HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kag » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Oct 21, 2008, 10:30 PM
Number of posts: 3,045

Journal Archives

Yesterday I cried for hours.

Today, I screamed at my car radio till I was hoarse. Every time some R's voice came on, I damn near punched a hole right through it.

Starting tomorrow, and for the next...let's say rest of my life, I plan on kicking some entitled Republican ASS!

Has there been a statement from Trump about John McCain's passing?

I quickly checked CNN and didn't see anything, though there were messages from Trudeau (Canada), Morrison (Australia) and even the Israeli UN Ambassador. But nothing from the Trump.

I figured he would at least have one of his aides tweet something for him.

This "president" is such a classless idiot.

Does anyone know...

if there is a way to send a message to Peter Strzok, or leave a message for him, letting him know that we are embarrassed by these fucks who are questioning HIS integrity?

Since 1895, GOP senates have NEVER allowed dem presidents to choose a SC pick.

Holy Cow! This article in the Daily Kos is amazing. For 123 years the GOP has NEVER confirmed a democratic SC court pick nominated by a Democratic president.


But the issue, and the answer, is different from what it is reported. The simple fact is that in the modern era Republicans have never confirmed a Supreme Court justice nominated by a Democratic President. Contrary to popular belief, there has never been a bipartisan “norm” that Presidents get deference in appointing Supreme Court justices — that has been a Democratic “norm” under Republican Presidents, but that has never been reciprocated by Republicans.

I wrote about this previously. The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President’s Supreme Court nomination was 1895 — which was 123 years ago (and involved a Republican party with little connection to today’s party).


In terms of today’s events, the first order of business is for Democrats to recognize and accept the above. The first result of which is that no Republican President will be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court justice if the Democrats control the Senate — at least not for the next 123 years.

That, btw, is not radical. It is called “parity.” Any Democrat arguing otherwise is an embarrassment.

I highly recommend reading the whole article. It's not very long, and it is fascinating!


So, I wish I could take full responsibility for this, but alas, I cannot. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I first read it, but I wouldn't be surprised to know that the ferret was involved somewhere along the line.

In these surreal times of long discussions about where racists are allowed to eat dinner while the Big Cheetoh throws nine-month-olds in cages and then goes out to play golf, all using our tax money, I think it is important to come up with the right words to describe those who cheer him on. And that word is...


No, it's not my creation, and no, I don't know who DID create it. Hell, it's not even new, but that surprises me all the more because I don't see it used nearly enough.

But I find it so perfectly descriptive that I would just like to propose (to those of us who read DU at 2am...4 eastern) that it be made the new official name for the Republican party. They are clearly struggling to find an identity right now, and this one word contains both their self-proclaimed brand as well as their function in life (to eat shit, and then morph into annoying insects who go around tormenting people).

Just a thought. Good night.

Legal question about separating families.

I need help with this.

I'm not a lawyer, but my ears perked up when I heard something on Rachel tonight. She was reading the transcript from Manafort being sent to prison, and she read something that the judge said--that conditions of bail cannot be used as punitive measures--that I had never heard before, and hadn't really considered. The point is that since he hasn't yet been found guilty of anything, he cannot legally be "punished" by the court.

Now, these kids are being separated from their parents, and the justification the government has given is that the parents are being incarcerated pending trial for breaking the law (assuming they don't/can't post bail), and the government is just taking the kids to "care" for them since their parents now "can't." However, according to public statements by Sessions, the policy was put in place to try to stop people from coming to the border, which is to say, they are instituting punitive measures as a deterrent. But if it's punitive, shouldn't it be illegal to use it as a condition of the bail/jail process since they haven't yet been found guilty of anything?

I understand that government lawyers have said that the kids are just being taken because the parents are incarcerated pending trial, just like any good-old-fashioned American court does every day. But Sessions said in a public speech "if you don't want your kids taken away, then don't try to enter illegally" or something to that effect. Doesn't that take away the government's stated position that these separations aren't meant to be punitive?

I'm sure there are legal issues that I'm missing, and of course there is the simple fact that this policy is immoral and down right cruel, but it seems to me that there is a LEGAL issue here that isn't being argued, and should be.

Any lawyers out there want to tell me what I'm missing?

Yet another f*cking Roseanne post!

Wow. Of the ten "trending" and "greatest" posts on DU's front page right now, EIGHT of them are about goddam fucking roseanne!

Okay! We get it. She's a racist and she got fired for it.

I can see how that is big news in this country (that was NOT ), but can we talk about something else now? Please?

America's first lynching memorial results in some local residents filled with ire, resentment



As Sam Levin writes in The Guardian, some locals in Montgomery feel resentful that the museum is “dredging up the past.”

“It’s going to cause an uproar and open old wounds,” said Mikki Keenan, a 58-year-old longtime Montgomery resident, who was eating lunch at a southern country-style restaurant a mile from the memorial. Local residents, she said, feel “it’s a waste of money, a waste of space and it’s bringing up bullshit”.

“It keeps putting the emphasis on discrimination and cruelty,” chimed in her friend, who asked not to be named for fear that her child would disapprove of her remarks. The memorial, she added, could spark violence.


“Bring that stuff to light, and let it be there, but don’t dwell on it,” said Tommy Rhodes, a member of the Alabama Sons of Confederate Veterans. “We have moved past it … You don’t want to entice them and feed any fuel to the fire.”


Wow. So many astonishing things about these quotes...

1. She wants to remain anonymous because her child would disapprove of her remarks? Just Wow.

2. "We have moved past it..." Who is "we"? The white people whose ancestors committed the lynchings, and then presumably taught their offspring their own special brand of hatred and cruelty? So big of you to have "moved past it" . Moron.

3. Who is "them"? Who is it he's trying not to "entice". As if this memorial is intended only for "those people" whose immediate families were devastated by these horrific crimes. As if "they" are going to be so angered by this poignantly beautiful memorial that "they" might become violent? Sorry, sir. That's what YOUR ancestors did, not "theirs".

4. And as if "we" can't all learn and ponder and meditate on the causes and repercussions of such violence. Certainly this memorial goes a much longer way toward healing and growing as a nation than some idiotic statue of Stonewall Jackson.

I grew up among people like those quoted in this article. Sadly, I'm not surprised by the ignorance displayed in their comments. My hope is derived from the acknowledgement by the one woman that her children are vastly smarter than she is.

Tell you what...

I will call for an apology from Michelle Wolf to SHS, as soon as SHS calls for the president to apologize to...

Elizabeth Warren ( "Pocahontas" )
Megyn Kelly ( "Bleeding" )
Hillary Clinton ( "Crooked" among others )
Angela Merkel ( "ruining Germany" )
The 19+ women who have accused him of sexual misconduct ( "liars" )
Mexican People ( "...drugs...crime...rapists..." )
The continent of Africa ( "shithole countries" )

And those are just off the top of my head. If SHS is truly offended by insults and lies, she might want to encourage her boss to extend mea culpas to the following list:


Boulder City Council gives assault-weapons ban initial OK after marathon hearing

Source: Boulder Daily Camera

The Boulder City Council on Thursday night unanimously passed on first reading an ordinance that bans the sale and possession of certain firearms defined as assault weapons.

The council adjourned following a more than five-hour-long meeting where nearly 150 people spoke for and against the proposed ordinance, which would also prohibit high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, a device that allows a semi-automatic weapon to be fired more like a fully automatic rifle.

Council members will deliberate the measure at a future meeting and possibly pass it twice more before it becomes an enshrined Boulder ordinance.


Councilwoman Jill Adler Grano proposed, and received support for, consideration of a ban and called it a "no-brainer" — a sentiment that she stuck with on Thursday night just ahead of the vote.

Read more: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_31785817/100-plus-speak-boulder-city-council-considers-ban

Jill Grano is badass!
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »