HELEN:
Margaret, I just called my friend Patricia to apologize for dipping her hair into that inkwell back in grade school. I feel bad that I did it and I feel even worse that she no longer remembers who I am or that she one time had hair long enough to put in pig tails. We’re getting old, Margaret. And you know what else is getting old? The parade of schmucks who keep running for political office.
The population of the United States is now over 300 million people. That means that every four years, one person out of 300 million gets the honor of being President of the greatest country on the planet. With those odds, you would think the Republican Party could have found someone who wasn’t a dry drunk like George W. Bush… or the bully in high school like Mitt Romney. I know. I know. We all did dumb things when we were young. Youth. I miss it like I miss my waistline. Shit happens… or in this case Mitt happened. “Back in high school, I did some dumb things,” Romney said. “And if anyone was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that.” Me too. I really do feel bad about dipping Patricia’s hair into that ink well.
Mitt went on to say, “There’s going to be some that want to talk about high school. Well, if you really think that’s important, be my guest.”
Thank you Mr. Romney, I think I will. I think I will talk about this because unfortunately we don’t seem to have solved the problem yet. Bullying is alive and well today and it is just as inexcusable today as it was 48 years ago. You can send your wife out to the media to laugh about your “wild and crazy” high school years but I wonder how the two of you would have reacted if one of your sons had done that that had been done to one of your sons. Wild and crazy? Yes, actually. It was. And it’s even more wild and crazy today that anyone would want to honor you with the highest office in the land. Mitt was the son of a Governor… born into a privileged life. You can’t tell me he didn’t know any better.
Mitt and a group of his friends threw a younger boy to the ground and hacked off his hair while he cried and screamed for help. The younger student was believed to be a little light in his loafers by the way, but Mitt now claims that he didn’t know he was gay. As if that really matters.
Mitt led the charge and did the actual hair cutting. Maybe I am overreacting here, but I think he just might not deserve to be that one person out of 300 million to be President. Believe it or not, lots and lots of people go through their entire school career and never dip another person’s hair in ink or physically abuse another student.
I have said before, I come from a generation that doesn’t really talk much about gay people. I remember thinking that a perfectly lovely word had been ruined. Today, however I say, “Gay marriage?” Why not? Everyone should be allowed to be with the one they love. I honestly don’t understand what all the hoopla is about. If you don’t agree with gay marriage then don’t marry a man who dresses like Rick Santorum or has hair like Mitt Romney. If you don’t like gay people simply ignore them. They probably don’t like you either. If an octogenarian from Georgia can see that, why can’t privileged politicians?
Margaret, I really don’t think this is about being gay or the sanctity of marriage. I think this is about common decency and what we should expect from that one person in 300 million who becomes President. I’ll be the first to admit that I would not make a good president. If ever an example of who not to elect there was, I certainly fit the bill. But let’s slow down for just a second here. He gathered a group of students. They tackled a younger student and while that student cried and screamed for help, Mitt Romney, the assumed Republican nominee for President, cut off his hair because he didn’t like the way he looked. Does it matter if that student was gay? Would it be worse if he was black? How about if that student were a woman? I don’t give a rat’s ass if that student were all three. One in three hundred million. One.
Maybe I am old school, as they say, but I really don’t think that one is forgettable much less forgivable when you want to become President.
No one is perfect. But surely we can elect someone more perfect than that. I mean it really.
MARGARET:
Helen, dear, I think this all has to do with the length of time little Mitt was allowed to breast feed. Or maybe he’s just a asshat. Probably the latter, dear.
“President Obama and any money he gets is small compared to the Right Wing Pac”
(waits to see if Donna has the integrity to debunk Jo’s “lies” with the same vigor)
By: Anonymous on May 20, 2012
at 9:50 AM
With Citizens United and the Right Wing Billionaires putting money into the Rove and friends Right Wing Attack Groups, President Obama and any money he gets is small compared to the Right Wing Pacs. The Right Wing Pacs are outpacing the Dems by at least 4 to 1 or so. I have read as much as 10 to 1 in favor of the Koch, Right Wing Pacs. The Billionaires are making money by having their taxes lowered with buying up right wing poliiticians. Obama can get all the money he wants but it is peanuts compared to the Right Wing Billionaires and the money in the Right Wing Super Pacs.
Here is a video about Creationism and Evolution. Quite Interesting.
By: JuneauJoe on May 20, 2012
at 9:46 AM
Interesting words from Noam Chomsky Sorry if someone already posted, Cant make heads or tails of this new blog layout.
http://townhall.com/video/noam-chomsky-palin-was-right-about-obama
By: Anonymous on May 20, 2012
at 9:43 AM
List for us the real numbers Donna. Did he take $48.999 mil and not the 49 claimed? You sure were vague with the facts, as you always are.
By: Anonymous on May 20, 2012
at 9:36 AM
Donna
Can you provide us a link that shows the charges Corizine has been brought up on? Since you seem to know everything I am sure you are up to speed on these charges.
By: Anonymous on May 20, 2012
at 9:34 AM
WTG Donna!!! kickinnnnnn some ass girl!
JJ… fan.. like … love your Bernie link… spot on..
Have a lovely day all … xoxox all
By: lori on May 20, 2012
at 9:27 AM
Game on. Backgammon quotes (without attribution) an article from October 2011. According to the February 2, 2012 Christian Science Monitor, when figures were totalled for 2011, Romney had received more from Wall Street than did the President. This was taken directly from Federal Election Commission filings.
Romney’s six largest campaign contributions were executives, their families, and PACs for Goldman Sachs and its counterparts. They gave Romney $1.8 million.
The President only had Goldman among his top 20 contributors and his “take” was $64,000, compared with $496,000 for Romney.
Backgammon has (without attribution) quoted an article from almost 8 months ago, before Romney was the presumptive nominee. He has not provided the more current or complete data, including for 2011.
By: Donna on May 20, 2012
at 9:26 AM
Donna is kicking butt again!!!! Great Job!!
Anonymous: Take a nap and then watch FOX maybe Scarah Palin will be on.
Bernie Sanders says: Congress does not regulate the banks, THE BANKS REGULATE CONGRESS. 3 of the 4 largest banks are bigger than when they were during the BUSH ECONOMIC MELTDOWN! Bernie says it is past time for Congress to do something.
By: JuneauJoe on May 20, 2012
at 9:11 AM
Obama Tops GOP Candidates in Wall Street Donations
New figures show President Obama continues to pull in huge donations from the financial sector, with more money from Wall Street this year than all other Republican presidential candidates combined. According to the Washington Post, Obama has raised a total of $15.6 million from banks and other financial firms, with nearly $12 million of that going to the Democratic National Committee. Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has raised less than half that much from Wall Street, around $7.5 million. A top banking executive and Obama fundraiser told the Washington Post that reports of Wall Street antagonism toward Obama “are exaggerated and overblown … [but] it probably helps from a political perspective if he’s not seen as a Wall Street guy.”
By: Backgammon on May 20, 2012
at 9:06 AM
The score now stands at –
Donna – 116
D&Der – 0
Once again…..the crowd roars!
By: The Scorekeeper on May 20, 2012
at 9:05 AM
largely because you’re lying again. I made the decision to correct your factual misstatements and ignore your efforts to taunt or otherwise provoke people. The former demonstrates how stupid the latter is.
Everyone, let’s debunk Noah/Nagic/Anonymous’s latest falsehood. This one took exactly 30 seconds. May 16, 2012 entry on factcheck.org both provides the true facts about the contributions (including debunking the $49 million figure) and gives specifics about the criminal prosecutions of those who actually violated criminal laws, regardless of their contributions to the President.
The debunking includes providing proof that contributions to Romney thus far greatly exceed those to the President from those that are the subject of the recent comment.
Please further note that this was not some original “insight” from the resident troll. Instead, he simply parroted (surprised?) an ad from a 501(c)(4) that calls itself “American Future Fund.”
Yet another of what the kids call “epic fails.” I realize that Noah/Nagic/Anonymous has no interest in offering truthful statements but you’d think that even he/she/it would by now be a little embarassed at the extent and frequency of his lies.
And Noah/Nagic/Anonymous: drag your lazy ass to factcheck for the proof. No need to link to it here because, with the exception of yourself and your occasional backgammon partner, I trust that pretty much every other visitor is aware that you are a liar.
By: Donna on May 20, 2012
at 8:42 AM
No worries guys, whats a few million broken eggs, or in this case families, as long as a few of Obama’s buddies came out on top. I am also noting neither one of you had anything to say at all about Obama raising $49 mil from this guys. We know you dont get that kind of money for nothing.
Mitt bullies someone in his youth, and we get dozens of pages of comments. Obama takes more money than any candidate in history, from a bunch of criminals and not a word.
By: Anonymous on May 20, 2012
at 8:28 AM
Delurker: a civil forfeiture case can be brought against either an entity or the individuals responsible. Statutes frequently are phrases in terms of “causing” something to occur. Sometimes they define potentially responsible parties as including specified individuals.
By: Donna on May 20, 2012
at 8:08 AM
Donna, in those civil cases like the ongoing ones the SEC has against Goldman, who pays the settlements & fines? Is it the company or the individual? I can’t help but wish that people who have ruined so many lives would be ruined themselves. Seems to never work out that way, though.
By: delurkergurl on May 20, 2012
at 8:00 AM
Delurker: You make excellent points. In addition, the government frequently wants to pursue civil cases rather than criminal ones. First, there is the lower burden of proof–it is not required to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, if a particular witness refuses to testify on grounds of the fifth amendment in a civil case, the government is entitled to an adverse inference that the witness’ testimony would be an admission of criminal wrongdoing. That’s exactly the opposite from a criminal case, in which the government may not put a witness on the stand that the government knows will take the fifth. Further, in a criminal case, if a witness does decide during trial to take the fifth, the government is not entitled to an inference or to comment to the jury about the invocation. Finally, in a civil case, the government does not need a unanimous jury–it does in a criminal case. There are many reasons why a particular administration would pursue civil prosecutions rather than criminal ones, and it absolutely does not mean that wrongful activity is tolerated.
By: Donna on May 20, 2012
at 7:35 AM
“Not one person has been charged” is false. There have been a few.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/07/michael-moore/no-ceos-have-been-arrested-bringing-down-economy-s/
The issue is that in order to charge someone there has to be a specific law broken. What should they be charged with? Felony recklessness? Is Obama supposed to retrospectively write legislation that makes it easier to arrest these guys?
The investigations aren’t over, and of course I hope more people will be held accountable. It’s more likely we can get results from civil cases against them.
Welcome to the OWS movement, Anonymous. We could use your support in Elizabeth Warren’s fight for financial reform!
By: delurkergurl on May 20, 2012
at 7:27 AM
changed should read charged
By: Anonymous on May 20, 2012
at 12:26 AM
It has been 4 years since the financial collapse, and not one person has been changed. Why? Could it be that Obama has raised more than $49 million from Wall Street? More than any other candidate in history? His chief of staff made millions on Wall Street. Corizine has lost 1.6 billion of customers money but hasnt been changed. Corizine has raised more than $500,000 for Obama Seems to me Obama is looking out for his Wall Street Donors.
By: Anonymous on May 19, 2012
at 10:55 PM
“You sincerely need to seek medical attention” Really Backgammon, that’s all you have in response to Donna’s take down. You’re even weaker than nagic.
Keep in mind that when Donna fights, she fights like a girl; this means that you’re gonna have to be fighting your best game plus 1 times 10 (otherwise only multiplying your best game by 10 would still be 0).
By: farsight Δ on May 19, 2012
at 10:20 PM
Meanwhile Donna has been playing an awesome game of chess.
By: Anonymous on May 19, 2012
at 8:16 PM
Donna kicked butt!!!
This is for Donna. I think our friend should try checkers.
By: JuneauJoe on May 19, 2012
at 8:01 PM
You sincerely need to seek medical attention.
By: Backgammon on May 19, 2012
at 7:45 PM
Good job, Donna!
In a “nation of laws” it really makes sense to talk about what the laws actually are.
And learn more about law, intent, regulations, and the like.
Helen and Margaret -
thanks for having us all in!
I do mean all -since this would not have popped in so fully or explicitly without part of the all who show up.
By: alaskapi on May 19, 2012
at 7:10 PM
The score now stands at –
Donna – 62
D&Der – 0
The crowd roars wildly!
By: The Scorekeeper on May 19, 2012
at 6:50 PM
Donna, You rock! It won’t stop the haters but I’m enjoying every minute. You go girl.
By: Terri in NY on May 19, 2012
at 5:56 PM
Donna, You are Great!!!
By: JuneauJoe on May 19, 2012
at 5:24 PM
you are most welcome, Poolman. And it was an argument that I would make against disclosure in the event that the records were within FOIA and there was no FERPA. There’s just no need to make it.
By: Donna on May 19, 2012
at 5:11 PM
Thanks, Donna for pointing me straight. I get in a stomping mode and overstep my territory sometimes. Carry on.
By: poolman on May 19, 2012
at 4:55 PM
And since I am having such a good time here, I’ll provide you one more cite. Please see DOJ v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (1989). This Supreme Court decision explains the circumstances in which an agency may be deemed to have control over a record, even if it did not actually create it. So, to be completely, scrupulously accurate, an agency can OBTAIN a record in the course of its normal duties that the agency itself did not create (this is the case with certain law enforcement records). However, that record would still be subject to exception 3, which would be based in turn on FERPA. Happy reading, gentlemen.
By: Donna on May 19, 2012
at 4:53 PM
Poolman: You are incorrect, my friend. While, on its face, educational records would seem to fall within Exception 6, they do not because they were not created by the agency in the first instance.
As for the troll, no–Backgammon did not “score.” Instead, Backgammon looked at a regulation that implements a statute and failed to look at the statute itself. First year of law school teaches the difference.
By: Donna on May 19, 2012
at 4:40 PM