Latest Comments by elkpark

elkpark Pro 92,389 Views

Joined Oct 21, '03. Posts: 16,440 (55% Liked) Likes: 39,389

Sorted By Last Comment (Max 500)
  • 1
  • 2

    Quote from Lil Nel
    And this is how the extreme right-wing of the GOP responds when backed into a corner: They accuse students of being paid "actors."


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.71bfdece67cd


    The students are rallying at the FL State House today, and I hope they put of fear of (insert your choice) into lawmakers there. The rule of the NRA is over.
    Don't hold your breath.

    Guns don't kill people, porn kills people.

    Florida House refuses to debate guns, but declares porn dangerous

  • 6

    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    Trump can pretend all be wants. The fact that he spent years spreading a lie intended to challenge the legitimacy of the first black president reveals his fundamental beliefs.
    And there's a lot more history than just that:

    Opinion | Donald Trump's Racism: The Definitive List - The New York Times

  • 7
    Heylove, RockinNurse2018, MJ-ED, and 4 others like this.

    My paycheck, as another poster already noted, and going home at the end of the day.

  • 4
    subee, Simonesays, vintage_RN, and 1 other like this.

    Quote from Sour Lemon
    I am also baffled. If it's about health and numbers, you could justify this type of service for almost any type of crime.
    Let me give you keys and directions to my home so you can rob it. I'll let you know when I'll be out so we don't encounter each other, because that could be unsafe for us both. I'll tell you where I keep my valuables, too ...so you don't have to ransack the house and destroy the stuff you're not interested in taking. Oh! And I'll lock up my dog because he might bite you and the wound could get infected. That would be just awful.
    I'm so glad I won't have to pay to change my locks, or replace my front door, or replace my broken windows. It's a win-win!
    There are some pamphlets about turning your life around set out on the kitchen table. No pressure, though!
    This is another example of the basic conflict between substance abuse as an illness vs. substance abuse as a crime. The official position of the healthcare community around the world, inc. the US, is that it's an illness. Not to mention the fact that we've been treating it as a crime for generations now in the US, and are getting exactly nowhere with that. But keep on feeling superior and outraged about any attempts to mitigate the harm and treat the illness.

  • 2

    Quote from itsybitsy
    Which is why, in previous threads, I have asked how long an investigation should go on despite not finding anything to indict on. There is no good answer for that, as that is just what our investigatory arms will have to decide, but some suggested 3 years, as the investigation on Bill Clinton took about that same amount of time.
    The Bill Clinton investigation lasted five years, from the opening of the Whitewater investigation in January 1994 until the beginning of his impeachment trial in January of 1999. I'm comfortable with that as a reasonable amount of time to spend on investigating the Trump administration. Since the Republicans were willing to keep funding the Whitewater investigation indefinitely, for as long as it took to finally find something they could use against President Clinton, something that had absolutely nothing to do with the original purpose of the investigation, I'm sure they are also fine with that being the standard for the investigation of the Trump administration.

    Clinton impeachment timeline | US news | The Guardian

  • 4

    Quote from itsybitsy
    All of these things need to be voted on by Congress. These are things Trump WANTS and what a large majority of his base WANTS.
    Yes, and "a large majority of his base" is a small percentage of the actual adult population of the US. I realize it's hard for the Kool-aid drinkers to remember that fact (or accept it).

  • 1
    toomuchbaloney likes this.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    Oh really? Please, tell me when it started.

    Because it seems you have inconsistencies within your own circle, as MuroRN believes it was always about the "campaign staff as whole", the purpose of the investigation.
    I suppose it's a question of what, specifically, people mean when they refer to "the investigation." There are several different investigations going on, that have started at different times, with different foci. When I say "the original investigation," I'm referring to the investigation started by the FBI into the DNC hacking and Russian interference in the election. The FBI started that investigation in July of 2016. Lots has happened and that investigation and the subsequent related investigations have gone in some interesting directions since then.

    Politico has a nice timeline: The definitive Trump-Russia timeline of events - POLITICO

  • 3

    Quote from itsybitsy
    But all of the things occurring around him, it makes me think he was either an independent or a Republican. I think it was highly unlikely he was a Democrat at that time. Now? I might think he would be a Democrat, mostly by peer pressure.
    From the CNN article I linked above:

    Even before he became a civil rights leader, King was thinking deeply of economics, not just race.

    In a letter familiar to scholars, King tells his future wife, Coretta Scott, that he welcomes the day when "there will be a nationalization of industry ... and a better distribution of wealth."

    In the letter, dated July 18, 1952, King writes:

    "I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic."


    Remind me of when the Republican party embraced socialism? Was that back in the 1950s and '60s??

    Quote from itsybitsy
    If their Presidencies weren't legitimate, why are/were they Presidents? Obviously there is a process, that is followed EVERY election. It's painful to watch many people be happy-go-lucky when their candidate wins, but suddenly claim the electoral college and other voting processes are illegitimate when their candidate loses.
    Explain that to all the right-wing "birthers" who've spent the last decade or so claiming that Obama's presidency was illegitimate. Apparently, we're allowed to think whatever we like about the legitimacy of individual presidents. Whether you like to admit it or not, there are legitimate questions about the presidencies of Bush and Trump, unlike the objections to Obama's presidency, which are pure and simple racism.

  • 3

    Quote from itsybitsy
    And John Lewis is not MLK Jr. He can act like he would know what MLK Jr. would stand for, but it will never be legitimized. Just read about MLK Jr.'s family, they DON'T think the same way Lewis does, in what MLK Jr. would have done/thought, so you can't speak for someone else, because you will never truly know.
    Which means the same is true of Dr. King's family -- they can't truly know what he would think, and can't speak for him any more that Rep. Lewis can.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    Well, I guess HuffPost isn't the most though in checking their interviewees claims, considering a quick search revealed Lewis boycotted George W Bush's inauguration too. He also said the same thing about Bush, that Lewis did not think Bush was the "true elected President", which is what he said about Trump. Seems like he just doesn't like Republican Presidents...
    It's not a matter of "liking" Republican presidents or not. Both Bush and Trump were put in office under a cloud of suspicion. Bush was not elected, he was placed in office by the Republicans on the Supreme Court in a blatantly partisan decision. Trump lost the popular vote by a large margin but squeaked by in the Electoral College in an election that was already known during the campaign to have been influenced to some degree by outside actors. Trump may not like it, but there will always be questions about the legitimacy of his presidency, more so each day as more information comes out about the degree to which the Russians interfered in the election.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    Speaking of Republicans, there is a large amount of evidence MLK Jr. was a Republican.
    No, there isn't, although many in the GOP cling to this fabrication.

    Indeed, the Internet is replete with declarations from conservative groups that King was a brethren Republican. The claim rests, in large part, on comments made at least eight years ago by Alveda C. King, the civil rights leader's niece.

    "My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during his lifetime was a Republican," Alveda King said in a video posted on the National Black Republican Association website.

    Her statement has been dismissed by other members of King's family. "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican," Martin Luther King III, the civil rights leader's son, told The Associated Press in 2008. "He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican."

    And on the same day Van Cleave made his statement, Bernice King, the civil rights leader's daughter, said in a radio interview that her father was "never" a member of the Republican Party.

    The video of Alveda King's comments has been circulating for years. But in 2013, she retracted her claim in an op-ed for Newsmax.com, a conservative news website. King wrote that she regrets "having said to a group of peers that my Uncle M. L. (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) was a Republican. I said that without having all the facts."

    Alveda King wrote that her uncle was "an independent, who in his own words tended to vote Democrat."


    Van Cleave wrongly says Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican | PolitiFact Virginia

    And more documentation:

    No, Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Republican - but here's what he had to say about them – ThinkProgress

    Debunking the biggest myths about MLK - CNN

    Houston group says Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican | PolitiFact Texas

  • 5
    Kitiger, not.done.yet, Emergent, and 2 others like this.

    It's not really a question of "should." You are welcome to try it if you want to, but you're unlikely to be successful. Few new grads have anything to offer employers that sets them apart from and makes them more valuable than any other new grad. They require long, expensive orientation and are a financial liability to the employer for the first 1-2 years. If a new grad wants to try to make a case that s/he should get more money than a particular employer's standards "new grad" rate, s/he is likely to get passed over for the next new grad in line.

  • 1
    toomuchbaloney likes this.

    Quote from Lil Nel
    Oh, I hope so! That means he will honor the 16 women that he has sexually assaulted/harassed.
    Nah, he claims he he's never met some of them, even though there are photos that indicate otherwise.

  • 1
    toomuchbaloney likes this.

    Quote from Lil Nel
    I think Mueller has very cleverly backed Trump into a corner. We shall see how he emerges from this from this, but as this analysis points out, he will have to do something.

    But honestly, when will he have the time? Did you hear/read about the second porn star to allegedly have an affair with the Bum? These porn stars are falling out of the Trump clown car almost as fast as Russians!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.51a6c5767cb7
    Bannon claims, in Wolff's book, that there were a lot more than the ones we know about ...

    Bannon: Trump's lawyer 'took care' of 'a hundred' women during campaign - BI

  • 4

    Quote from Lil Nel
    How do you say Putin's puppet in Russian?
    Путина марионетка

  • 3
    BCgradnurse, Lil Nel, and herring_RN like this.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    Well, for one, we are going to build a great, magnificent wall, to deter illegal aliens from interfering in our elections. We will instate a tougher vetting process for those coming into the U.S. We will enact voter ID laws, so that only citizens of each county are voting, once. The GEOTUS is doing a lot to protect the U.S. elections.

    But I'm willing to bet you don't support any of those efforts.
    None of those issues are actually threats to our elections, other than in the fever swamps of the far right. The real threat, Russian interference, he continues to deny and ignore.


close