On a positive note: I hope everyone enjoyed whatever holidays they choose to celebrate.

“Most of us ‘professionals’ work. We don’t blog all day. We especially don’t blog ad infinitum about everyday crapola”

-

Everyday “crapola”?

You mean like constantly posting food recipes?

-

Patty C 1, December 28, 2008 at 1:37 pm

“I’ll see your lizard, call your deer, and raise you
‘a mousse’.

Happy New Year!

http://travelblog.bcaa.com/wp-content/moose.jpg

MOUSSE AU CHOCOLAT

In top of a double boiler over hot water melt
1/2 lb bittersweet chocolate
3 Tablespoons water (I’ve used espresso…)
1/4 cup sugar
Mix well, remove and cool. Add one at a time
4 egg yolks
mixing well after each addition. Add
1 inch scraped vanilla bean
Fold in
4 stiffly beaten eggs whites
Spoon into individual pots. Refrigerate. To serve, dollop with
1 cup heavy cream, whipped Serves 6-8″

-

Yea Patty. Your comments are so superior to our “every day crapola”.

lol

I think in the Psychiatric community this is what they call “obsessive compulsive disorder”.

Patty seems obsessed with not only stalking Jill and me, but apparently has fabricated in her mind some sort of sordid imaginary relationship Jill and I supposedly have. Guess Patty hasn’t noticed that Jill seldom speaks to me. And when she does it’s barely a word or two. Of course recognizing that would mean Patty would need to be founded in reality instead of her obsession with driving others out of the blog.

Patty clearly is an unbalanced individual in desperate need of therapy.

Cro Magnum Man 1, August 23, 2008 at 5:17 pm

A confused cro magnum — a dangerous thought.

lol, not really JT.

The magnums not the gun kind…. it’s the other kind.

The kind most likely she would have failed to enforce usage of.. given her modus operandi.

I know how anal you can be about typographical errors.

Seriously though and don’t get me wrong here but did you say you were trained as a psychiatrist or needed one?

I bet they just take out their preseciption tablets when they see you coming.

I don’t enjoy being used. I’m not a sponge.

Jill encourages obnoxious, verbally abusive, combative, Neanderthals like ‘BARTLEBEE/CRO MAGNUM MAN/WAYNEBRO’ to stick around. From the first time he showed up and started shooting his mouth off
I specifically invited him to ‘get lost’. But, No, Jill found a new BFF. As you know, he’s gotten run out of here at least twice. FYI, ‘Magnum’ was a reference to his choice of condom – supposedly.
Charming…

True to form, she then has the gall to turn around and climb on her soapbox about the rampant and esclating male abuse of women in the world!

Suddenly, you’d think all women and children are ‘victims’ of some type of abuse – be it sexual, physical, and or emotional.

Many people are, not just women, and to that extent would likely choose not to be in the future. They certainly don’t just sit idly by when they see it right in front of their eyes – unless they approve or are traumatized.

I choose to stand up before I allow someone to mistreat me – or others – including animals.

Just once, rather than be bombarded with statistics or a ‘cut and paste’ lecture, I’d like to hear what Jill has actually done
in support of the causes she feels ’so deeply’ about.

For instance, like helping out with a fund raiser for the local Women’s Shelter, volunteering on a Rape Crisis Line or stocking the community Food Pantry and Animal Shelters etc, like my group of friends and I do quite often?

Something would be good!

Despite what you think you see, I am a physician schooled in many areas, including Psychiatry

The ‘girl’ has ‘issues’ which would well be addressed elsewhere”

Patty C.,
Here’s my problem with what you wrote: It really is over the top name calling, with a “nyah! nyah! nyah!” subtext. It really doesn’t due you credit, nor does it add credibility to your thoughts. I too am a professional and was accredited until I retired. I’ve seen enough of people and the world though to know that just being an accredited professional does not mean self awareness, nor a lack of ignorance. Knowing how often in my own life I’ve been wrong about an issue, or I’ve pre-judged unfairly, gives me little reason to deem myself superior to anyone. That Jill is NOT “a professional, a wife/partner, or a mother” is not relevant to the validity of her point of view. The caustic manner of your attacks upon her lead me to believe that your issues go far deeper than Jill’s comments. However, since we don’t really know each other I would be loath to say that what I surmise has any factual basis. Perhaps after examining your own motivations you might begin to give Jill the same benefit of doubt.

In any event perhaps it is time for you to get beyond this personal animus, which I believe is not only counter-productive for yourself, but is also tedious for the rest of us. While at times I am very appreciative of and interested in your thoughts, this vituperative behavior has become annoying and repetitive.

BTW, I don’t practice psychiatry.

Oh and if I were you, I wouldn’t tell her any personal health info unless you don’t mind it being the subject of casual AND erroneous conversation. Your news will no longer be ‘your’ news.

I wouldn’t mind if your dislike for Jill was focused solely upon her opinions, although I might not agree with your take. You, however, go out of your way to attack her and your attacks fall beyond the pale of argumentative discourse. While at times your comments have shown insight, intelligence and understanding, it seems Jill represents a red flag to the bull inside you. One of the characteristics of a good mental health professional is the ability to be introspective of ones’ own nature. Alas, I have known too many psychiatrists to whom introspection is an anathema and in many instances I have been forced to fire them, or to oppose their views. I would hope that you are not representative of that part of the profession. I would suggest that you try to get some insight into your own behavior in this “crusade.”

Finally, as to your standing as a long time commenter at this site, I would say that your longevity carries you as far as the contents of your writing. In this particular instance you do not do yourself justice, or serve the greater needs of reasoned discussion.

And THAT’S truth you can conquer the universe with.’
___

WB, I was here long before Jill and you. If anyone can be characterized as a troll and an imposter, it is you!!! You have shown up here under at least three different handles and lied about being the reinvented you every single time. You are a classic ‘misfit’ and you know it.

I, on the other hand, am ‘all girl’ and I have had to fight and struggle against a lot odds to achieve my station in life. I am proud of who I am AND what I have achieved.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

p.s. The avatar is an improvement over your photo of yourself.
I always imagined you with something in your mouth-like a pacifier…

“I am saying Jill is a passive-agressive asshole.

Despite what you think you see, I am a physician schooled in many areas, including Psychiatry…”

Sure “lady”, sure.

The AMA usually advises their licensed physicians and psychiatrists to go into public online rooms and declare their status as a physician while simultaneously launching profane attacks on other internet users.

Sure they do.

And sure you do.

I also hold a law degree AND the license

BB/CMM/WB, I challenge you to strive for success. Go for the anatomically impossible!

“Waynebro: You’re weird”

We’re all weird.

Merry Christmas to you too.

“I will not insult anyone who is prepared to actually sit down and discuss an issue rather than simply shout rhetoric or condemnation.”

That’s all she does to me or Jill or a few others in here. We say nothing to her and she just launches off on another tirade about how we’re stinking up the place. All she has ever said to me, and apparently Jill, is shouting rhetoric and condemnation. And she shouts this rhetoric and condemnation without any provocation from us. It may not be what she does to you but its certainly what she does to me and some others in here who she considers inferior to herself.

And I wasn’t asking you to insult her. Just pointing out you said it nicer than she deserved. But make no mistake about it. Nicely put or not, telling someone they’re a snob, whether straight out and openly like I would, or carefully gilded in a more poetic analogy style as yours, it’s still an insult.

Your pinpoint accurate description of “a woman raving about how the uncultured riffraff have gotten into the country club” accurately defines Patty as a pompous, arrogant snob and that sure isn’t any compliment.

Now if you’d just figure out she’s not a woman but a troll posing as a woman who is playing a stupid liberal role in here for her own spurious reasons. Sort of like the right wing version of Stephen Colbert. She’s not here to blog. She’s here to cause trouble, drive off new bloggers and make the left look dumb.

And THAT’S truth you can conquer the universe with.

Rafflaw: Congratulations on your happy news and your new title of Grandfather to add to your credentials. I have a feeling Jack Edward is a very lucky child.

Jill: A special happy holiday wish to you! You have a way of getting me to think about things differently without it being a direct challenge. Thank you.

Patty: Must you be like that here, now? Peace on earth, and good will towards people, even if it means less attention for you. Why don’t you go stand under the mistletoe and see if you get any takers.

Waynebro: You’re weird. I hope you have a wonderful holiday season. Since you seem to like older women, there might be one standing over there under the mistletoe who needs a hug.

I can accept that you do not agree with her politics, or her communication skills. Unfortunatly, being passive aggressive (while irritating) isn’t enough justification to attack someone personally. If you disagree with her points and she refuses to discuss them with you when you make an honest attempt to debate the issues with you then the problem is not yours, it’s hers.

Please don’t take my statement as an insult. It was intended simply to point out that it would be very easy for someone to interpret your comments as elitist.

waynebro,

I will not insult anyone who is prepared to actually sit down and discuss an issue rather than simply shout rhetoric or condemnation.

Vi veri universum vivus vici

“I see a woman raving about how the uncultured riffraff have gotten into the country club.”

That’s right. And more nicely put than She\He deserves.

No licensed Psychiatrist would ever boast publicly of being a Physician while in the same breath calling other people assholes and ignorant while boasting of their own perceived superiority.

You’re definitely no doctor. And you’re obviously no lawyer.

You’re just an ignorant asshole who complains all the time.

“I am saying Jill is a passive-agressive asshole.

Despite what you think you see, I am a physician schooled in many areas, including Psychiatry…”

What we all see is what you show us.

A big mouth bitch who thinks she better than everyone else.

Despite what you think you see, I am a physician schooled in many areas, including Psychiatry…

The ‘girl’ has ‘issues’ which would well be addressed elsewhere.

I can appreciate enjoying an opportunity to discuss such important issues with an educated peer group. But(!) I’ve followed this blog for some time and from what I’ve seen our esteemed host is doing his level best to make this blog accessible and readable by the ‘common man’ (aka, people like me).

That’s what I see from your post.

I lean in another direction, slightly different from my even tempered and open-minded benevolence, and I see a woman raving about how the uncultured riffraff have gotten into the country club.

Which one of those are you shooting for here?

‘We’ ie JT, DW, mespo, Vince Treacy, Vince Caminiti, Mike Spindell, Rcampbell, and no doubt a few others who have either fallen off or I have failed to mention had a nice little Constitutional Law ’salon’ here.

It was quite pleasant.

When Jill showed up everthing took a turn. Most of us ‘professionals’ work. We don’t blog all day. We especially don’t blog ad infinitum about everyday crapola.

Jill apparently has nothing else to do BUT blog all day long
- just like BARTLEBEE/CMM/WAYNEBRO

A match made in heaven… Yeeehaaa!!!

No thanks.

See this is why we can’t have nice things.

If I didn’t believe that, frankly, I would have spent my time over the last year here, elsewhere.

My relevant problem is with posters like JILL – yet another waste of space and time, in my view!

She has nothing else to do ALL DAY but shit and blog on httpjonathanturley.org AND offers nothing of significance either
- except cut and pastes from Terry Gross, Jeff Greenwald and Alternet! Woohoo! Big frickin’ deal!

SHE is NO elegant DW – not by a long shot…!!!

I’d like her to simply ‘drop off’…

…complete waste of time…

Not at you. Shooting at trolls is good clean fun.

MA Skeptic. I’m not sure who your comment was addressed to but I neither acted arrogant or elite. I merely corrected Bummers accusations about Professor Turley calling Bush names or attacking him. (He said similar things yesterday on the BIO thread).

I simply pointed out that Professor Turley never attacks the man, just the position, and pointed out Bummer’s obvious oversights in acknowledging Professor Turley’s criticism’s of some of Obama’s policies to date.

That is really wonderful news! I’m happy for all of you. That is exciting!! YEAH!!!!

Wait, no. I do know.

The party that committed the horrible violations of the constitution and human rights is marginally worse than the party who’s using it for political gain without making any real effort to stop the abuse.

Stop dehumanizing people and treating them as stereotypes and start addressing them as individuals. IF they catch on and respond in kind you might accidently have a conversation.

bummer wrote:

>Are you going to call Obama names for years like you have done to >Bush?

If President Obama proves to be as totally incometent as Bush, showing the same contempt for or Constitution, the laws of the country, and a disregard for its citizens, yes. Until then, as liberals, we tolerantly and compassionately encourage your continued postings. You guys are always good for a laugh and and an insightful glimpse into the abyss that is the right wing.

Have your kids elved themselves yet on Jibjab or elfyourself.com?

“I notice that all the left wing lunatics are adament that 1) bush transgressed on our Constitutional rights for 8 years by expanding the power of the presdincy and 2) obama will reverse all these transgressions!

Well, he isn’t going to and I want to know WHAT Mr. Turley and the other 2 percenters are going to do about it!

Are you going to call Obama names for years like you have done to Bush”

Great. A Christmas troll.

Well “bummer” (aptly named) you really should do your homework before blathering about Professor Turley’s criticism’s of the Bush administrations “policies” and the same for President Obama’s policies and positions. If you had you’d know that Professor Turley has never called Mr Bush “names” nor has he criticized Mr Bush himself. If you listen to him on Countdown and the Maddow show you’ll see that he criticizes the policy, never the man.

You’d also know that he has likewise criticized President Obama’s policies as well, particularly dealing with constitutional issues.

For example, recently he did a major segment on countdown back when President Obama voted to grant the telecoms immunity (HR 6034 if memory serves me correctly). He dedicated an entire segment on Countdown to voicing his shock and disagreement with the President elect on this vote which struck at the heart of our 4th Amendment protections.

If you’re going to be a Christmas troll, at least be an accurate one.

For the 20th week out of the last 20, Fox News Channel ranked as one of the top 5 networks in all of cable last week in prime time (Live+SD).

FNC averaged 2,563,000 Total Viewers for 3th place, while CNN was #21 (1,002,000) and MSNBC was #24 (952,000).

In total day, FNC was #5 (1,455,000), CNN #20 (654,000) and MSNBC #26 (501,000).

I’m curious why you are so worried about 2% of the population. Hardly seems worth any of your guy’s time.

Well, he isn’t going to and I want to know WHAT Mr. Turley and the other 2 percenters are going to do about it!

Are you going to call Obama names for years like you have done to Bush?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………..

For the 20th week out of the last 20, Fox News Channel ranked as one of the top 5 networks in all of cable last week in prime time (Live+SD).

FNC averaged 2,563,000 Total Viewers for 3th place, while CNN was #21 (1,002,000) and MSNBC was #24 (952,000).

In total day, FNC was #5 (1,455,000), CNN #20 (654,000) and MSNBC #26 (501,000).

December 25, 2008

Barack Obama’s campaign has investigated itself, and has found itself to be beyond reproach. Bernie Madoff can only envy the press relations that allow Obama’s self-exoneration to be reported straight.

The Obama report was done by non other than Greg Craig, who is (unbelievably) about to become Obama’s White House Counsel.

Craig, having interviewed Obama aides Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, along with Obama’s good friend Eric Whitaker, concludes that:

The accounts support your statement on December 11, 2008 that you “have never spoken to the Governor on this subject [or] about these issues,” and that you “had no contact with the Governor’s office.”

That’s reassuring, I guess, but how would Valerie Jarrett, for example, be able to testify that Barack Obama never talked to Rod Blagojevich?

What Craig’s report does show is that Obama’s aides had 6 or 7 conversations with Blagojevich or his staffers about the Senate appointment. They told Craig that in these conversations, they never learned that Illinois’ governor was trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat. That could be true, of course.

For now, though, one question lingers. It has been widely reported that Blagojevich cursed the Obama camp and said that they offered “nothing but appreciation” if he appointed their favored candidate. If he didn’t explore the idea of getting a reward in his or his staff’s conversations with Emanuel and others, then how did Blagojevich know that Obama was offering “nothing but appreciation”?

Perhaps that question will be answered when transcripts of the conversations with Emanuel are made public.

Craig’s assertions that the transition team was unaware of Blagojevich’s efforts to sell off Obama’s old seat do not correspond to the transcripts of wiretapped conversations released by the FBI two weeks ago in which the governor repeatedly swears and expresses frustration in his attempts to strike a deal on the Senate seat.

Five-page internal report unlikely to lay to rest the scandal that has overshadowed Obama’s presidential transition

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington

more at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/23/barack-obama-rod-blagojevich-report

Why did Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett communicate with Craig through her lawyer, who the report does not name, and how many conversations did incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have with Blagojevich?

The report says Emanuel urged Blagojevich to tap Jarrett for the Senate seat during “one or two telephone calls.” But in the next paragraph, it refers to “those early conversations with the governor,” and in a conference call unveiling the report, Craig said Emanuel “had a couple of conversations with the governor.”

Equally unclear is what exactly was reviewed in the report that conclude that nothing inappropriate occurs, and whether there were any transition emails or other records covering the Senate seat selection process.

“We asked each individual who we thought might have had some contact or some communication that would be meaningful” to reconstruct “any contacts or communications, and that would include checking cell phone records or emails, and we inquired about that,” Craig said. He added that “we’ve got the information that is required,” and said he didn’t know of any written communications.

Also, the report revealed that prosecutors interviewed Obama, himself, and did so after he had publicly declared he had been unaware of Blagojevich’s alleged plot to sell off the Senate seat Obama had vacated after winning the presidency, raising questions about why they took the unusual step of interviewing the president-elect, what they asked him and whether he was under oath.

I’m a little curious about that myself. Craig never mentions that, which tends to make me think he wasn’t under oath when Fitzgerald questioned him. Presidents almost never testify under oath (recall what happened to the one who did), and I’d bet that Fitzgerald would have kept to that tradition in any initial interview. Even approaching him for the investigation seems unusual, as Politico notes. It seems that Fitzgerald needed further clarification than Obama’s flat denials, and it would be interesting to know why — and why Team Obama never bothered to mention the interview themselves.

Jennifer Rubin has more questions, but says the real test will be for the media. Will they do their jobs and investigate potential abuses of power — or will they just blithely accept Obama’s assurances that there’s nothing to see here and move on? After all, Obama’s legal counsel surely would have released damaging information if there was any to be found … right?

The test now is really one for the MSM. Will they resume their role as adversarial inquisitor, and insist at each press conference that all questions on the topic be answered? Or will they accept the Obama team’s word as gospel — something they would surely never do for other administrations? There is plenty of work to be done and angles to pursue. After the holidays we’ll find out if the media has any intention of doing any of that.