Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

You have confused me with someone who is defending Pelosi. I was pointing out that you were attacking her on the wrong ground.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I do not understand why they do not hav ethical rules that allow any trades that aren't blind.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

What's up in NYC this morning? It seems like there is a TRO and the NYPD and Bloomberg are simply ignoring it. Is this common? Litigators? Atticus?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Apparently Bloomberg has not seen Star Wars, or watched what happened in Oakland.

But he's probably doing them a favor.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Shit, it seems like you can violate a TRO with impunity as long as you win the next round. Maybe you litigators knew this, but I've actually taken those damn things seriously on the couple of occassions we've gotten them.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us...ml?_r=1&ref=us

Wow! I have to admit, his administrations actions are transparent.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Because then they wouldn't be able to as effectively trade on inside information?

You're misapprehending the animal. Congress represents Congress.

"I now cede my time to Bill Smith, Congressman from Bill Smith..."

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Watch Bowles and Simpson last night on CSPAN. Very, very sobering.

Bowles, in particular, puts a lot of blame on Obama. He indicated that before they did anything, he and Simpson met with Obama and the White House to determine their goals and their bottom lines. He did the same thing with Clinton when he negotiated the budget deal in 1997 with Lott and Newt.

He then negotiated a deal that a majority of the GOP backed, and that met Obama's criteria. He said that Obama then balked.

He also said that he was shocked that Obama did not run with the deficit reduction and entitlement reform issue after the 2010 elections. He thought it would be in the State of the Union and it wasn't.

Both he and Simpson looked exasperated and very scared about the situation.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Perhaps because their plan was crap?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

As far as I know, not a single Republican on the Hill backed the Simpson-Bowles plan. If what you are saying is correct, then Republicans should be beating up Obama with this -- they were ready to deal to cut the deficit and Obama wouldn't do it. But they're not. Has Bowles said this in print anywhere?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

While I am not a legal expert in this type of law, I'll probably put more stock into the analysis of the legal expert they quoted than yours. But your paragraph above is surely impressive.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

What type of law? WTF are you talking about?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

And that legal expert would be???

Once again, your reading comprehension is surely impressive.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I don't think I'm missing your point. I think you're missing mine and everyone else's. We are not talking about his legal duty. We are talking about his duty as a human being in society and the duty he had as the most powerful person.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Always my favorite excuse, whether it relates to shit like this, sexism, homophobia, racism or whatever. It's bullshit, of course--even more so in this case. It's a lazy man's crutch and and the simple man's mantra. It diminishes the acts of those of that era who actually lived their lives with an understanding of the difference between right and wrong. And it excuses the most ridiculous shit because "everyone else was doing it" or "that's just how it was." I lose respect for any asshole who jumps to this excuse first, including you.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I don't know, but I bet you can find a transcript on CSPAN. I was really shocked when he said it (and I was sober too!).

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Hank, I just want to know what legal expert they quoted. I don't see a quote from a legal expert there, yet you seem to have read a particularly wise one.

I'm not quite sure you need a legal expert to tell you how Republicans responded to Simpson-Bowles, either, but, hey, if you say so!

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Any chance Bowles is trying to deflect a bit and explain why they came up with a plan that was DOA?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Maybe i'm not following, but you know Hank is copying comments from the Penn State discussion on the FB, right?

Don't ask me why he is doing that, what he's trying to convey, or why he thinks it's clever.

Perhaps he had a stroke?

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Ah. I don't follow football.

Now I understand why he spelled shit right.

Still, he is following a better legal strategy than the pedophile. Go on the PB and try to set up the insanity defense.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I usually wait until 6 pm to start drinking heavily. YMMV.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I'm not following the FB today, but clearly that's a mistake.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

When was this? I see something from an appearance in May, but it sounds like you saw something more recent.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

It's 6pm somewhere, amiright?

Actually, it's almost 6pm here. Hmm...

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

Not sure when it took place, but it was broadcast last night.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I can't find whatever you heard, but I did find an op-ed that Bowles and Simpson wrote (in the sense that some lackey surely wrote it for them) in today's Washington Post. You will find it quite devoid of what you say you heard. Draw your own conclusions.

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

I think this is the video, but I haven't watched it yet: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/BudgetDeficit2

Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 

So you found something that wasn't what club saw and it assures you that what club claims cannot be? You realize my quotes of thurgreed's coach pa posts make more sense than this, don't you?

On Occupy
 

So they had a decent-sized rally on Monday, in response to new rules from the County here in Minneapolis. I'd say maybe 200 people. I walked by on my way home from work.

I didn't linger very long, but I did listen for a minute to a guy who was extolling IWW, which, you know whatever. But he also said, "what's good for the 1% is bad for us and what's bad for us is good for the 1%."

I can't really think of a worse way to frame things. Economics just isn't a zero sum game. And even if it was, you aren't going to have much success insisting that it is.

Contrast that to last night when I happened to listen to a brief bit of NPR's Marketplace, who kicked it to Robert Reich, who happened to talk exactly about how economics isn't a zero sum game and how for the three decades after WWII, incomes for almost everyone grew. And about how the top can be better off getting a smaller percentage of a bigger overall pie.

Anyway, so Robert Reich for president of Occupy or something!

Memo to the NYPD
 

It almost doesn't matter what led up to it when pictures like this are the result, you are doing something wrong.

Re: Memo to the NYPD
 

They were trying to avoid a threat to public safety.

Re: Memo to the NYPD
 

there were two cops injured today. either Less or Atticus posted a flyer from occupy Oakland where a group of the future Democrats who make up the movement were telling the peaceful to get the fuck out of the way because they were ready to do violence.

Not to say the cops haven't over stepped, but you can't assume every hurt protester was just standing there, i mean an objective person can't.

Re: Memo to the NYPD
 

(a) If you think the Oakland protesters are future Democrats, you haven't spent much time in Oakland.

(b) We agree, then, that the cops have overstepped.

(c) I have read and seen of far more unnecessary violence on the part of law enforcement in all of this than I have of violence on the part of non-law-enforcement types, and so have you if you've been paying attention, from the college kids at Berkeley who had police swinging batons at them as they held hands, to the 4'10" 80-year-old woman in Seattle who was peppersprayed, to the elected official in NYC who was knocked down by a policeman with a riot shield, but kudos for introducing the idea that hurt people deserved it, even if the whole thing is completely conceptual and notional on your part. It's true. As a logical matter, it's entirely possible that a hurt civilian was doing something to deserve it. So?

Re: Memo to the NYPD
 

Re: Memo to the NYPD
 

so you see greys, you just deny they exist, and don't let them change anything you post?

Re: Memo to the NYPD
 

At this point, I'd happilly give the Boston cops the benefit of the doubt ona couple of isolated incidents. The NYPD, no way. They've mishandled this from the beginning, and at this point have a pretty solid record of overreaction and poor training, from random macing to head bashing to arresting press and legal observers. They inspire a lot of WTF moments.

I've got a lot of doubts about OWS and what they're doing, but I think it's obvious that NYPD needs some serious retraining and the Mayor of NY's arrogance is making him act like a fool.

Re: Memo to the NYPD
 

Have you seen the video from Berkeley?

As for NYC, we might know what happened had the mayor not imposed martial law and suppressed the press. Even though the press has been exceedingly friendly to the use of government vioence.

Re: Memo to the NYPD
 

The greys don't really matter. Absent video of protesters doing violence, which I have not seen, these tactics do not work. They empower the protesters and add to the movement.

Re: Memo to the NYPD
 

And berkeley pd, and Oakland pd.

Thankfully Minnesota has backed away from conflict and/or been happy to arrest instead of bash.

Re: Memo to the NYPD
 

I haven't followed those cities closely enough to know.

Of course, most people who aren't paying attention give the police the benefit of the doubt, and most people don't pay attention. All part of why there should be a way to prosecute idiots like the mace-happy cop for his assault.