Spintested: 01/23/11

Mortgage Giants Leave Legal Bills To The Taxpayers

Sunday, January 23, 2011

When they've been foreclosed on. Coming soon.
About Housing Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

You're suggesting that Obama's birth can't be proven, and that's just not true.

I'm not a 'birther' (I'm an old liberal Democrat).

All that Obama has to do is authorize the release of the original documentation. Read the article. Why won't he do it?
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

Unlike you, shmoonie, I read everything. How else can you possibly discern fact from fiction? You should try it.
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

"President Obama was born in Hawaii. There were birth notices placed in 2, count em' 2 Honolulu newspapers announcing his birth. These were authenticated newspaper archives."

=========================================

Of course Obama was born. And likely he was born in Hawaii. But you couldn't prove it by those birth announcements.

My parents took out ads when their children were born as did I and my brothers and sisters did when our children were born. That was the custom and practice.

And FYI: I'm not a rac/st nor a 'birther'. I'm an old liberal Democrat, and Obama's refusal to authorize the release is looking fishier by the day.
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

I see mah-der-8-ters are at it again, blocking replies that they don't like, which aren't in vioIation of Aytch-P's poIicies.

Here's the response -- http://spintested.blogspot.com/2011/01/eric-cantor-addresses-birther-issue_4556.html
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

"So there! :P"

============================================

So how are those worms?
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

The 'S/tate of Hawall' is an inanimate object, incapable of "confirming" (or not confirming) anything. An office-holder, a human being, a politician, isn't "the State of Hawall". The language being used by officials in this story is murky, and it's either intentional or just inept. What is the problem with 0bama authorizing the release? These are BS practices that shouldn't be defended. We are a nation that lives under rule of law; we rely on documents, original documents, as evidence. Stop blowing smoke; don't we all have better things to do with our time?
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

No, he hasn't.

Once will suffice. The long form that Abercrombie said as recently as this past week there is no record of.

The rest of the rac/st rant, the same inquiries would have (and have) taken place over white candidates for the presidency. John McCain most recently.
About Most Popular
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

I've read Wikipedia on the subject, many times...and even written parts of it.

This is off the subject, but if Wikipedia is your authority, then back to class with you, dearie (again)!'

Two relevant sections you may want review and explore further:

Standing in eligibility challenges

Several courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot. Alternatively, there is a statutory method by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress.

Some legal scholars assert that, even if eligibility challenges are nonjusticiable in federal courts, and are not undertaken in Congress, there are other avenues for adjudication, such as an action in state court in regard to ballot access.

Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned

While every President and Vice President to date (as of 2010) is widely believed either to have been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 or to have been born in the United States, one US President (Chester A. Arthur) and some presidential candidates either were not born or were suspected of not having been born in a US state. In addition, one US Vice President (Albert Gore) was born in Washington, DC. This does not necessarily mean that they were ineligible, only that there was some controversy (usually minor) about their eligibility, which may have been resolved in favor of eligibility.

To date, the settling questions of eligibility has generally been by the US Senate's issuing proclamations. It's been a kind of whitewashing over, giving a rubberstamp of legitimacy to a candidate whose 'natural born' credentials are somewhat wobbly. In the case of some of the wobbliest, the candidates have dropped out of the running before anyone had to make such a determination. That's par for the course for much of how our system works -- Kicking the can down the road until there's no more road.

So what's your objection now?
About Eric Cantor
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

The "State of Hawaii" is an inanimate object, incapable of "confirming" (or not confirming) a thing. A human being, an office-holder, a politician, isn't "the state of Hawaii". I know that the language being used by that human being (and others in this story) is murky, and it's either intentional or just inept. What is the problem with Obama authorizing the release? What is YOUR problem with that? Stop defending BS practices. We are a nation that lives under rule of law, and we rely on documents as evidence. Stop blowing smoke; don't we all have better things to do with our time?
About Eric Cantor
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

"The man was fully vetted and had to be cleared for Top Secret clearance. That would include polygraphs ."

========== ========== ========== ========== ========== ======

Not that this has any relevance whatsoever (because you can get a security clearance without being 'natural born', and that's what the issue is), but what makes you believe this?

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

"It's the media keeping this issue alive, in its usual sensationalistic fashion."

Then:

"The subject of how you know someone running for an office with Constitutional requirements has met the threshold is an interesting one. I'd love to see mainstream media investigate it and provide a full report."

So which is it? Should the media be blamed for keeping this alive, or should they actually turn it into a full-blown investigation?

==================================================

It really doesn't matter what I believe.

A healthy, functioning democratic republic requires voters getting the best information available in order to make informed decisions as to who will represent them.

The information exists, nobody has to rely on anyone's word (especially the word of extreme partisans with vested interests) -- Just release the documentation.

Why won't Obama authorize it? That alone feeds suspicious minds. Just flippin' do it and be done with it.
About Eric Cantor
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

This is the bizarre thing:

Hawaii's Democratic governor, Neil Abercrombie began an effort last month to find a way to dispel conspiracy theories that the president was born elsewhere. The governor said he was bothered by people who questioned Obama's birthplace for political reasons.

But Abercrombie's office said Friday that he was ending his quest because it's against state law to release private documents. The state's attorney general told the governor he can't disclose an individual's birth documentation without a person's consent.

Why isn't Obama just giving his consent?

Just prior to this, on 1/23/2011:

Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said.

But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.

And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.

Abercrombie was asked: 'You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate. How is that coming?'

He acknowledged the birth certificate issue would have 'political implications' for the next presidential election 'that we simply cannot have'.

This is a legitimate controversy.

Obama is keeping this alive by not giving his consent to release the original documentation.

Just flippin' do it!
About Eric Cantor
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

This has long-term implications beyond what those mocking 'Birthers' today seem to be considering.

Not dealing with this now sets a precedent for a movement that is afoot to do away with the 'natural born' requirement altogether, and do it not in any legally acceptable method (Constitutional amendment), but by changing the way we think of the term 'natural born'.

For example, the founders never intended anyone born on a US military base outside territorial United States to be considered as "natural born". The very idea of a US military base outside territorial United States was anathema to the founders. What's on the radar? How about 'born on US corporate property outside territorial United States'?

Watch for it; it's coming.
About Eric Cantor
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor Addresses Birther Issue

It's the media keeping this issue alive, in its usual sensationalistic fashion. Our fourth estate has abdicated its role in this democratic republic, preferring not to actually do the work of investigation but leaving research and investigation to a competing interested party (political party). The media prefers to be like Howard Cosell and cover the story like it was a sporting event, a boxing match to call, blow by blow. Anything the media can do to help create public interest, like encourage name-calling to increase hostilities, they're more than happy to oblige.

That didn't happen before the 1980s and Ronald Reagan, by the way. Early in the Reagan administration, the media did critical yet responsible reporting on Reagan policies and found itself on the receiving end of an angry public outcry. Reagan's 'most ardent supporters' flooded media mailrooms with "Stop saying bad things about our president!", and the media backed down. As 'the messenger bearing bad news', the media didn't like that role and extricated themselves from that position, leaving it to the other party. If Democrats didn't do step up, the media wouldn't put its neck on the block.

The subject of how you know someone running for an office with Constitutional requirements has met the threshold is an interesting one. The vetting of a presidential candidate, both generally (poorly, IMHO, leaving it to po/itical hacks with special interests, who have no incentive to be truthful and have no great record being honest), and specifically, with regard to this controversy with Obama should be of interest to all Americans.

I'd love to see mainstream media investigate it and provide a full report. It wouldn't change the fact that Obama is the president and would remain president even if he was born on Mars. The same controversy would have occurred had McCain won, with Democrats being the ones mocked as 'Birthers'. To the best of my knowledge, both Obama and McCain were 'vetted' by the US Senate in 2007/2008, through proclamation. That's the actual way that our system determines whether someone is qualified to be president of the US; if the US Senate declares them qualified, with no actual documentary evidence. Or, to date, that's how it's been done, and that way has never been challenged through the Courts. It certainly wouldn't stand up in court.

So if there's nothing questionable in Obama's birth records (or in McCain's), why the resistance to looking at it? Why the mockery?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jack Kimball Elected New Hampshire GOP Chair As Tea Party Triumphs

"Woke up to your rant, Nice try but you negated logic with your first statement that "Obama did nothing". Quite wrong. If the session had not been so productive, types like you would have blamed him. Therefore when a session is productive, he should receive credit. You can't have it both ways."

========================================

You wanted "an example", and against my better judgment (you're an offens-ive a-hole who talks/writes in insubstantial rhetorical hyperbole), I gave you many. I see others did, too.

Your use of the word "productive" to describe Obama's first two years is telling, as the word ('productive') is highly subjective.

To real Democrats, moving in the wrong direction, getting Republican-like legislation passed isn't "productive", yet that's what Obama and the DLC-Democrats have done.
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jack Kimball Elected New Hampshire GOP Chair As Tea Party Triumphs

While Obama talks a good game about "putting more Democrats into office", he and the DLC mean "only BLUE DOGS" -- Not liberals or progressives.

As a matter of fact, Obama and the DLC worked their but ts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind Blue Dogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats. Some, but not all, examples:

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter.

Republican-turned-Independent Arlen Specter over progressive Democrat Joe Sestak.

Republican-turned-Independent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsement of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressional seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island).

Republican-turned-Independent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek.

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed.

Citizens have little enough of a Constitutionally-guaranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic). But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.

I dare you to defend any of that -- You can't possibly be a Democrat. A DLCer, a Republican, yes, but never a real Democrat.
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jack Kimball Elected New Hampshire GOP Chair As Tea Party Triumphs

Obama never pressured JoeLieberman, Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln, or any Blue Dog. That's by their own admission. The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs of members in their caucus that joined with Republicans and threatened to filibuster a public option for healthcare.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. But it hasn't. Because Lieberman & Blue Dogs (& Republicans) provide cover to Obama & the DLC-controlled Democratic Party, to let them continue to serve corporate interests over the interests of the People.

The center of American politics wanted Bush's tax cuts for the rich ended. Overwhelmingly. That was where the center is, where both the median and the mean is. But Obama adopted the language of the right, shockingly, referring to them expiring as "raising taxes".

Obama's continuing just about all of the Bush-Cheney policies, even going Bush-Cheney one better. Not only does Obama assert the Unitary Executive theory, but he believes that a president has the right to kiII American citizens based on a president's whim. No due process, no oversight. And indefinite preventive detention, because presidents are now mind-readers, and the US Constitution allows for jailing people not on what they do but on what they think.

Then there's Joe Lieberman, and Obama's using him to gut F0IA in order to get out from delivering on another of his campaign promises. And in such a cowardIy fashion, too.

KEEP READING
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jack Kimball Elected New Hampshire GOP Chair As Tea Party Triumphs

The House passed a healthcare bill, a real women-h8ting boondoggle with the Stupak amendment, and it was then that Obama really showed his true colors and skills as a treacherist: How to reconcile the House bill with what was going to be the Senate's healthcare bill (what came out of the Senate Finance Committee).

Finesse-ing ability doesn't begin to cover what was going to be necessary, to get one bill from the House version that threw women under the bus (the Stupak amendment) and the Senate version (no public option, no cost controls -- Just a great big corporate giveaway bill that throws all of the American people under the bus), and spin it as Democrats delivering on their promise to get affordable quality medical treatment for everyone when it doesn't do any of that.

Obama took care of the Stupak amendment first (with an executive order and the White House spin machine making assurances that weren't accurate ).

Then, the White House went after the Progressive Caucus, and got all but two of the 79 (out of 82) members that had pledged not to vote for legislation that didn't contain a public option to back down. The last two (Dennis Kucinich and Eric Massa) folded after some unique pressure was brought to bear on them.

If Obama really wanted Joe Lieberman's vote, he would have done to Lieberman and the Blue Dogs what he did to Dennis Kucinich.

What did Obama do when Kucinich (the last hold-out on the Progressive Caucus, all of whom had pledged to vote for a healthcare bill only if it had a public option, and who all caved) was opposing him to the left. Obama flew to Cleveland and held a big rally. Obama rallied Kucinich's constituents against him and he got Kucinich's vote.

Where was that mentality with Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, the other Blue Dogs and even Olympia Snowe? If the president of the United States had used the bully pulpit against them, a lot of progressives would have respected that and said, "You tried your best".

But Obama didn't try. He cut a deal. Months earlier, cutting the will of the People off at the knees. The public was powerless in the backroom deal.

KEEP READING
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jack Kimball Elected New Hampshire GOP Chair As Tea Party Triumphs

The first two years that you think "were exceptional", "centrist" politics and policies, Obama basically did nothing.

Americans put Obama and Democrats into power to get affordable, quality medical treatment for everyone. Instead Obama, as salesman and customer, sold insurance policies on behalf of the insurance industry to the American people and purchased insurance policies on behalf of the American people. Over-priced junk insurance, with no guarantee of treatment and not at affordable prices. Obama's no longer playing 3D chess; he's playing Monopoly, by himself, with him as the banker.

