Wow, at least three records.

The largest trade deficit, the largest budget deficit, and oil companies with the largest profits ever.

What dem should we blame?

I mean, they are the minority party without power to even get a hearing room (except for in the basement) because the republicans control everything.

It is a woman's fault if she is raped ... right???

How could the dems let this happen???

I am so friggin sick of this cowardly picking on the minority party.

The republicans are to blame and they should get the shaft in November.

Otherwise ...

I'd like to know how many poor and elderly have died due to not having enough money for heating fuel. Is this being tracked anywhere? Or will it be covered up by the MSM, like the Hurricane Katrina victims?

Since the Bush administration took office we've had:

- Medicare/medicaid debacle, where they lied about the cost, then their plan stunk and old people are not getting their medicines
- Skyrocketing fuel prices for Exxon profits while elderly freeze to death, and then Hugo Chavez gets Mass. 40% discount on LIHEAP fuel, but the Republicans & MSM say we should hate him and "take him out".
- Abramoff Republican-only scandal.
- 9/11 (wasn't Bush the president who was "on guard" protecting us, when 3,000 people died on 9/11, even though he had prior warning? Or was that "some other" party in power?)
- The morphing of Osama Bin Laden/9-11 into Sadaam/Iraq, and the proven lies via the Downing St. memos, which the MSM isn't covering.
- The appointment of 2 rightwing Supreme Court judges, and soon the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.
- Stealing elections via electronic voting machines made by Republican-backing corporations.
- A huge surplus made into a huge deficit, but the Republicans claim that the Dems are "tax and spend".
- Illegal wiretapping.
- 50,000+ soldiers on multiple tours of duty, past their tour of duty.
- Thousands of dead and wounded American soldiers based on a war of lies, causing crisis in military recruitment.

Anything else? I'd be sitting here all night if I keep writing...

btw, I urge everyone to ban watching CNN, ABC, NBC, & CBS news at 6pm. And instead, don't rush home, wait until 7pm and watch Democracy NOW! news. It's on satellite TV @ 7pm. Or watch PBS until the Republicans take it over.

As a test, watch Lou Dobbs on CNN @ 6pm, then switch over to Democracy NOW! @ 7pm and compare them. You will ban the MSM Corporate America news and get addicted to the real news.

Harry Belafonte is on Democracy NOW! news RIGHT NOW!

Big Dan #2-3

It is the fault of the dems ... it is only a conspiracy theory that the republicans did it (neoCon talking point).

"Hey baby ... get the Stockholm Syndrome now ... or you just ain't cool ..."

I am so sick of these lame friggin jerks that blame the minority for the crimes of the majority.

Come November ...

Dredd, how can we vote out the Republicans, when an exit poll says a Democrat won, and the final count on machines said the Republican won? Consistenly, close to 100% of the exit poll vs. final count errors favor 1 party, which makes it not random.

Nice fillibuster by the Dems, btw...

#2 Here's something else to add to the list:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013006J.shtml

2 strikes, 2 out, bases loaded for a Dem fillibuster and here comes the pitch....

OH! CALLED STRIKE LOOKING!!!

The opposition party is no opposition at all.

I would like to know how many of those billions of dollars in profit have been taken out of the pockets of us American taxpayers because their executives are such effective corrupters of our elected representatives in Congress.

Dredd, you have a good analogy: The Dems are like a raped woman. Can't agree with you more! Sorry, I agree with you 99.9% of the other times of everything you've ever written. I blame the Dems for being silent and weak. When the Republicans were the minority, they stuck together and were loud as one voice, albeit a fucked-up, lying voice...

U.S. SENATOR BARBARA BOXER'S STATEMENT ON THE NOMINATION OF SAMUEL L. ALITO TO BE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

January 24, 2006

Today, I am announcing my opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States.

According to Article II of the Constitution, Justices of the Supreme Court may not be appointed by the President without the advice and consent of the United States Senate. So it is our solemn duty to consider each nomination carefully, keeping in mind the interests of the American people.

And this nomination is particularly crucial because the stakes have rarely been so high.

First, consider the context in which this nomination comes before us. The seat that Judge Alito has been nominated for is now held by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who came to the Court in 1981.

For years, Justice O’Connor has provided the tie-breaking vote and a commonsense voice of reason in some of the most important cases to come before the Court, including a woman’s right to choose, civil rights, and freedom of religion.

Second, consider the tumultuous political climate in our nation. President Bush understood that in 2000 when he promised to govern from the center, and be “a uniter, not a divider.” Sadly, this nomination shows that he has forgotten that promise because it is not from the center and it is not uniting the nation.

The right thing to do would have been to give us a justice in the mold of Justice O’Connor, and that is what the president should have done.

Let me be clear: I do not deny Judge Alito's judicial qualifications. He has been a government lawyer and judge for more than 20 years and the American Bar Association rated him well qualified. He is an intelligent and capable person. His family should be proud of him and all Americans should be proud that the American dream was there for the Alito family.

But after reviewing the hearing record and the record of his statements, writings and rulings over the past 24 years, I am convinced that Judge Alito is the wrong person for this job.

I am deeply concerned about how Justice Alito will impact the ability of other families to live the American dream – to be assured of privacy in their homes and their personal lives, to be secure in their neighborhoods, to have fair treatment in the workplace, and to have confidence that the power of the executive branch will be checked.

As I reviewed Judge Alito’s record, I asked whether he will vote to preserve fundamental American liberties and values –

Will Justice Alito vote to uphold Congress’ constitutional power to pass laws to protect Americans’ health, safety, and welfare? Judge Alito’s record says NO.

In the 1996 Rybar case, Judge Alito voted to strike down the federal ban on the transfer or possession of machine guns because he believed it exceeded Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. His 3rd Circuit colleagues sharply criticized his dissent and said that it ran counter to “a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of powers.” And Judge Alito's extremist view has been rejected by six other circuit courts and the Supreme Court. Judge Alito stood alone and failed to protect our families.

In a case concerning worker protection, Judge Alito was again in the minority when he said that federal mine health and safety standards did not apply to a coal processing site. He tried to explain it as just a “technical issue of interpretation.” I fear for the safety of our workers if Judge Alito’s narrow, technical reading of the law should ever prevail.

Will Justice Alito vote to protect the right to privacy, especially a woman’s reproductive freedom? Judge Alito’s record says NO.

We have all heard about Judge Alito’s 1985 job application, in which he wrote that the constitution does not protect the right of a woman to choose. He was given the chance to disavow that position during the hearings – and he refused to do so. He had the chance to say, as Judge Roberts did, that Roe v. Wade is settled law, and he refused.

He had the chance to explain his dissent in the Casey decision, in which he argued that the Pennsylvania spousal notification requirement was not an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion because it would affect only a small number of women, but he refused to back away from his position. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, found the provision to be unconstitutional, and Justice O’Connor, co-writing for the Court, criticized the faulty analysis supported by Judge Alito, saying that “the analysis does not end with the one percent of women” affected ... “it begins there.”

To my mind, Judge Alito’s ominous statements and narrow minded reasoning clearly signal a hostility to women’s rights, and portend a move back toward the dark days when abortion was illegal in many states, and many women died as a result. In the 21st century, it is astounding that a Supreme Court nominee would not view Roe v. Wade as settled law when its fundamental principle – a woman’s right to choose - has been reaffirmed many times since it was decided.

Will Justice Alito vote to protect Americans from unconstitutional searches? Judge Alito’s record says NO.

In Doe v. Groody in 2004, he said a police strip search of a 10-year-old girl was lawful, even though their search warrant didn’t name her. Judge Alito said that even if the warrant did not actually authorize the search of the girl, “a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so . . . ” This casual attitude toward one of our most basic constitutional guarantees – the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches – is almost shocking. As Judge Alito’s own 3rd Circuit Court said regarding warrants, “a particular description is the touchstone of the 4th Amendment.” We certainly do not need Supreme Court justices who do not understand this fundamental constitutional protection.

Will Justice Alito vote to let citizens stop companies from polluting their communities? Judge Alito’s record says NO.

In the Magnesium Elektron case, Judge Alito voted to make it harder for citizens to sue for toxic emissions that violate the Clean Water Act. Fortunately, in another case several years later, the Supreme Court rejected the 3rd Circuit and Alito's narrow reading of the law. Judge Alito doesn’t seem to care about a landmark environmental law.

Will Justice Alito vote to let working women and men have their day in court against employers who discriminate against them? Judge Alito’s record says NO.

In 1997, in the Bray case, Judge Alito was the only judge on the 3rd circuit to say that a hotel employee claiming racial discrimination could not take her case to a jury.

In the Sheridan case, a female employee sued for discrimination, alleging that after she complained about incidents of sexual harassment, she was demoted and marginalized to the point that she was forced to quit. By a vote of 10 to 1, the 3rd Circuit found for the plaintiff. Guess who was the one? Only Judge Alito thought the employee should have to show that discrimination was the “determinative cause” of the employer’s action. Using his standard would make it almost impossible for a woman claiming discrimination in the workplace to get to trial.

Finally, will Justice Alito be independent from the executive branch that appointed him, and be a vote against power grabs by the president? Judge Alito’s record says NO.

As a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, he authored a memo suggesting a new way for the president to encroach on Congress’ lawmaking powers. He said that when the president signs a law, he should make a statement about the law, giving it his own interpretation, whether it was consistent with what Congress had written or not. He wrote that this would “get in the last word on questions of interpretation” of the law. In the hearings, Judge Alito refused to back away from this memo.

When asked whether he believed the president could invade another country, in the absence of an imminent threat, without first getting the approval of the American people, of Congress, Judge Alito refused to rule it out.

When asked if the president had the power to authorize someone to engage in torture, Alito refused to answer.

The administration is now asserting vast powers, including spying on American citizens without seeking warrants – in clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – violating international treaties, and ignoring laws that ban torture. We need justices who will put a check on such overreaching by the executive, not rubberstamp it. Judge Alito’s record and his answers at the hearings raise very serious doubts about his commitment to being a strong check on an ‘imperial president.’

In addition to these substantive matters, I remain concerned about Judge Alito’s answers regarding his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and his failure to recuse himself from the Vanguard case, which he had promised to do.

During the hearings, we all felt great compassion for Mrs. Alito when she became emotional in reaction to the tough questions her husband faced in the Judiciary Committee. Everyone in politics knows how hard it is for families when a loved one is asked tough questions. It is part of a difficult process, and whoever said politics is not for the faint of heart was right.

Emotions have run high during this process. That’s understandable. But I wish the press had focused more on the tears of those who will be affected if Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito and his out-of-the mainstream views prevail.

I worry about the tears of a worker who, having failed to get a promotion because of discrimination, is denied the opportunity to pursue her claim in court.

I worry about the tears of a mentally ill woman who is forced by law to tell her husband that she wants to terminate her pregnancy and is afraid that he will leave her or stop supporting her.

I worry about the tears of a young girl who is strip searched in her own home by police who have no valid warrant.

I worry about the tears of a mentally retarded man, who has been brutally assaulted in his workplace, when his claim of workplace harassment is dismissed by the court simply because his lawyer failed to file a well written brief on his behalf.

These are real cases in which Judge Alito has spoken. Fortunately, he did not prevail in these cases. But if he goes to the Supreme Court, he will have a much more powerful voice - a radical voice that will replace a voice of moderation and balance.

Perhaps the most important statement Judge Alito made during the entire hearing process was when he told the Judiciary Committee that he expects to be the same kind of justice on the Supreme Court as he has been a judge on the Circuit Court.

That is precisely the problem. As a judge, Samuel Alito seemed to approach his cases with an analytical coldness that reflected no concern for the human consequences of his reasoning.

Listen to what he said about a case involving an African-American man convicted of murder by an all white jury in a courtroom where the prosecutors had eliminated all African-American jurors in many previous murder trials as well.

Judge Alito dismissed this evidence of racial bias and said that the jury makeup was no more relevant than the fact that lefthanders have won five of the last six presidential elections. When asked about this analogy during the hearings, he said it “went to the issue of statistics . . . (which) is a branch of mathematics, and there are ways to analyze statistics so that you draw sound conclusions from them . . . . ”

That response would have been appropriate for a college math professor, but it is deeply troubling from a potential Supreme Court justice.

As the great jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in 1881, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience . . . The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics."

What Holmes meant is that the law is a living thing, that those who interpret it must do so with wisdom and humanity, and with an understanding of the consequences of their judgments for the lives of the people they affect.

It is with deep regret that I conclude that Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy lacks this wisdom, humanity and moderation. He is simply too far out of the mainstream in his thinking. His opinions demonstrate neither the independence of mind nor the depth of heart that I believe we need in our Supreme Court justices, particularly at this crucial time in our nation’s history.

That is why I will oppose this nomination.

I have maintain since the rigged electors were accepted Jan 6, 2005, the robots in Congress are one party. If you think this muther fcker is a man of the people then i'm the pope. Vote these bastards out immediately. Sieg heil Bushfck.

"Congratulations Exxon Mobil!"

Well, at least somebody's doing well. Nobody in my neighborhood is. Most people I know don't even want to drive their car very for, because their budget won't allow it.

One would be led to think something stinks here.

Thanks for the wind fall profits.

Sorry about your kids.

These are the same BASTARDS that won't pay for what they did with the EXXON-VALDEZ that ran aground on Prince William Sound so many years ago.They are still in court fighting NOT to have to pay 5 billion. They make me sick! I did the same with them that I did to Walmart, Cut up my credit cards and called to tell them why I am no longer a customer. Might not be much but it makes me feel better that they are not getting ANY of my hard earned dollars! I buy my gas at CITGO.

Bob Bilse #12

I used to spend the week ends driving around in the mountains, exploring back trails and shooting photos. I was always gone somewhere between the coast and the high Sierras.

The last time I went anywhere was early Nov. Before that it was last memorial Day weekend.

The rest of the time I'm stuck at home hoping to fit next weeks fillup into the budget so my wife and Ii can go to work.

These profits are absurd.

Dredd #1, 5, etc. --- I'm afraid you are getting carried away. If anything, the "Stockholm Syndrome" would apply to the enabling Democrats - taking on the characteristics of captors, refusing to escape, allowing their values to be vitiated by oppression and bullying. Am I wrong or am I misunderstanding you?

The nature and quality of Democratic or other "opposition" is a fundamental concern - in 2006 and 2008 and forever. It is a much more vital matter than "blaming" the neocons - which we could (and will) do forever with little in the way of results other than producing a lot of steam. (We know they are dangerous autocratic criminals and must be dealt with. That's a given.) Much more fruitful will be the effort to build an opposition party and not one that smooths the way toward a corporatist state. It is perfectly reasonable and necessary to "blame" those Democrats who participate in the dismantling of our liberties.

I'm sure many BB readers will disagree with me, but I believe that the principles of deregulation and globalization pursued by the DLC and Clinton administration (mainly formulated in the Clinton years by Secretary of Labor Robert Reich) provided the clear invitation and opening for an authoritarian takeover (nothing less) by the 4% Gore Vidal spoke of (and mentioned by Bob Bilse somewhere on BB) as constituting the real constituency of the Republican/Democrat Corporate Party, still evidently pursuing power and wealth at the expense of United States citizens.

If there is not a popular uprising translated into political reality (and facing the facts of economic and political power), all the individual liberty and potential in the United States is gone. Damn well I'm going to blame all those who are to blame and support all those have the character to see and act on the necessity of courageous political action.

I will never go to an exxon station again. The old and the poor can't heat their homes and these people think nothing of it. Nothing but pure greed. I hope it falls back on their company 100 fold. What you sow ye shall reap. (and the sooner the better)

Must..kill...for...OIL...

the invisible hand of the marketplace will sort it all out!

Can you say Skull and Bones

Rockefeller Day!!! Exxon/Standard Oil profits largest ever stock hits $65.00 per share and if Iran can be egged on just a bit more oil price per barrel will be at $100 per barrel oh to have an offshore bank account.

A follows B.

You put a Texas oilman (who was propped up in Texas politics by The Corporatist power structure) into the White House, along with The CEO of Halliburton, and the above headlines are what is to be expected. It, simply, follows. It was JOB ONE for them, from the start, and they're getting it done. There is no other way this could've turned out! It's what they're supposed to do!

Big Oil, Halliburton, and others of their ilk, are doing quite well, thanks to those of you who......well, I like to return to one of my favorite people to quote:

“As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: 'you liberate a city by destroying it'. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.” - Gore Vidal.

JJ #23

J J you must close off your bold blocks.

I just did it for you.

Good for Exxon! I'd love to work for them someday!

Go Paul! get that Vette suped up on the lives of a few dozen poor! who cares lives are being lost, right? you get new paint on your toy!

This is no suprise.. Bush is from a big oil background.. oil prices spike despite surplusses.. tax dollars go to supplant costs for the most profitable companies in the world, and morons like Paul think it's great his HIGHER tax burden should go to uber-rich folks.. why? cause his brain is stuck in "ooohh.. I might be up there some day" mode.. Moron.. and typical..

And Dredd, stop excusing Dems.. stop trying to put the blame anywhere but where it belongs. True, the Dem leaders don't have a lot of "power", but they sure the fuck aren't doing much with the power they DO have. Look over the Fillibuster point.. they all turned pussy, right? They shouldn't be held accountable for their LACK OF ACTION? Gimme a break.. The -blame- is on Americans.. for being pathetic and small and greedy and ignorant, and for letting corperate america fuck them over like this. People vote against their own best interests because of greed, and the hope to climb out from under their bad circumstances (or, people like Paul who are "doing well" but think it's "great" to kill people for profits).

Fat, lazy, greedy, ignorant people.. that's the base in America. That's the base that votes Repub on the promise of "lower taxes" despite that never really happening.. and despite the people wanting "lower taxes" becasue they feel it's their money, but voting for a party that takes THEIR MONEY and gives it to the RICH.. Typical Republicans are morons.. Typical Democrats are appologists.. Americans are to blame because it's more convienent to ignore the truth to have more stuff today than to give a shit about anyone or anything outside their house.

Paul, you are working for them by supporting the crooks in power. You just aren't getting paid, and never will.

Savantster #27

You said "And Dredd, stop excusing Dems.. stop trying to put the blame anywhere but where it belongs."

Ok.

54 Republicans voted for Alito, after a Republican nominated him. One Republican voted against him.

All 8 democrats on the committee voted not to send him to the floor for a vote, and all 10 Republicans voted for Alito.

40 or 41 Democrats voted against Alito, and only 4 voted for him.

You say dems have power, but that is not so. The Republicans promised to remove the filibuster forever. Remember the filibuster worked on the patriot act so far, so it is useful not to loose it.

Now, you want to NOT blame the majority when the minority can't even get meeting rooms in the capitol bldg meeting rooms because the Republicans that have ALL the power won't let them so they meet in the basement?

Wow ... if I were a democratic senator I think I would detect and unjustified atmosphere.

There are a few things worth mentioning about this. Stock prices are basically the same as a year ago, so profits do not indicate consumer confidence. Production is down from last year around 3%, after figuring Katrina losses it is still down over 1%. They are using profits to buy back stock and procure oil, not investing in alternative sources of energy, which seems to me to be an indicator of the whole sector's opinion on solving what will be a huge problem one day.

What does turn off bold blocks mean? Can explain respectfully.

What does turn off bold blocks mean? Can explain respectfully.

JJ...I think what happens is someone posts in 'bold', somewhere there is a feature that enables 'bold' text. Should the poster fail to turn off the 'bold' feature (where ever it is), all the future posts will come out bold. Other people, like Dredd, know how to turn this off if someone leaves it on. If it is left on, all subsequent posts come out 'bold' until someone fixes it. I may be wrong and will stand corrected by someone more knowledgible than me. M4

I want to remain anonymous, but here is an idea for your viewers to mount a project to bring gas prices down. A sustained calling campaign will keep this issue to the forefront. If you had 20 callers a day, 5 days a week, for 4 weeks, you would need 400 volunteers. Or you can adjust it smaller or larger as desired. Each caller on their assigned day, would simply ask: why is Exxon gouging people at the gas pump? ExxonMobil's corporate headquarters telephone number in Irving Texas is 972-444-1000.

I want to remain anonymous, but here is an idea for your viewers to mount a project to bring gas prices down. A sustained calling campaign will keep this issue to the forefront. If you had 20 callers a day, 5 days a week, for 4 weeks, you would need 400 volunteers. Or you can adjust it smaller or larger as desired. Each caller on their assigned day, would simply ask: why is Exxon gouging people at the gas pump? ExxonMobil's corporate headquarters telephone number in Irving Texas is 972-444-1000.

I am very interested this theme, with attention I will read following informations.

government slapped microsoft for getting to big and being a bigger corparate for them, its obvious why they arent slapping oil companies. They are slowly draining the middle class so they can't hold any place in the financial world, we are pretty much slaves, except they have to keep it civil because they know what happened before. Government would genocide their own citizens before being humane.