isn’t Time published by the same sinister cabal that publishes Popular Mechanics?

  35. leftbehind Says:

    Those guys blew up the World Trade Center.

  36. leftbehind Says:


  37. knarlyknight Says:

    A crumb for the reminiscing troll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwQa5eokieY

  38. leftbehind Says:

    I think that stench you keep smelling is your aftershave, “Eau De Conspiracy Nut.” Either that, or Alex Jones farted without giving you the signal to “surface.”

  39. leftbehind Says:

    Or maybe it’s fumes escaping from the “Doomsday Seed Vault”

  40. shcb Says:

    You know enky I don’t think you are capable of having a conversation. If anyone is interested, take the last few posts of both of us and put them one after another, it is sad and entertaining at once.

  41. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, It’s pretty much two guys not listening to each other much: pot meet kettle, kettle – pot.

    I did note a sad yet entertaining plaintive cry from shcb to be let in on the secret about nancy’ pelosi and her mouse, as if Google is broken when in fact about 189 thousand results pop up by googling the BS “Nancy’s mouse meme” ; and it is pretty sad that shcb would claim to be going to Huffington Post on a regular basis to keep tabs on nancy and the stimulus bills when that is false given that the Huff Post provides TWO of the first 3 results of the 189,000. Keep it up, you’re doing a Heckuva job, shcb.

  42. shcb Says:


    Well, when I put those three words in Google I get 38,900 hits. I didn’t take this laptop to China so they didn’t load some censoring device in it, maybe we get less information in the sticks. I’m just asking, I’ve never heard that term before and reading a few of the Google links weren’t enough. There seems to be something about spending money to save some wetlands? Is that it? Sounds like Rush may have been talking about it? I rarely listen to Rush anymore. I can listen to him when I am doing machine work but not when I am doing design work, right brain, left brain thing I guess.

    But I did find this, how funny is that. I love it when liberals eat their young.
    so here is the evil Fox news with a little diversity, a liberal from NPR speaking his mind and NPR, that is NATIONAL (read taxpayer) Public Radio feels the need to disown him. How many conservatives are on NPR? They even got rid of Baxter Black for Christ’s sake, and let’s face it he was just there for entertainment value. The last I heard from Baxter it wasn’t a two way split, he was dumped. Of course he doesn’t speak ill of anyone, you have to read between the lines, you can sort of see the mustache lift a little on the left and just a hint of a wink when he says “well, I guess they wanted to go a different direction” in that lilting voice of his.

    This isn’t about two guys with a pot and a kettle, and you know it. Enky simply won’t discuss issues, but as an ally it is you duty to stick up for him as well as you can. I think he either doesn’t know how to carry on a conversation or doesn’t know anything about any of the subjects being discussed so he just lashes out. In either case it is sad, but there isn’t much you can do about it.

  43. leftbehind Says:

    …ally or toady?

  44. knarlyknight Says:

    Google results for “Nancy’s mouse meme” (without quote marks) is now up to 191,000 results, so unless you misspelled something it would seem that you are being sensored by Google, your server, or elsewhere.

    Here’s the address line that appears on the first page of my 191,000 results:

    And here’s the info at the top of that page:
    Results 1 – 10 of about 191,000 for Nancy’s mouse meme. (0.37 seconds)

  45. enkidu Says:

    actually the majority of the guests on NPR have been conservatives (I am still looking for more recent numbers, but the trend is clearly in one direction)

    little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources-including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants- Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

    The problem is that you live in the Wing Nut Universe while most human being inhabit Reality.

    My brother has been visiting us for the last few days and it has been wonderful to talk to a Conservative who isn’t a wingnut (yeah, i am looking at you wwnj). He thinks climate change is real, Al Gore won in 2000 and probably would have made a better president. He works for a conservation/green energy company and is excited to be making the future of our world a better place (and to make some serious money in the process). He’s religious but thinks keeping religion out of the public square is why America succeeded. He has high hopes for Obama and is actually rooting for him, for America, to win, to succeed, to thrive and lead again. He has plenty of kvetches about the stimulus or bush’s bailouts, but they are productive, thoughtful opinions rather than hate radio bullshit.

    shcb, I doubt we will ever have a real conversation as your mind is poisoned by repeated bullshit baths. When you only read wingnut sources, quote macho mike and rush and the pajamas gang (hey did you see Michelle Malkin posing with Swastika Guy? you stay classy wingnuts!) then you should expect almost any normal person you spout such nonsense to will either A) ignore you or B) correct you. It must have really pained you to link to huffpo! ;-)

    You seem to think it some super-clever mental jujistu to ignore nearly every question put to you and then simper about how I won’t acknowledge how wise and wonderful you are. Perhaps compared to the local ‘fart-in-the-elevator’ (yes yes lefty, gaytanksblahblahblah now please stfu), but your constant hawking of discredited and downright bullshit rightwing memes borders on the comical (or the sad). I sympathize w jbc, occasionally I get angry at the crap you regularly spew, but I laugh and shake my head far more.

    try to learn how to use ‘the google’ For example drop the word meme, a word which here means ‘idea’ or ‘knowledge’, from your search. Nancy’s mouse = bullshit, but don’t let that stop elected Rs from saying the stimulus has $50 million for Nancy’s mouse – or rat, since that gets the DemocRAT in there.
    Nancy’s mouse returns 6,360,000 hits. You have everyone from Huckleberry to Hannity spreading a lie, but very little truth pushing back. btw – try wikipedia instead of conservapedia, you’ll be better informed.

    Nancy’s daughter did a glowing biopic of bushie and just wrapped one where she followed the McCain campaign. My favorite quote? She asked someone “what do McCain voters have in common?” answer “we hate all the same things!”

    Hate drives the Right, not hope, not love, not country, not even money. Hate.

  46. leftbehind Says:

    Hate! Hate I sez!

    Look for Inky’s autobiography, “Touched by Love” at your local bookseller.

  47. leftbehind Says:

    It’s in the aeronautics section.

  48. leftbehind Says:

    “Right. I’m not naive. I know that I’m going to be criticized for picking people who say some extreme things. If you take the guy that says Obama is the antichrist and use him as a sample of the movie, you have to take one of the 20 other people who say very reasonable things. You have to take the woman who says we’re angry because — “The economy. I went home and cried last night because I just lost my 401K.” There are lots of normal people in this movie. I sat in the edit room for a very long time. I was very fair in terms of the ratio of how many people I interviewed that said Obama is the antichrist — put that in once. “He reminds me of Hitler” — put that in once. I heard that every day at every rally. That doesn’t mean that everybody who showed up at that rally felt that way, but just people on the camera. Remember, who’s going to talk to a camera? These are going to be certain kinds of people.

    “I mean, my brother-in-law, my next-door neighbor, my mom’s college roommate: These are Republicans who voted for McCain, who didn’t think that Obama is the antichrist, but of course they don’t want to be on camera, because they don’t want to be speaking for the Republican Party. I think it’s really irresponsible to focus on the few crazies that appear in the movie as opposed to the tons of really sane, normal people that appear in the movie…”

    – Alexandra Pelosi –

  49. leftbehind Says:



  50. leftbehind Says:



  51. leftbehind Says:



  52. leftbehind Says:



  53. shcb Says:

    … and all I wanted to do was talk about one little part of HB1… sad

  54. leftbehind Says:



  55. leftbehind Says:



  56. leftbehind Says:

    Mo Love


  57. leftbehind Says:


  58. leftbehind Says:


  59. knarlyknight Says:


    if you really only wanted to talk about “one little part of HB1” as you now claim


    you wouldn’t have been spouting lies about the number of conservatives on NPR.

    Pot, meet Kettle.

  60. shcb Says:

    :-) I was talking more about regular hosts than guests, other than Baxter can you name me a conservative host or regular contributor that is conservative. And I’m not sure Baxter is even that conservative, I just assume he is since he is (was) a neighbor and I live in a pretty darn conservative area.

  61. knarlyknight Says:

    Yea, sure… all you wanted to do was talk about one little part of HB1…

    Surely there is an NPR discussion forum somewhere that you could blather on and on about your NPR Conspiracy Theory. Whatever… The wiki article Enk quoted from also indicates that NPR listeners tend to be smarter and better educated than those of other radio stations, maybe the NPR board finds it difficult to find conservative hosts who would measure up to such standards.

  62. shcb Says:

    so you can’t think of any? is that because you don’t listen because you don’t fit the demographic you are referring to or because i’m right?

  63. knarlyknight Says:

    “so you can’t think of any?” Never said I was going to.

    “don’t listen…or because I’m right?” is a dumbass question even for you. There are other possibilities you fail to mention, least of which is that your idiotic wwnj blather is awfully boring and about as deserving of a reply as the troll’s farts

  64. shcb Says:

    oh, this is too much fun!!!

  65. shcb Says:

    Something just occurred to me, I don’t know how true this is but I remember hearing that when Murdock formed Fox News he patterned it after NPR, he wanted the most conservative network on the air but realized that NPR had that market sown up, it was over 70% conservative by estimates it recently read (very, very recently) so he had his people tone it down just a bit because he knew he couldn’t stand up to a conservative juggernaut like NPR, I mean how can you compete with flaming right wingers like Nina Totenberg.

    You guys are dwebes but you’re my dwebes, you bring me such joy.

  66. shcb Says:

    So what do you guys think about this little brew ha ha over the current POTUS not holding to his word about waiting 5 days to sign bills. It seems to me that would be a pretty easy promise to keep, it doesn’t surprise me at all that he hasn’t kept his word, after throwing the Rev and grandma under the bus I figured he didn’t have much integrity, he’s just another product of the Chicago machine (Burris is turning out to be a piece of work). Now to be fair he did say it was for non emergency bills and the Spenulous bill could be considered an emergency I suppose, but he signed the Ledbetter Act after two days and that certainly wasn’t an emergency Oh my how that one is going to hurt in a few years. I just can’t help but chuckle when I hear the Ledbetter Bill, I can just see ole Percy Ledbetter standing on the steps of the Capital with his coon rifle in one hand and a coon in the other for the signing ceremony. I went to youtube this morning and listened to some of those old Clower clips, god was that man funny.

  67. leftbehind Says:

    shcb – I liked that last post, a lot.

    You’re certainly right about NPR being a primarily left-leaning organization. Trying to suggest otherwise based on the conservativism of interviewees is like trying to call Rush Limbaugh a Liberal because he talks about Barack Obama all the time. I think Inky knows better and is just being obtuse. Knarly, on the other hand, has for some time exhibited a hard time using context clues to evaluate anything he sees, hears or reads. This is, after all, the guy who exhaustively poured over Prison Planet for months on end and still had no idea what the word “Illuminati” meant.

    In NPR’s defense, it’s still a really good radio network. While it’s commentators do tend to lean left, it’s more of an essentially centrist, academic leftism than Pacifica lwnj stuff. I highly recommend the Diane Rehm Show, which is one of the best political programs on the air.

  68. shcb Says:

    Sure, it is left of center, NPR isn’t far left, neither is Time or Newsweek, the New York Times etc, they are just a little left of center, Fox News is a little right of center. The problem these guys here have is they are so far left their center of gravity is askew.

    I used to listen to NPR every evening on my way home from work, the timing was right and I had an hour commute, I always enjoyed listening to them, the shows are well produced and entertaining. They had some interviews with some old folks that were all over one hundred years old one evening, it was absolutely captivating. My biggest problem with NPR is how they merge news and opinion almost seamlessly, now I’m sophisticated enough politically to see the transition but every now and again they would even catch me off guard.

  69. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    The Ledbetter Act isn’t going to bite anyone on the ass. That’s so easily defensible that attacking it is going to end up looking foolish.

    At this point I find it sadly ironic to attack the President’s character. One one had people will go ‘Oh, the new kid is going to learn how it’s done!!!’ and then ‘He’s not living up to his promises!!!’ This goes back to what I said during the elections. People that were for Obama were going to be really dissapointed that he wasn’t really Superman. People that were against him are going to find themselves in the same emotional space that the rest of us were in with W, going ‘What the hell is he doing?! He’s an idiot/incompetent/liar/has no character!’

    I assume George H W Bush was on par with Bill Clinton in terms of character because he lied to all of us about taxes? After this campaign I have hit the point where I am sick of how simpleminded all of have become. Everyone running for public office nowadays deals strictly in ‘motivating the base’ and promising us vague generalizations. Let’s do ourselves all a favor and not pretend it’s any different.

    At the same time Obama is fucking up with these ‘little’ things, that I don’t understand. It’s like watching a boxer drop his guard for no reason.

    I personally feel like the USA is locked into the same ideology based death spiral that got the USSR. I also think we’re at the official Lies.com Circular Argument Point on this thread. JBC, get us something new to argue about?

  70. shcb Says:

    At the margins the Ledbetter act will cost jobs. In a few years when employers are afraid to hire people because they fear possible repercussions 20 years from now for frivolous lawsuits they will find was to limit the number of employees. Now I’m not all that concerned because it is just a law, a law that can be repealed by a more sensible congress but this is just bad law. However there are no immediate negative repercussions, this is a long term problem. 180 days is plenty of time to bring discrimination charges, essentially eliminating a statute of limitations is very poor policy and is open for adult debate, there is no gotcha politics here.

    When you can’t uphold the simplest of campaign promises there is character issue, is it severe? No, but it is worth noting, that is how we see patterns develop.

    In my ongoing effort to give credit were it is due, I am pleased with Obama’s stance on the Fairness Doctrine.

    There, two subjects with no sniping.

  71. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    Well I agree with the Ledbetter Act, I think again, easily defensible, that’d be least of my worries if I was worried about reelection, what, you don’t think women should have equal pay? That’s that.

  72. shcb Says:

    women were already protected for equal pay, this just allows them to bring suit decades after the infraction. in the case of Ledbetter herself her boss was DEAD by the time she filed. and she wanted back pay for her entire career, you can’t run a business that way. these issues are mulit diminsional

    Here is another one, DiFi is a menace


  73. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    Sorry. I didn’t mean I actually wanted to argue about this.

  74. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    I take that back. I don’t give a shit about how you run a business. If you don’t care about justice, there is no point. If you don’t penalize people for wrongdoing, there is no point.

  75. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    And if you run a business like that, the penalty is you go out of business.

  76. knarlyknight Says:

    Jayson, that makes sense.

    It is sad how republicans generally like laws when they undermine civil liberties yet they dislike laws when it is perceived that it might infringe on their ability to exploit other people.

    Keep to the high road and the sniping from wwnj’s will always continue to originate from the low road.

    By the way, in Canada, the costs of any lawsuit a judge determines to be frivolous are levied against the instigator and that tends to keep nuisance suits to minimum and compensates the accused. Don’t you have something similar to that in the states?

  77. enkidu Says:

    ah yes, reasoned nuanced ‘debate’ w a radical wwnj… (waste of time)
    wwnj, can we debate how many times you can use the word “coon” in a post?

    Can we give the new President more than a month before we abandon all hope?
    We had 8 long years of wingnut mis-rule and the problems Obama inherits are mind boggling.

    but just keep holding rallies like this one:

    The guy on the left side holding the O(swastika)BAMA sign is just part of the big tent GOP. He’s up there with his Obama/nazi sign the entire time. He gets some camera time about half way thru, but wait until the last moments when Nazi-guy has his pic taken with professional screetcher Michelle Malkin.

    Are you in the crowd wwnj? When elected US reps stand shoulder to shoulder w nazi symbol carrying goons, you know there is trouble ahead. This is going to get a whole lot uglier before Rethuglikkkanism is defeated. Stay classy wwnjs!

    btw – the comments on that fox link are very nuancey don’t you think?

  78. shcb Says:

    I’m just curious, do you guys have any idea what I’m talking about?

  79. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    I do, I just really disagreed with it. Or I did before anyway.

  80. shcb Says:

    I figured you did, let’s see about the other two. They are probably trying to figure it out now, after they commented.

  81. knarlyknight Says:

    I pretty much lost interest after shcb posted that lame photoshopped picture on Feb 14.

    Now, with the DJIA today at 7467 skirting with November 2008’s low of 7447 once again, I think it is amazing that any Bush supporter is left who thinks others would consider a wwnj’s opinion on anything to be anything more than utter garbage. From my perspective on the other side of the international border, America has lost most everything of material and moral importance during Bush’s reign and I really don’t think any administration, even one led by Obama, could fix half of what has been broken or restore even a quarter of what has been lost under Bush’s watch. For that I am sad, for we are all impoverished as a result. This appears to be just the beginning of a “recession” and I have yet to see any light indicating it has an end.

  82. shcb Says:

    didn’t stop you from commenting on something you knew nothing about and didn’t bother to ask about. How funny. I can’t wait for Enky.

  83. knarlyknight Says:

    Wrong. You’re an idiot.

  84. shcb Says:

    Let me explain what you were commenting on. I’m doing this from memory so correct me where I’m wrong Jayson. Ledbetter sued her employer for discrimination on the basis that she is a woman. A court rewarded her a win. On appeal the courts tossed the case because the law said, remember we’re a country of laws, the law said that you have to file a complaint within 180 days of the incident. It had been so long the man she was issuing the complaint against had been dead for several years.

    This law changes that to 180 days after the last infraction meaning the last pay check. The theory is that if someone were discriminated against a long time ago they lost the ability to make all those wages. Of course that takes the onus off the employee to be prompt. So what this does is make it possible for an employee to go back as far as they like to claim discrimination. In that time, the person that was discriminating could have quit, been fired, or in Ledbetter’s case, died. Job descriptions, technology, or social standards could have changed. Also included in this bill is a provision for an heir to file suit. So a child or spouse could file suit on an employer after the death of the employee even if the employee had no beef with the company.

    Do I need to explain to how much uncertainty this will make to the employer? You see when you scream that rights are being violated you have to understand that both parties in any situation have rights. Good law balances the rights of both parties. As far as I can see this law does nothing to limit discrimination, it just sets an unlimited pot of gold for lawyers. The trial lawyer coalition will be served. Maybe this is why Obama didn’t honor his promise of transparency.

  85. knarlyknight Says:

    What an idiot. You are suggesting that the burden of proof rests with the defendent and that there is no recourse against frivolous lawsuits. If that’s true then your country has bigger problems than Ledbetter issues.

  86. shcb Says:

    I’m an idiot? Twice you have used that defensive measure to mask your failure, I didn’t comment on something I knew nothing about. If you notice when I didn’t know what Peloci’s mouse meant, I asked politely, twice. My politeness wasn’t reciprocated, sad, but what are you going to do when you are dealing with people that just want to hear themselves pontificate and emote.

    No we don’t have any real recourse against frivolous lawsuits like loser pays. That subject is brought up constantly at both the state and federal level but it never passes, now it is easy to blame Democrats since one of their biggest contributors are trial lawyers but Republicans have owned everything quite recently and nothing changed. And you are right, it is on of the reasons we are so fucked up down here.

    I don’t understand what you mean with your burden of the proof statement, this is simply a statute of limitations issue. As far as I can see there was no major change in the burden of proof in this law. The 180 day clause made perfect since, this doesn’t.

  87. shcb Says:

    One other point, in this case the defendant is the employer, the burden of proof is, as always, on the prosecution, the employee. This is what happens when you don’t think but just spout off snippets you have heard in the past and pass that off as discourse, or you instinctively take one side, you appear the idiot.

  88. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    schb, I think you’re mostly right on the facts, but your interpretation of the law’s purpose is incorrect.

    It is a statue of limitations issue, but the reason that it is an issue is because women may have not know they’ve been discriminated against because of their ability to access payroll information from their employers. This is saying you now have recourse to sue if you have been cheated on your pay for 20 years but only found out last week, because last week was the first time you had access to the data that let you know you’d been cheated.

    This is really the equivalent of saying ‘I broke into your house 20 years ago, stole something, and you just found out yesterday because you couldn’t check (for some reason) and me saying that you had no recourse because it was 20 years ago.’ This is kind of a loose analogy, but its basically there

  89. enkidu Says:

    if any of you guys want to waste your time in a nuancy debate with old wrong wing nut job, please go right ahead, but it is a useless effort. He complains that knarls uses the word idiot then calls knarls an idiot as well. That is some ace ‘debate’ all right.

    I could care less what gunny bob, macho mike, fauxnoise or any of your right wing bullshit has to say about deflecting the Enron crap entirely on to Clinton. Or the Ledbetter Act. Or just about anything of import in America today.

    Let’s face it, if a few reasonable Repubs want to work for the good of the American people, then fine, but the majority of the ‘thuggle minority is betting on America failing. And actively working to that end. wwnjs will not work with the Ds, libs and INDs under any circumstances. I recall when winguts were all “he’s teh CnC! he’s the Commander! The Decider! we should all support our pretzelnitwit in a a time of WAR! anyone who doesn’t is a seditious traitor!!!” I recall when Rs used to chuckle that bipartisanship was “date rape” (har har har!) Note to our new pres: do your job, the one we elected you to, stop playing nice with the other side of the aisle and get to work.

    I was flipping thru the cable channels last night and HBO was screening A. Pelosi’s “Right in America: Feeling Wronged” I could only watch about 20 minutes as the barrage of ignorance, racism, lies and – yes, it must be said – sheer stupidity was mind boggling.

    There are some good, decent Rs like my bro. But they are a minority of the minority.

    hey how about a new ‘debate’ topic? I propose that the stimulus should be pared down as follows: any R who didn’t vote for it, gets their amendments taken out (this would tend to raise the cost a bit) but then they get zero stimulus bill dollars for their district. They would also have to forgo the Obama tax cuts (larger than bushie’s btw). This would lower the bill by far more than the R amendments. Let’s see how principled these clowns really are. (crickets)

  90. shcb Says:

    Jayson, I know that is the intent of the law, that is what I said above. I think the intent of the law is wrong because it is unreasonable. The question is how is it in any way practical to achieve that goal and remain fair to both sides? These cases are incredibly hard to adjudicate in the first place except in the most severe instances. Unless you are unionized there is usually a broad range of pay in a given profession. A construction manager for instance may make $40k right out of college or upwards of 100k for someone good and experienced. Performance is also subjective to a supervisor, and then there are intangibles, maybe for a given promotion the supervisor wants someone with more leadership skills this time, and someone more detail oriented the nest time. If at one of these promotions someone from a protected class were involved they should have the right to question the decision in court, but in a timely manner.

    The remedy to your dilemma would seem to be petition the court under the previous law to see the payroll records if you think there is an injustice. Sure you aren’t going to get back wages, but in your example you are only going to get your stereo back, not the 20 years of enjoyment that stereo would have given you, it isn’t fair, but there is no practical way to determine that cost. You said the analogy wasn’t perfect so I’m not busting on you, but one problem with it is the stereo is tangible, with a serial number on it so it can be proven it was yours.

    This probably isn’t any better but let me flip this around, this seems as absurd as an employer saying after 20 years that he is not going to pay the pension of that employee because he hasn’t worked hard enough. The proper way to rectify that situation is to have fired him 15 years ago, even then the employer would not have gotten back those 5 years of less than perfect performance, but that is life.

    Enky, you don’t have to respond to everything I say, we know you don’t want to discuss these things. You have been blessed with authoring rights, use them, start a new thread every now and then, pontificating to you hearts desire and let the rest of us debate it like JBC does.

  91. knarlyknight Says:

    Good post Enk.

    Bad posts shcb. Can’t see how you possibly made the mistake to say that I thought the defendent would be other than the employer in the Ledbetter case; except that you’re an idiot so it’s understandable.

    The first paragraph of your last post lists a whole bunch of variables about why equal pay is such a difficult item to determine. That’s exactly what I was referring to with “burden of proof”, except you’re too thick to understand. Let me lay it out: if the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and there are so many intracacies and subjective aspects as you acknowledge in determining the proper wage, then it is going to be pretty damn tough to compile a convincing case that meets the burden of proof test. Hence the defendent, your precious employer (in case you are getting mixed up as to who is the defendent), has little to fear. Yes, it is a shame that the Republicans didn’t introduce something to minimize frivolous lawsuits, but I’d say that’s a relatively small fuck up compared to the cluster fucks they’ve committed on America and the ROW these past 8 years.

    Your last paragraph reads like you have finally realized you are not smart enough to play in the same league as Enky anymore. It’s not so much that you’re an idiot, it’s just that you are so badly misinformed and have no concept of a peaceful balance.

  92. shcb Says:

    that was funny, you really are clueless.

  93. shcb Says:


    You remind me of that knight’s head on The Holy Grail “come back here you coward, I’ll bite your ankles” I think it would be hard for you and enky to embarrass yourselves anymore than you have on this thread so let me ask you, what point or counter point has Enky made that would lead you to believe he is more intelligent than me?

    Enky is like a pile of dog shit in the back yard, he is for the most part harmless and as Matt suggested you can just ignore him most of the time, but it seems just about the time you start having a nice conversation, you feel something oozing between your toes and it just spoils the mood.

  94. knarlyknight Says:

    Pot, meet kettle.

  95. shcb Says:

    So there is no real reason for you to make that comment, it just made you feel better, is that right?

  96. shcb Says:

    Your last paragraph reads like you have finally realized you are not smart enough to play in the same league as Enky anymore. It’s not so much that you’re an idiot, it’s just that you are so badly misinformed and have no concept of a peaceful balance.

    HOW IS THAT SO!!!! I can’t play in the same league as Enky? You presumptuous, arrogant little prick, Enky knows nothing of anything of any subject he talks about here, you know precious little more. Intelligence is something you are born with, knowledge is something you acquire. You acquire that knowledge by studying, by being involved, by THINKING!
    Jayson and disagree on the Ledbetter act. Fine. I have laid out my case as to what I think the negative consequences of this act will be and why I think that. Jayson seems to find no fault in my logic but thinks those negatives are outweighed by the positives, fine, we can agree to disagree but we have had a reasonable, mutually well informed discussion. And we have no doubt swayed each other just a bit, at the very least we have heard the other side of the story, we have both acquired some knowledge.

    I could care less what gunny bob, macho mike, fauxnoise or any of your right wing bullshit has to say about deflecting the Enron crap entirely on to Clinton. Or the Ledbetter Act. Or just about anything of import in America today.

    There you go, he doesn’t care to know anything about any of the issues, none of you do, if you understood anything of these issues you would find your precious liberalism is the scam it is and you would be left with nothing.

  97. knarlyknight Says:

    Haha. “Arrogant little prick”? You sure are good and picking epithets that apply more to yourself than the people with whom you disagree. Case in point is your insane, idiotic and arrogant accusation in your Feb 20 5:43 am post because it shows that you utterly failed to recognize that my post was mocking your positions because they were blind to the obvious burden of proof issue and the logical conclusion of your whining against Ledbetter was “as if” the burden of proof was on the defendant.

    “Arrogant little prick” applies perfectly to someone who would object to a law change that allows a wronged person to have chance at justice in a court of law. You are arguing to keep the guy or gal who’s been unknowingly cheated over the years down in the dirt and not even allow him/her the chance to have a level playing field.

    The “arrogant little prick” has already admitted the burden of proof for the wronged party will be formidable, and still he wants to deny a person a chance at justice. What an arrogant little prick.

  98. shcb Says:

    Let me give you an example of what is meant by judicial activism, in reverse in this case. This is text from bill:

    (2) The limitation imposed by the Court on the filing of discriminatory compensation claims ignores the reality of wage discrimination and is at odds with the robust application of the civil rights laws that Congress intended.

    It is not the job of the courts to impose limitations, those limitations were imposed by past congresses, it is the job of the court to enforce them. This idea of judicial activism is so ingrained in the liberal mind congress is now chastising the courts for not ignoring the law. This law is just so bad on so many levels.

  99. knarlyknight Says:

    Naaa. About a thousand times more likely than a wwnj’s opinion being actually being correct for a change is that the limitations in law enforced by the Court was at odds with a robust application of the civil rights laws that cogress intended.

  100. shcb Says:

    please explain how that was the case here.

  101. leftbehind Says:

    “Your last paragraph reads like you have finally realized you are not smart enough to play in the same league as Enky anymore…”

    Wow. Man-crush exposed. And what league would that be, Little League? League of Women Voters?

  102. leftbehind Says:

    Or are you referring to that movie Inky starred in with Madonna and Geena Davis, “A League of Their Own?”

  103. leftbehind Says:

    The Red-Headed League?

  104. leftbehind Says:

    Tee League?

  105. leftbehind Says:

    Maybe he could join a cornhole league:


  106. knarlyknight Says:

    You go figure, unless you really are the idiot I think you are in which case you’ll blame this on me or someone else. You owe it to yourself to pull yourself out of your hole of hate, fear and vengeance; nothing impedes you except your arrogance.

  107. shcb Says:


    So you don’t know anything about this subject either, you are just basing your 8:51pm comment on prejudiced biases, which is fine, we all do it. Just want to make it clear that the basis of my comments are from actually reading a two page document and understanding what I read and having the ability to understand the ramifications of that document. You haven’t, and don’t. I’m the idiot?

  108. leftbehind Says:

    No, no, NO!!! CORNhole…CORNhole…it’s a game you play with a beanbag and a wooden box with a hole in it – but not a “hole of hate, fear and vengeance,” just a hole in a board. God, calm down!

  109. leftbehind Says:

    Doesn’t Inky live in two countries at the same time or something?

  110. leftbehind Says:

    Or doesn’t his wife live in two countries at the same time? Or two countries away from him, or something like that?

  111. knarlyknight Says:

    Yes shcb you have explained your fears about the ramifications of that document clearly to the dis-satisfaction of at least Jayson and myself.

    Your arguments are far less than compelling, the law will do good and you have presented no rational reason why simple natural constraints such as the “burden of proof” to the plaintiff that I mentioned will not constrain and severely limit the harm you imagine and fear so much.

    The negative implications of your very own wrong wing nut job (wwnj) biases have shown themselves through the Bush administration policies of the last eight years being manifesting into utter failures that go far beyond economic disaster (by the way, the DOW is now at 7223 so the train wreck that started during end of Bush’s watch has now gone into Depression Era magnitudes.)

    Vain attempt to blame your difference of opinion with Jayson and myself about this law on your perception of my bias not only fails to take into account that Jayson’s position is similar to mine but fails to recognize that your views are more denial and blaming of people you perceive as your opponents. Your points about the long term implications of Ledbetter law were considered and and set aside as having minor significant so the more that you raise a fuss about this the more your views will be taken as the inconsequential whining of an arrogant wwnj.

  112. leftbehind Says:


  113. leftbehind Says:

    And Stay Out!

  114. leftbehind Says:

    …and how, exactly is Knarly “arrogant” for sticking up for Enkidu? Lovestruck? Maybe. “Doe-eyed?” almost certainly – but hardly arrogant.

  115. shcb Says:

    But you’re not keeping up, we’re now talking about the Congress of the United States telling judges they were wrong for following the law. And not telling them that in a speech, but telling them that in text of a law. Sort of like a congressional signing statement.

    Remember, we’re a country of laws, letter of the law and all that?

  116. leftbehind Says:

    I thought it was very vulnerable of him to so publicly display his naked admiration for another man like that, even if it was just Enkidu – knowing all the while that vindictive philistines such as yourself would simply make cruel mock of him for doing so. That’s why he’s a beautiful human being and you’re so distorted with hate!

    “How glorious it is — and also how painful — to be an exception” – Alfred De Musset

  117. enkidu Says:

    shcb, LOL!
    so what set you off most chief?
    that there are Rs who aren’t as die hard partisan as you are?
    or that I refuse to debate nonsense?
    or that your sources of ‘information’ are generally bunk?
    or was it the 12 pack of bud lite you downed on Saturday AM?

    “little libs” “idiots” and “pile of dog shit”?
    you’ve sure convinced me of your side of the ‘debate’! brilliant as usual… I’ll give you that you are way more sane than some other posters who shall remain nameless (otherwise it spams the channel with garbage). That isn’t saying a whole lot really. Your partisanship is so bizarre to an independent voter like me that it borders on caricature.

    If you guys want to ‘debate’ wwnj, please do! Go for it! I for one see approx three ways to engage w partisan extremists: A) ignore B) correct or C) mock and deride. I choose to make fun of the more hilarious right wing echo chamber BS because it is fun to watch the partisan poltroonery unfold.

    (slowly claps hands)
    bravo wwnj!

  118. knarlyknight Says:

    No, I will not “keep up” with you and not many would be dumb enough to follow you in your loony stroll. There is far less relevance to your “signing statement” whining than there was in your previous inconsequential idiotic whining. Congratulations shcb, you have become the epitome of the wwnj perfecta: irrelevant, arrogant idiotic.

  119. knarlyknight Says:

    meant to say “perfected the trifecta” … garbled type sets: blast this damn Commodore 64.

  120. shcb Says:

    The only people dumb enough to follow my loony stroll are those that wish to have an intelligent conversation of contemporary issues.

  121. knarlyknight Says:


    wow it is quiet in here.

  122. shcb Says:

    it sure is

  123. knarlyknight Says:

    You hear that hum about 10,000 feet over your head shcb?

    It’s a plane full of smart people having intelligent conversation of contemporary issues, you know, that’s everyone who is not willing to accompany you on loony strolls.

  124. shcb Says:

    ok, pick a subject

  125. knarlyknight Says:

    Ginger or Mary Ann?

  126. shcb Says:

    Mary Ann.

    I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to invoke the Claude Raines gambit here “gambling in Rick’s? I’m shocked!”

  127. leftbehind Says:

    If you’re calling “idiot,” I think JBC’s the idiot for letting you fools run his blog into the ground for him. It’s generous to give the kids a place to play out of the street, but I really wouldn’t want my name on any of this happy horseshit. After all, he’s the only one around here who goes (I would assume) by his real name – and his whole name at that. I’d certainly hate to think I’d spent over ten years of my life on something, just to watch it degenerate into The Inky and Knarly Show, with my face on the marquee.

    Fortune ran an article on Ledbetter back in June of 2007. It was highly critical and, while I think it comes far short of shutting the door on the issue of payroll fairness, it’s worth at least considering:


    Links haven’t been posting, so I’ve omitted the prefix – you might want to call those guys in that plane if you have trouble cutting and pasting the address manually. Inky – you can just stroll back from the cockpit to the passenger compartment. Bring your laptop and they can do it for you.

    The Professor. He’s inventive.

  128. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:


  129. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    I read the CNN article, I think the issues it brings up are fair, but the actual Ledbetter Act is really an extension on a statute of limitations issue. I got the feeling from that piece that the author was really concerned about slippery slope type issue. I always find myself somewhat conflicted there. On one hand those are valid concerns, on the other ‘we can do it because there’s a slippery slope’ leads to nothing ever getting done.

    A big part of the issue here is values though. To me it’s an issue of whether or not you value justice for the citizenry or the economy more. Again it seems with regards to the specifics the situation would be better rectified by having better penalties for frivolous lawsuits, but neither party seems willing to do that.

  130. knarlyknight Says:

    Beware the troll.

  131. leftbehind Says:

    Jason – I think anyone who looks at this proposal realistically is conflicted. It’s certainly an idea whose time has come, but one that could still be sabotaged by our system’s ability to screw up everything with greedy lawyers and red tape. The people clearly want something like Ledbetter; I’ll bet many Americans thought we already had it, long ago. Still, there is still a great deal of darkness on up the trail on this one, and I, for one, can’t feel entirely enthusiastic about it, as much as I ultimately want Ledbetter, or something like it, to succeed.

    Having said that, it is interesting how little outright opposition has come out against Ledbetter’s basic premise. It’s ceretainly a measure that the public supports, and even the Republicans aren’t dismissing the idea behind Ledbetter; they simply don’t agree with the specific plan and have come up with their own version, which is worth considering, as it brings up points regarding the fair appraisal of “limitations” that Ledbetter does not:


    There are those who think that Ledbetter is too moderate, and feel that the discussion regarding the more widely publicized Ledbetter has detracted from even bolder legislation, such as the Paycheck Fairness Act (thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00012:) which was originally appended to the Ledbetter legislation, but was later tabled so the narrower Ledbetter could be rushed to the White House.

  132. leftbehind Says:

    Thanks, Knarly – I think I will ignore the trolls for a change, and converse instead with J.A.Y.S.O.N.

  133. shcb Says:

    Rushed is right, something like 23 days from introduction to being signed into law. I just hate the open ended nature of this law. If 180 days wasn’t enough, which I think it was, then extend that to a year or two. I would have been opposed to that but not so much. I also think we may be talking about two things here, it seems the law the Ledbetter Act modified was meant to deal with specific cases, an individual supervisor or an individual case; whereas the Ledbetter solution seems to be directed at a systemic problem within a company or industry. I’m basing that on this discussion where you guys keep saying the problem is someone that doesn’t realize they have been being discriminated against for years. In those years one would think an individual would have had several supervisors and been passed over many times.

    The speed with which this bill was passed makes me think it was written months before and was just a payoff to the trial lawyer lobby, this doesn’t make it a bad law in and of itself, even though I think it was. The payoff is a separate issue and just an observation.

  134. leftbehind Says:

    SHCB – I don’t think the law was already written, but, again, I do think it is a re-tooling of the earlier Paycheck Fairness Act, scaled down in preparation for a fight that really hasn’t materialized and gussied up a bit with a sympathetic mascot and a more human name. I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt that it was not designed as a “payoff” to trial lawyers – I really believe this move on the government’s part is a genuine effort to redress genuine injury – everybody knows that, sadly, trial lawyers will probably have a field day with this law, which is certainly more a commentary on the serious need for tort reform than a reflection on the law itself.

  135. leftbehind Says:

    Our system of tort law in this country is berserk; however, we can’t make necessary human rights legislation wait on the back burner until we fix it.

  136. shcb Says:

    Yeah, if you read the law it makes several references to a previous law, I didn’t follow all the links but the previous statute is where it goes into what does and doesn’t constitute an infraction. This law is narrow to the timeframe back pay can be accrued (two years) and the change from 180 days from the incident to any subsequent paycheck from the incident, which makes the allowable timeframe to file a claim virtually endless. Now of course if everyone acts as an adult this isn’t a problem; but if everyone acted as an adult we wouldn’t need the law in the first place.

    One thing I will give this law is it is short, just a few pages, it is well written with nothing tacked on to it. All laws should be written this way.

  137. shcb Says:

    I also found the “findings” section troubling but that has no force of law.

  138. shcb Says:


    It looks like you are right about this being an extension of the Paycheck Fairness Act at least to the point that they both modify the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The summary of the HR11 doesn’t mention HR 1338 but they are certainly kissing cousins if not siblings.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.