Gonzales resigns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/washington/27cnd-gonzales.html?_r=2&oref=login&oref=slogin

Likely next step: Because Congress is not in session, Bush can make a "recess appointment" that allows him to put whoever he wants in the job without being confirmed by the Senate. Funny how so many resignations in the Bush admin have happened while the Senate is on vacation.

Likely person to be the next Attorney General: Michael Chertoff - also the current Secretary of Homeland Security, the person mainly responsible for the federal government's Katrina response, and the former supervisor of Michael "Heckuva Job" Brown.

Awesome.

I doubt many here read O'Reillys talking points but its a pretty good read on the subject.

I think of this as a SSDD kind of move... another one leaving now so they can get a Presidential pardon before Bush leaves office. Someone can spend a lot of money prosecuting so it can all be pardoned off at the end. Joy.

Go post a pointer to them, Tahoe. I assume you're talking O'Reilly Factor, but I don't find a transcript at:

http://www.foxnews.com/column_archive/0,2976,19,00.html

His last few have been about illegal immigration and unwillingness of local law enforcement to enforce federal laws regarding it.

I read it and when i went back I got the error thing. I should have said that, but it listed all these peeps who got positions...cronyism was the title,iirc. I couldn't believe how many unqualifie, ill-equipped peeps he appointed. Bush calls it loyalty. Its pretty fucking stupid, it was it is. Some of these peeps had ZERO experience in positions they rec'd.

There is kind of a racket going on right now with law schools who are either non-accredited or barely accredited, and their entire purpose is to train new activist litigators in conservative political causes. For instance, Ann Arbor has the Ave Maria school of law, which is funded by former Domino's Pizza head honcho Tom Monaghan, and that trains lawyers to take up abortion cases. And pretty surprisingly, a lot of the people in the Justice Department came out of schools like those.

EDIT: and the really remarkable part about that is the turnover rate in the DoJ. Usually in the Justice Department, a lot of political appointees from previous administrations get to stick around, even if they were appointed by a President of the opposing party. There are people still in there who were brought in during the Gerald Ford years. It's just too costly to get rid of those people, even if they tend to work against you, because their expertise is way too valuable. But a ton of old appointees from previous administrations either quit or were fired during the "Bush 43" years, so it's going to be a long time before the Justice Department regains some of the credibility they've lost.

you should read into ave maria. bizarre stuff. its not in ann arbor anymore. monaghan established a town in florida, also called ave maria, i believe. pretty strange. im not sure its "barely accredited", though. its staffed mostly by Uof D's old administration from the 90's, and i think it would have been considered michigan's second or third best law school if it were in the state. not sure on that though.

Regent University is the biggie, and here's why it's not surprising:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/

Ave Maria is still in the bottom 25% of law schools nationwide, at least if you go by the U.S. News & World Report view of the universe:

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_tier4_brief.php

Of course, the U.S. News & World Report view of the universe has many critics, so many schools don't participate. Cooley Law School, right around the corner for manyof us, now has its own ranking system. Wayne State got screwed by these folks recently, so they show up as Tier 3/4, when most of the alternative law school rankings place them in the upper half.

Check out http://www.avewatch.org for sad amusement about their latest issues. They're going to be shitcanned in most rankings as long as Monaghan still runs it.

There is kind of a racket going on right now with law schools who are either non-accredited or barely accredited, and their entire purpose is to train new activist litigators in conservative political causes. For instance, Ann Arbor has the Ave Maria school of law, which is funded by former Domino's Pizza head honcho Tom Monaghan, and that trains lawyers to take up abortion cases. And pretty surprisingly, a lot of the people in the Justice Department came out of schools like those.

EDIT: and the really remarkable part about that is the turnover rate in the DoJ. Usually in the Justice Department, a lot of political appointees from previous administrations get to stick around, even if they were appointed by a President of the opposing party. There are people still in there who were brought in during the Gerald Ford years. It's just too costly to get rid of those people, even if they tend to work against you, because their expertise is way too valuable. But a ton of old appointees from previous administrations either quit or were fired during the "Bush 43" years, so it's going to be a long time before the Justice Department regains some of the credibility they've lost.


There are more than 300 Pat Robertson (it might be Jerry Falwell) School of Law graduates in the Bush Administration. Gee, couldn't tell could ya'? The pitiful thing is that as the "Bewildered Herd" contiunues watching "American Idol", "NASCAR" and "Desperate Housewives" they'd probably vote that corn-pone, hang dog, Alfred E. Newman look-a-like schlub to a 3rd term. The wheels are coming off the bus boys. Hang on.

I try not to simply compare governments of different countries as better or worse (well not including dictatorships or the like) and even though I live in Spain I don't consider myself at ALL a europhile (it was just where life took me and a personal decision on my part having nothing to do with countries or governments). However I do find it ironic that I live in a country whose government now is doing everything possible to get the last traces of control and/or funding away from the Catholic Church (not that there were many left anymore), a decision here that's supported by the majority of the population, while back at home there are so many groups of people trying to blur the line between church and state.

Again, not comparing neither the cultures, countries or the governments themselves; this is just a personal observation (and therefore subject also being totally wrong or completely asinine).

Speaking of religious influence in the government, here's an article by Slate writer Christopher Hitchens that does a good job of explaining the intricacies of the Iraq war. I figure Zip Goshboots would want to read this, he's a Hitchens fan.

http://slate.com/id/2172904/


Which Iraq War Do You Want To End?
We're fighting at least three of them.
By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Monday, Aug. 27, 2007, at 4:56 PM ET

When people say that they want to end the war in Iraq, I always want to ask them which war they mean. There are currently at least three wars, along with several subconflicts, being fought on Iraqi soil. The first, tragically, is the battle for mastery between Sunni and Shiite. The second is the campaign to isolate and defeat al-Qaida in Mesopotamia. The third is the struggle of Iraq's Kurdish minority to defend and consolidate its regional government in the north.

Taking these in reverse order, we can point to Kurdistan as the most outstanding success of the past four years, with its economically flourishing provinces run along broadly secular lines, and with the old Kurd-on-Kurd civil war now in real abeyance for almost a decade (which shows that people can and do come to their senses). The Kurds are also active in the center of the country; their ministers of foreign affairs and water are universally regarded as the most capable and intelligent, and they have also been secure enough to lend units of their own peshmerga forces to the coalition's efforts in Baghdad, Fallujah, and elsewhere. The forces of AQM do not care to tackle this real people's army, preferring to concentrate their attacks on the defenseless, and although there have been truck-bomb attacks in the Kurdish capital of Erbil and in the still-disputed city of Kirkuk, these are so far pinprick events. (Appalling to record, though, a recent and much-disputed incident near Erbil airport has led to a temporary suspension of some international flights to Kurdistan.)

On the second front, everything I hear by e-mail from soldiers in Anbar province and some well-attested other reports suggest (see my Slate column of Aug. 13) that the venomous rabble of foreign murderers and local psychopaths that goes to make up AQM has insanely overplayed its hand, lost all hope of local support, and is becoming even more vicious as its cadres are defeated. This means that there is also political separation and polarization within the Sunni Arab community. A recent wire-service report even suggested that the underground remnant of the Baath Party has broken off relations with AQM. It must say something when even Saddam's old goons find themselves repelled by anybody's tactics. One must not declare victory too soon, but if the United States has in fact succeeded in not only smashing but discrediting al-Qaida in a major Arab and Muslim country, that must count as a historic achievement.

The third area of combat is the most depressing. The Maliki government, in my opinion, showed its irredeemably sectarian character a long time ago by the dirty manner in which it carried out the execution of Saddam Hussein. Maliki himself has recently attacked the coalition forces for carrying out raids in Shiite districts of Baghdad. Perhaps he ought to be told that he is not being lent our armed forces for the purpose of installing Shiite power. The secular parties have walked out of his shaky Cabinet, and it is on these forces that our moral support should be concentrated. Let's put it like this: An American family that lost a son or a daughter in the defense of free Kurdistan or in the struggle against AQM could console itself that the death was in a worthwhile cause. The same could not be said for a soldier who fell in some murky street engagement, shot in the back by a uniformed policeman who was doing double duty as a member of a theocratic Shiite militia.

In Basra and elsewhere, these Shiite militias replicate the division among the Sunnis by fighting among themselves and by the degree to which they do or do not reflect the interference of Iran in Iraqi affairs. This subconflict—or these subconflicts—makes it hard to accept the proposal made by some U.S. politicians and pundits to the effect that the country should be partitioned along ethnic and religious lines. In that event, we would quite probably not end up with three neatly demarcated mini-states, one each in a three-way split among Sunni Arab, Shiite, and Kurd. Instead, there could be partitions within the partition, with Iran and Saudi Arabia becoming patrons of their favorite proxies and, in the meantime, a huge impetus given to the "cleansing" of hitherto-mixed cities and provinces. (This, by the way, as I never tire of saying, is what would have happened to Iraq when Saddam's regime collapsed and the country became prey to neighboring states and to the consequences of 30 years of "divide and rule" politics.)

The ability to distinguish among these different definitions of the "war" is what ought to define the difference between a serious politician and a political opportunist, both in Iraq and in America. The obliteration of political life and civil society by Saddam Hussein's fascism has meant that most of the successor political figures are paltry (and the Kurdish exception to this exactly proves the point: Kurdistan escaped from Baathist control a full decade before the rest of Iraq did). It will take a good while before any plausible nonsectarian figures can emerge from the wasteland and also brave the climate of murder and intimidation that the forces of the last dictatorship, and the would-be enforcers of an even worse future one, have created. Meanwhile, it is all very well for Sens. Clinton and Levin to denounce the Maliki government and to say that he and his Dawa Party colleagues are not worth fighting for. But what do they say about the other two wars? Sen. Clinton in particular has said several times in the past that we cannot, for example, abandon the Kurds as we once did before. Should she not be asked if this is still her view? And did I miss what Sen. Levin had to say about the battle against AQM? The next election is rightly going to be fought, to a considerable extent, over the question of Iraq. Answers to these questions about that question are a test of seriousness that all voters should be keeping in mind.

The only real complaint I have with this article is that it paints the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a secret Shiite supremacist, when in reality Nouri al-Maliki is actually Kurdish. There is definitely a whammy being perpetrated by people saying that the current Iraqi government is ineffective because the Prime Minister is a Shiite partisan. The truth is that while al-Maliki, like all politicians, is a tool of powerful interests, he's actually a secular Kurd with no personal stake in handing the country over to the Shiites.

real good read. i'd like for the author to expound upon his comments re: AQ in iraq. he seems to overstate our effect, imo, as im pretty sure AQ wasnt exactly embraced in iraq before the war, either. but im talking about by the gov, and not the people, so maybe im off here.

b-diddy:

good point - all it seems like to me is that the gun battles and IEDs that are happening all over Iraq are still happening, they're just losing their al-Qaeda flavor. Which is a good thing, but when you get right down to it, it's good in mostly an academic sense. It probably does not matter to the people of Iraq whether they are being shot at and kidnapped by al-Qaeda or by Al Green.

http://www.wwj.com/pages/858174.php?contentType=4&contentId=839982


Mark Gaffney: 'Right to Work' Movement a Distraction, Will Not Solve Michigan's Problems

The right-to-work argument that was spelled out by the Mackinac Center in the Monday Daily Dash last week was nothing more than a distraction launched by out of state, right-wing extremists who want to do nothing more in Michigan than advance their political agendas.

When you take a look at the facts about right-to-work instead of the “Mackinac Myths” you’ll find that by no means is it the magic economic elixir that will cure Michigan of all that ails it as some would want us to believe. It’s just more Washington, D.C., Tom DeLay spin and is the recipe to turn Michigan more like Mississippi than economic turn around.
Fact: in July, the state that suffered the most job loss was not Michigan, but North Carolina – a Right to Work state. For that same time period, The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the states with the biggest month-to-month increases in jobs were Texas, Maryland , New York and South Carolina . Neither New York nor Maryland have RTW laws, so they do not suffer from what the Mackinac Center called “the significant high cost of labor.”

The fact of the matter is that those states that have RTW laws do have a consistently lower quality of life than non-RTW states. RTW states have lower median household incomes, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by about $5,900. But the cuts go deeper than just income; according to the U.S. Census, RTW states consistently have a higher poverty rate, a higher rate of population without healthcare, and even a higher infant mortality rate! According to the National Education Association, RTW state even spends over $2,000 less on each pupil. From pocketbooks to classrooms, the negative effects of RTW laws are felt.

The Mackinac Center also would lead us to believe that unions can use membership dues to advance political causes by contributing to candidates, when in reality, unions have not been able to donate to candidates using “compulsory dues” money since 1994. Yet another distraction.

So who’s responsible for the so-called right-to-work movement? There’s not a lot of support for it amongst Michigan business leadership, the vice president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce was recently quoted as saying that he was concerned that “Michigan may be turned into a playground for some out of state interests with a national agenda.” He fears they may parachute into Michigan and then get out of town and not have to live to with consequences. Even L. Brooks Pattterson, who the Mackinac Center listed as a supporter has publicly said that he “wouldn’t champion any effort to get RTW on the (statewide) ballot.”
It’s the Washington based National Right to Work Committee, supported by such right-wing extremists as Grover Norquist, Tom Delay, the late Jerry Falwell, Wal-Mart and union busting attorneys, that is trying to impose their will on Michigan.

So as you think about this issue, be sure to look past the weapons of mass distraction of the far right-wing and examine the facts: RTW would bring lower wages and quality of life without really giving Michigan any real advantage as we fight for jobs in the current global economic climate.
As University of Central Oklahoma economics professor Mickey Hepner recently said: “We’re competing against Mexico and China and Honduras and India for labor, and frankly, no matter how far labor costs go down (in the USA), it’s still going to be cheaper to produce things over there than here in Oklahoma. Right-to-work is not going to stop that globalization process.”

It's a fact: right to work states are the world capitals of the $8.00 an hour job. Right to work lowers wages, or keeps them flat. It does bring in more jobs that are shit to begin with, pay little and offer no benefits. The right wing nutbags have been demonizing unions for years now. They have no decency. They have, at long last, no sense of decency left.

I don't like the idea of Michigan being a "right-to-work" state, and I don't see any need to pass a law like this now that the average chief executive makes about 364 times as much as the average worker. (http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/08/27/daily26.html?ana=from_rss) The corporate bottom line has had a free ride for a few years now, I think it's time for some help to come along for the working people and balance things out.

What do you think of Michigan's "Prevailing Wage Law", which requires all state construction projects to pay workers a rate equal to labor union wages? At a time when our State faces a $1 billion budget deficit and is considering increasing income taxes to balance the budget, is this a cost we can continue to afford?

So how much am I paying that person to stand there holding the slow/stop sign that turns?

What do you think of Michigan's "Prevailing Wage Law", which requires all state construction projects to pay workers a rate equal to labor union wages? At a time when our State faces a $1 billion budget deficit and is considering increasing income taxes to balance the budget, is this a cost we can continue to afford?

Actually I like the prevailing wage laws...and let me explain why.

Don't get me started on state construction projects - they are a racket. You know it and I know it. We all know why our roads and bridges fall apart every other year - they were built that way, so there will always be another fat government construction contract to be handed out to the county commissioner's brother-in-law every other year. That's what's making us broke - the fact that there are thousands of crooked contractors running around, cutting corners, trying to find ways of screwing the government (that is, you and I) out of tax money; not the fact that Hector and Gonzalo happen to make 4 extra dollars an hour. Don't punish the workers for something that's basically the result of a corrupt relationship between politicians and businessmen. Fix the corruption problem, and then we can start paying good wages to construction workers who will build the kinds of outstanding freeways they have in Illinois, the kind built with composite materials that last for at least 5 years.

There are only 2 places in the country where the infrastructure is worse than it is here - Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. It's because their shit is 250 years old. We don't really have any excuse.

Iranian Prez Ahmadinejad requests visit to Ground Zero when he speaks at the UN...next month?

Oooh, sorry Mahmoud, your application has been denied on the grounds that you're a total nutsack. Try again next year!

This 'air strike on Syria by Israel' that cough cough didn't happen.

This is pretty interesting to me. Assad didn't even file a 'whatever a country files' with the UN. NK has complained, but no one seems to care much what NK says.

Interesting stuff, imo.

Congratulations to President Bush on empowering MoveOn.

How did he do that?

Singling them out amongst the media for picking on him, showing that they clearly got under his skin.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/09/bush_vs_moveon.html

Oooh, sorry Mahmoud, your application has been denied on the grounds that you're a total nutsack. Try again next year!

Then why do we let George Bush go anywhere near Ground Zero?
They got their whack job, we got ours.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is still a nutsack, regardless.

With the new attorney general that's being appointed, doesn't it feel like little George has been left alone in Dad's office and Mom's saying "for heaven's sake George, don't touch anything until I get back!"

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is still a nutsack, regardless.

With the new attorney general that's being appointed, doesn't it feel like little George has been left alone in Dad's office and Mom's saying "for heaven's sake George, don't touch anything until I get back!"

Dick Cheney has been saying that for nearly eight years.

Singling them out amongst the media for picking on him, showing that they clearly got under his skin.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/09/bush_vs_moveon.html

Thats bullshit. Complete bullshit actually. See I fall into your trap of defending the guy.

He was asked the question IN the news conference what he thought about the add. He said 'attack me, but not our service members' and that the dems are more concerned about not offending moveon.org than they are our service members.

Chris Cizillia or whatever his name is, is a douche bag for not even knowing what the fuck he is talking about.

Dick Cheney has been saying that for nearly eight years.
What I mean is, don't you kind of pick up the vibe that since a lot of the big shooters have taken off, Bush has started operating from a position of weakness, like he is kind of resigned to "going along to get along" in his last months in office?

Thats bullshit. Complete bullshit actually. See I fall into your trap of defending the guy.

He was asked the question IN the news conference what he thought about the add. He said 'attack me, but not our service members' and that the dems are more concerned about not offending moveon.org than they are our service members.

Chris Cizillia or whatever his name is, is a douche bag for not even knowing what the fuck he is talking about.
Actually, I hadn't read that article at all when I made my initial post... just put it afterwards as an example of what I'm talking about. I think at the end of the day that MoveOn got more money and publicity as a result of Bush's comments about the ad than they would've otherwise.

And in other news, Dick Versace is running for Congress!

What I mean is, don't you kind of pick up the vibe that since a lot of the big shooters have taken off, Bush has started operating from a position of weakness, like he is kind of resigned to "going along to get along" in his last months in office?

Totally! And believe it or not, Rush Limbaugh made that call the day after the Dems reclaimed their rightful place. In fact, that may be why the Big Shooters are jumping ship. Not only is their casue defeated, but they don;t want to be seen on the ship with Bush when it goes down. They can repackage themselves as having been dissenters from TeamBush when they go back out into the public again.

Before the Iraq war (http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv)

Myanmar (Burma) is what we like to call "ass-up." It's pretty messed up in Myanmar right now.

Since the early 60s, Myanmar has been dominated by their military. Every time a democratic government would get elected (usually pro-Chinese leftist parties were the ones getting elected), the military would overthrow the government. Did I mention that the UK and the US had formed a Myanmar Military Fan Club And Gun Fund?

One side effect of Myanmar's being ruled by a military dictatorship is that a lot of people ended up in prison. This is great news for big US corporations like Nike, who depend on Burmese prison labor to make their products. Obviously, there's a part of everyone that should be laughing when the US complains about the dictatorship in Burma - we've been actively contributing to it and profiting from it.

So when a popular Burmese pro-democracy advocate named Aung San Suu Kyi got elected Prime Minister and then quickly was imprisoned, people in Myanmar pretty much took it in stride. Then she won the Nobel Peace Prize. Then her husband came down with cancer, and the government would not allow her to see him. Then her kids grew up in the UK and they would not allow her to see them. And now people have apparently had enough.

In southeast Asian countries, Buddhism is the most important cultural aspect of life, and bhikkhus (monks) are seen as the moral authority. Because they do not engage in violence, they are generally regarded as innocent in most situations. However, there are strict rules for bhikkhus and how they can live their lives, and it's generally not allowed for them to participate in politics. Apparently they've had enough too, and they are pouring out into the streets in thousands in their orange robes and begging bowls to march in protest against the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi. It's a controversial thing to do in the Buddhist world. Many people are glad they have taken a stand, and others are upset that the bhikkhus are getting involved in politics.

People in Myanmar are starting to become scared that the government will crack down, but who are they going to crack down on? Nonviolent beggars wearing robes? Apparently some warning shots have been fired, but the monks are not leaving. This is a very scary time in Myanmar.

If they're worried about rioting monks, they should just build more airports for them to hang around in. That'll keep 'em occupied.

So when Jenny decides to shut down the state because they have no money, does she realize that the casinos that will also be shut down fund a large portion of her budget? That will just make the problem that much worse.

So when Jenny decides to shut down the state because they have no money, does she realize that the casinos that will also be shut down fund a large portion of her budget? That will just make the problem that much worse.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned much is that, even if the House passed the Senate's continuation budget bill as currently written, Granholm would be constitutionally required to veto it since it's inherently unbalanced. Even her constitutional ability do an emergency budget is tenuous at best:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070927/NEWS06/70927062&theme=BUDGETCRISIS092007

Looking at the Michigan Constitution, Article XI Sections 26-28 specify a balanced budget and Article V Section 18 specifies the governor's job to enforce that. Article XI Section 27 is the one that most pertains to the above article:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(xturskztpwlfvp55kn1pfe2u))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Article-IX-27

If I read things right, she could keep casinos open if she proposes it and 2/3rds of both houses approve. That'd be cogent thinking on everyone's part, if it's a moneymaking exercise. This business where she unilaterally keeps a skeleton crew around without the legislature's buy-in won't fly, though. And honestly, I'd LIKE to see her declare a state of emergency, shove them budgets, and force everything with legislative supermajorities. Rebuild the whole fucking budget component by component.

Isn't it funny how budget crises never seem to happen unless the Executive and the Legislature are represented by different parties?

Anyone remember that federal budget crisis in '95 that happened after the GOP took over the U.S. House?

It just happened in New Jersey -- Democratic legislature and executive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_New_Jersey_State_Government_shutdown

I guess US forces killed the top Al Qaeda guy in Iraq today.

We've killed about 37 number 2's. We might have got a number 1.

Oh I get it, we're making progress in Iraq! Sign me up!

Anyone remember Mahr talking about how the US Gov't always said they got the number 2 guy? Pretty funny.

Ok, I guess not. Moving on...

Well, it's not "ha-ha" funny, if that's what you mean. It's more like "I want to jump off a building into a vat needles infected with super-AIDS" funny.

Missile defense=GOOD.

An anti-missile missile succesfully hit target last week.

Missile defense=GOOD.

An anti-missile missile succesfully hit target last week.
Given the absence of other targets, that's not exactly a huge accomplishment. They still haven't given it anything close to a real-world test.

What's awesome is that the first few attempts failed and then they started redefining what makes a "successful" test - in this case, coming within a few miles of the missile constitutes a hit. Now we have successful tests all the time!

It was a direct hit this time. I should have posted the article I read.

Convicted criminal to advise Hillary. Just when I was starting to like her she hires Sandy Burglar. Its prolly payback from the Clintons for stealing the documents from the archive.

It's not quite that simple. No direct money exchanged hands. I tend to believe Hillary on this one, if only because she has no particular reason to have or need Sandy Berger advising her.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/sen-clinton-san.html


At the end of an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a short while ago, USA TODAY's Susan Page inquired about reports that former Clinton administration national security adviser Sandy Berger is advising her.

Susan asked whether Clinton has any qualms about having Berger as an unofficial adviser to her campaign, given his mishandling of sensitive, classified intelligence documents in 2003?

"He has no official role in my campaign. He's been a friend for more than 30 years. But he doesn't have any official role," Clinton said.

But he's an unofficial adviser, Susan asked?

"I have thousands of unofficial advisers," said Clinton, "and, you know, I appreciate all of that. But he has no official role in my campaign."

As you might recall and as the D.C. Examiner wrote today, Berger was fined $50,000, placed on probation and stripped of his security clearance for three years after admitting he took classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 as he prepared to meet with the 9/11 Commission. The news of what he had done led to his departure from the presidential campaign of Democratic Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are taking shots at Clinton over the Berger reports. Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters points out that not only (as we reported earlier) have there been several reports in recent days about Berger advising Clinton -- but Newsweek magazine noted the connection a month ago.

Morrissey, no fan of Clinton, thinks the Berger story may be old but is "one that should come up again and again until Hillary either cuts Berger loose -- as John Kerry did, to his credit -- or loses an election for her association with him."

I can only imagine if a Republican hired Scooter Libby.

Looks like Bush is never going to learn how to get out of his own way.


White House denies leaking info that hurt Al-Qaeda spying

1 hour, 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House on Tuesday denied being the source of a leak involving an Osama bin Laden video that a private intelligence firm said had sabotaged its secret ability to intercept Al-Qaeda messages.

Asked if the White House was the source of the leak, spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "No, we were not ... We were very concerned to learn about it."

The SITE Intelligence Group said it lost access that it had covertly acquired to Al-Qaeda's communications network when the administration of President George W. Bush let out that the company had obtained a bin Laden video early last month ahead of its official release, the Washington Post said.

"Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," SITE founder Rita Katz told the newspaper.

SITE monitors websites and public communications linked to radical Islamist groups and organizations deemed terrorist by US authorities and provides the information to clients, including news media companies.

It got hold of the bin Laden video before its release and provided it for free to the White House on the morning of September 7 but insisted that the video's existence remain secret until it spotted the official release, in order to protect its own work.

"Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's website," the Post said.

By that afternoon the video and a transcript from it had been leaked to a cable television news network and broadcast worldwide, the Post reported.

According to Katz, this tipped off Al-Qaeda that its communications security had been breached by SITE.

White House officials said the matter would be referred to the Director of National Intelligence, and that the White House was not planning any internal investigation.

"When the White House receives information from an individual or a company, we refer that appropriately to the intelligence community. That's what happened here," Perino said.

"And I'll have to refer you to the Director on National Intelligence for any process problem they had in that regard."

Homeland security adviser Fran Townsend echoed Perino's "concern" and referred the matter to the nation's spy chief.

"This is going to be an issue for the DNI to look at so that we can understand what, if anything, happened, and how to deal with it to ensure that we fully protect those who cooperate with us," Townsend said.

"I haven't looked at the internal White House emails, so what I can tell you is the DNI and the Intelligence Committee will need to look at who had access to it.

She added: "We are only going to be successful in the war on terror with the help of the American people."

The video appeared to be timed to coincide with the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States, and was bin Laden's first video appearance since October 2004.

In it, the elusive Al-Qaeda chief mocked the United States as "weak" and vowed to escalate fighting in Iraq.

Another US-based organization that monitors Islamic militant websites, IntelCenter, said its "sources, methods and techniques ... to collect terrorist video material remain intact," according to CEO Ben Venzke, who added that the focus on rushing videos to the public could have dangerous consequences.

"Simply getting the video first but not having the professional knowledge and responsibilities to know what to do with it can not only result in the loss of valuable intelligence but it can actually harm ongoing activities within the official counterterrorism community," he said.

This "has happened time and time again when private citizens and organizations outside of the IC (intelligence community) play in fields where they lack the depth and experience."

Rabble rabble rabble! It's time for another toothless, retarded investigation by the Congressional Democrats that will find all kinds of horrible wrongdoing and punish exactly no one! Rabble rabble rabble!

or they'll all get pardoned

Thats fucked up. Hopefully they'll find out for sure who did it.

If true, its no different then the NYT leaking info about our secrets or the Dems wanting to tell the world our secrets.

NYC Councilman meltdown.

a1iNH7W9SC8

Canadian mothers being shipped to US for giving birth. Maybe Michael needs to readdress how great the Canadian system is in his movie.

Canadian mothers being shipped to US for giving birth. Maybe Michael needs to readdress how great the Canadian system is in his movie.
The interesting thing about the Canadian situation here is that they're NOT lacking the doctors or the beds. In fact, the decline of the American dollar is keeping more Canadian doctors in Canada as of late. It's the lack of qualified nursing staff, specifically nurses that can handle babies needing intensive care at birth (e.g. preemies, triplets). That's not an area where the U.S. healthcare system has any great edge or bragging rights.

God dammit, if I have to have anything important done to my body anytime in my life, I hope it's in some place like Denmark.

Thanks to CNN, Carter was able to spout off for a while. Just know, imo anyways, the more Carter talks, the better for the Republicans.

Thanks to CNN, Carter was able to spout off for a while. Just know, imo anyways, the more Carter talks, the better for the Republicans.
I think most people agree that we do torture. We might called it an "energized disassembly of willpower with the aid of instructive props" or some euphemistic bullshit. But the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" standard applies here as much as it does with other forms of porn. Someone sees waterboarding and has a hard time convincing themselves that's NOT torture. Of course, that's not the real sticking point. The issue is -- deep in people's hearts, we want to see people tortured. I think there's a lot of people in both big parties who condone torture, even if they wouldn't ever say or or look in the mirror and admit it to themselves in some conscious way.

Isn't it odd that Carter was the president we needed so badly after 9/11? Instead of checking our cocksize around the world, we should have engaged in deep diplomacy and strapped on a sweater. Instead "the most trying times our country has seen" got tax cuts.

What we did in Afghanistan immediately post-9/11 was mostly right. Had Bush continued to chase Al Qaeda where they were at the time, we'd perhaps be in much better shape (or maybe we'd be at odds with a nuclear power in Pakistan, but that's a different story). Our solution was to melt down some other country to make it a magnet for terrorists who otherwise wouldn't be there -- fucking brilliant.

American peeps don't want us to be torturing the way the middle east countries do, but I'm confident they want us to do it, if it means getting info to defend the country.

A few of those dirt bags we captured in Pakistan and elsewhere chirped like little birds once 'techniques' were used.

Yea, Carter did a great job with the Hostages in Iran when he was prez. My God, the worst president in history, imo.

Yea, Carter did a great job with the Hostages in Iran when he was prez. My God, the worst president in history, imo.


Iran has hostages right now? Link? Can we sell them arms to get them back? Maybe trade them some plutonium?

Carter has done some great things in his post Prez, but he was fucking horrible. The economy sucked, everything sucked.

13.5 inflation, 7.1 jobless, prime interest rate of 21.5 52 hostages in Iran that had been there over a year...I don't see how anyone could call that good. No one could buy a house. It was some shitty times.

American peeps don't want us to be torturing the way the middle east countries do, but I'm confident they want us to do it, if it means getting info to defend the country.
I'm not so sure. There's some people who'd want to rip some Al Qaeda guy's testicles off and feed them to him, regardless of whether or not it derives useful information. That's perfectly appropriate and justified because "they're bad guys, ferchryssake!". It gets worse if there's something that resembles "orders from a higher authority" behind it. Abu Ghraib involved a lot of people.


A few of those dirt bags we captured in Pakistan and elsewhere chirped like little birds once 'techniques' were used.
And you know this how...? The THREAT of torture extracts more than the torture itself, as far as I can tell from the research I've read. Once you start psychologically and|or physically mutilating when they refuse to tell, they go numb. The state of the art for truth serums is little better than taking them to a bar and getting them drunk. Lie detector and MRI techniques to confirm veracity fall down, so your ways of confirmation often involve traps. And of course, the distributed cells makes it hard to extract a lot from any one person.

Oh yeah, all that was shit. But his strengths would have shined in the past 6 years supposing the economy didn't tank.

George Tenet wrote in his book about it. He has said many times on interviews on CNN, Fox, etc. Rockafella concurred that we got useful info with our techniques. I assume as Intel ? whatever he is, he saw the info.

I'll see if I can find some links on his book..excerpts. Right now I'm looking for up-to-date crime rates in cities in the US and I can't find shit. But I'll look it up after I'm done wasting my time on crime.

Carter has done some great things in his post Prez, but he was fucking horrible. The economy sucked, everything sucked.

13.5 inflation, 7.1 jobless, prime interest rate of 21.5 52 hostages in Iran that had been there over a year...I don't see how anyone could call that good. No one could buy a house. It was some shitty times.
Carter inherited a really shitty situation economically from the Nixon/Vietnam era, and didn't make it better. But, there wasn't a lot that he really could have done at the point he was elected. Carter was fundamentally a fiscal conservative -- mostly-balanced budgets, wearing sweaters rather than turn up the heat, etc. The one thing he did do right on that front, putting Paul Volcker in the Federal Reserve, took awhile to bear fruit and was a bitter pill to swallow (Volcker was public enemy #1 for years). The solution that did "work" wasn't politically feasible without years of more-traditional economics failing.

The Reaganomics solution was borrow the money and pay it back later, hoping the interest wasn't crushing, that the borrowing would lead to enough people prospering where the guv'mint fixes itself. Reagan never got to the end part of Reaganomics really. It took Clinton and a tech boom to really make that happen. Remember that unemployment rose from 7.1% to over 10% under Reagan and was higher when Reagan was re-elected than it was under Carter. Real earning power dropped all throughout his term. Reagan didn't pass his "are you better off now than you were four years ago" challenge he made in 1980. He did, however, pass the "are you better off than you were two years ago" challenge, and that's about as far back as people can remember.

Of course, the borrow-and-spend trend has gotten out of hand, the current generation aggressively steals from the future as never before, and the world is waking up to just how badly leveraged we are and pricing the U.S. dollar appropriately. People think they're actually winning when they see the Dow Jones climb, not thinking that it has a lot more to do with international investment and the decline of the dollar than any great economic strides. Real earning power has gone down to the point that we can employ a few more people and pay them less -- that's progress, people!

Ok, enough ranting!

I think I learn something from Uncle Mxy's posts every day.

Might be my favorite Uncle.

Carter sat by the fireplace instead of doing anything. THE shittiest prez in our history. You can put it on his predecessor, but that doesn't ring true to me.

Going that route...I can say the tech bust, that bust that started under Clinton, was what Dubya had to deal with and 911. Clinton could have helped not leaving those 2 problems to his successor.

Cutting taxes IS the way to keep the economy strong. The Dems know it, but won't admit it, imo. Kennedy knew it for sure.

The economy is booming in most sectors right now, and thats because of tax cuts. Yes, I did say booming. One of the areas it is not booming is in the housing market and it is kicking me in the ass on a daily basis.

Going back and discussing what this prez left this prez and what that prez left that prez, is really a waste of time imo, so I'll just close by what I started with, having Carter talk, while incredibly misguided imo, is good for the Reps. And talk about a softball interview, come on Wolf, challenge him on some of his assertions.

Carter sat by the fireplace instead of doing anything. THE shittiest prez in our history. You can put it on his predecessor, but that doesn't ring true to me.
Ford had the same issues. Nixon had badly jacked around with the economy owing to Vietnam (which he inherited from Democrats) and his desire to be re-elected in 1972, and OPEC didn't help matters any. Carter did "conserve" over "invest", which was the economic dogma of the day. Remember, there was Depression-era folks at one end and severe Watergate distrust at the other. Lots of folks screamed "balanced budget amendment" over what we'd consider trivial %s of deficit spending by Carter. Had Carter, Ford, or Reagan proposed Reaganomics in 1976, without many years of suffering beforehand, he'd have been throttled. The only other radical approach that got any sort of significant air play at the time was a huge gas tax like what Europe did.


Going that route...I can say the tech bust, that bust that started under Clinton, was what Dubya had to deal with and 911. Clinton could have helped not leaving those 2 problems to his successor.
I'm mostly crediting Clinton with doing his tax increase, then staying out of the way of what was largely a good thing (though somewhat overblown). His biggest mistake was not overriding Greenspan, leaving that big fat cookie jar for the next guy rather than leaving it for his successor. It would've been a good rainy day fund to overcome the financial aspects of the 9/11 crisis. Oh, that's right, in the summer of 2001, Bush was glad to give away money. Too much money in government's hands was bad. Then he found he needed to give away a bunch money he didn't have in response to various real and imagined emergencies -- borrow-and-spend conservatism at its finest.


Cutting taxes IS the way to keep the economy strong. The Dems know it, but won't admit it, imo. Kennedy knew it for sure.

The economy is booming in most sectors right now, and thats because of tax cuts. Yes, I did say booming. One of the areas it is not booming is in the housing market and it is kicking me in the ass on a daily basis.
Michigan implemented a bunch of tax cuts while things were booming and got into the dumps. Most of the boom I see is on paper from international firms, with more money going out for energy and health costs. Real buying power has been going down for quite a spell. Anyone remember a time when both the man and the woman didn't have to go out into the workforce?


Going back and discussing what this prez left this prez and what that prez left that prez, is really a waste of time imo, so I'll just close by what I started with, having Carter talk, while incredibly misguided imo, is good for the Reps. And talk about a softball interview, come on Wolf, challenge him on some of his assertions.
I don't get how it's good for the Republicans? Carter was never demonized by the Republicans to the same extent that, say, Hillary Clinton was and is. With Gore's Nobel, Carter really is yesterday's news. He's a harmless old coot, no more or less.

The tech boom was mostly funny money. A lot of that was criminal. Some of those fund mgrs were going to .com companies who had nothing more than an address asking, sometimes begging, for a company that just opened its doors with no employees, no profit, sometimes no business whatsoever to go public, then they'd push it and sell it and in the end our moms and dads retirement portfolios took the hit. It started to unravel the last year of Clinton.

I love Michigan, but applying economic strategies to Michigan and expecting the same result isn't the way to go, imo. My family is all happy there, so I don't want to be beating it up, but bringing Mich into the disccussion is not a good one.

Just to say it again, Bush did not hold the line on spending. He had some pretty serious shit to deal with, .com bust, 911, etc, but he could have done so much better if he would have vetoed(sp?) some of those spending bills.

I love the conservative line on taxes and government spending. They're always saying the government levies too much in taxes (and conservative politicians do precious little about that except talk about it), and then they say we should cut spending. WTF man? If the government is taking too much money, fuckin' deliver some services! The only reason people don't like having taxes taken from them is they don't get anything in return for it! It's not a political principle thing to anyone but a few cranks. I'm pissed off that I gotta give up so much in taxes and I might as well be throwing it down the well. I'll give up 90% of my paycheck if the government would actually do something besides paying military contractors to develop a bomb that turns people gay or paying for tax exemptions for CompuWare.

Bush cut taxes...is that precious little?

Fucking congress trying to pass a resolution condemning Turkey and using the word 'genocide' right now while we are at war. Its just stupid.

Turkey is huge in helping supply the troops, but good ol Congress has to get in there somehow.

Your tax dollars hard at work, fucking an ally of ours.

Fucking congress trying to pass a resolution condemning Turkey and using the word 'genocide' right now while we are at war. Its just stupid.

Turkey is huge in helping supply the troops, but good ol Congress has to get in there somehow.

Your tax dollars hard at work, fucking an ally of ours.
Agreed 100%! This is just plain dumb politically.

Rather than Congress pushing this directly, they should have just leaned on Bush to either back up these words or eat them:

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=60

The twentieth century was marred by wars of unimaginable brutality, mass murder and genocide. History records that the Armenians were the first people of the last century to have endured these cruelties. The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people.

I don't think there is much doubt that it fits the defintion, but for the country to pass a resolution condemning Turkey right now using the word genocide is, as you said, just dumb politically.

The other day Bush said 'mass killings' or something, but he pretty much did eat them.

Great move congress.

edit...thinking through your post a little more, congress making Bush 'eat those words' right now is almost as friggin stupid to me. Let it go!

BTW, two of Michigan's own Republicans were early co-sponsors -- McCotter and Knollenberg. But this one rigthfully falls to Pelosi and the Dems because they are in control of the House.

It looked like the Dems but I wasn't sure on that, but some of this stuff should just be let go while we're at war, imo. When our kids come home, if we feel we need to pass a resolution, vote on it. Just not now.

Republican Presidential Nomination

RCP Average: Giuliani +10.7%

Giuliani
30.2%
Thompson
19.5%
McCain
13.0%
Romney
11.2% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html)

Democratic Presidential Nomination

RCP Average: Clinton +25.6%

Clinton
48.2%
Obama
22.6%
Edwards
11.6%
Richardson
3.4% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html)

President Bush Job Approval

RCP Average: Spread -27.8%

Approve
34.0%
Disapprove
61.8% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=19)

Congressional Job Approval

RCP Average: Spread -43.6%

Approve
24.6%
Disapprove
68.2%

And lets not forget 41 raised taxes on his last budget, Clinton followed. Remember 'read my lips'

It seems weirdly timed, I agree. But playing the devil's advocate: why is it ever wrong to acknowledge the truth?

It seems weirdly timed, I agree. But playing the devil's advocate: why is it ever wrong to acknowledge the truth?
There's better things to do in the grand scheme of things. There's plenty of crap that is agreed upon by more significant majorities with a more significant positive impact. Hell, even some Armenians (the ones who want to better normalize relations with Turkey) are against how this is going down.

Also, there's the "please assist yourself before assisting others" principle that comes to mind. If this were "confederates" and "blacks", I'd feel differently because it's an issue that we own. Focus on the local injustice. Start with the shit that's currently happening that qualifies as serious injustice.

I agree that the US has a lot of explaining to do before they start asking for explanations from Turkey. Until a full accounting is made of treaty violations against, and forced migrations of, Indian tribes...and who were the prime movers and profiteers of the West African slave trade, which might implicate a lot of our European friends...we should probably just keep our mouths shut.

"Do not point out the small faults of others, for you have large ones yourself."

The problem with the "its just not the time" argument is that there's never a good time to announce that you think the precursors to a muslim ally, located where Turkey is located, practiced genocide. Its not like this is the first time the issue has been at bar or the first time the region has been in strife. I did a little research at the Armenian Research Center at the UofM-Dearborn campus (its literally a couple apartment size rooms filled with bookshelves and an office in the front) and had to write a research paper on the matter. There's really no question that it was a genocide and nearly wiped the people out of existence. Its almost always been a "when will it be declared" issue

Fuck the politics. These people were systematically exterminated and barely survived. I give a shit if people are unhappy with some of their ancestors being declared the tryanical murderers they truly were.

I'm fine with that "people in glass houses" argument but then the proper argument is "we need to declare our own attrocities" not "we shouldn't declare anyone elses either".

It was voted down twice before. And I know NOTHING of history but it wa the Ottomans. Fool hit on that part.

Turkey could prolly get a lil thicker skin on this. I mean who cares if the US Congress passes some words? The shit that is said about the US every day and they're worried about Nanci Pelosi?

Tough one.

re: Genocide. Not sure if this post belongs here but The History Channel(?) has broadcast some shows on the Hitler, Himmler, etc. They are ugly, very graphic. Sickening.

When I see things like this, I want this country to go to Darfur or wherever else we need to go to stop this sort of thing. Its not equivalent with the amount of people being murdered, but we as a nation should stop this sort of thing. I'm not trying to turn this into a Iraq thing, but when I see things like this and remembering what Sadam did to the Kurds and his own people, it makes me support our efforts there more.

Question: Should the US be more active in stepping in when genocide occurs in the world? Should our first steps be to go to the UN? I wish we'd be more consistent with our policy (if we have a policy).

I find it interesting that no nation in the history of the world has ever gone to war to stop a genocide other than their own.

My thinking on this matter is that setting an example really isn't all that important when it comes right down to it. The moral thing to do is always the moral thing to do, no matter who speaks on it. A sociopathic serial killer can still be right about 2+2=4.

The issue here is US policy, as Tahoe says. What the fuck is the policy? Will someone please decide once and for all if the US ever stands for intervening in cases of genocide? If someone's got some ethical reason for standing still while Darfur is wiped out, I'm willing to listen, but let's hear it.

It looks like congress might be coming to its senses. The Republican controlled congress attempted to pass this too, but Clinton asked Hastert not to bring it to a vote. iirc, Hastert finally agreed and it didn't make it to a vote.



WASHINGTON — A House vote to label the century-old deaths of Armenians as genocide was in jeopardy Tuesday after several Democrats withdrew their support and sounded alarms it could cripple U.S. relations with Turkey.
The loss of support is a major setback to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, who have fiercely defended the resolution to Republicans and the Bush administration (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302497,00.html#) as a moral imperative in condemning the World War I-era killings of up to 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks.

It looks like Steven Colbert will be running for office in '08.

I bet he makes more on an impact in SC than peeps think. If he was in a more liberal state, it would be even more of an impact.

Iran's top Nuke negotiator, Larijani, resigns. He was a moderate. Not good news.

Those Sheiks I was talking about that sided with us, turning against AQ...Well 12 were kidnapped by AQ.

I bet he makes more on an impact in SC than peeps think. If he was in a more liberal state, it would be even more of an impact.
SC won't make me fall asleep the same way Man Of The Year did. That's enough impact for me.


Those Sheiks I was talking about that sided with us, turning against AQ...Well 12 were kidnapped by AQ.
Makes ya glad we destablized the region enough to let AQ in the door...

Saddam was a horrible man, and millions trembled under his boot. But his boot came down hardest on Islamic extremists, and it happened without the USA having to lift a finger.

Now look at us.

I agree on that Sadam thing.

But AQ is really screwing up if they kill these Sheiks. Peeps are not liking them and they think they are giong to scare these guys into submission? No way.

The Sunnis had all their little smuggling lanes, the US looked the other way, but AQ destroyed all that commerce. Now they kidnap these guys. AQ is gooofing up. Taliban type rule aint happenin.

I agree that it isn't likely to happen at all. I'm not sure AQ wants Taliban-style rule in Iraq. I don't think it matters what they want. I think AQ is just some kind of mercenary army who books themselves out to Islamic extremist political groups, helps them with their violence, and the extremists don't have to get their hands dirty. They're like the Muslim Blackwater.

LOL Muslim blackwater.

That is exactly what they are doing and want... and sadly that is the only thing that drove the Sheiks to our side.

I'm not saying they don't have an agenda of their own, but whatever agenda they have probably doesn't matter that much in Iraq. The best AQ is going to do is to help some unsavory non-AQ party gain power.

I'm not saying they don't have an agenda of their own, but whatever agenda they have probably doesn't matter that much in Iraq.

Apparently you are not believing what I'm posting then. And thats ok, dont get me wrong.


AQ is pushing the Sunnis toward us. The Sunnis want to have their freedoms and AQ is dropping strict old school, taliban type rule on them. They are having an effect that is helping the US.

Dems hold up AG confirmation based on waterboarding.

I think they're looking at this guy and every time he says "I don't know if waterboarding is torture" all they can think of is Abu Gonzales going "I do not recall. I don't recall that. That doesn't immediately come to mind. I don't remember recalling that."

I would hope that they could look beyond what someone else did in an effort to get and AG a vote. But I also understand politics... a lil bit. And if this is stand on principal (torture) just let it go to a vote.

Schumer and Feinstein are voting for the nomination. So while it appears the majority of Dems aren't voting for him, their are some key Dems that are voting for him.

Its kind of tough for Shumer NOT to vote for him since Shumer was his sponsor for the nomination.

Yeah, Chuck Schumer was his Democratic sponsor, it would be shitty of him not to vote for him. He's going to make it out of committee. But if he didn't, I wouldn't really cry about it. That's what the committee is supposed to do.

If he reminds them of Gonzales, they really should vote against him. Gonzales pretty much represented every single thing that could go wrong with an Attorney General. At this point they're probably thinking "Mukasey is soooooo much better, I should probably take what I get and not be greedy."

I agree on the "if you think you have another Gonzo on your hands, don't vote for him" sentiment. I thought you were saying ... well what was it that I thought you were saying....I'll get back to you. :)

upperdownvote!!!!!111oneone

What potential is that?

As near as I can tell, the Dems are too bought and disjointed to do damage (or do much good), while the Rethugs actively fuck things up. I don't see much collective positive potential with either party.

My number one priority for my Gov't is to protect and defend this country. I see the Republicans doing a better job.

I like tax cuts too.

My number one priority for my Gov't is to protect and defend this country. I see the Republicans doing a better job.
I don't disagree in principle. I probably disagree in definition, though.

What do you see as our biggest threat that we should protect and defend against? To my way of thinking, our biggest threat is ourselves. We're eager to sell out the principles our society was founded on for a bunch of crap or short-term gain.

How do you define "this country"? Are immigrants that live here "us" or "them'? Is Guantanamo Bay "us" or "them"? Are criminals part of this country?


I like tax cuts too.
See, I like getting value for my money and work toward that. As far as I can tell, this makes me really fucking weird.

There's lots of people in this world who buy silly things because "they're on sale". I'm related to some of them. There's lots of people who don't know how to manage or leverage debt. I'm related to some of them too. There's no end of people who'll mortgage their kids financially for their own gain -- I am pretty close to them. When I hear "tax cuts", I think about the collective money management skills I see people exercise in daily life, and conclude that they wouldn't know a good tax cut (or increase) if it bit them in the ass.

Of course, to be fair, tax cuts/increases are usually presented absent any solid perspective of where the money goes, how it's managed, and some idea of what costs should be given the prevailing conditions. Most everyone at all levels of government lies and spreads FUD about what it'd take to do their job, what priorities ought to be. Nothing is gained by honest assessments. I doubt even the few quality elected officials who care about such things can do more than take broad guesses. Sometimes, some selective tax increases or decreases appear to boost some greater "good", but it's hard to prove. Everyone has anecdotes, pliable statistics, slogans, and something to sell.

Enough ranting for one post...

What do you see as our biggest threat that we should protect and defend against?

Any and all. Iran, NK, Terrorists, trying to keep Russia in the fold, etc



To my way of thinking, our biggest threat is ourselves. We're eager to sell out the principles our society was founded on for a bunch of crap or short-term gain.

Do we make mistakes? Yes, but I still see us as one of the best countries.

Not sure what you mean at the end...what is your definition of 'crap' and 'short term gain'?


How do you define "this country"? Citizens and our shorline.


Are immigrants that live here "us" or "them'? illegal immigrants? Are mostly attempting to be US citizens. Transitioning.

The SHIT is hitting the fan in Pakistan right now. Musharaf declares state of emergency, the Supreme Court told him to fuck off (if I'm absorbing this all correctly), and the revolters are about to take over the nukes.

This could get ugly....ier

Don't go imperialistic and start dumb wars without provocation. Don't borrow massive amounts of money that future generations will have to somehow pay off to do it. Don't suspend fundamental rights, like unreasonable search and seizure and habeas corpus. Don't restrict productive immigrants from coming and building in our country. These were the things on my mind when I wrote "sell out the principles our society was founded on for a bunch of crap".

I asked who you think the biggest threat was, and it wasn't clear that you really gave an answer. I think that a whole lot of people would call "job one" for our government "to protect and defend", but there'll be a ton of different answers if you ask "from what -- what's the #1 threat". These priorities color how they feel about government's effectiveness, about who would be the most effective. The leading issue that led to the selection of Bush over Kerry was "moral values", above foreign threats.


This IS ugly....ier
Fixed.

Don't go imperialistic and start dumb wars without provocation.

I Don't disagree. I know many feel Iraq was a mistake.


Don't borrow massive amounts of money that future generations will have to somehow pay off to do it.

I wish I knew how many times this has come up just in my lifetime. Our debt to GDP(?)ratios, aren't bad at all.


Don't suspend fundamental rights, like unreasonable search and seizure and habeas corpus.

I don't think we've lost any rights.


Don't restrict productive immigrants from coming and building in our country.

Well, Conservatives are pretty upset with Bush and McCain cuz they are seen as lenient on the issue. I want to know who is in this country. It seems easy, but let them come in and work for 3 years or something, and if you keep your nose clean, its a step toward citizenship. But this goes to the 'protect and defend' part of my argument. We don't even know who is in this country. I'm not worried about hispanic terrorists(cuz there haven't been any) as much as AQ coming across.


These were the things on my mind when I wrote "sell out the principles our society was founded on for a bunch of crap".

I asked who you think the biggest threat was, and it wasn't clear that you really gave an answer. I think that a whole lot of people would call "job one" for our government "to protect and defend", but there'll be a ton of different answers if you ask "from what -- what's the #1 threat". These priorities color how they feel about government's effectiveness, about who would be the most effective. The leading issue that led to the selection of Bush over Kerry was "moral values", above foreign threats.

Without having inside info, I can't evaluate which of my list is numero uno. Iran and Terrorists seem to rise to the top off the top of my head though.

Fixed.

When I wrote what I did about productive immigrants, I was thinking of the H-1B program, not so much the raging debate. If someone could come into the U.S. and be immediately productive (has job skills and could pass a TOEFL, isn't a terrorist whackjob or indentured servant), we shouldn't turn their work away. They will just produce elsewhere. If we're lucky, they work for an American firm overseas and maybe we get something back. If we're unlucky, they'll take an American job (or more) in the process. Hell, we used to have migrant workers work here, then go back to Mexico to live, and we built a helluva country on the backs of immigrants.

As for debt as a function of GDP, I've said this before, but viewing debt as a function of GDP gets problematic. As the GDP grows, is it doing so -because- of the added debt or in spite of it, and to what extent does that GDP growth end up mapping back to real increased revenues coming in? If the GDP doesn't grow as much as the debt incurred "should" make it grow -- not exactly the easiest thing to divine -- what then? What does that GDP mean? It's a messy beast relative to a "income in, expenses out" balance sheet, and can be used to prove anything you want.

Lots of people want to infringe on our rights, in cover of darkness (domestic wiretapping), contorting definitions to the point of absurdity (newsflash -- waterboarding is torture, the Internet is not a telephone as much as some people might think otherwise), coaxing elected officials to vote it away (habeas corpus, the odious War On Drugs laws), etc. They're chipped away little by little, one tiny encroachment after another, and eventually it hits you direct long after you've been indirectly bit. You have to give your fucking driver's license to get Claritin-D now. That's really fucking brilliant.

Enough ranting for one day...

When I wrote what I did about productive immigrants, I was thinking of the H-1B program, not so much the raging debate. If someone could come into the U.S. and be immediately productive (has job skills and could pass a TOEFL, isn't a terrorist whackjob or indentured servant), we shouldn't turn their work away. They will just produce elsewhere. If we're lucky, they work for an American firm overseas and maybe we get something back. If we're unlucky, they'll take an American job (or more) in the process. Hell, we used to have migrant workers work here, then go back to Mexico to live, and we built a helluva country on the backs of immigrants.

Agree. Maybe we should feel fortunate there is so much corruption in Mexico keeping their economy down.

As for debt as a function of GDP, I've said this before, but viewing debt as a function of GDP gets problematic. As the GDP grows, is it doing so -because- of the added debt or in spite of it, and to what extent does that GDP growth end up mapping back to real increased revenues coming in? If the GDP doesn't grow as much as the debt incurred "should" make it grow -- not exactly the easiest thing to divine -- what then? What does that GDP mean? It's a messy beast relative to a "income in, expenses out" balance sheet, and can be used to prove anything you want.

In spite of, imo. If GDP isn't going up, spending/borrowing HAS to go down. Will our gov't do that? ??? These are such huge dollars that a slight change can make a huge difference in projections. iirc, we are back in the right direction again, as long as Bush keeps his veto pen out.

Lots of people want to infringe on our rights, in cover of darkness (domestic wiretapping), contorting definitions to the point of absurdity (newsflash -- waterboarding is torture, the Internet is not a telephone as much as some people might think otherwise), coaxing elected officials to vote it away (habeas corpus, the odious War On Drugs laws), etc. They're chipped away little by little, one tiny encroachment after another, and eventually it hits you direct long after you've been indirectly bit. You have to give your fucking driver's license to get Claritin-D now. That's really fucking brilliant.

But its only domestic wiretapping if you are calling someone in another country who is a known or suspected terrorist, right? That doesn't bother me in the least.

Waterboarding to me is not torture. It doesn't 'shock my conscience' for our gov't to scare someone. They aren't going to drown. It scares them, cuz those 2 in Pakistan coughed up plenty of info. Its a great tactic cuz it works and doesn't cause any harm.

To me, the question isn't does waterboarding fit someones definition of torture, its whether we should use the tactic or not? And to that, I answer yes.

Enough ranting for one day...

We got this entirely different war going on and we have to be able to 'adjust' (adjust can be a slippery slope can't it?) our tactics. They are cutting off the heads of innocent US citizens over there, we have to be able to run some water over their faces to protect the country and citizens.

Yeah, but they're only cutting off the heads of US citizens who go to Iraq. That doesn't bother me in the least.

The 2 that came to mind when i was wrtting that was a US citzn in Saudia Arabia (not military) and the other non-military kid who helped with communication towers.

Do you have any problem with us saying 'boo' to them?

Couldn't give 2 shits.

Yeah, but they're only cutting off the heads of US citizens who go to Iraq. That doesn't bother me in the least.

And flying planes into buildings in the US.

And flying planes into buildings in the US.

I live in Michigan. What the hell do I care. Hey rednecks, quit taking my taxes because your penis feels smaller. I doubt "planes flying into buildings" is in the top 100 reason people died in the US since the year 2000. I know both cow and deer have killed more. Have we started hiring people who can interpret rutting?

LOL

Tahoe,

If GDP grows in spite of added debt, that's an argument against going into debt. Why borrow money if GDP would go up even more if you hadn't? You just made my point for me about how the GDP-debt ratio thing is complex. :)


But its only domestic wiretapping if you are calling someone in another country who is a known or suspected terrorist, right?
The domestic wiretapping I'm speaking of is spying on calls between two people in the same country. OF course, there's a domestic element in spying on calls between U.S. and foreign countries, but that's not the issue that's got people's blood pressure up. Well, unless you're an ISP and your setup don't have a strong notion of "foreign" 0s and 1s vs. "domestic" 0s and 1s, but that's another story.

Waterboarding and other mock execution stuff is torture, in my book. Triggering an involuntary gag reflex to make someone think they're choking to death, which is the mildest form of gagging, is a mock execution. And, quite aside from feelings that you or I may have about such things, mock executions are considered torture by the Geneva Convention, which is a part of U.S. law. Oh wait... that doesn't apply because we're not at war, they're not POWs but this nebulous new class of "enemy combatants", yet another torturous redefinition.

It's one thing to say whether or not torture is good or bad or whatnot, and I totally agree with you on that extent. But let's call a spade a spade here. It's a war, there's some POWs, and they're being tortured. Not "there's a conflict of an unspecified nature, there's some 'enemy combatants', and they're being renditioned". Wer're well on our way to 1984-speak and doubleplusungood.

Funny, what country did those people who flew plains into our country's buildings come from? Oh wait -- they're harboring OIL, and heaven forbid they harbor terrorists (despite being a bunch of fuckhead royal family Sauds fueling generations of anti-western sentiment by snorting their country's resources).

Kucinich showing the world what a joke both sides of Congress are...
wow, just wow.

That is/was pretty funny. I guess the Republicans first voted against even discussing the bill, then they thought about it and were running up to change their vote so everyone would have to listen to Kucinich. The Dems went from voting for it to voting against it. Is that close? LOL

I like my flaming California liberals a little less like Kucinich and a lot more like Jerry Brown.

Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani. Yeah, the pro-choice, pro-gay-rights Giuliani. Hoo boy, the things people will do when the chairman of Fox News also works for the Giuliani campaign. You can always count on Republicans to forget their so-called individuality when the election gets close at hand.

I saw that too. Pat Robertson is hard to look at, let alone listen to. I didn't know about the Fox News ties. Robertson is such a non-player, imo. He won't sway shit. Not sure if this is more about liking Rudy as much as not wanting a mormon for Patsy.

Every Republican whose endorsement is worth a shit is going to line up behind Giuliani. Black fundamentalist pro-lifers who hate Italians, hate New York, and love Islamic terrorism are endorsing Giuliani. The only reason I can think of is good old-fashioned At Least He's Not One O' Them Demmuhcrats.

I'm not so sure. While Rudy is up in national polls, Romney is winning in Iowa and New Hamshire and making up lots of ground on the leadier in South Carolina Fred Thompson.

Rudy leads in most Florida polls but if Romney can win some of the early primaries...blah blah blah, you know the story.

Yeah, but I also know how the GOP works with the king-making. Whenever the front-runner is chosen, everyone completely forgets whatever problems they had with him in the first place and they all fall in line against the forces of godless communism.

It absolutely kills me how weird people are about Romney. He's like the perfect Republican politician. If people didn't have a problem with the fact that he's a Mormon, he'd be a gigantic election-winning juggernaut. Religious bigotry is saving this election for the Democrats.

If the trend continues like in bible-belt SC, they are being swayed.

I don't see the religious right different from any other voting block really. I mean its the primary season and some are endorsing Romney and others Rudy. I expect they'll come together to vote the most conservative in the national. Doesn't seem to be outawhack to me.

I don't see the religious right different from any other voting block really.

http://www.lies.com/wp/images/god_hates_fags.jpg

http://www.killfredphelps.com/god_hates_fags.jpg

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/08/29/larrycraig_wideweb__470x305,0.jpg

http://www.provocards.com/images/georgeBushOfficialPostCard2.jpg

I know thats how you think all christians are zip. I've got that already. I think you get this but I was tossin out my thoughts on how they vote as a block in primaries.

http://www.provocards.com/images/georgeBushOfficialPostCard2.jpg

Wow! At first I actually thought that was Hitler...

It absolutely kills me how weird people are about Romney. He's like the perfect Republican politician. If people didn't have a problem with the fact that he's a Mormon, he'd be a gigantic election-winning juggernaut. Religious bigotry is saving this election for the Democrats.
What gets me is that Utah is so solidly Republican, even though there's far more Republicans that preach LDS as a satanic cult than Democrats.

Klansmen and southern blacks both tend to be socially conservative, but you don't often see them on the same side of the political table.

Klansmen and southern blacks both tend to be socially conservative, but you don't often see them on the same side of the political table.

This is a theory I have: there are a lot of groups that tend to be natural conservatives.

Blacks tend to be socially conservative and distrust government regulation
Mexican immigrants are strongly bound to a tradition that emphasizes individual responsibility, saving money, and investing
"out" gays are lopsidedly upper-middle-class and are very concerned about taxes and public safety
Feminists are very concerned about authoritarianism and personal freedoms
Muslims are very socially conservative and crave a law-and-order kind of government that at least pays lip service to God

But they don't (in general) vote for Republicans, because Republicans can't keep themselves from shitting all over these groups, in different ways, and I think I know why.

The GOP made a deal with the devil. They identified a portion of the American public who was dull-witted, easily impressed by authority, easily scared by threats, and easily swayed by flashy marketing. It's not a whole lot of people, but the Republicans totally locked that electorate up so they could be useful in close elections. They're not clever, but they always do as they are told, so you can always count on them to bail you out if the election is just close enough to scare them.

But now this group is starting to get a little more sophisticated and asking the kinds of questions you usually get from this kind of thicko - like "Krang want to know: what in it for Krang, unga bunga?" And "Krang want to know: why you make friend with People From Other Side Of Moutain, unga bunga?"

The Republicans, by refusing to give up Krang and all the rest of the people in his village of grass huts, make it absolutely impossible to court the kind of voters that have even a slightly different agenda than Krang does. The Republicans have gone out of their way to secure a voting bloc that is essentially selfish and paranoid, and this voting bloc is going to eat any Republican candidate that does anything but promise them their firstborn child, a herd of new goats, sharper stone axes, and a tougher stance against The People On The Other Side Of The Mountain.

Musharraf released Bhutto's house arrest yesterday and she jumped right out to the streets. If she gets killed, Musharraf suspends the constitution and it will be on this time, imo.

Musharraf kind of said he put her under house arrest for her protection and that he/gov't gives her plenty of protection while she is out and about. She says thats bullshit.

Hopefully things will settle til the elections in Feb. It all comes down to if Musharraf is serious about giving up power cuz Bhutto WILL win in a fair election.

She'll be dead within a month.

Musharraf released Bhutto's house arrest yesterday and she jumped right out to the streets. If she gets killed, Musharraf suspends the constitution and it will be on this time, imo.

Musharraf kind of said he put her under house arrest for her protection and that he/gov't gives her plenty of protection while she is out and about. She says thats bullshit.

Hopefully things will settle til the elections in Feb. It all comes down to if Musharraf is serious about giving up power cuz Bhutto WILL win in a fair election.

Actually I'm a big fan of Musharraf. He's going to drag that country kicking and screaming into the 20th century (21st century might be a little too much to expect).

Musharraf released Bhutto's house arrest yesterday and she jumped right out to the streets. If she gets killed, Musharraf suspends the constitution and it will be on this time, imo.

Musharraf kind of said he put her under house arrest for her protection and that he/gov't gives her plenty of protection while she is out and about. She says thats bullshit.

Hopefully things will settle til the elections in Feb. It all comes down to if Musharraf is serious about giving up power cuz Bhutto WILL win in a fair election.

Have they ever had one of those over there? Ever?

My opinions about Islam are pretty much totally vindicated by the state of Pakistan.

Pakistan used to be part of British India. Indian Muslims used to pitch around the idea that Muslims needed a homeland of their own "to prevent them from being oppressed by the majority Hindus." But when the British finally left India, the leader of the India Muslim League (Mohammed Ali Jinnah) basically refused to go along with anything unless India was carved up and the Muslims were given their own homeland. He told everyone that he knew for sure there would be riots against the Muslims if India was governed by majority rule. Mohandas Gandhi, who was the intellectual father of modern India, was strongly against partitioning India. In the temples where he was raised, they read from the Vedas and the Guru Granth Sahib (Sikh holy book) as well as the Quran and the Bible. India is a famously religiously tolerant society.

So reluctantly, they came up with a scheme to partition India into a secular state ruled by the majority, and an "Islamic Republic" which would be constitutionally based on Islamic law. But the thing is that the Hindus and the Muslims were basically living right next door to one another throughout the entire country (still do, in many places). So in order to create Pakistan, there was a gigantic forced migration of non-Muslims out of Pakistan and a gigantic voluntary migration of Muslims into Pakistan. And marvel of marvels, there were huge riots anyway, and anywhere from 200,000 people to 1,000,000 people died in the fighting.

Pakistan's people are the same people as India's people, and the only difference is that they are a different religion. I'm not saying India is perfect by any stretch, but India has at least managed to move past some of the horrible things (assassinations, etc.) that have plagued it over the years. Pakistan has just gone completely fubar and it's not going to get better anytime soon, and the only reason I can come up with is that they are Muslims.

Good stuff. I remember reading on this but this definately knock the rust off.

Also, the Brits (actually Churchill) wanted to divide up what we know as Iraq into 3 countries for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, but was shot down and they made it Iraq, iirc. That would be Churchill way before he was PM, but whatever position he held at the time.

The British and French definitely set the stage for the current state of the greater Middle East. It's way too late for them to take part in the un-fucking of it all though. Not too many countries in the world really have a pure, perfectly good reason to blame colonial empires for their problems, but Iraq happens to be one of them. There was basically nothing that made Iraq a valid country at all except the fact that it was made up of some old Ottoman Empire districts that were controlled by the British after WWI.

The British also helped the Saudis set up their nation, and so all their advice as to how to deal with Iraq came from the Saudi kings. When the British needed an Iraqi in a position of power, they always selected Sunnis (based on the advice of the Saudi kings - Sunnis all the way, of course). This was a monumental fuckup that is getting people (including American soldiers) killed to this very day. I'm telling you man, this map is what the Middle East really should look like:

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x147/dspiewak/afj.peters_map_after.jpg

??? Arab Shia State??? Iran is Persians and Arab Shia State would be Shiite ???

Yeah, before the Ottomans took over, Mesopotamia was ruled over by Persians, and that's why so much of the country are Shiites. But Iraqi Shiites aren't ethnically Persian, they're Arabs. They don't want to be part of Iran - Iranians speak a different language and they're ethnically different.

This map carves up Iraq and gives the Mesopotamian Sunni Arabs their own country, it gives the Kurds their own country, and it creates a new country for Arab Shiites. It's basically the "3-country solution" for Iraq, but put in the context of the best possible borders for every single Middle East country.

Reminds me of a Middle Eastern joke:

The Iranians say that 3 languages were spoken in the Garden of Eden. When Adam spoke with Eve, they spoke in Farsi (Persian), "the language of love." When Adam spoke with God, they spoke Arabic, "the language of law." When the angels with the flaming swords ordered them out of the Garden of Eden, they spoke Turkish, "the language of scaring the shit out of people."

To you and me, all 3 languages sound like an identical throat infection.

Swami, I thought I heard the same story (india-Pakistan) about Pakistan-Afghanistan.

This may be a dumb question, but how in the FUCK are you going to keep Israel safe (and should we?), and how in the FUCK do you stop these people from killing each other by just drawing up new countries?

thx and I've seen that map before or one similar.

You wonder if when the UN had given statehood to Israel if at the same time Palestine would have been put on the books, how differently things would be now.

It didn't matter. Once Israel was given statehood the majority of Arab states went to war. In fact many Palestinians were told to leave so that Israel could be attacked and the they could later simply head home. Didn't work out that way though.

al-Maliki says sectarian violence in Bagdad is "closed" which I assume means done.

Hopefully it holds.

There pretty much aren't any more Sunnis left in Baghdad. No reason to commit violence now if everyone is in the same sect.

This may be a dumb question, but how in the FUCK are you going to keep Israel safe (and should we?), and how in the FUCK do you stop these people from killing each other by just drawing up new countries?

And here we are back to describing why I like Musharraf so much. Guys like him are the only future the Middle East has. Musharraf isn't aiming his missles at Israel. He's not trying to institute Sharia law in Pakistan. He's not funding suicide bombers. He's ruling his country with an iron fist so none of that bullshit happens.

What is going to happen, when all is said and done, to the little republick of Kowalskistan?

What is going to happen, when all is said and done, to the little republick of Kowalskistan?

Oh noes, kielbasas of mass destruction!

There pretty much aren't any more Sunnis left in Baghdad. No reason to commit violence now if everyone is in the same sect.

I think it has more to do with AQ being chased out of Bagdad and other areas. The surge did a lot.

I think it has more to do with AQ being chased out of Bagdad and other areas. The surge did a lot.

Which begs the question: Why did we need a surge? Why did we go into the situation ill prepared, under informed, and under armed?

Which sends us to another question: How long do you keep "surging"?

I think it has more to do with AQ being chased out of Bagdad and other areas. The surge did a lot.

What's AQ want with Baghdad anyway? That's Shiite territory. The Sunnis didn't have much of a chance in Baghdad.

IMO, to create instability and death. Thats what they've been doing for quite a while now. AQ isn't dumb. They know the headlines that are created when they blow up a convoy. It helps the we (US) is being defeated in Iraq.

And here we are back to describing why I like Musharraf so much. Guys like him are the only future the Middle East has. Musharraf isn't aiming his missles at Israel. He's not trying to institute Sharia law in Pakistan. He's not funding suicide bombers. He's ruling his country with an iron fist so none of that bullshit happens.
I take it you were a fan of the Shah of Iran?

The Dems race is way more fun then the Reps...so far anyway.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/clinton.questions/index.html

You Republicans have nothing but an assortment of corpses to vote for. And on top of that, one of them is a whacked out Mormon. Holy shit. That fucking party is scary.

Rudy can be lots of things but a corpse is way off. I spect it'll heat up at some point.

I like the Dems, when they form a firing line, they form it in a circle.

Does Hillary think that Edwards falling would be good for her?

I'd expect if Edwards left, the person who'd stand to benefit the most is Obama.

Does Hillary think that Edwards falling would be good for her?

I'd expect if Edwards left, the person who'd stand to benefit the most is Obama.

I don't know if I quite agree. Is Edwards' supported more by men or women? It seems that Edwards would also have the most support of more centrist Democrats, the kind who may even go over to the dark side aned vote Republican.
Obama is gaining momentum, especially among male voters. Something odd I heard is that Hillary, as of yesterday, was trouncing Obama among Black voters.

I always assumed BO and Edwards were fighting for the same voters and Hill had more center leaning Dems.

I can't see real Liberals voting for Edwards. I know nothing about him, but he seems like a Republiwolf in Democrat clothing. I've never got it with him. I think Hillary probably has the broadest support base, with Obama maybe having the far left and pockets throughout the Democratic party.
I wish I saw the entire speech he made yesterday in Iowa, Chris Matthews raved about it today on Hardball.

I really do feel that Hillary's support comes mostly on the heels of her hubby, especially with The Ladies.

I take it you were a fan of the Shah of Iran?

Compared to the Ayatollahs? Meh, I'd probably say it's a wash. The Shah brought holy hell down on rebels and anyone connected with rebels. But the Ayatollahs have brought down hell on everyone.

One person I like quite a lot is Ataturk. And so does Musharraf.

Trent Lott is retiring at the end of the year. Should have retired some time ago, but the GOP always provides for a graceful exit for racists. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott#Resignation_from_Senate_leadership)

And it looks like Musharraf has announced his resignation from the Army. He'll still run the country, though.

I think for Dems the R coming just after the name (Trent Lott (R)) means racist. lol

I thought it stood for Retiring.

Anyone dealing with the Council of Conservative Citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Citizens%27_Council) should know that they're making a deal with the devil. That group is not just your average everyday conservative grass-roots lobbying committee - they are a political front for the Klan and are openly opposed to racial integration.

I don't doubt that, TBS, but the only known Klansmen I know of is Byrd (D).

(R) also retard

Yeah, Byrd's for sure an ex-Klansman. He's one of the few Southern D's around who stayed with the D's after they left their pro-segregation platform behind in the days of Lyndon Johnson. Most ended up jumping ship - Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, for example.

He's also so incredibly old, and he's been in Washington so long that I'm not really sure anything he knows is relevant anymore.

Trent Lott is retiring at the end of the year. Should have retired some time ago, but the GOP always provides for a graceful exit for racists. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott#Resignation_from_Senate_leadership)

And it looks like Musharraf has announced his resignation from the Army. He'll still run the country, though.

I was thinking about this a lil more. IMO, Your first paragraph is ridiculous, but roll with that.

But I'm glad the guy came back and won. First the comments were innocuous as hell, iirc. If they came from a Dem, nothing would have been done, secondly, Bush threw him under the bus. He didn't give the ol "good job brownie' treatment. He let him fry. So this is a lot like what Lieberman did to the Dems when they threw him under the bus. Lott ran again and got the whip job. Lieberman ran again and won too.

Bush doesn't control who gets elected and niether do the Dems.

Right and wrong are not a matter of public vote. H.L. Mencken is kind of a crotchety bastard, but I cannot deny that there's some truth in what he says:


...the great masses of men, even in this inspired republic, are precisely where the mob was at the dawn of history. They are ignorant, they are dishonest, they are cowardly, they are ignoble. They know little if anything that is worth knowing, and there is not the slightest sign of a natural desire among them to increase their knowledge.

Such immortal vermin, true enough, get their share of the fruits of human progress, and so they may be said, in a way to have their part in it. .... He has at hand a thousand devices for making life less wearisome and more tolerable: the telephone, railroads, bichloride tablets, newspapers, sewers, correspondence schools, delicatessen. But he had no more to do with bringing these things into the world than the horned cattle in the fields, and he does no more to increase them today than the birds of the air.

On the contrary, he is generally against them, and sometimes with immense violence. Every step in human progress, from the first feeble stirrings in the abyss of time, has been opposed by the great majority of men.

More rioting in the Paris suburbs. Apparently it's exactly the opposite of how it is here in Detroit - only the rich get to live in Paris, all the poor are relegated to the suburbs. This time, though, gunshots have been fired. The new French President Nicholas Sarkozy tells everyone "So zat sings are vewy cleah: What has happened is absolutely unasseptaahbluh," (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21978411/) You're doing an excellent job, Nicko. Keep up the good work.

Very nice accent.

mmm, Sarkozy's

(a Kzoo bakery with awesome bread)

CIA sez no nuke program in Iran since 2003.

I'm not sure whether to believe our intel or not.

Oh I see. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

And anyway, what do you mean you don't know whether to believe our intelligence? It's all you have. It's not like you're running an alternative intelligence program out of your garage, or your buddy Jim has some keen insights that somehow the intelligence agencies that are all run by the Executive Branch are somehow being manipulated by their bosses into saying something that isn't true and does not conform to the agenda being propagated by the Executive Branch. For them to be mistaken...how would any one of us have any idea about that? And for them to be intimidated or manipulated...it wouldn't make any sense.

This is the same thing that frustrates me about the truck drivers and PC repair technicians who say "evolution isn't a fact, I disagree with how some of the evidence is interpreted." OK, Professor Microscope, what fascinating insights do you have in the tedious and scholastically competitive field of genetics?

I don't believe in Iran.

I believe the intel that I agree with and don't believe the shit that might limit my ability to go to fucking war.

I believe the intel that I agree with and don't believe the shit that might limit my ability to go to fucking war.
Except that...you know...no one has any cause to disagree with the CIA and the 17 other intelligence agencies, because none of us are the ones putting themselves at risk to collect the secrets? And if Iran has no significant nuclear weapons or missile technology program, there's no reason to go to war with them at all? Other than that, we're in complete agreement.

Fascinating interview with the Pakistani political writer Ahmed Rashid on NPR today. He said 3 things that were REALLY interesting.

1. Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf is using the whole "war on terror" thing to get political support from the USA. He's not well liked at home (obviously), but apparently he has a habit of letting Islamist rebellions fester into a crisis so that it will make the nightly news in the USA, and when he has to send the troops in to fight the rebels, it makes him look like a hero. For instance, he let the Islamist extremist student groups take over the Red Mosque in Islamabad for 6 months before he decided to do anything about it. So things that seem small at first, and could be cleared out by the cops, actually get many times worse because the extremists fortify their positions and then he has to send in the Army.

2. A lot of the problems in Pakistan and Afghanistan are actually caused by the hatred between India and Pakistan. Say there's a crisis in Afghanistan, and India decides to lend some support. The Pakistanis will see this as a case of India trying to influence affairs in the greater Middle East, and will actively fight against whatever it is - even if it's actually stabilizing the region. Pakistan will always view India as an enemy at the cost of common sense.

3. When the report came out that said Iran isn't working on nukes, everyone was relieved a little bit in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The way they saw it, if there was ever a war, the Pakistanis and Afghans would have to fight on the side of the USA, and Iran would do whatever it could do undermine their already fragile governments, so they don't want it to come to that. But they're also pissed off at us for putting them in this position - they know the USA is pushing hard for war with Iran, but they would be the ones to suffer the most, and it would be especially bad if there was no reason to go to war with them in the first place.

Interesting stuff.

She'll be dead within a month.

Prescient.

Instead of holding a vote on FISA today, Congressional Dems decide to hold in contempt of congress Harriet Myers and ???

No wonder Congress aproval ratings are at an ALL-TIME low.

Congress approval = Presidential approval minus some %. That's how it's always been. People's rating of Congress largely reflects how well they feel governed, and they routinely give an edge to a humanizing face rather than a faceless crowd. You have to go back to the Watergate era to find Congress significantly ahead of the President for any great length of time. Even then, a majority disapproved of Congress when they were doing the right thing.

The telco immunity bill is just stupid. Don't give immunity until you have a better idea of what they did and how it was wrong, OR unless they want to cooperate with you in going after bigger fish (the only bigger fish being lame duck Bush who no telco wants to attack). BTW, it's not FISA that's in any danger, but the "Protect America Act" mostly-crap extension that's expiring. FISA as originally conceived of was largely fine and gets restored.

If I were gonna give Congress in particular disapproval ratings, it'd be over the inordinate amount of time spent with baseball players and steroid abuse.

If I were gonna give Congress in particular disapproval ratings, it'd be over the inordinate amount of time spent with baseball players and steroid abuse.

BOO JOHN MCCAINS 2 FACED ASS!

But mxy they've been massaging this bill for close to 2 years now. The Senate approved it. The Prez gave a lot to get them to agree to it, but they are just being bitches and won't bring it to a vote. Just to jab the Prez, the day they had penciled in the vote, they hold a vote of contempt on 2 of the Prezs aids.

Its just that our elected assholes up there would rather do a 2nd grade stunt, then do the peeps bizness.

Not saying the Reps hasn't done this too, but it doesn't make it any less fucking childish, imo.

The Senate is a bunch of of bought-for paid-for tools when it comes to the telco immunity bullshit.

"Vote to keep our ass out of jail, or watch us fuck you in a close election by giving hard to your opponent." I'm all for that... NOT!

You don't give anyone immunity unless you know what they did and are willing to take the heat for it, or unless it's for a higher purpose (e.g. nabbing a bigger fish, a Truth Commission to heal the country, etc.). I'm not buying the rationale that it's needed to elicit cooperation. If a cop asks me to spy on my neighbor and get me nekkid pictures of her, I don't do it because a cop said so, and I don't get immunity. It's gotta be a lawful directive.

The Reps decided to call for a procedural vote in the middle of a memorial for Tom Lantos just to fuck with the Dems. It's all crap on both sides.

I want our Gov't to try to stop peeps from killing me. But thats just me.

Nothing about the telco amendment is about stopping terrorists of the killing variety. FISA is still in place, and was never going away. This is about burying crimes committed by telcos at the request of our government, the nature of which we can only guess at, and which may come to bite us in the ass later. It draws its support from politicians who can be bought by telco interests -- mostly Republicans, but Debbie Stabenow voted for it too. Our justice system for sale... film at 11. Swell.

Nothing about the telco amendment is about stopping terrorists of the killing variety. FISA is still in place, and was never going away. This is about burying crimes committed by telcos at the request of our government, the nature of which we can only guess at, and which may come to bite us in the ass later. It draws its support from politicians who can be bought by telco interests -- mostly Republicans, but Debbie Stabenow voted for it too. Our justice system for sale... film at 11. Swell.

And thats the part where Michael Moore will help us out. lol

The Senate Intel committee with Dems aproved this thing. Thats where it belongs.

The Dems want to drag this out so all our secrets will be exposed to our enemies. Ridiculous.

I have some small professional connections to this mess, which I am 100% sure is driving my passion on it, and which I shouldn't speak more of. Bleah.

The Dems allienate an ally, Columbia. Thats it, push them to Chavez.

Hunh?!? That's not the dynamic. Chavez (radical left) and Uribe (radical right) can't stand each other. They only reestablished diplomatic relations a month ago. Their countries can cooperate, but they're not in any danger of being buddy-buddy.

The issue is -- when do unions turn into terrorists?

Uribe's paramilitary death squads have been involved in killing union leaders as part of establishing order in a chaotic place. Likewise, union leaders have been involved in terroristic activities, much as labor leaders in the U.S. did acts that would be considered terrorism. Who's good and who's bad? Has the Colombian government under Uribe been good enough to get "free trade" status?

It's a fun issue.

Hunh?!? That's not the dynamic. Chavez (radical left) and Uribe (radical right) can't stand each other. They only reestablished diplomatic relations a month ago. Their countries can cooperate, but they're not in any danger of being buddy-buddy.

The issue is -- when do unions turn into terrorists?

Uribe's paramilitary death squads have been involved in killing union leaders as part of establishing order in a chaotic place. Likewise, union leaders have been involved in terroristic activities, much as labor leaders in the U.S. did acts that would be considered terrorism. Who's good and who's bad? Has the Colombian government under Uribe been good enough to get "free trade" status?

It's a fun issue.

I'm sorry, your nuanced analysis doesn't fit neatly onto a partisan scorecard. Therefore... :dismissed:

So whats Chenney smilling at? Look closely at the image in his glasses. I guess he's catching a bunch of shit about it.



http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/041108_cheneytext.jpg (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,350272,00.html)

On a more serious note...The Navy fired warning shots over the bow of an Iranian boat today.

On a more serious note...The Navy fired warning shots over the bow of an Iranian boat today.


US Navy fires at Iranian boat and misses. Bush administration under fire over training and equipment.

So it wasn't warning shots, they were actually trying to shoot the Iranians?

I'm not sure, but one thing I am sure about is don't believe anything the NYT prints.

Um, that was sarcasm making fun of how the NYT might spin "warning shots" not an actual quote.

Ahhhh, my bad.

I was bested by gee

I was bested by gee

This will drop you in the Poster Rankings, for sure.

So whats Chenney smilling at? Look closely at the image in his glasses. I guess he's catching a bunch of shit about it.



http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/041108_cheneytext.jpg (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,350272,00.html)

Chick is on a yacht (or boat). Side view of Dick suggests land (grass or hillside). Photoshop gone wrong. Must be the work of the man formerly known as e-ray.

I guess I'll just have to hang my hat on making it in the first go-around. :)

I guess that makes me the Appalachian State of WTF.

I guess that makes me the Appalachian State of WTF.

Taking down Tahoe will gitcha in the Poster Top Ten.

It's THAT huge.

Kerry pitches in.








http://image.email.johnkerry.com/0a32af26-9.jpg (http://click.email.johnkerry.com/?ju=fe5f10797060007c7717&ls=fdf015747c67047f70137972&m=fefd1273716607&l=fecd177070660c7d&s=fe2c1671776c0679761c75&jb=ffcf14&t=)




Hello Friend,



What's happening in our economy right now is the result of too many years of deregulation, tax cuts to the rich, and anything-goes capitalism. Folks, we've gone too far down this path to be able to get us back on track with any half-measures.


We need the strongest Democratic majority possible to get the change we need in Washington. We need to make sure a handful of Republican Senators can't block President Obama as he tries to get our country back on track.


It's time to push even harder to completely change Washington. We need to aim to get 60 votes in the Senate to push real change in our country.


So I have an announcement: I just gave a million dollars from my campaign to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to try to make this happen. I'm making this announcement to you here in the johnkerry.com (http://click.email.johnkerry.com/?ju=fe5e10797060007c7710&ls=fdf015747c67047f70137972&m=fefd1273716607&l=fecd177070660c7d&s=fe2c1671776c0679761c75&jb=ffcf14&t=) community first because I want you to join me in my commitment to get this change.


Please give $25, $50, or $100 to some great Democratic Senate candidates to help:


http://www.actblue.com/page/pushforchange (http://click.email.johnkerry.com/?ju=fe5d10797060007c7711&ls=fdf015747c67047f70137972&m=fefd1273716607&l=fecd177070660c7d&s=fe2c1671776c0679761c75&jb=ffcf14&t=)


These Democrats are facing a barrage of misleading and dishonest attacks from their opponents and from well-funded outside groups. The Republicans are desperate to hold on to some power, and they are throwing the kitchen sink at these folks.


Al Franken, Kay Hagan, Mark Udall, and Tom Allen need your support. They are all in winnable races, and they are all under intense attack. We need to win each and every race we can to get to the 60 votes we need and shunt the Bush-McCain Republicans aside and get to work.


So please give what you can:


http://www.actblue.com/page/pushforchange (http://click.email.johnkerry.com/?ju=fe5d10797060007c7711&ls=fdf015747c67047f70137972&m=fefd1273716607&l=fecd177070660c7d&s=fe2c1671776c0679761c75&jb=ffcf14&t=)


Thank you so much. We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track.



Thanks,
John Kerry






(http://click.email.johnkerry.com/?ju=fe5f10797060007c7717&ls=fdf015747c67047f70137972&m=fefd1273716607&l=fecd177070660c7d&s=fe2c1671776c0679761c75&jb=ffcf14&t=)

Once you start psychologically and|or physically mutilating when they refuse to tell, they go numb. The state of the art for truth serums is little better than taking them to a bar and getting them drunk. Lie detector and MRI techniques to confirm veracity fall down, so your ways of confirmation often involve traps. And of course, the distributed cells makes it hard to extract a lot from any one person.
This post of mine seems more relevant today than it was 18 months ago, especially with the revelation that we were literally trying to create a torturous connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq where none existed:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html

If you build it, they will come. Yessir.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042503120.html


Overall, the public is about evenly divided on the questions of whether torture is justifiable in terrorism cases and whether there should be official inquiries into any past illegality involving the treatment of terrorism suspects. About half of all Americans, and 52 percent of independents, said there are circumstances in which the United States should consider employing torture against such suspects.

Barely more than half of all poll respondents back Obama's April 16 decision to release the memos specifying how and when to employ specific interrogation techniques. A third "strongly oppose" that decision, about as many as are solidly behind it. Three-quarters of Democrats said they approve of the action, while 74 percent of Republicans are opposed; independents split 50 to 46 percent in favor of the decision.

LOL @ "employing torture"

Keeping someone up...Torture.
Keeping them in a cold room...Torture.
Scare them by pouring water over their head...Torture.

I've always said that if we're going to torture (or enhance our interrogations... with artificial torture substitutes) then we should own our practices. Do it here on american soil with american interrogators and open congressional/executive approval. No extraordinary renditions to shady "allies", no legal limbo offshore island torture resorts. Any government practice that can't survive the light of day and happen within the framework of american rule of law shouldn't be happening in the first place.

If accountability for torture gets the responsible parties voted out of office then so be it, the people have spoken.

I guess I should sue my Dad, rip Dad, and all my Uncles tortored all my cousins. I saw a guy torture his son the other day at The Home Depot.

Torture is everywhere.

LOL @ "employing torture"

Keeping someone up...Torture.
Keeping them in a cold room...Torture.
Scare them by pouring water over their head...Torture.
I actually agree with this to some degree.

Like bug in a box. Seriously? Bug in a box is torture? Kindergarten boys are torturing kindergarten girls all throughout America this very moment.

Torture is everywhere.

Everywhere but here. Apparently if you do all those warm-and-fuzzy-things-that-aren't-real-torture to people on american soil you run afoul of american law.

Well if BO wants to look at all of this, go for it. He let the memo's out. When the memo's stated something about getting good info from that-scary-torture stuff (like a bug in a box) they redacted it.

Sorry but I see politics in a lot of what BO is doing here...duh.

So now we should open it all up. Let it all out. Lets have a dicush about it all in the open. He let the terroists know what we do, so lets get it out there. Tell the truth. Tell the truth the American peeps if it worked or not. I really fuckin disagreed with him releasing that shit, btw.

And to be thorough, lets make sure we investigate the Clinton admin too. Lets get that stuff out when Clinton 'reportedly' sent some peeps to other countries.

BO is being a real dickwad on this, imo.

I actually agree with this to some degree.

Like bug in a box. Seriously? Bug in a box is torture? Kindergarten boys are torturing kindergarten girls all throughout America this very moment.

Pystunz Bucketball = Torture

Well if BO wants to look at all of this, go for it. He let the memo's out. When the memo's stated something about getting good info from that-scary-torture stuff (like a bug in a box) they redacted it.
Zubaydah provided good info to the FBI long before the "bug in a box" tactic. It's unclear if the "bug in a box" added anything that he hadn't already told them long before. A lot of the things classified as "revelations" weren't.

How do you know when to stop torturing someone? KSM was waterboarded 180 times in a month or some shit like that. If the first 179 times didn't work, why should the 180th time? If he confesses to some crime under extreme duress, how do you know that it's not bullshit just to get the torture to stop (as was reported the case with KSM, who confessed to all kinds of things where his real connection was tenuous at best)?


Sorry but I see politics in a lot of what BO is doing here...duh.

So now we should open it all up. Let it all out. Lets have a dicush about it all in the open. He let the terroists know what we do, so lets get it out there. Tell the truth. Tell the truth the American peeps if it worked or not. I really fuckin disagreed with him releasing that shit, btw.
Define "worked". Torture worked very effectively to make us look like shit with a lot of our allies, but is that the kind of effectiveness we want? Do we have any idea of how much information we lost because we tortured people into shutting down where other mechanisms might have opened them up? Judging effectiveness turns out to be hard in most cases.


And to be thorough, lets make sure we investigate the Clinton admin too. Lets get that stuff out when Clinton 'reportedly' sent some peeps to other countries.
Rendition started under Bill Clinton. That's not "reportedly" or rumored, that's simply factual. But under Clinton, rendition wasn't conducted for interrogation purposes, and didn't involve U.S. soil. It was all about removing bad guys on foreign soil without outright killing them, and our agents didn't directly acquire the targets. We matched wanted foreign baddies we cared about as dangers to the U.S. with the foreign countries who wanted them, then supported the locals/third parties who did the kidnappings. Dubya's rendition is occasionally referred to as "extraordinary rendition", to distinguish it from rendition as an extradition thingy the way Clinton implemented it.

Zubaydah provided good info to the FBI long before the "bug in a box" tactic. It's unclear if the "bug in a box" added anything that he hadn't already told them long before. A lot of the things classified as "revelations" weren't.

How do you know when to stop torturing someone? KSM was waterboarded 180 times in a month or some shit like that. If the first 179 times didn't work, why should the 180th time? If he confesses to some crime under extreme duress, how do you know that it's not bullshit just to get the torture to stop (as was reported the case with KSM, who confessed to all kinds of things where his real connection was tenuous at best)?


Define "worked". Torture worked very effectively to make us look like shit with a lot of our allies, but is that the kind of effectiveness we want? Do we have any idea of how much information we lost because we tortured people into shutting down where other mechanisms might have opened them up? Judging effectiveness turns out to be hard in most cases.


Rendition started under Bill Clinton. That's not "reportedly" or rumored, that's simply factual. But under Clinton, rendition wasn't conducted for interrogation purposes, and didn't involve U.S. soil. It was all about removing bad guys on foreign soil without outright killing them, and our agents didn't directly acquire the targets. We matched wanted foreign baddies we cared about as dangers to the U.S. with the foreign countries who wanted them, then supported the locals/third parties who did the kidnappings. Dubya's rendition is occasionally referred to as "extraordinary rendition", to distinguish it from rendition as an extradition thingy the way Clinton implemented it.

Bits and pieces of info. Nothing is for sure cuz BO put out what George Soros wanted him to put out.

PUT IT ALL OUT THERE NOW!

He may have created a :SHIT STORM!: if the Republicans have any balls at all. He can't just put out bits and pieces.

Also, my sources tell me, that Nanci knew of everything, so her meetings were redacted.

The Dems knew of all of this. I can't wait. This is going to get good.

:SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!: :SHIT STORM!:

^two short

Where is your sense of feng shui?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/28/ross/index.html?source=rss

Seriously, once you figure out they aren't going to let you drowned where is the motivation to talk from this technique?

I read Jim Bunning has decided not to run for re-election in Kentucky.

I think it's good news for Republicans because he was not going to win another term. At least now the seat has a far better chance at staying red.

I guess Ron Paul's kid, Rand Paul is going to run as the Republican.

Seriously, once you figure out they aren't going to let you drowned where is the motivation to talk from this technique?

Anyone else still waiting?

• Spokeswoman: Jack Kemp, one-time VP nominee, dies (http://www.yahoo.com/s/135781/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090503/ap_on_re_us/us_obit_kemp)

I didn't know he was sick. T&P He was liked by lots of peeps on both sides.

17th round draft pick by the Detroit Lions.

Jack Kemp was someone who I disagreed with profoundly, but I think he honestly believed what he said he believed. One of the few GOPers of his time to really sincerely reach out to blacks. He was liked by everyone he knew. He will be missed.

^ I see what you did there

Well, I give the guy a lot of credit - he was sincere and good-hearted. He was a big player during an era (the 80's) when the GOP had a ton of credibility, and he was a big reason for that credibility. By all accounts, he was an intellectual to be reckoned with even during his athletic career. He was kind of like Bill Buckley Jr. but more down-to-earth. The 1996 presidential race might have ended differently if he had gotten top billing instead of Dole.

You're not likely to get this kind of praise out of me for a modern Republican, so take it for what it's worth. He was the kind of Republican politician I could still respect and that says a lot. May he find sublime peace.

I'm 100% with Swami on this. Good guy with an actual ideology aimed at improving government and the country. We could use a lot more of it on both sides of the aisle.

Well, I give the guy a lot of credit - he was sincere and good-hearted. He was a big player during an era (the 80's) when the GOP had a ton of credibility, and he was a big reason for that credibility. By all accounts, he was an intellectual to be reckoned with even during his athletic career. He was kind of like Bill Buckley Jr. but more down-to-earth. The 1996 presidential race might have ended differently if he had gotten top billing instead of Dole.

You're not likely to get this kind of praise out of me for a modern Republican, so take it for what it's worth. He was the kind of Republican politician I could still respect and that says a lot. May he find sublime peace.

Me either.

Newspapers asking for taxpayer bailout.

Stop the spending please. If they were something peeps wanted they'd subscribe for them. So they try to do an end around get the Gov't to steal our money from us and give it to them.

Not going to be popular here in Detroit, but I supported the banks. They are a backbone of the economy and could/have damamged unrelated, innocent sectors in the process. Now, I would have seen to it that the perpetrators who made shady loans were undone if such power existed, but whatever.

Papers are cars on the other hand have failed in the US, and will fail futher the longer we support them. Give that money to an emerging, technologically forward industry in the form of tax breaks and purchase incentives. We need a new assembly line/PC every 20 years to support this monster, let's go find it before China does.

If banks hold that special status, shouldn't they be treated seperately in the economic markets then?

I supported some of the bank bailouts too, it just got way out of hand, imo.

I don't know what to do about the newspapers. I think maybe the best thing to do is to let them fold. It's not like the economy's going to improve in the future and the newspapers are suddenly going to be swimming in cash.

I wish we could keep them, but I don't know if it's feasible at all.

"If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd choose Rush Limbaugh," Cheney said when asked about whose vision of the GOP he'd side with. "My impression was that Colin was no longer a Republican."

Way to go Dick! Dick picks a Republican over a Dem.

Attaboy!

If banks hold that special status, shouldn't they be treated seperately in the economic markets then?


Expound please. Regulation or direct control?

That's supposed to be news?

Here's another bit of news -- Dick Cheney is a Republican!

Who knew?!?

That's supposed to be news?

Here's another bit of news -- Dick Cheney is a Republican!

Who knew?!?

Well according to my friends who are libs its all the talk in the lib circles. Y'all need to get with it.