He didn't use the bu//y pu/pit, didn't twist arms, he refused to use his considerable oratorical skills and political capital to deliver the real healthcare reform that voters put him and Democrats into power to achieve. No, instead Obama knee-capped his base, undercut left-leaning Democrats working on delivering to Democratic voters what had been promised to them in the 2008 campaign by cutting secret deals with Big Business (all the while telling the public that it was Congress that writes legislation, not the president, so he's "staying out of it"), and rallied the last supporter of a public option's constituents against him.

KEEP READING
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Failed To Report Wife's Income, Watchdog Says

I hear what you're saying. I'm not quite sure that poster said that, but I agree with you if he did.

I have problems with any office holder's spouse working as a Iobbyist, no matter what party they're affiliated with. I'm as troubled by Thomas's wife working as a Iobbyist as I am the Senate Majority leader's. We're going to have to address this and it had better be sooner rather than later. The fact that 3 out of every 4 oil and gas Iobbyists worked for government, and that the number of Iobbyists has quadrupled in ten years is scandalous.
About Supreme Court
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Final Countdown: Keith Olbermann And MSNBC Announce They Are Parting Ways (VIDEO)

"the public zeitgeist shifted and Olbermann brash style of combativeness lost favor in the MSNBC world. He became a bit of an anachronism as his plateauing ratings showed."

=============================================================

Talk about revisionist history.

There was no zeitgeist shift. The left and the right would very much like to finally have at it, bring the issues out onto the table and thrash it out and what we're going to do as a nation. There was an intervening by the powers-that-be to tamp down the zeitgeist, knee-cap those who were giving ideas to the left at long last (Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, et al at MSNBC) to stop ducking the gren-ades being lobbed at them from the right and engage mano-a-mano.

Through Jon Stewart, the establishment elites, got control again. It's d/amned sad what Stewart did, but people tend to be true to their roots. When your brother is the Chief Operating Officer of the NY Stock Exchange and Tim Geithner is having secret meetings with you presumably to deliver messages to our brother, you have no business holding political rallies where you scold media under the guise of "We're comedians putting on a show".

After that rally, Olbermann and Maddow got back onto the reservation, Olbermann dropped 'Worst', which by the way, is the most watched segment each night of all of the segments. MSNBC viewers love 'Worst Persons', so if Olbermann's numbers worsened, it's more likely because he lost that edge that viewers love. I know I stopped watching him and everyone else on MSNBC in the weeks following their 'nice' makeover in response to Stewart's attack on them.

Because of that, and also because the midterm elections were over. That's how ratings run -- Prior to elections, ratings escalate to new highs. Once the elections are over, viewers go back to their regularly scheduled lives. They take a break from politics, very much like after the Xmas holidays, people cocoon, don't go out much and don't spend.

Unless Rachel and those who remain, the left that is left, step up and take on Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats, MSNBC's numbers are going to continue to crater. No amount of Chris Matthews saying that Obama is a progressive and "left of center" makes it true. The only viewers who would believe it are those who are to the right of the right-of-center. You have to be pretty far to the right (and clueless) to believe that Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress are progressives/liberals.
About Keith Olbermann
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jack Kimball Elected New Hampshire GOP Chair As Tea Party Triumphs

Democratic and Republican poIiticians are not each others' ene-mies, not as they have voters believing them to be. Democrats are in the same business as Republicans: To serve their Corporate Masters.

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republicans) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.

Once in power, Democrats consolidate Republicans' gains from previous years, continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertising campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what we thought they were.

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigans and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republicans, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tailored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisan cooperation' demeanor. It's smirk-worthy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude, like that's somehow "a good thing".

Obama's 'job', as he sees it, is to deliver to the top 2%. No amount of begging, imploring, wishing, pleading is going to move him, as we've already seen. Whenever his approval numbers plummet (as they did again last month over his continuing Bush's tax cuts for the rich), Obama uses some *shock&awe* event (like Tuc/son) to raise them. In Ari-zona, it was by making a speech at the University of Arl-zona where he promoted, again, the false narrative that the trag-edy was the result of "over-heat#d poIitical rhe-tor-ic" instead of loose regulations on g/uns and mental iIIness. Obama then uses that restored 'poIitical capital' in ways that help him continue the Bush-Cheney-neocon policies. He's gone silent on g/un regulations. but didn't Michelle look dazzling in red the other night?) and expanded mental health services around the nation.

Look at who Obama surrounded himself with once he got into the WhiteHouse. Not one liberal. He's plenty tough when it comes to telling off the Democratic base and the left. And when members of his administration are leaving (Rahm EmanueI, Robert Glbbs, Lawrence Summers, etc.), he replaces them with more of the same. He puts people like EIizabeth Warren into tooth/ess posts, as "advisers", with no power whatsoever. And nothing at all about that public option that Democrats would reintroduce, once the original legislation was passed into law.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jack Kimball Elected New Hampshire GOP Chair As Tea Party Triumphs

No, the DLC is pro-corporate, anti-People.

The DLC is the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, a minority of the party, and to the right of center in the nation, and to the far right of the Democratic Party.
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jack Kimball Elected New Hampshire GOP Chair As Tea Party Triumphs

It begins when you say, "Enough". When they can no longer count on your vote.
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jack Kimball Elected New Hampshire GOP Chair As Tea Party Triumphs

Real Democrats had better get a clue from watching how teabaggers get their elected representatives in the Republican Party to do their bidding. Because Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress are moving the Democratic Party to the right, to bring moderate Republican politicians and their supporters into the Democratic Party, where they hope to govern from the right-of-center "for 100 years".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Failed To Report Wife's Income, Watchdog Says

And why isn't John Roberts being impeached for having Iied at his confirmation hearing?
About Supreme Court
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Failed To Report Wife's Income, Watchdog Says

Her job at the Heritage Foundation isn't the last job in the world. There are plenty of other places she can work, where she can use the same skills she has as a Iobbyist without being in a position to cause a conflict of interest to her husband's job.

Or he can leave the US Supreme Court if the Heritage Foundation is the only place where she can work. He has no intrinsic right to the seat. How is it we keep treating public servants as if they are royalty in this democracy?
About Supreme Court
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Final Countdown: Keith Olbermann And MSNBC Announce They Are Parting Ways (VIDEO)

"Thanks for the background. Schultz did seem to be genuinely sympathetic with the people availing themselves of the Olbermann-sponsored health clinics for the poor."

========================================================

I'm sure he was and is sympathetic to those suffering, i.e., at the health clinics during the days leading up to the vote on healthcare legislation. But did he ever turn on a dime and get back into Obama's back pocket once the legislation was passed without a public option.

I was listening to him on the radio after he'd moved to MSNBC a couple of years ago, and was shocked at how low his 'liberal IQ' was. By that I mean his knowledge of US and world history, of US 'adventurism' around the world, particularly in the last 100 years, liberal perspectives/ideology/policies/intellectuals/leaders/etc., the why and how we on the left come to our perspective. One of his callers mentioned Noam Chomsky. Schultz said, "Who?" The caller repeated the name, and Schultz said, "I don't know who that is, but go ahead".

On another radio show, another caller mentioned Howard Zinn and his seminal book 'The People's History of the World'. Schultz had no idea who or what the caller was talking about. This was just a couple of years ago. How do you get a gig on MSNBC as a 'liberal political pundit' and not known who Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are? If he knows who Saul Alinsky is, I'd wager it's only as someone that rightwingers attacked Hillary Clinton over for having written her college thesis on. I'd guess he knows nothing of Alinsky's work.

If you're not born into the left, the usual reasons people become liberals is education or some life-changing event where you're eyes are opened to the real way the world works and how ordinary people are treated by the rich, powerful privileged. That isn't the case with Schultz. With him it seems to have been a matter of opportunism. He wanted to be in broadcasting and they had enough conservatives. I can certainly appreciate the appeal of a conservative-in-liberals'-clothing to corporate media bosses.
About Keith Olbermann
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Final Countdown: Keith Olbermann And MSNBC Announce They Are Parting Ways (VIDEO)

I'd check around, look at yourself on different threads and, of course, on your own profile. There was a period there where the techs seemed to be working on the coding and some days it was there and some days it wasn't.

As I look at my comment above yours now, there are no badges at all, but the toolbar for rich text in this comment box is there. During one stretch where the rich text toolbar kept appearing and disappearing, I was in touch with Aytch-P's techs who suggested it might be a problem with the browser I was using. Then without doing anything on my part, the problems cleared up.

Play around with it, write the techs (see Contact Us at the bottom of the web page) before you assume it's just gone (although I've yet to get anyone to explain how one gets a pundit badge in the first place). This place has strange ways; strangest of all are all matters relating to commenting. ;-)
About Keith Olbermann
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP