Thursday Open Thread

All I Want for Christmas Is You  is a song by American singer-songwriter Mariah Carey from her fourth studio album, Merry Christmas. It was released as the lead single from the album on November 1, 1994 by Columbia Records. The song was written by Carey and Walter Afanasieff, the latter co-arranging and producing the song as well. As an up-tempo love song, it also incorporates pop music and traditional beats. The song’s lyrics describe an event in which the protagonist declares that she does not care about Christmas presents or lights; all she wants for Christmas is to be with her lover.

About SouthernGirl2

A Native Texan who adores baby kittens, loves horses, rodeos, pomegranates, & collect Eagles. Enjoys politics, games shows, & dancing to all types of music. Loves discussing and learning about different cultures. A Phi Theta Kappa lifetime member with a passion for Social & Civil Justice.
This entry was posted in Christmas Songs, Current Events, Music, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to Thursday Open Thread

  1. rikyrah says:

    Herbie’s piece -on-the-side is on Lawrence O’Donnell

  2. rikyrah says:

    Judy Lewis, Secret Daughter of Hollywood, Dies at 76
    Published: November 30, 2011

    Her mother was Loretta Young. Her father was Clark Gable.
    Yet Judy Lewis spent her first 19 months in hideaways and orphanages, and the rest of her early life untangling a web of lies spun by a young mother hungry for stardom but unwilling to end her unwed pregnancy.

    Loretta Young’s deception was contrived to protect her budding movie career and the box-office power of the matinee idol Gable, who was married to someone else when they conceived their child in snowed-in Washington State. They were on location, shooting the 1935 film “The Call of the Wild,” fictional lovers in front of the camera and actual lovers outside its range.

    Ms. Lewis, a former actress who died on Friday at the age of 76, was 31 before she discerned the scope of the falsehoods that cast her, a daughter of Hollywood royalty, into what she later described as a Cinderella-like childhood. Confronted by Ms. Lewis, Young finally made a tearful confession in 1966 at her sprawling home in Palm Springs, Calif.

    Young was 22 and unmarried when she and Gable, 34 and married to Maria Langham, had their brief affair. She spent most of her pregnancy in Europe to avoid Hollywood gossip. Ms. Lewis was born on Nov. 6, 1935, in a rented house in Venice, Calif. Soon she was turned over to a series of caretakers, including St. Elizabeth’s Infants Hospital in San Francisco, so that Young could return to stardom.

    When Ms. Lewis was 19 months old, her mother brought her back home and announced through the gossip columnist Louella Parsons that she had adopted the child.

    Ms. Lewis grew up in Los Angeles, cushioned in the luxury of her mother’s movie-star lifestyle even as she endured what she later described as an outsider’s isolation within her family and the teasing of children at school.

    They teased her about her ears: they stuck out like Dumbo’s. Or, as Hollywood rumors had it, they stuck out like Clark Gable’s. Ms. Lewis’s mother dressed her in bonnets to hide them. When Ms. Lewis was 7 her ears were surgically altered to make them less prominent.

    Until Ms. Lewis, as an adult, confronted her years later, Young did not acknowledge that Ms. Lewis was her biological daughter, or that Gable was Ms. Lewis’s father. When Young married and had two children with Tom Lewis, a radio producer, Judy took his name but remained the family’s “adopted” daughter.

    And though conceding the story privately to her daughter — and later to the rest of her family — Young remained mum publicly all her life, agreeing to acknowledge the facts only in her authorized biography, “Forever Young,” and only on the condition that it be published after her death. She died in 2000.

    But Ms. Lewis revealed the story of her parentage in her own memoir, “Uncommon Knowledge,” in 1994. She described feeling a powerful sense of alienation as a child. “It was very difficult for me as a little girl not to be accepted or acknowledged by my mother, who, to this day, will not publicly acknowledge that I am her biological child,” she said in an interview that year.

    After Ms. Lewis released the memoir, her mother refused to speak to her for three years.

    The lightning bolt that gave Ms. Lewis the first hint about her parentage came during an identity crisis before her wedding day. Two weeks before her marriage in 1958, Ms. Lewis told her fiancé, Tom Tinney, that she did not understand her confusing relationship with her mother and that she did not know who her father was. “I can’t marry you,” she said she told him. “I don’t know anything about myself.”

    Mr. Tinney could offer little guidance about her mother, she wrote, but about her father’s identity he was clear.

    “It’s common knowledge, Judy,” he said. “Your father is Clark Gable.”

    She had no inkling, she wrote.

  3. Emannuel Cleaver Suggests Gingrich Should Get Charges Filed Against Top Hedge Fund Managers/

    [wpvideo XhLq7OYj]

  4. Champions of Change: Native American Youth Leaders

  5. Ametia says:

    Lawrence O is having Giner White on tonight……

  6. Ametia says:

    The U.S. Senate voted 93-7 to pass a giant defense bill that includes a new policy for detaining and trying suspected al Qaeda terrorists — a policy that may draw a presidential veto.
    In keeping with budget cuts across the government, the $662 billion bill shrinks Pentagon spending by $43 billion from last year. It includes funding for the wars that are winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan and sets policies for the weapons systems and personnel programs at the Defense Department.
    After years of struggling with issues of who should investigate, detain and try suspected terrorists — civilian authorities and courts or the military and its tribunal system — Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and ranking Republican John McCain reached a compromise.
    The measure still needs to go to conference for reconciliation with the House version of the bill.

  7. U.S. President Barack Obama and his daughter Sasha laugh during the lighting of the National Christmas Tree in Washington December 1, 2011.

  8. President Barack Obama jokes with his daughter Sasha as they sing Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer while attending the annual National Christmas Tree Lighting on the Ellipse, Thursday, Dec. 1, 2011,

  9. US President Barack Obama watches a performance with daughters Malia (R) and Sasha during the annual lighting of the National Christmas tree December 1, 2011 at The Ellipse in Washington, DC.

  10. The 89th Annual National Christmas Tree Lighting

  11. President Obama on World AIDS Day

  12. Ametia says:


  13. Ametia says:

    PBO & Fam National X-mas tree lighting 5 pm today

  14. Ametia says:

    Check out this piece of shit by GOP. Notice anything about the young folks in the video? Who’s missing?


      And these mofos never voted for President Obama. Lying liars!

      • Ametia says:

        A+! Republican Asians and Caucasians. Not one mention of PBO and what he and his admin have done for college students and healthcare. Nothing but lies, especially that debt bullshit. Nothing about the wars we are exiting under PBO’s watch. They teach them young to lie, distort, cheat, and accept that they are the priviledged few. Shameful

  15. Ametia says:

    Posted by: Helen Philpot | November 24, 2011
    Thanksgiving Letter to the Family 2011

    Dear Family,
    We lost your Grandpa this year and suddenly everyone wants to be together for the holidays. Well isn’t that just the shit. I hope you all learned your lesson. Treasure your family while they are still here – not after they are gone. Life is a series of lessons. Pay attention.
    Now about Thanksgiving… Your Aunt Trudy thinks that just because Thanksgiving dinner is at her house this year, I am not in charge. Well bless her heart. Here are the rules:

    Read the rest here:

  16. Ametia says:

    Elizabeth Warren Surges Ahead of Scott Brown In New Poll
    December 1, 2011
    By Jason Easley

    A new UMass Amherst Poll released today found that Elizabeth Warren has opened up a four point lead on Scott Brown, 43%-39%.

    Warren’s lead in the poll was within the margin of error, but the Democratic challenger leads Sen. Brown in several key areas. Warren leads Brown 38%-32% on the question of which candidate would do a better job handling the economy. She also leads the Republican incumbent, 40%-29% on healthcare, and 37%-30% on taxes. Brown leads Warren 33%-25% on the handling of terrorism.

    Brown leads with men, 46%-40%, but Warren enjoys a much larger lead with women, 46%-31%. Warren leads with both those making less than $40K (42%-27%), and those making more than $40K (48%-37%). Brown leads with those who earn over $100,000 a year, 48%-42%. Warren has a big lead with younger voters (18-29), 52%-21% and those over 55 (44%-41%), but Brown leads with voters age 30-54 (44%-38%). Brown leads with Republicans (93%-0%) and Independents (49%-31%), but Warren has a big lead with Democrats (78%-6%).

  17. Only #QuestionsMittLikes

  18. rikyrah says:

    Some Floridians are More Equal Than Others
    by John Cole

    I can’t for the life of me figure out how this is legal:

    In the current race to the bottom to see which state can provide the most degraded and dehumanizing environment for undocumented immigrants, Arizona and Alabama have grabbed the headlines. But largely unnoticed, it is Florida, home to nearly one million Cuban refugees and their descendants, that has come up with perhaps the most bizarre and pointless anti-immigrant policy of all.

    Beginning last year, the state’s higher education authorities have been treating American citizens born in the United States, including graduates of Florida high schools who have spent their entire lives in the state, as non-residents for tuition purposes if they can’t demonstrate that their parents are in the country legally.

    Yes, you read that correctly – although when I first came upon a description of the policy a few weeks ago, I was sure that I had misunderstood something. It’s a basic tenet of equal protection law that the government can’t single out citizens for disfavored treatment without a good reason. The Supreme Court is serious about this, even ruling unanimously a decade ago that an Illinois village violated an individual homeowner’s 14th Amendment right to equal protection by demanding from her a bigger easement than it required of her neighbors as the price of connecting her home to the municipal water supply.

    When it is no longer acceptable for people to pick on Hispanics and Gays, I wonder who the GOP will turn on next.

  19. rikyrah says:

    Indiana, again
    by Kay

    They’re still fighting union busting in Indiana, because, of course, after Mitch Daniels destroyed public sector unions he went after private sector unions. Despite what conservatives tell their union voters in these states, that was always the plan.

    The Indiana Statehouse debate over right-to-work legislation has been contentious, prompting union protests and a walkout by Democratic House members over the issue earlier this year. That same spirit was evident Tuesday at the University of Evansville, which hosted a panel discussion on the issue.A standing-room-only crowd of about 200 people attended to listen to the panel, which was made up of two right-to-work supporters and two opponents.
    The panelist’s right-to-work proponents were Rep. Sue Ellspermann, R-Ferdinand, and George Raymond, vice president of Human Resources and Labor Relations for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. Speaking against right-to-work legislation were Rep. Gail Riecken, D-Evansville, and Teamsters Local 215 President Chuck Whobrey.
    The audience appeared dominated by right-to-work opponents, who frequently offered cheers, applause or shouts of disagreement in response to the panelists’ remarks.

    Mitch Daniels had a free hand to impose the libertarian/conservative wish list that Scott Walker and John Kasich then imitated in Wisconsin and Ohio. Unlike Walker and Kasich, no one stopped Daniels in Indiana. He’s been putting these policies and practices in place since 2005.

    Indiana’s unemployment rate is 9%

    Now, conservatives in that state want still more concessions from working and middle class people, and, once again, they’re promising jobs in return for an still-lower standard of living. If people in Indiana just give a little bit more to the job creators, this time, it will pay off.

    “Right to work is a legitimate strategy to help attract and grow jobs,” said Elspermann, citing data that 25-50 percent of companies making relocation decisions are only willing to relocate to right-to-work states. That means, Elspermann said, that Indiana loses out on potential job creation because some companies won’t consider moving here. Raymond had a similar message, saying that right-to-work legislation promotes economic growth and pushes wages up. “Why right-to-work now? It’s all about jobs,” Raymond said.

    Public sector union busting was all about jobs, too, way back in 2005. Mitch Daniels keeps pushing people down that hill, and telling them there’s a pot of gold at the bottom.

  20. rikyrah says:

    December 01, 2011 1:55 PM

    The political significance of the Boeing deal
    By Steve Benen

    The Boeing/NLRB issue hasn’t been especially prominent at the national level, but in Republican circles — especially in the presidential primary in South Carolina — it’s a big deal.

    And as of today, it’s pretty much over.

    After decades of bitter relations, Boeing and the machinists’ union vowed a new era of cooperation on Wednesday as they announced a far-reaching four-year contract extension that would raise wages, improve pensions and add thousands of new assembly jobs in Washington State to build an updated version of its 737 jet.

    Union officials said that the deal resolved their disputes with Boeing and that they would ask the National Labor Relations Board to drop a politically charged case against Boeing over a new plant it opened this year in South Carolina. The agency, which filed the case in April in response to a complaint by the machinists’ union, is asserting that the company’s decision to build the $750 million plant in South Carolina constituted illegal retaliation against machinists in Washington for exercising their right to strike.

    When the NLRB targeted Boeing, GOP officials, most notably Gov. Nikki Haley (R), were apoplectic. So too was Republican media, with the story drawing overheated (and largely wrong) condemnations from Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer, and a variety of on-air Fox News personalities, several of whom crafted wild conspiracy theories about President Obama trying to crush the private sector at the behest of union bosses.

    The right’s fury was predictable but misguided. The NLRB had ample reason to believe Boeing illegally moved from a union plant to (in the state of Washington) a non-union plant (in South Carolina) to retaliate against previous labor strikes, and the board took steps to enforce the law. Republicans seemed outraged by the notion that a federal agency could intervene to prevent an illegal corporate move that circumvented labor laws.

    The agreement reached this week should effectively resolve the conflict.

    It should also, as Alec MacGillis notes, take away a key Republican talking point.

    Republicans have seized on [the NLRB’s] action as Exhibit A of the Obama administration’s war against private industry, and even some labor supporters privately acknowledged the move was not ideal in its symbolism or timing. [NLRB general counsel Lafe Solomon] believed that he had no choice but to take the action to enforce the law, as a Boeing executive was on the record telling a newspaper that the move to South Carolina was being undertaken in response to threats of labor unrest in Washington state. But while plenty of labor supporters believe strongly in the larger issue at stake — the damage done when companies shift work to lower paid, nonunion workforces — it was clear that this was not the best moment to be having that argument, in the midst of an anemic recovery when Republicans could point to the empty plant in South Carolina, put on hold by Solomon’s action, as explicit proof of Obama’s alleged anti-business intentions.

    And now, it appears to be over. Nikki Haley will have to find something else to talk about.

  21. Ametia says:

    Does The Norquist Tax Pledge Only Apply To The 1%?
    December 1, 2011
    By Ray Medeiros

    According to Grover Norquist and his pledge, once taxes are cut they can never be raised, right? Raising them to previous levels constitute as raising taxes, even closing loopholes, eliminating deductions and carve outs are considered tax increases. That is the reason the super committee failed to compromise and that is why President Obama’s jobs bill is not gaining traction.

    Yet these same Republicans who have signed this pledge are willing to allow the payroll tax cut to expire and raise taxes on millions of middle class people by the end of the year. Is this an indication that the Grover Norquist pledge is only applicable to the 1%? Is it that the tax pledge is only geared to the income tax? There seems to be an ambiguous loophole in the tax pledge, don’t you think?

    Economists have stated that allowing the payroll tax cut to expire could cost the United States economy up to 400K jobs. This is, first and foremost, proof that customers are the job creators, not the bankers or the elite wealthy 1%. Second this proves that the Republicans are not at all concerned about raising taxes on people, as long as it’s not on the wealthy.

  22. Ametia says:

    The Hill tells ‘Morning Joe’ GOP lawmakers ‘want out’ of Norquist tax pledge
    By Geneva Sands-Sadowitz – 12/01/11 11:28 AM ET

    The Hill Managing Editor Bob Cusack and reporter Russell Berman spoke Thursday with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” about the growing number of GOP lawmakers who have disavowed Grover Norquist’s pledge against supporting tax increases.

    “Some Republicans, they say, ‘I signed the pledge a decade ago, but I want out of it’ and Grover says, ‘No, when you sign the pledge it’s forever,’ so more and more Republicans are going after Grover,” Cusack said.

    watch it here:

  23. Ametia says:


  24. rikyrah says:

    December 01, 2011 1:20 PM
    Understanding the nature of education aid
    By Steve Benen

    From time to time, I find it enjoyable to poke fun at congressional Republicans and their, shall we say, limited understanding of the world around them.

    But this quote, delivered on the House floor this week by Rep. Rob Woodall (R) of Georgia, is one of my new favorites of the entire year. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) had just finished saying that students who get degrees invariably improve their income levels. Woodall didn’t care for the observation.

    My colleague who was here right before me said the value of higher education, in terms of future earnings, is undisputable [sic]. The value of higher education, Mr. Speaker, in terms of future earnings is undisputable. And then went on to talk about all the federal programs that provide money so that people can seek higher education. Now my question is, Mr. Speaker, if the value is undisputable why do we have to pay people to do it? If the value is undisputable, why do we have to pay people to do it?” [emphasis added]

    So, in Rep. Woodall’s mind, college students don’t necessarily want to get their degrees, but policymakers coerce them to pursue higher education by paying them to attend classes.

    He didn’t appear to be kidding.

    If Republicans want to argue that we should cut student aid because of a philosophical objection to federal action in education, fine. They’re wrong, but there’s at least an ideological foundation for the argument. If GOP officials also want to argue we should make it harder for America’s youth to get degrees based on some kind of class-based tough-love approach — if you’re poor, you should worker harder than the wealthy to get ahead — that’s offensive, but I at least understand the point.

    But to argue that we “have to pay people” to go to college, as if the aid is forcing students to go, is just bizarre, even by the standards of congressional Republicans.

  25. rikyrah says:

    December 01, 2011 12:30 PM
    Huntsman offers a ‘Mittstant Replay’
    By Steve Benen

    Honestly, is there any entity in politics more effective in slamming Mitt Romney than Jon Huntsman’s presidential campaign?

    In this new video, Team Huntsman not only draws additional attention to Romney’s awful interview with Fox News, but also fact-checks Romney’s denials about flip-flops.

    As is usually the case with Huntsman’s videos, any party or campaign can use a clip like this. Lob off the last five seconds, and anyone hoping to undermine Romney is ready to go.

    This is just the latest in a trend. Huntsman is struggling badly to compete, and nearly every national poll shows him in last place among Republicans, but Huntsman and his campaign have been focusing heavily on slamming Romney, and they’ve proven to be very good at it.

    Just this week, Huntsman hit Romney as a candidate voters “don’t trust,” and described him as being “in the hip pocket of Wall Street.”

    And looking back over the last several weeks, this anti-Romney video from Huntsman was brutal, as was this one, and this one.

    For that matter, one of the key anti-Romney lines of the year came from Huntsman’s spokesperson over the summer: “You know your job creation record is bad when you brag about leapfrogging a state ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. The reality is Mitt Romney’s record on job creation was abysmal by every standard.” It was an immediate clip-and-save quote.

    For reasons that elude me, nearly all of the Republican presidential candidates have been content to give Romney a lot of passes, barely even trying to lay a glove on him over the last several months. Huntsman, clearly, is the exception. His attacks would probably have greater salience if Huntsman were a more competitive candidate, but the content should nevertheless be adopted by other campaigns as the season progresses.


  27. President Barack Obama greets and is photographed with members of the audience after speaking during a campaign event at the Sheraton Hotel, Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2011, in New York.

  28. The hand of US President Barack Obama reaches out to ‘high-five’ a supporter at a campaign fundraiser at the Sheraton Hotel November 30, 2011 in New York.

  29. DNC Chair Discusses ProtectingtheVote.Org on MSNBC

  30. rikyrah says:

    GOP governors worry Obama might escape his woes

    By Associated Press
    Republican governors, who swept to big victories last year, think President Barack Obama faces huge political obstacles. But they’re hardly brimming with confidence about the 2012 election.

    Meeting this week in Florida, GOP governors and their advisers fret that their party could lose its advantage on the tax-cut issue by appearing too eager to protect the rich. Some also warn Republican candidates not to reflexively dismiss anti-Wall Street sentiment, which might be seeping more deeply into the middle class than they realize.

    Publicly, the governors predict Obama will be a one-term president. But few have stuck their necks out by endorsing any of their party’s candidates, even with the Iowa caucus five weeks away.

    “Independents are leaning our way, but they’re not quite there yet,” pollster Glen Bolger told the Republican Governors Association during a panel session Wednesday on the 2012 elections. He said he foresees a very close race.

    Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said Obama cannot run on his record, mainly because of the nation’s high unemployment rate. So Obama will focus on “tearing down the Republican nominee,” Jindal said, predicting a much more negative campaign than in 2008.

    Jindal, who backs Texas Gov. Rick Perry, is one of the few Republican governors who has endorsed someone. Most of his colleagues seem wary. Their wait-and-see approach lent a somber tone to the Orlando gathering, which bordered Disney World and might have felt festive if the party were coalescing around one strong contender.

    They have plenty of reasons to be cautious, GOP pollster Frank Luntz said in the panel discussion chaired by Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. If next year’s campaign is couched as a battle over the middle class, Luntz said, “Democrats will win.”

    Republicans should say they’re fighting for “hard-working taxpayers,” said Luntz, who is known for conducting focus groups and advising Republicans on precise words to use and to avoid.

    He also warned that most Americans support Obama’s bid to raise taxes on the wealthiest households, and he urged Republicans not to get engaged in a debate over “taxing” the rich. Instead, he said, they should talk about the evils of “the government taking money from hard-working Americans,” no matter how much they earn.

  31. rikyrah says:

    December 01, 2011 11:20 AM
    The other economic policy set to expire
    By Steve Benen

    There’s been quite a bit of talk lately about Congress debating an extension of the payroll tax break, which is set to expire in just a month, and for good reason. An increase would undermine the economy at a delicate time. But as Laura Clawson noted yesterday, “The payroll tax isn’t the only thing that needs extending to help families keep making ends meet. Congress also needs to extend emergency unemployment benefits.”

    Quite right. It’s a policy many leading congressional Democrats are eager to fight for.

    Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Tom Harkin vowed today to prohibit Congress from adjourning for the holidays unless it passes an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless.

    Flanked at a press conference by House and Senate Democratic colleagues, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and scores of unemployed workers who traveled to the Capitol, the Iowa Democrat guaranteed that Congress will remain in Washington, D.C., through Christmas if the benefits are not extended.

    “Let me just put it this way: There will be no Christmas for Congress unless there is an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits,” Harkin said. “Believe me, we have a number of us on the Senate side. We’re not going home. We’re not going to have Christmas for Congress until you get an extension of unemployment benefits.”

    House Democrats are thinking along the same lines, with House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and House Ways and Means ranking member Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) saying Congress shouldn’t adjourn until jobless aid is approved. “We’ll see if Congress has the heart and soul to act,” Hoyer said.

    The White House, for the record, strongly supports an extension of both the payroll tax break and unemployment benefits.

    And in case anyone’s forgotten, when it comes to bang for the buck, jobless aid is an excellent stimulus. In case Republicans have forgotten, Paul Krugman had a column a while back that GOP lawmakers might find helpful.

    When the economy is booming, and lack of sufficient willing workers is limiting growth, generous unemployment benefits may keep employment lower than it would have been otherwise. But as you may have noticed, right now the economy isn’t booming — again, there are five unemployed workers for every job opening. Cutting off benefits to the unemployed will make them even more desperate for work — but they can’t take jobs that aren’t there.

    Wait: there’s more. One main reason there aren’t enough jobs right now is weak consumer demand. Helping the unemployed, by putting money in the pockets of people who badly need it, helps support consumer spending. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus. And unlike, say, large infrastructure projects, aid to the unemployed creates jobs quickly — while allowing that aid to lapse, which is what is happening right now, is a recipe for even weaker job growth, not in the distant future but over the next few months.

    The odds appear to be against an extension — Republicans seem to have an almost-personal disdain for the unemployed — but it’s a fight worth having.

  32. rikyrah says:

    Mitt Romney vs Bob Forehead

    I’ve pointed this out before. But I trust Rasmussen to poll older white conservative voters who form the base of the GOP, if little else. And I presume their methods and samples are uniform. All of which is a roundabout way of saying that Rasmussen’s latest poll of Obama against a generic Republican shows the generic dude – let’s call him Bob Forehead (in honor of Stamaty) – with a 6 point lead.

    But Rasmussen reveals at the same time that every GOP candidate but one fails to match Bob Forehead even before the shape of the general campaign next year gels. That one is not Romney. Rasmussen’s latest poll of Obama vs Romney reveals that Obama would beat Romney by six points. So that’s a 12 point gap in a conservative-skewed sample between Forehead and Romney. In contrast, Rasmussen now has Gingrich 2 points ahead of Obama.

    Romney underperforms Forehead by 12 points, Gingrich by only four, in the polling group likeliest to capture the most GOP-friendly sample. Romney is losing his electability card. Which is one of the very few cards he has with the base of his own party.

  33. rikyrah says:

    This is what I meant by Newt surging is the worst thing for Willard. See, there’s no dirty little secrets for Newt. Newt is SLIME.SO, if you decide to vote for Newt, you’re already saying that you don’t give a shyt about him being human slime. …


    December 01, 2011 10:40 AM
    The scenario they didn’t see coming
    By Steve Benen

    There are a whole bunch of well-sourced reports this morning on the race for the Republican presidential nomination, and they all pretty much say the same thing: (1) Mitt Romney and his team never expected Newt Gingrich’s recent surge; (2) Romney and his team aren’t sure what to do about it.

    Here’s the L.A. Times’ Doyle McManus, for example.

    The Romney camp is worried.

    By this point in the Republican presidential campaign, Mitt Romney’s backers had hoped that conservative voters would be coalescing around the former Massachusetts governor as the inevitable nominee.

    But that’s not happening. The disappointed partisans of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain haven’t flocked to Romney; they haven’t even trickled. Instead, Romney’s support in national polls declined over the last month. In many surveys, there’s a new front-runner: Newt Gingrich, whose candidacy once looked so moribund that his staff left in droves and he took off for a vacation in the Greek islands.

    Now, Romney and his aides are having to contemplate nightmare scenarios: A Gingrich upset in New Hampshire, a Gingrich victory in South Carolina, a Gingrich endorsement from Sarah Palin — and a bitter, two-man race all the way through the 11 primaries of Super Tuesday on March 6.

    Romney’s staff had planned for a series of potential scenarios, and their expectations surrounding Pawlenty, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain turned out to be right. But Gingrich’s rise was one of those developments the Romney campaign just didn’t see coming.

    The Washington Post reported today, “For this unexpected turn in what has been a steady and sure campaign, the Romney team has no road map. With just five weeks until the Iowa caucuses, the former Massachusetts governor and his advisers are trying to figure out what to do.”

    Politico, meanwhile, that Team Romney is prepping its offensive.

    They know the stakes are higher with five weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses and a challenger who now poses their most substantial threat. They’re preparing a robust, sustained attack that tags the former House speaker as a Washington insider and serial flip-flopper who can’t be trusted with the nation’s economy.

    A senior Romney campaign strategist added that Gingrich has “just gone through so many incarnations.”

    Hmm. The race for the GOP nomination will apparently come down to two candidates, each of whom will accuse the other of being a bigger phony and a more shameless flip-flopper.

    I suspect Democrats will be making plenty of popcorn.

  34. rikyrah says:

    Former Chase Banker Admits His Bank Pushed Minorities Into Subprime Mortgage Loans
    By Pat Garofalo on Dec 1, 2011 at 9:20 am

    One of the most pernicious practices in which the nation’ biggest banks engaged during the lead up to the financial crisis was pushing minority borrowers into subprime loans, even when many of them qualified for prime loans. Wells Fargo had perhaps the most horrifying practices in this department, calling the subprime loans that they pushed in poor, black neighborhoods “ghetto loans.”

    This rampant predatory lending helped inflate the housing bubble; a Center for American Progress investigation actually found huge racial disparities in lending at the big banks that wound up getting bailed out, with minority borrowers far more likely to receive high-priced loans.

    One former banker for Chase — James Theckston — told the New York Times’ Nick Kristof that not only did his bank push minority borrowers into higher-priced loans, but senior executives then tried to cover up the racial disparity in their banks’ lending:

    One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

    These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.

    “The bigwigs of the corporations knew this, but they figured we’re going to make billions out of it, so who cares? The government is going to bail us out. And the problem loans will be out of here, maybe even overseas,” Theckston explained.

    In 2006, Chase made high-price loans to 16.4 percent of white borrowers, while nearly half of black borrowers and more than one-third of Hispanic borrowers received high-price loans. These disparities help explain why, according to a new report from the Center on Responsible Lending, Latinos and blacks are twice as likely to have been impacted by the housing crisis as whites. In fact, “approximately one quarter of all Latino and African-American borrowers have lost their home to foreclosure or are seriously delinquent, compared to just under 12 percent for white borrowers.”

  35. rikyrah says:

    Special Topic

    Bank Backs Off Eviction Of 103-Year-Old Woman, Will Work Out A Deal To Let Her Stay
    By Zaid Jilani on Dec 1, 2011 at 9:15 am

    On Tuesday, 103-year-old Vita Lee and her 83-year-old daughter were due to be evicted from their Atlanta home of 53 years. Yet movers and sheriff’s deputies refused the bank’s request for eviction, leaving her in her home.

    Following the public outcry in support of Lee, “Chase Bank, which services the loan on Hall’s house on Penelope Road that’s owned by Deutsche Bank now said it has no plans to evict Hall or her daughter.” The bank will instead work out an arrangement with the family so they can keep the home.

    Hall credits the movers and deputies who refused to kick her out of her home with the victory: “I want God to bless them and he will. They won’t be able to count the blessing. I know I’m not…I can’t count them one-by-one.”

    • God is sitting on the Throne! He is FIERCE in his awesome wonders!

    • Ametia says:

      Chase Bank employees are teh CRIMINALS. MOFOs are trying to throw a 103 yr old lady out of home, all in the name of MONEY & GREED, GREED, GREED.

      Yep; bassackwards, love money, use people.

      • Robb McDaniel: stated if the sheriff would have evicted her, he was going “Straight to Hell on the Hell Express”! LMAO! But so true!

        How the hell can anyone evict a 104 year old woman and throw her into the street. Pay a house note for 50 years? GTFOOH! Greedy lying heathens!

  36. Ametia says:

    Ain’t this some shyt

    Suit accuses Comcast of discriminating against African American workers, customers
    Group claims workers were required to install defective or bug-infested equipment into residents’ homes

    By Corilyn Shropshire
    Tribune staff reporter
    1:30 p.m. CST, November 29, 2011

    A federal lawsuit filed Monday in Chicago accused Comcast Corp. of discriminating against the African-American employees of its South Side facility and its own customers by requiring workers to install defective or bug-infested equipment into residents’ homes.

    Eleven current and former workers in Comcast Corp.’s South Side facility are seeking class action status claiming that since at least 2005, the media company “has engaged in an ongoing pattern of race discrimination against African American employees” at its South Side location, according to the complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

    The group includes 10 current employees and one former worker who was fired in 2009. The plaintiffs on average, have worked for Comcast for 15 years, the lawsuit says.

    Read on:,0,5684545.story

  37. rikyrah says:

    Apparently The Cause Of Income Inequality Is Poor People Existing
    by Zandar

    That’s this week’s Occupy message from the LA Times, as the “Let’s get the Dirty Effing Hippies” counter-movement rolls on in cities like LA and elsewhere across the country. AEI Junior Randian, Third Class Nick Schulz explains why America’s massive income inequality is reality, and it’s because of you bloody poor people.

    The reason is straightforward. The role that human and social capital plays in helping a person generate income in an advanced economy has increased over the last half a century. And over that same time, the primary institution for inculcating human and social capital has badly weakened.

    Social scientists routinely find that individuals raised in intact families are generally better equipped to thrive in the economy. Today’s 99% is teeming with tens of millions of Americans who were not raised in a stable home environment, and their earnings potential is compromised as a result.

    If you had simply inherited your money from a rich, stable two-parent family (where dad’s on his third wife and mom’s on her second husband), you wouldn’t be poor. Why can’t you peons understand this? Because single women aren’t putting all their babies up for adoption by rich families, you’re doomed to a life of servitude and toil. You might as well get used to it because that’s how the system works, and it’s run by people who will do anything to perpetuate the system.

    Besides, if you hippies are so smart, why haven’t you fixed income inequality yet? Taxation clearly has failed, people have been paying taxes since America started and income inequality still exists, so clearly taxation on the rich cannot be any part of the solution. Immigration can’t work, we’ve been allowing immigrants since the 1600’s and look, income inequality! Failed policies of a worldview relegated to the dustbin of history!

    If only rich people were allowed to have kids, that would fix this problem you know. Now stop using your sexual organs, you silly 99-percenters!

  38. rikyrah says:

    Mitt Romney getting tired of this mess?

    Is Mitt Romney starting to lose his cool?
    There have been some testy exchanges with his fellow candidates in the recent debates, and Romney seemed to get pretty exasperated in this Fox News interview, which drew the never-good for a supposedly strong front-running person description: snippy…

    Romney’s problem is that in fact, the conservative base really isn’t feeling him, especially the opinion leaders online and on talk radio. And while Romney can and probably will wait out the “uggabuggas” and the tea partiers and be the nominee, it’s clear he’s not going to have any more fun doing it than John McCain did in 2008.

  39. rikyrah says:

    Republicans Seek Federal Job Cuts in Rebuttal to Millionaire Tax
    QBy Richard Rubin and Steven Sloan – Nov 30, 2011 11:01 PM CT

    Republicans in the U.S. Senate want to cover the cost of extending a payroll tax cut by freezing federal workers’ pay through 2015 and reducing the federal civilian workforce by 10 percent, putting them at odds with Democrats over how to pay for the $119.6 billion tax break.

    The proposal counters efforts by President Barack Obama and Democrats to expand the payroll tax cut and pay for it by imposing a 3.25 percent surtax on income above $1 million. Procedural votes on the competing proposals could occur in the Senate as early as today, and lawmakers don’t expect either approach to advance because of continued differences between the parties.

    “This is the same argument we’ve been having time after time, just in different contexts,” Representative John Yarmuth, a Kentucky Democrat, said in an interview yesterday.

    A 2 percentage point reduction in the payroll tax for employees expires Dec. 31. Obama has been urging Congress to extend it and expand it. He told an audience in Scranton, Pennsylvania, yesterday the U.S. economy would suffer a “massive blow” if Congress lets it expire.

    “I want to make sure that we do this responsibly,” he said. “So what I’ve said is to pay for this tax cut, we need to ask wealthy Americans to pay their fair share.”

  40. rikyrah says:

    December 01, 2011 8:00 AM

    The devil’s in the payroll details
    By Steve Benen

    The good news is, we’ve reached a point on Capitol Hill at which both parties seem eager to extend the payroll tax break for another year, avoiding a tax increase on over 100 million Americans that economists believe would severely hurt the economy.

    The bad news is, the parties aren’t even close to agreeing on how best to pay for it, and the clock is ticking.

    Democrats have a pretty straightforward financing option: they’ll pay for a payroll tax break benefiting all U.S. workers through a slight surtax on millionaires and billionaires. Yesterday, Republicans presented an alternative.

    Senate Republican leaders introduced a bill that would keep the payroll tax rate at its current level for another year. The cost is roughly $120 billion. Senate Republicans would offset most of the cost by freezing the pay of federal employees through 2015 and gradually reducing the federal work force by 10 percent.

    In addition, Senate Republican leaders would go after “millionaires and billionaires,” not by raising their taxes but by making them ineligible for unemployment compensation and food stamps and increasing their Medicare premiums

    I guess we should be mildly impressed Republicans didn’t make demands related to the Bush tax rates?

    The bulk of the GOP plan is about shifting the burden away from the very wealthy and towards federal workers, who will in turn find their buying power diminished. Republicans are fully comfortable with the notion of sacrifice, just so long as millionaires and billionaires aren’t feeling the pinch.

    Also note, part of the Republican approach is built around cutting the federal workforce by 10%, a favorite goal of Mitt Romney. We already know this is a horrible idea, because we’ve seen the effects in practice.

    The rest of their financing plan is rather silly. The GOP wants to means-test unemployed aid and food stamps, but there are already income eligibility restrictions in place. Republicans want to create a mechanism that allows wealthy Americans to voluntarily write checks to the Treasury, but that already exists, too. It’s a reminder that the GOP, when given a chance to present a serious policy proposal, can’t quite overcome its instinct for gimmicks and nonsense.

    And what about the House? I found this pretty interesting.

    During the closed-door meeting, [House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)] and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) urged rank-and-file members to support the extension, saying it was necessary for a party that historically opposes tax increases, a leadership aide said.

    Cantor told members that “taxes are a Republican issue and you aren’t a Republican if you want to raise taxes on struggling families to fund bigger government,” according to a source in the room.

    In other words, for all the posturing, GOP leaders don’t want to get tagged with having increased taxes on American workers a month from today.

    This should, in theory, give Dems some leverage — Republicans are showing their cards, and they want to make a deal.

  41. rikyrah says:

    Banks Got Bailed Out, We Got Sold Out
    by BooMan
    Wed Nov 30th, 2011 at 11:50:17 PM EST

    We all know the story to one degree or another. The financial sector set up a system that encouraged mortgage initiators to prefer subprime loans to prime loans. They stopped asking for any documentation proving an ability to pay back home loans. They sought out unsavvy borrowers and steered them to riskier loans because they got bigger bonuses that way. The garbage loans were packaged up into derivatives and given deceptively high credit ratings. Then those derivatives were sold to unwitting customers who lost tons of money when they went bad. Meanwhile, the big banks bet against their own financial products even as they marketed them as safe investments. When the house of cards fell, the government had no choice but to save the banks because our economy can’t function without a banking system. Then the bankers took the money and paid themselves big bonuses while millions lost their jobs, their homes, and their retirement security.

    There are a few bankers who are honest about what happened.

    As a regional vice president for Chase Home Finance in southern Florida, [James] Theckston shoveled money at home borrowers. In 2007, his team wrote $2 billion in mortgages, he says. Sometimes those were “no documentation” mortgages.
    “On the application, you don’t put down a job; you don’t show income; you don’t show assets,” he said. “But you still got a nod.”

    “If you had some old bag lady walking down the street and she had a decent credit score, she got a loan,” he added.

    Theckston says that borrowers made harebrained decisions and exaggerated their resources but that bankers were far more culpable — and that all this was driven by pressure from the top.

    “You’ve got somebody making $20,000 buying a $500,000 home, thinking that she’d flip it,” he said. “That was crazy, but the banks put programs together to make those kinds of loans.”

    Especially when mortgages were securitized and sold off to investors, he said, senior bankers turned a blind eye to shortcuts.

    “The bigwigs of the corporations knew this, but they figured we’re going to make billions out of it, so who cares? The government is going to bail us out. And the problem loans will be out of here, maybe even overseas.”

    One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

    These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.

    Theckston, who has a shelf full of awards that he won from Chase, such as “sales manager of the year,” showed me his 2006 performance review. It indicates that 60 percent of his evaluation depended on him increasing high-risk loans.

    In late 2008, when the mortgage market collapsed, Theckston and most of his colleagues were laid off. He says he bears no animus toward Chase, but he does think it is profoundly unfair that troubled banks have been rescued while troubled homeowners have been evicted.

    I kind of regret that I didn’t spend most of the last decade living in a series of multi-hundred thousand dollar homes. I did sell two homes, making a great return both times. That’s the only reason I was ever able to become a blogger. But that was just an accident, or good fortune. It wasn’t an investment. It was life unfolding in a fortuitous way. I never lied about my income to get a mortgage. And I was never stupid enough to get suckered into lousy terms.

    When it came time to save the system, the Fed wound up giving the banks the equivalent of $25,000 for every American citizen. I wonder what would have happened if they had just given the people that $25,000 instead. I suppose we would have all descended into some kind Mad Max war of all-against-all. Most of us would have died and become food for those who survived. Believe me, I understand that the too-big-to-fail concept isn’t some kind of joke. The banks had to be saved. But I don’t see any reason why the people cannot exact their revenge now, at their leisure. Of course, it’s not too late to send us our checks.

  42. rikyrah says:

    December 01, 2011 8:35 AM

    Willard the Wuss

    By Steve Benen

    Mitt Romney’s interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier on Tuesday was a bit of a disaster. The Republican presidential candidate, who generally goes out of his way to avoid anyone challenging him on anything, came across as combative, agitated, and overly defensive.

    It’s one thing, though, to screw up a media appearance. It’s something else to whine about the questions.

    Baier told Bill O’Reilly last night that Romney complained directly to Baier — twice — that the questions were “overly aggressive” and “uncalled for.”

    After having seen the interview with the candidate, there’s just nothing there to complain about. Some of the questions were tough, but there were no cheap shots, and we certainly didn’t see Baier interrupting Romney the way he did with President Obama in March.

    But even if Romney convinced himself that the interview was outrageous, complaining about it is, as Nate Silver put it, “Drudge-siren level stupid.”

    There’s a growing sense that Mitt Romney is, for lack of a better word, a wuss. Even if voters were willing to overlook Romney’s incessant flip-flopping, his inexperience, his affinity for Wall Street elites, and his far-right platform, most Americans just don’t care for candidates who convey weakness.

    And Republicans who can’t handle interviews on Fox News are, I’m afraid, just weak.

    What’s more, notice how this ties into the larger concerns we’ve seen in recent months about Romney’s apparent cowardice: the former governor is afraid to lead, afraid to tell the truth, afraid of core principles, and afraid to be consistent. Now he’s afraid of tough questions, too.

    Once a politician develops a reputation as a coward, it’s awfully tough to repair that image.

    In the meantime, the DNC put together this video yesterday — before we learned about Romney whining to Baier — noting the reactions to Romney’s interview. It’s pretty brutal.

  43. rikyrah says:




    Occupy Protesters Mobilize for Obama’s Visit

    More than 100 Occupy Wall Street protesters marched to a Midtown hotel on Wednesday night to protest a fund-raising event for President Obama.

    Escorted by police vehicles as they helped snarl traffic across the Times Square area, beginning at Bryant Park, the group settled in front of barricades on the southwest corner of 53rd Street and Seventh Avenue, in view of the Sheraton hotel at which Mr. Obama was expected to appear by 9 p.m.

    Demonstrators held signs that leveled some of the Occupy protest’s most pointed criticism to date of the president. “Obama is a corporate puppet,” one said. “War crimes must be stopped, no matter who does them,” read another, beside head shots of President George W. Bush and President Obama.

    One man, wearing a mask of the president’s face and holding a cigar, carried a sign that read, “I sold out!”
    Ben Campbell, 28, one of the march’s organizers, said he hoped to prove to skeptics of the protests that the demonstrators were political critics of equal opportunity.

    “President Obama is coming to town solely to raise money from the richest of the rich,” Mr. Campbell said.

    The 45-minute march from Bryant Park forced shoppers and theatergoers into retreat on what most likely would have been a difficult night to find sidewalk space anyway. At one point, two pedestrians tried to move through the crowd head-on but quickly reconsidered, breaking into a jog in the other direction. “You better not go that way,” one protester told them moments earlier. “You’re going to hit democracy.”

  44. rikyrah says:

    The GOP From Abroad
    Der Spiegel says what few US outlets are prepared to say:

    “Africa is a country. The Taliban rule in Libya. Muslims are terrorists. Immigrants are mostly criminals, Occupy Wall Street protesters are always dirty. And women who claim to have been sexually molested should kindly keep quiet.” Welcome to the wonderful world of the Republican Party. Or rather: to the distorted world of its presidential campaign.

    For months it has coiled through the country like a traveling circus, from debate to debate, from scandal to scandal, contesting the mightiest office in the world — and nothing is ever too unfathomable for them… These eight presidential wannabes are happy enough not only to demolish their own reputations but also that of their party, the once worthy party of Abraham Lincoln. They are also ruining the reputation of the United States. They lie, deceive, scuffle and speak every manner of idiocy. And they expose a political, economic, geographic and historical ignorance compared to which George W. Bush sounds like a scholar. Even the party’s boosters are horrified by the spectacle…

    Platitudes in lieu of programs: in serious times that demand the smartest, these clowns offer blather that is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans. But as with all freak shows, it would be impossible without a stage, the U.S. media, which has been neutered by the demands of political correctness, and a welcoming audience, a party base that seems to have been lobotomized overnight. Notwithstanding the subterranean depths of the primary process, the press and broadcasters proclaim one clown after the next to be the new frontrunner, in predictable news cycles of forty-five days.

  45. Ametia says:

    Guess who’s honest about the danger of extending payroll tax cuts? AEI and Jon Kyl.

    Somehow the Democrats in the Senate are convinced that people will be so happy to see extra money in their paychecks that they won’t really realize what is happening. Oddly enough, the American Enterprise Institute, with whom I never agree, states it pretty clearly.
    From ABC News:
    Payroll Tax Cuts: Will They Bankrupt Social Security?

    Andrew Biggs is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

  46. rikyrah says:

    Gingrich:” I want to be the best paycheck president in American history”

    So far, Newt Gingrich has a solid lead in South Carolina over runner-up Mitt Romney.

    He’s hoping to remain the front-runner and use that support to win the primary and ultimately the election.

    On Tuesday, he hosted a town hall meeting in Newberry to talk more about his issues.

    Gingrich asked his supporters to stand with him to take back their country and guide it toward recovery.

    He spoke about making practical decisions, using principles and core value, three things he says separates him from Barack Obama.

    Gingrich didn’t waste any time picking out the problems, and many of his supporters at the town hall in Newberry all seem to agree.

    Some supporters feel Gingrich is clear about his positions, knows the issues and feels that he has what it takes to turn the country around.

    Gingrich thinks so too. On immigration he’s talked about keeping some in and others out and he says within one year of getting elected he can get a fence built to protect the borders.

    “We’re drafting a bill waiving all federal regulation returning to the world of 1941,” said Gingrich. “I predict to get it done in less than 12 months.”

    On the jobs front, Gingrich says he wants to be an advocate for American products that produce American jobs and he wants to decrease dependency on the federal government.

    “Barack Obama has put more people on food stamps than any president in history,” said Gingrich. “I want to be the best paycheck president in American history.”

    Gingrich says he wants to create a mandatory job training program with businesses for anyone who collects unemployment benefits.

    Gingrich also spoke about shrinking the federal government and putting more power into the hands of the people.

    At the meeting Gingrich took several jabs at president Obama and challenged him to seven, three hour debates, if he wins the nomination.

    • rikyrah says:

      found this comment on Balloon Juice and thought it was on point:

      16.Hunter Gathers – November 30, 2011 | 6:09 pm · Link

      You could have irrigated the entire Gobi Desert for 50 years with the flop sweat Mittens produced during that interview. He’s been running for 5 years now, and his growth as a politician cannot be charted without a magnifying glass.

      Gingrich will beat Mittens because the GOP base knows that Gingrich is the only one with the balls to call Obama a ‘food stamp president’ (i.e. – nigger) to his face. They could give a shit about policy or elect-ability. They want someone who will insult Obama constantly, to his face, hoping that he will get flummoxed or show a flash of anger so they can scream to the heavens about how right they all are, that Obama’s nothing more than a vacant empty suit who’s lost without his teleprompter and/or a stereotypical angry black man. They want an explicitly race based campaign, and Gingrich will give it to them.

  47. Ametia says:

    Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples

    A tiny church in rural Kentucky has voted to ban interracial couples from joining its congregation, pitting members against each other in an argument over race.

    Members at the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Kentucky voted on Sunday on the resolution, which says the church “does not condone interracial marriage.”

    The church member who crafted the resolution, Melvin Thompson, said he is not racist and called the matter an “internal affair.”

    “I am not racist. I will tell you that. I am not prejudiced against any race of people, have never in my lifetime spoke evil about a race,” said Thompson, the church’s former pastor who stepped down earlier this year.

    “That’s what this is being portrayed as, but it is not.”

    Read more:

    • The enemy has his fingers crammed in the eyes of Melvin Thompson. He is sitting in the church and blind as can be. God is not prejudice nor a respecter of persons. Melvin Thompson don’t have to utter an evil word against a race. Thompson’s heart already did!

      The Scripture says: Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

  48. rikyrah says:

    Sharpton Ratings Smash! MSNBC #1 Among Black Viewers
    After much controversy about the hiring of the Rev. Al Sharpton to fill the MSNBC time slot vacated by liberal pundit Cenk Uygur, the new TV ratings are in, and Sharpton’s show is a smash.

    While MSNBC has never been able to trump the conservative juggernaut of Fox News, MSNBC resoundingly beat CNN in all “dayparts,” according to the latest Neilsen ratings. TVNewser reports:

    MSNBC pulled back ahead of CNN this month, reclaiming the #2 spot among the cable news networks across the board: in primetime and in Total Day.

    Sharpton’s show, “PoliticsNation,” is a part of that success. According to the network, the show is 50 percent ahead of CNN’s “John King USA” in the 6 p.m. weekday time slot. According to the network:

    At 6 p.m., “PoliticsNation” hosted by Rev. Al Sharpton beat CNN’s “John King USA” by 50% among total viewers (767,000 vs. 512,000) and by 41% in the demo of A25-54 (171,000 vs. 121,000). This is MSNBC’s best A25-54 6p program delivery since Dec. 2010 and the lowest 6p delivery for CNN since August 2010.

    MSNBC has been rated first among African-American viewers for almost two years straight.

  49. rikyrah says:

    you are on a roll!!!

    this is one of my favorite songs!!

    I get happy whenever it comes on the radio

  50. Good Morning, Ametia, Rikyrah, 3 Chics, Friends & Visitors!

    Ho Ho Ho images

Leave a Reply