HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » liberal N proud » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 68 Next »

liberal N proud

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sun Aug 8, 2004, 01:54 PM
Number of posts: 48,922

Journal Archives

Since it is Talk Like a Pirate Day, I thought we should bring up the biggest pirate of them all

Posted by liberal N proud | Wed Sep 19, 2012, 07:35 AM (3 replies)

Songwriter Randy Newman making waves with new song "I'm Dreaming" ... of a white president.

I need to start this out with the claim from the site where I found the song:
I thought putting the word "sarcasm" in the headline would be a tip-off, but those of you calling Newman a "racist" are missing the point. He is making fun of racists, as a number of other comments have pointed out. You can disagree with his point of view, but he is not advocating racism. Exactly the opposite.


Remember it is supposed to be sarcasm.

Posted by liberal N proud | Wed Sep 19, 2012, 06:41 AM (4 replies)

Maybe the republicans would do better if they tried to make everyone more wealthy!

They keep knocking people down and expect them to vote for them anyway.

The party of the rich would do better if it were lifting everyone and not just the rich.
Posted by liberal N proud | Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:58 AM (2 replies)

Talk like a pirate day arrrgh

Posted by liberal N proud | Wed Sep 19, 2012, 05:54 AM (4 replies)

Mitt Romney's Responsibility Map - you decide what 47% don't matter.

Posted by liberal N proud | Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:05 PM (2 replies)

Newsmakers Trade Access For Quotation Approval

In the wake of the new Romney video here is some discouraging news:

Renee Montagne talks to David Carr, the media and culture columnist for The New York Times, about the trend toward journalists agreeing to quotation approval as a condition of access. Carr says he doesn't think the people who are making history should be allowed to rewrite it


This past week, we spoke to writer Michael Lewis about his piece in the current issue of Vanity Fair about President Obama. We were not aware at the time that Lewis had agreed to have the White House approve the president's quotes prior to publication, part of the deal that allowed him extraordinary access to the president. The revelation that Lewis had agreed to quote approval to the White House fed into an ongoing media controversy about the practice, once verboten in journalism, but now many politicians and corporate leaders are now requiring quote approval before they'll agree to be interviewed.

David Carr had written about this in his latest column for The New York Times, and he joined us to talk about it.

Good morning.

DAVID CARR: Good morning.

MONTAGNE: Remind people about the old rules, that someone you interviewed didn't have any sway over what you wrote.

CARR: Historically, journalism is built on a transaction, calling a source and you ask them a question, they answer it, you write it down as carefully as you can and should it be useful you stick it in the newspaper or on the radio broadcast and that's the end of that.

Now, frequently - and I don't know if it came from Hollywood or politics first - but the rules of engagement have changed, where people say, yes, I'll speak freely to you, but if you're going to use anything, just run it by me. That sounds so friendly, but it's not.

Most often what ends up being in conflict is not that they misspoke, but that they accidentally spoke the truth and they don't want to get caught out. And so they ask for we just want to round the edges a little bit and before you know it they'd completely changed the meaning of what was said.


But then, in todays world, how can you make such demands of those who are reporting your daily activities? Everything is recorded.

Posted by liberal N proud | Tue Sep 18, 2012, 03:28 PM (1 replies)

Airlines charging 'you-get-to-sit-with-your-kid' fee

John Parish is giving his 5-year-old daughter the birthday present every child dreams of: a trip to Disney World. But he's afraid American Airlines has booked a travel nightmare for his family and other fliers. There's only one way out of the nightmare, he was told: Pay an additional fee, months after booking the trip.

Parish bought his tickets months ago, in March, and scored three seats together on a flight from Dallas to Orlando, Fla., for his wife, Amanda, and daughter, Megan. Then, in July, bad news arrived. American Airlines had changed the flight schedule for the return trip, and it had changed the plane, too. It was a bigger plane, but no longer could the family sit together. In fact, Megan had been moved onto the other side of the plane, rows away.

There were three seats together, an American customer service agent told him. But the only way he could get them was to pay $60 in extra fees for what was now considered premium seating. Parish was outraged. But a discussion with a supervisor got him nowhere.

"What bothers me about this situation is that they are trying to charge me for something I already had paid for because they changed flight schedules," he said. "I know it's only $60, but this is a little extreme. ... It's not fair when it is literally their fault because they are changing their schedule, but they put the onus of the cost and change on the consumer."

Amanda Parish said the family had booked the trip a full seven months in advance specifically to ensure that they'd all be able to sit together.


I would be telling them that they should be paying me to sit with my kid, because God knows know one else wants to. I would make sure the airlines knew that I was going to give that kid some really messy things to do while on the flight. They would be moving heaven and earth to get that kid back next to me when I was done with them. Two can play this game of chicken.

Posted by liberal N proud | Tue Sep 18, 2012, 07:10 AM (149 replies)

Chuck Todd trying to spin this...

talking about a "similar incident" then Senator Obama had in his first campaign.


Chucky starts in on Obama about 3:10 into the clip.

Posted by liberal N proud | Mon Sep 17, 2012, 10:48 PM (18 replies)

Yes we are victims

Victims of the war on the middle class
Victims of the war on women
Victims of the financial ruin we have faced at the hands of the "job creators"

We are victims of the things that the rich greedy bastards have done to this world. They have done it for gain and to keep the rest of us from getting ahead.

Posted by liberal N proud | Mon Sep 17, 2012, 10:46 PM (0 replies)

There is another Issue 2 on the ballot in Ohio

Remember last year when we had to fight to save collective bargaining, the ballot issue was called Issue 2.

Well, the republicans are up to no good again and this time it involves how redistricting is done in the future.

Issue 2 language is still being worked out due to several court cases challenging the confusing language.

The Ohio Ballot Board met Thursday to rework its description of Issue 2.

That would change the process for shaping congressional districts.

The Ohio Supreme Court calls the original ballot language for the redistricting proposal "defective," saying it "misleads voters."

The Court said the state had to come up with a new description of Issue 2.

That sparked a war over words between the members of the Ballot Board.

The Republicans argued the only way to be clear was to put more of the exact wording from the constitutional amendment on the ballot.

"We can either put the complete language or we can do a summary," said Republican Sen. Keith Faber. "But if you do a summary, you have to make sure you don't get it wrong. Well, in this time period, at this crunch, my fear is that if we do a summary, we're going to get it wrong because frankly, I didn't draft the confusing selection process that's in the constitutional amendment."

Including that part added more than a page and doubled the length of the text that will appear on the ballot.

The Supreme Court decision came after Voters First, the group behind Issue 2, sued the Ballot Board.

Organizers say they're still unhappy with the wording.

"It's going to take voters a long time to wade through some of the more technical language in the beginning of the ballot language," said Ann Henkener of Voters First, "and you're going to have to be very persistent and stand in the voting booth for a really long time to get to what the court described as the core of the issue, which is the criteria, which is getting politically-neutral districts."


The republican Secretary of State is not happy about this thing even being on the ballot let alone the challenge that the language has to be clear.

An Ohio Redistricting Amendment, also known as Issue 2, is on the November 6, 2012 ballot in the state of Ohio as an initiated constitutional amendment. The measure would create a 12-person citizen commission to draw legislative and congressional district maps. According to supporters of the measure, the commission would create districts that would reflect the state's geographic, racial, ethnic and political diversity. The initiative would also bar lobbyists and elected officials from joining the commission.

Voters First is the main group in favor of the measure. The organization spearheaded the initiative effort.
According to Catherine Turcer, chair of Voters First, at the time of the signature submission deadline on July 4, 2012, "We're celebrating Independence Day the way that you should. Thinking about our forefathers; thinking about the quality of our vote; thinking about what we as voters can do to actually make a difference."

The Cincinnati USA Regional chamber stated, "Oppose Ohio Issue 2, Ohio Redistricting: The Ohio redistricting amendment, if passed, will establish a 12-person citizen commission to draw General Assembly and congressional districts following the decennial census. The Chamber opposes Issue 2 and urges a “no” vote because it removes accountability to voters. If passed, Issue 2 would replace elected officials with an unelected, unaccountable, citizen commission with unlimited funds to redraw congressional and General Assembly district lines, while excluding some Ohioans from serving on the commission."


This is one of those deceiving ballot issues that on the outside sounds like a great deal but in the end, it allows the republican controlled legislature to create a permanent panel to address redistricting. A panel that is not accountable to anyone and whose members cannot be removed for any reason by the way the language is written.

More dirty tricks by the republicans to affect elections that they would not otherwise win.

Cosspost in the Ohio forum http://www.democraticunderground.com/1071355
Posted by liberal N proud | Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:21 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 68 Next »