HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » msanthrope » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 36,068

Journal Archives

Bernie paid his family out of campaign funds, Hillary did not.

If you look at the thread that claims that Hillary paid herself 250k, you notice something odd...


1) The claim has been completely debunked, by Skinner, the site owner himself, who kindly took the time to explain FEC regulations and campaign accounting.


2) Using the same source as the OP of that thread, apparently Sanders paid his wife and daughter sums of money from campaign funds.


That same source, The Free Beacon, also details how Jane Sanders, when she ran Burlington College, paid their daughter over 500k for a woodworking major...a major that was ended after she resigned.

It also led me to links that detail a 3.65 million dollar loan that Jane Sanders took out with the Diocese of Burlington....and a land deal that ended up with a local developer getting a 20 million dollar piece of property for 6 million---

And that story led me to the interesting story of how a Teacher of the Year at Burlington College was fired, provoking student protests..

Interestingly enough, Burlington College had no tenure, and no grievance policy for professors, according to that article.

And that story led me to another one detailing the Board's removal of Sanders from Burlington, mid semester, and details of what it was like to work for Jane Sanders.

And another one, detailing the loans Jane Sanders made with People's and the Catholic Church..

Interesting news. All flowing from one source.

Warren, step back a second. The downballot....the Senate

is up for grabs. More important than internecine squabbling....HRC will be our nominee. It's time to work the downballot.

Stop 3/5ing the vote of the AA community.

I've seen a troubling trend over the last few months in GD: P, the denigration of the votes of Black Democrats. Whether they've been accused of being low-information voters, being duped, listening to 'slander,' or having Stockholm Syndrome, the continual drumbeat seems to be an attempt to drive down the vote in that community by insulting them and implying that their votes were not achieved correctly.

Yes...drive down the vote in the AA community by telling them that their votes were achieved through trickery.....suggest that the AA community is lesser, part of "the Confederacy." That's not a strategy that helps any Democrat. It makes you wonder why someone would post, insulting an entire demographic. Why would anyone try to drive down the AA vote?

Why would anyone recommend posts that suggest such? Why would anyone post offensive material, and keep that material up after some of the most notable posters in DU's AA group have indicated that it is offensive?

No Democrat benefits from that behavior. Not a one.

I just got blocked from the BS group...though I will wear his credentials on Election Day.

So, I got blocked from the Bernie Sanders group. Mind you, not for anything that got hid by a jury. Not for anything that was derogatory towards Sanders himself.

Ironically, if he is the nominee, I will be wearing his credentials on Election Day....as with every single Election Day since I was 24, I will be an election protection attorney for the Democratic Nominee. I will be on the front lines, as an attorney, protecting the franchise of every voter.

Turns out....the Host that blocked me, had a previous issue with me, over my incredibly "mean," but incredibly funny thread about 50 Shades of Grey....she was not the host who locked it, but since the Host who locked it refused to hear my appeal, she decided to have an extensive PM discussion with me over my intemperate use of humor.

Here is that locked thread, in all of its glory....


Could I repeat the PM exchange? Sure, but why bother? Just know that that I got blocked---a lawyer who will proudly wear Bernie Sanders credentials if he is chosen as the Democratic nominee, was blocked from a group dedicated to winning over voters to Bernie.

FYI---I have not mentioned the name of the Host, because it is not important.

Not shocking at all. Hell...I once quoted Caddyshack to Manny and got a hide.

I was more shocked by one of your votes to hide.****

****On edit....I apologize. ..you voted to lock, not hide (because it had survived a jury) my fifty shades of grey thread. Thank you for including a link to the thread in question below.

Tell me....when you voted to lock....and then denied my appeal to change your vote, were you influenced by a plea from a DUer sent privately to a Host?

It's Been Resolved? This Week Is SI Cover, Next Week is the 50 Shades of Grey Movie?

I just wanted to get the schedule straight here, since my stores of popcorn and bourbon are running low.....

This week is the SI cover, right?

Next week is the 50 Shades of Grey Movie?

Who are we sending in as our designated "50 Shades" watcher?

I nominate malaise, but I fear we might not get more than "go to the theatre, right fuggin' now."

There's always The Magistrate. I can't even begin to imagine the awesomeness of his movie review. "Whereupon the ubiquitous Mr. Grey began to oscillate the whip....."

Sid Dithers could write a review completely in smilies.

woo me with science would just give us 17 insane blue links.

So would ProSense.

Octafish would probably demonstrate the link between JFK and Christian Grey, via crop circles.

steveleser would make us listen to his radio show.

Skittles---now there's a poster who has long been into BDSM. But the ALL CAPS would kill us.

Third-Way Manny? We'd all get alerted on if we disagreed with him.

Aerows? Somehow it would come back to the damn raccoon.

Mineral Man? Hell, if I wanted to read an appliance manual.....

Trumad? He should stick to other balls. Footballs, baseballs.....

pinboy3niner would do it all in puns.

So would pintobean.

zappaman would just turn it into an anti-Jenny McCarthy screed.


sabrina1 would just drone on about drones....

sheshe would post Obama pics.

(Name redacted per request), seabeyond, bostonbean, redqueen????? Not going there, folks.....

Luminous Animal would just post whatever Glenn Greenwald had to say about how we shouldn't judge 50 Shades, because Obama probably tied someone up, somewhere....

Purveyor would let us know the RT point of view on this Western decadence.

Will Pitt would post a paragraph or two, then make us click over to Truthout.....

xchrom would post a review, then never come back to the thread.

Robb would just be a dingbat about it.

Hannah Bell would link to the WSWS review, and prove that Christian Grey was allegory for the Bilderbergers. (So would her latest incarnation. We see you!!!)

Skinner would post a review in ATA, then forget to reveal the thread.

graywarrior's shown an affinity for duct tape--I wonder if it would translate.....

rhett o rick would accuse us of enabling the cryptofascistauthoritarianscorpratists. Or the Stasi.

HERETIC I AM would post a complete review in pictures taken in his kitchen.

Who would you nominate to be our designated 50 Shades watcher?

TO THE JURY----This thread is COMPLETELY IN FUN--I will remove the name of any person who is offended....they can PM me.

Molly Norris, American Cartoonist and Victim of Terror, and Glenn Greenwald.

Anybody remember Molly Norris? She's the woman who started Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.

It was a brilliant, creative idea designed to strike back against censorship. In response, a terrorist piece of shit issued a fatwa against her, calling her "a prime target of assassination." In 2013, she appeared on AlQaeda's latest Most Wanted list, along with Stephane Charbonnier, Editor of Charlie Hedbo. Stephane Charbonnier is dead today.

What happened to Molly Norris? She's gone....a ghost. She changed her name, went off the grid, and went into hiding on the advice of the FBI, and she stopped drawing her cartoons.

What happened to the terrorist? We drone struck his ass. We were trying to drone strike him long before he threatened Molly Norris, since he had a bad habit of fomenting terror in the US.

Now---whose "free speech" rights was Glenn Greenwald concerned with?

Glenn Greenwald, defended Awlaki, wondering what the US did that turned this "moderate" into a radical. He made the amazing, and demonstrably false claim that Awlaki was targeted for his exercise of free speech---specifically, for his "anti-American sermons."

Now, think about that for a second. Mr. Greenwald accused the President of the United States of targeting a cleric for exercising his free speech. Not for Awlaki's involvement with Rajib Karim in the British Airways bomb plot. Not for his involvement with sending PETN bombs to Chicago synagogues. Not for his involvement in the Christmas Underwear Plot, or Fort Hood, or any of the other acts of terror Awlaki either had a direct hand in, or supported and encouraged. And not for the murder that Awlaki was convicted of, and was fugitive from.

Awlaki was targeted by President Obama for his free speech, according to Greenwald. Now, to buttress this claim, Greenwald and his supporters have continually pushed the myth that Awlaki was a moderate in 2001 who was later radicalized by the actions of America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anwar Awlaki was a massive intelligence failure on the part of the Bush/Cheney administration. It is no coincidence that four 9/11 hijackers associated with him, or that the Fort Hood shooter's family went to his mosque. Awlaki was no "moderate." What he was, was an operative. And Bush/Cheney, trying to find WMDs in Iraq, were too preoccupied to clean up actual AlQaeda in either Afghanistan, or here. Hell.....they missed twenty hijackers all going to flight school. You think they couldn't have missed an operative disguising himself as a "moderate" cleric?

Think about it for a second....Greenwald's claim that Awlaki was moderate rests on the idea that the Bush/Cheney intelligence community was competent in 2001. Alternatively, he claims that Awlaki's association with the Washington Post well, proves something. I defy any person here to watch Awlaki's October 2001 sermon and not feel precisely the same way Ray Suarez felt....

While talking of his feelings of grievance, he chose his words carefully. Very carefully. One could walk away from the Friday sermon, or from the interview, struck by how in his rhetoric he could dance right up to the edge of condoning violence, taking the side of anti-American forces in the Muslim world, and then, just as carefully, reel it back in, pulling the punch, softening the context, covering the sharp-edged scalpel of his words in a reassuring sheath.

So why would Greenwald push the meme that Awlaki was killed for his free speech by President Obama? Why would anyone push the meme that Awlaki was a "moderate" at any time? Why would anyone claim that the Bush/Cheney intelligence community was competent? Why would anyone conveniently forget Awlaki's acts of terror, including the fatwa against a fellow member of the media?

I cannot figure out why someone who presents himself as a Progressive would do these things.

But I do know this.....if I had the choice to write about the free speech rights of anyone and have lots of people read that article, I would write about how a cartoonist from Seattle had to go into hiding--and is still there--all because a terrorist in a cave in Yemen got het up over a frickin' cartoon. I would call her a patriot---for she might die for simply expressing one of the fundamentals of our democracy. Molly Norris stood up for free speech and will never get her old life back. I hope she has a new, good, and peaceful life.

I wouldn't waste a fucking line writing apologia for a piece of shit terrorist who thought that a cartoon merited death.


We try...but it looks like geek tragedy rought the can of whoop ass


50 Shades of Chicken...Do you truss me?


Why should we be denied a 50 Shades thread?
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »