The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[innerSpaceman]

Reagan was very proud of himself for basically outlasting the Soviet martial spending spree, and here we are doing it to ourselves.
To which I might add ... there's still a trillion dollars left out there of default and dead investments heading the way of U.S. Banks. The two billion that hit them so far, and for which they received a bailout from the Federal Reserve, is a drop in the bucket. The Federal Reserve, as I understand it, has only 400 billion dollars left. Not enough to cover 1 trillion in pending bank losses.

Yet we spend a trillion a year on wars overseas. Either that stops or, yes, our own military spending puts us into complete financial ruin.

[scaeagles]

I continue to be amused at what is either ignorance or (more likely) preying on the ignorance of the electorate by Obama and Clinton when it comes to oil.

Clinton's attacks on oil prices as artificially inflated, Enron-style, keep escalating, and today she appeared to threaten to break up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

"We’re going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at," she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.

"That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly," she said, saying she'd use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.

What exactly is that going to accomplish? SQUAT! Our laws and the WTO have absolutely no jurisdiction.

Not to be outdone....
The Obama campaign points out that Clinton has not signed on to cosponsor a bill that aspires "to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal."

Again, we can pass a law that makes OPEC illegal? What a dork.

There are two solutions to our oil issue. One, use less. However, it isn't going to happen easily. Our economy runs on oil. The other is to increase domestic production, and sadly (to me anyway) the environmental lobby will wrap any such thing up in court for years. We need a President who will not address the symptoms of the problem, but eliminate it, and none of the three have the guts or will to do it. The only way to weaken OPEC is to take away their market, which we can do.

One argument Bill Clinton made in 95 against drilling in ANWR was that we wouldn't see any oil from it for 10 years. Well, here we are 13 years later and our situation is worse. Politicians suck because it is all about what benefits them in the short term with rarely any vision beyond the next election.

REVOLUCION!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Moonliner]

I continue to be amused at what is either ignorance or (more likely) preying on the ignorance of the electorate by Obama and Clinton when it comes to oil.



What exactly is that going to accomplish? SQUAT! Our laws and the WTO have absolutely no jurisdiction.

Not to be outdone....


Again, we can pass a law that makes OPEC illegal? What a dork.

There are two solutions to our oil issue. One, use less. However, it isn't going to happen easily. Our economy runs on oil. The other is to increase domestic production, and sadly (to me anyway) the environmental lobby will wrap any such thing up in court for years. We need a President who will not address the symptoms of the problem, but eliminate it, and none of the three have the guts or will to do it. The only way to weaken OPEC is to take away their market, which we can do.

One argument Bill Clinton made in 95 against drilling in ANWR was that we wouldn't see any oil from it for 10 years. Well, here we are 13 years later and our situation is worse. Politicians suck because it is all about what benefits them in the short term with rarely any vision beyond the next election.

REVOLUCION!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every time the price of gas goes up there are a few more Americans that start thinking "Hey, maybe this oil economy is not a good thing. What else is there?". I hope gas goes to $5 a gallon or more. What we need in this country is a good hard slap in the face to get us seriously on the road to energy independence. Solar, nuclear, fusion, hydrogen, wind, geothermal, wave power.... Develop all of them, Use all of them. When the people start to demand it the market will respond.

[scaeagles]

Moonliner, I couldn't agree more. I think those things - particularly nuclear and solar - are what we need to do in terms of electrical power. If electric cars can be made that meet the needs of users (we all know the drawbacks), then I say go for it (but the expense to the consumer of purchasing those is immense and not likely to happen quickly), and the same goes for hydrogen (though that presents additional problems, such as refueling infrastructure). These things, I believe from what I've read, are decades away from making any impact in the oil economy.

By the way, I read something really cool about a company called nanosolar. They basically were able to take solar cells and put them in a wall paper type application. Cool.

[Moonliner]

Moonliner, I couldn't agree more. I think those things - particularly nuclear and solar - are what we need to do in terms of electrical power. If electric cars can be made that meet the needs of users (we all know the drawbacks), then I say go for it (but the expense to the consumer of purchasing those is immense and not likely to happen quickly), and the same goes for hydrogen (though that presents additional problems, such as refueling infrastructure). These things, I believe from what I've read, are decades away from making any impact in the oil economy.

By the way, I read something really cool about a company called nanosolar. They basically were able to take solar cells and put them in a wall paper type application. Cool.

I cry Bull****. "Decades away" is propaganda for "Let's make all we can from oil before we move on". In less than ten years this country went from toy rockets to a man on the moon. We need an Apollo level program aimed at energy independence. We need a leader that will make energy independence a priority.



(Yeah, yeah, we were a bit beyond "toy rockets" when Kennedy made the call to put a man on the moon but you get my point..)

[scaeagles]

In terms of solar and nuclear power, what if we decided that, yes indeed, starting today we are going to go all out to, as France does, get 70% of our power from nuke plants. How long would that take? I really don't know. I'm guessing 20 years?

Let's say in 2 years someone has developed an electric car that can go 400 miles at 75mph on one charge. How long until even 50% of the cars on the road are that? Maybe 5-10 years.

Let's say in 2 years an affordable hydrogen cell automobile is available. How long until the infrastructure is there to support that? Even with all out effort, 15 years? I think that's optimistic, really.

So, yeah.....I do think it's decades away. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be pushing toward those goals. It isn't the difficulty of the projects that I find to be daunting, it is the sheer mass of the change over.

[BDBopper]

It's primary day in Indiana and North Carolina. What's going to happen? I think for the Dems it will be very close in both states (with Clinton and Obama splitting the two states and the delegates). Meanwhile I think McCain's problems will continue as about 30% of the GOP electorate refuses to vote for him even though he will be their nominee (I don't blame them...I don't like him either). I think that in one state (of the two) McCain won't garner 70% (if I had to guess where I'd say North Carolina).

[Moonliner]

In terms of solar and nuclear power, what if we decided that, yes indeed, starting today we are going to go all out to, as France does, get 70% of our power from nuke plants. How long would that take? I really don't know. I'm guessing 20 years?

Let's say in 2 years someone has developed an electric car that can go 400 miles at 75mph on one charge. How long until even 50% of the cars on the road are that? Maybe 5-10 years.

Let's say in 2 years an affordable hydrogen cell automobile is available. How long until the infrastructure is there to support that? Even with all out effort, 15 years? I think that's optimistic, really.

So, yeah.....I do think it's decades away. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be pushing toward those goals. It isn't the difficulty of the projects that I find to be daunting, it is the sheer mass of the change over.

That's all I'm talking about.

Delelope an Electric/hydrogen/warp/whatever car that can go 300 (hell even 100) miles at highway speeds and costs no more than a civic.

Create solar panels and efficient appliances so that I generate 80% of the power I need off my roof.

Use other green energy (wind/solar, etc..) to generate that other 20%.

Get that done in the next decade and you can take as long as you want to revamp the infrastructure. Once the technology is market ready in terms of price vs benefit the change over will take care of itself.

Oh and yes, I am not waiting for "them" to do all this. I am already investing in green mutual funds (http://www.greencentury.com/home/default.aspx)(note that link is not an endorsement, it's just an example) and I'm looking at the feasibility of leaving the moonie-minivan in the garage during the day and switching to a hybrid bike (http://www.electric-bikes.com/bikes/bikes.html#electrec).

[sleepyjeff]

I am still waiting for my flying car but in the meantime a peoplemover that converts to a personal car all powered by sunshine would suffice:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rtrB82YObXw

[3894]

A Man may make a Remark —
In itself — a quiet thing
That may furnish the Fuse unto a Spark
In dormant nature — lain —

Let us deport — with skill —
Let us discourse — with care —
Powder exists in Charcoal —
Before it exists in Fire.
-Emily Dickinson

Sen. Clinton needs to tread carefully now. If she is negative, those remarks may smolder over the summer and ignite in October.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Anyone following this Nigerian cease fire story? It's kinda bizarre. The rebel group is claiming an appeal from Obama has made them consider a truce, but Obama's campaign doesn't seem to have any knowledge of said appeal. Meanwhile, the rebel group also wrote a letter to Bush requesting that Jimmy Carter and George Clooney come in to mediate negotiations.

Not sure what to make of this.

[scaeagles]

Sounds like the Nigerian Rebels have been punked.

Jimmy Carter and George Clooney? That's bizarre.

[Alex]

REQUEST FOR URGENT PEACE RELATIONSHIP

FIRST, I MUST SOLICIT YOUR STRICTEST CONFIDENCE IN THIS PEACE PROCESS. THIS IS BY VIRTUE OF ITS NATURE AS BEING UTTERLY CONFIDENTIAL AND 'TOP SECRET'. I AM SURE AND HAVE CONFIDENCE OF YOUR ABILITY AND RELIABILITY TO PROSECUTE A PEACE PROCESS OF THIS GREAT MAGNITUDE INVOLVING A PENDING PEACE REQUIRING MAXIIMUM CONFIDENCE.

I AM SOON TOP OFFICIAL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL WHO ARE INTERESTED IN IMPORATION OF PEACE INTO YOUR COUNTRY WITH CEASE FIRES WHICH ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN NIGERIA. IN ORDER TO COMMENCE THIS PEACE WE SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE TO ENABLE US TRANSFER INTO YOUR COUNTRY THE SAID TRAPPED CEASE FIRE.

THE SOURCE OF THIS PEACE IS AS FOLLOWS; DURING THE LAST MILITARY REGIME THERE IN NIGERIA, THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SET UP COMPANIES AND AWARDED THEMSELVES CONTRACTS WHICH WERE OPEN ONLY TO GEORGE CLOONEY, ADAM SANDLER AND JIMMY CARTER. THE PRESENT CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT SET UP A CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL AND THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED A LOT OF INFLATED CONTRACT TERMS WHICH ARE PRESENTLY FLOATING IN HALLS OF POWER IN NIGERIA READY FOR USE.

HOWEVER, BY VIRTUE OF MY POSITION AS CIVIL SERVANT AND MEMBERS OF THIS PANEL, WE CANNOT ADVOCATE THE INVOLVEMENT OF ADAM SANDLER. I HAVE THEREFORE, BEEN DELEGATED AS A MATTER OF TRUST BY MY COLLEAGUES OF THE PANEL TO LOOK FOR A NIGERIAN PARTNER INTO WHOSE NAME WE WOULD TRANSFER PRESENCE AND INVOLVEMENT OF JIMMY CARTER AND GEORGE CLOONEY. HENCE WE ARE WRITING YOU THIS LETTER. WE HAVE AGREED TO SHARE THESE CELEBRITIES THUS; 1. 20% FOR THE NIGERIAN FRONTMAN 2. 70% FOR ME (AS I DO LIKE FACE TIME WITH CLOONEY) 3. 10% TO BE USED IN FILMING A DRAMATIC SUSPENSE FILM. IT IS FROM THE 70% THAT WE WISH TO COMMENCE THE IMPORTATION OF THE PEACE PROCESS.

PLEASE, NOTE THAT THIS CEASE FIRE IS 100% SAFE AND WE HOPE TO COMMENCE THE TRANSFER LATEST SEVEN (7) DIPLOMATIC DAYS (24 NORMAL YEARS) FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATIOM BY TEL/FAX; 234-1-7740449, YOUR SIGNED, AND STAMPED LETTERHEAD PAPER THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL ENABLE US WRITE LETTERS OF CLAIM AND JOB DESCRIPTION RESPECTIVELY. THIS WAY WE WILL USE YOUR NAME TO APPLY FOR PASSPORTS AND VISAS FOR THESE VITAL CELEBRITIES.

WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING THIS PEACE WITH YOU AND SOLICIT YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY IN THIS TRANSATION. PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER USING THE ABOVE TEL/FAX NUMBERS. I WILL SEND YOU DETAILED INFORMATION OF THIS PENDING PROJECT WHEN I HAVE HEARD FROM YOU.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,

BARACK OBAMA

NOTE; PLEASE QUOTE THIS REFERENCE NUMBER (VE/S/09/99) IN ALL YOUR RESPONSES.

[Ghoulish Delight]

George Clooney has been very active in Darfur, it's not as bizarre as it sounds.

[Ghoulish Delight]

V.A.M!!!

[BDBopper]

Sources claim (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/05/12/source-huckabee-tops-mccains-veep-list.html) that Mike Huckabee is at the top of McCain's shortlist for Veep. That is exciting and sobering at the same time. If this does become the case there is a lot of work to be done.

Meanwhile (while very early) the bottom seems to be falling out for Obama vs. McCain. I have been following things over at THIS SITE (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May12.html)for the past few weeks. Instead of looking at things from a national scale it is broken down state by state if the election were held today. When I started looking at it Obama was whipping McCain six ways to Sunday. It has almost reversed in a matter of weeks. The pendulum will likely swing back and forth.

[sleepyjeff]

Sources claim (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/05/12/source-huckabee-tops-mccains-veep-list.html) I have been following things over at THIS SITE (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May12.html)for the past few weeks. Instead of looking at things from a national scale it is broken down state by state if the election were held today.


Looks to me like Obama is going to have to choose Strickland(+20) as his VP instead of Richardson(+5). Of course, as things sit now not even the 20 he could get out of Ohio will get him close enough to win.

I still think McCain should go for Pawlenty(+10) and see if he can be the first Republican in like forever to take Minnesota:)

[BDBopper]

Looks to me like Obama is going to have to choose Strickland(+20) as his VP instead of Richardson(+5). Of course, as things sit now not even the 20 he could get out of Ohio will get him close enough to win.

I still think McCain should go for Pawlenty(+10) and see if he can be the first Republican in like forever to take Minnesota:)

No matter who McCain chooses I think his best bet if he wants to win Minnesota is put Huckabee on a bus for a month through the state. He is already popular with Republicans in Minnesota considering his surprisingly strong 2nd in their Caucuses (he spent no time there). I know of no other better at retail politics.

Pawlenty might be a good choice but I think the VP choice needs to come from the right (at least socially). If McCain chooses wisely he will be able to cover the Center and offset Bob Barr on the right (while leaving Obama for the far left). The GOP is going through a time of flux and change. They will likely lose more seats in the House and maybe some in the Senate as well. The can try to minimize the damage by keeping the White House.

[sleepyjeff]

Pawlenty might be a good choice but I think the VP choice needs to come from the right (at least socially). If McCain chooses wisely he will be able to cover the Center and offset Bob Barr on the right (while leaving Obama for the far left).

Another person he might consider would be Romney. This would help McCain solidify his lead in Michigan, and could turn Colorado back to red. It would also put the solid blue states of Massachusetts and Oregon into contention(large Mormon pop in the eastern part of the state)...not winning these States but at least forcing team Obama to spend more money and time there to secure it then they would normally have to.

[innerSpaceman]

Or McCain could go back in time 8 years to when he was an exciting candidate, or perhaps 18 years to where he wasn't too old for a job that ages you 12 years for every 4.

[sleepyjeff]

Or McCain could go back in time 8 years to when he was an exciting candidate, or perhaps 18 years to where he wasn't too old for a job that ages you 12 years for every 4.

This is why his VP choice is VERY important.....very good chance he/she will be the next, next President of the United States:D

[BDBopper]

Another person he might consider would be Romney. This would help McCain solidify his lead in Michigan, and could turn Colorado back to red. It would also put the solid blue states of Massachusetts and Oregon into contention(large Mormon pop in the eastern part of the state)...not winning these States but at least forcing team Obama to spend more money and time there to secure it then they would normally have to.

He might be a good choice but if McCain chooses Mr. Moneybags I'll be voting for Bob Barr. And no this isn't wealth envy. It's just he is a big pompous stuck up jerk. It's lucky he was able to finance his campaign all by himself or he would have gone nowhere because he is as authentic as an aluminum Christmas tree.

But you are right about he may be able to put some other states in play that might not be in play now.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh my, color me shocked. Another "fact" about the war in Iraq turns out not to be true.

Weapons found in Iraq NOT made and supplied by Iran afterall (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19908.htm)

[Moonliner]

Oh my, color me shocked. Another "fact" about the war in Iraq turns out not to be true.

Weapons found in Iraq NOT made and supplied by Iran afterall (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19908.htm)

Humm, the article does not go on to state just were then explosives came from. I wonder, when they turn out to be from the Missouri Army munitions plant will we invade Joplin?

[Mousey Girl]

I consider myself a left-ward leaning Republican.

I heard something this morning that just made me want the elections to come that much quicker. Bush said that he gave up golfing to show support for the troops in Iraq. How is giving up golfing showing support????

Had I not heard the news blip and the words coming out of his mouth I would not have believed anyone could be so stupid.

[Gemini Cricket]

Golf = terrorism.

????

[BDBopper]

Had I not heard the news blip and the words coming out of his mouth I would not have believed anyone could be so stupid.

Well at least for now the Republican Party is the party of Stupidity. In addition both Bush and McCain acknowledge Global Warming. Haven't they read the latest papers? We're headed for the next Ice Age now. Get with it! Geeze!

I am sick of "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" being used as political action words. We should be taking good care of our planet, not for political reasons but because it is the right thing to do. The Lord blessed us with this wonderful planet. We shouldn't abuse it for that is a sin.. The only politician who has ever spoke on this matter with common sense is Mike Huckabee. Global Warming/Climate change is irrelevant. We should be doing everything we can to protect our planet and to keep it beautiful.

[wendybeth]

I consider myself a left-ward leaning Republican.

I heard something this morning that just made me want the elections to come that much quicker. Bush said that he gave up golfing to show support for the troops in Iraq. How is giving up golfing showing support????

Had I not heard the news blip and the words coming out of his mouth I would not have believed anyone could be so stupid.

I thought it was incredibly noble of him, especially since his game needs work. It is stupid- I could understand if he gave up vacations, or donated his salary to causes that support the troops and their families....but golf?:rolleyes:

[Snowflake]

I thought it was incredibly noble of him, especially since his game needs work. It is stupid- I could understand if he gave up vacations, or donated his salary to causes that support the troops and their families....but golf?:rolleyes:

It's the hardship of not being able to hang with his cronies, I guess. Apologies, but this man makes me absolutely sick. He is a constant embarassment as the world representative and "leader" of my country.

[Deebs]

Bush said that he gave up golfing to show support for the troops in Iraq.

*slaps forehead, hard*

[Alex]

There is logic in what he said, essentially that he didn't want soldiers and families seeing pictures of him playing golf while they were out fighting.

And indeed, this is true. Every time over the last 5 years that Bush has done anything leisurely or lighthearted since the war began someone somewhere has raised the alarm about how could he possibly be out having fun while soldiers are dying.

There's just no way to say it out loud that doesn't sound very stupid and like he is creating an equivalence that he isn't.

So the best thing would have been to just not say anything. Especially since he appears to be having a Hillary moment about the last time he played golf.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The very definition of too little too late. He's blown through records for vacation days as President, it's a bit late to start giving up a couple rounds of golf to pretend like you actually care.

[innerSpaceman]

There's just no way to say it out loud that doesn't sound very stupid and like he is creating an equivalence that he isn't.

Oh really, how about the way YOU just said it, Alex? Much more reasonable seeming, though still a bit of an insult.


But not nearly so much of one.

[Alex]

He isn't saying he is giving up golf starting now. But that he gave it up five years ago, not too long after the war began.

And he also didn't say that giving up golf was the entirety of what he felt he'd done to show support. The question wasn't "how do you support the troops" but rather "why don't you play golf any more."

Like I said, there really wasn't any way to say it that it doesn't come out sounding off and therefore best wouldn't have been said (or he just should have said "because the press and bloggers would jump all over it if I did). But jumping on this isn't really any more justified -- in my opinion of course -- than perceived misstatements by Obama that have recently been jumped on, twisted into something worse than they really were, and taken from there.

Of more interest, from a ridiculing standpoint, is that his tale of the event that made him decide it would be best to not be seen on the golf course any more appears to have been incorrect. At least one report has him playing golf well after the car bomb he says triggered the decision.

[BDBopper]

It's the hardship of not being able to hang with his cronies, I guess. Apologies, but this man makes me absolutely sick. He is a constant embarassment as the world representative and "leader" of my country.

I can't agree more. Another corrupt country-club Republican. The GOP has tanked since Reagan left office. He brought his party to power kicking and screaming but when he won by a landslide they suddenly loved him. Reagan wasn't your usual Republican. Why? Cause he was a vertical politician and represented and appealed to Americans and not just Republicans. That's why a bunch of Democrats jumped on his back and rode him to power too. Once his time was done the GOP breathed a sigh of relief and brought forth W's daddy, a country club crony from the establishment. It makes me sick. And what makes me even sicker is that when the corrupt get caught corruption is replaced by socialism. :mad:

[Scrooge McSam]

WARNING: NSFW or for anyone who isn't already convinced Bill OReilly is a cruel fool.

On the other hand, it has a good beat and it's easy to dance to.

Have you been OReilly-rolled (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE&watch_response)?

[Gemini Cricket]

Bush gave up golf several years ago.
Lots of people gave up more than that for this war. Like sons, daughters, husbands...

[SacTown Chronic]

Does this fvcking guy ever stick with anything fun? No more booze, no more coke, no more golf. I bet Laura hasn't seen his Texan pipeline in years. Jesus! Georgie's a dull fvcking boy, no doubt.

[3894]

Marry me, Keith Olbermann.

[scaeagles]

Keith Olberman is a raving lunatic.

[JWBear]

Keith Olberman is a raving lunatic.

No, you're thinking of Rush Limbaugh.

[€uroMeinke]

Hillary Clinton's campaign is $20 million in the red and rumor has it Obama has offered to help her out.

Meanwhile George Bush pledged $500K for the quake victims of China

[sleepyjeff]

No, you're thinking of Rush Limbaugh.

Micheal Savage is a more fair comparison for Olberman(although a slight insult to Savage;) )

[BDBopper]

No, you're thinking of Rush Limbaugh.

I don't like Olberman or Limbaugh. So there. :p

[BDBopper]

Micheal Savage is a more fair comparison for Olberman(although a slight insult to Savage;) )

Savage does rant and rave a lot. Even though I may agree with him a lot he screams way too much. I can't stand him because of it.

At the very least he does play some great tunes between breaks on Fridays

[sleepyjeff]

At the very least he does play some great tunes between breaks on Fridays

I'll give him that much.....

The reason I compare the two is that after listening/watching one or the other for more than 10 minutes I get measurably depressed........say what you will about Limbaugh but depressing is one thing his show is not.

[scaeagles]

I don't know....are you listening today? I'm kind of depressed.

[sleepyjeff]

I don't know....are you listening today? I'm kind of depressed.


No I didn't hear any of it today...what was he talking about?

[Morrigoon]

Meanwhile George Bush pledged $500K for the quake victims of China

Please tell me you're kidding. You're kidding, right? Right?

[Moonliner]

Please tell me you're kidding. You're kidding, right? Right?

Is that:

George Bush concerned citizen pledging 1/2 Million of his own money

or

George Bush President of the United States offering 1/2 Million on behalf of our country?

[sleepyjeff]

Is that:

George Bush concerned citizen pledging 1/2 Million of his own money

or

George Bush President of the United States offering 1/2 Million on behalf of our country?

That's what I was wondering:confused:

[Alex]

$500,000 was the initial pledge on Tuesday prior to knowing any real information about the extent of the damage and the need and whether China was even willing to accept it (they, like the U.S., haven't historically been keen on taking foreign aid after disasters).

As much as Bush sucks, during his administration, the U.S. hasn't been stingy with relief aid and money following natural disasters. I'm sure that if more money is needed (China, after all, does have a several metric ****loads of cash on hand), it will be forthcoming.

[innerSpaceman]

Really? The were pretty stingy with Katrinia relief money, despite the hollow words of pledging. FEMAldahide trailers come immediately to mind.


Guess domestic disasters don't rate.

[Alex]

You won't find me in any way defending our ability to efficiently and effectively spend money. But that is the beauty of international aid:

1. We don't generally spend the cash, we just give it to other people.
2. The military is allowed much greater leeway in the way they can be involved. And say what you will but when our military has clear well defined tasks they are generally pretty good at accomplishing them; with Katrina being a decent example, most of the governmental success stories came out of the military's limited ability to get involved. (Not that our military is going to get anywhere near inner China).

[€uroMeinke]

Didn't mean my post to be a criticism on Bush rather, it struck me odd to come across these two figures, half a million and twenty million and thought it spoke scores about what we value, or what our politicians value anyway.

[BDBopper]

Uh oh. Someone finally came up with the only way to give McCain a chance in November. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64309) But will he listen?

[3894]

Uh oh. Someone finally came up with the only way to give McCain a chance in November. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64309) But will he listen?

Except. McCain will still be the war candidate. Here's a compendium of polls about the Iraq War. (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

In a totally unrelated aside: my husband will be a delegate at the Wisconsin Democratic Convention, mid-June.

[sleepyjeff]

In a totally unrelated aside: my husband will be a delegate at the Wisconsin Democratic Convention, mid-June.

Hey that's really cool. Tell him congratulations and I hope he has a lot of fun.

:snap:

[BDBopper]

Except. McCain will still be the war candidate. Here's a compendium of polls about the Iraq War. (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

In a totally unrelated aside: my husband will be a delegate at the Wisconsin Democratic Convention, mid-June.

Right. However it is very clear that the economy is the biggest issue in this campaign. The war is playing second fiddle to domestic issues. The only state during the primary process where the war in Iraq was the biggest issue according to the voters was Vermont.

And best of luck to your husband. No matter what side it is great to see people involved in the political process. I had full intentions of being a delegate for the state of Georgia's Republican convention. Unfortunately I was ill the morning of the county convention and that first step was required if you wanted to be a delegate. Let' me back up. I had full intentions to try to become a delegate. I probably would have not become one because I just joined the Republican Party recently in an attempt to help change it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The name John Hagee (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/15/141520/281) may haunt McCain for a while.

[scaeagles]

Stupid crap on all fronts....

A GOP leader says "McCain is kind of like Jesus". What?????? I agree it is possible he will be crucified in the upcoming election, but that's about as far as I can see the likeness. And more of his advisors are leaving.

Obama says we can't drive our SUVs and keep the temp of our homes at 72 degrees and expect the rest of the world to be OK with it. I don't freaking care what the rest of the world thinks. How about nuclear power for electricity so we can cool our homes (and 72???? In Phoenix that usually 79-80)? What does the rest of the world think about OPEC countries and do those OPEC nations really care? Does Chavez or Castro or Osama bin Laden or leaders in North Korea or China care? I think not.

Hillary.....nothing particularly stupid or irritating, but it may be because she's not getting as much coverage as the others.

[Moonliner]

do those OPEC nations really care? Does Chavez or Castro or Osama bin Laden or leaders in North Korea or China care? I think not.



I'll assume that was a rhetorical question....

I do think the Opec countries care. Not for the USofA of course but for the teat of our industrial might that they are suckling from. They are pooping their pants because the United States is finally starting to get serious about energy independence. Every Hybrid car, solar cell, wind turbine, wave generator, and geothermal plant, is another nail in the coffin of Opec nations free ride. So they care, they care about milking every last drop of sweet cash cow milk while they can before demand drops and lesser suppliers like Russia and even the US can compete on the global market.

[scaeagles]

If OPEN had a brain in their collective heads they would increase production in a huge way to lower prices so that it is no longer worth the financial while of companies to seriously develop other reliable energy sources.

[innerSpaceman]

Eh, we've passed the tipping point anyway. There are barely 75-100 years of oil reserves left on the planet ... and true energy independence from oil for most of the planet is at least that far away.

[3894]

Hillary Clinton called sexist attacks on her campaign "deeply offensive" Tuesday, as female supporters sprang to her defense, saying she speaks for all women and should stay in the Democratic race to the bitter end.

Source is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080520/pl_afp/usvoteclintonwomen;_ylt=Ai9pvXbPqCYHvZn5hJxkuAus0N UE).

What's "deeply offensive" is this pathetic, last-ditch attack.

Signed,
Woman for whom Hillary does not speak

[Ghoulish Delight]

And McCain's foreign policy ignorance continues to slide under the radar (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/mccain-confronted-with-ne_n_102614.html). :mad:

[mousepod]

I don't know. I think McCain handled that question very well.

[wendybeth]

Source is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080520/pl_afp/usvoteclintonwomen;_ylt=Ai9pvXbPqCYHvZn5hJxkuAus0N UE).

What's "deeply offensive" is this pathetic, last-ditch attack.

Signed,
Woman for whom Hillary does not speak

She certainly does not speak for me, either. I understand how black women could be so offended when CNN tried to make out that they were conflicted in their choices for candidates- I'm offended that anyone, including Clinton, thinks I would vote for someone based on their gender. I would like to think that the candidates have some respect for the voters and credit us with a wee bit of brainage. Clinton is not a positive female role model, unless you consider her cynical marriage/political arrangement a plus. Her desperation is truly sad.

[Capt Jack]

...and should stay in the Democratic race to the bitter end.

not that Im politically motivated in the least, but isnt not knowing when to quit one of the big issues with the current regime?

[3894]

Clinton is not a positive female role model, unless you consider her cynical marriage/political arrangement a plus.

Thank you. Yes!

[JWBear]

not that Im politically motivated in the least, but isnt not knowing when to quit one of the big issues with the current regime?

Thank you. Yes! ;)

[innerSpaceman]

How is her desperation any worse than Obama's lately?

As I predicted, he will become more and more craven as the prize approaches ... and by the time the election roles around, you won't be able to tell him apart from Hillary Clinton or any other politician.

[scaeagles]

Such is the nature of politics.

[Alex]

As I predicted, he will become more and more craven as the prize approaches ... and by the time the election roles around, you won't be able to tell him apart from Hillary Clinton or any other politician.

It's been a light news week for me. What has he been doing that is suddenly craven?

Is it just that he is now campaigning against the opposite party instead of within his own party and therefore the arguments and disagreements are much more significant and aggressive?

[wendybeth]

It's been a light news week for me. What has he been doing that is suddenly craven?

Is it just that he is now campaigning against the opposite party instead of within his own party and therefore the arguments and disagreements are much more significant and aggressive?

Visible mojo. Craven is a pretty strong term- did I miss something?

[Gemini Cricket]

Visible mojo. Craven is a pretty strong term- did I miss something?
I don't know, but I'm craven a Chipwich.

[innerSpaceman]

He caved instantly on his stance for negotiating with our enemies when halfassedly attacked on that position by John McCain. If he's going to drop his principals with so little cause ... I want him to drop his pants and bend over for the insertion of my alarming package.

Because this kind of behavior makes him a bitch.

[Alex]

Ok, I missed something because I've only seen him defending that and getting a fair amount of flack for it.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm too lazy to paraphrase ...


Obama responded quickly and definitely to McCain’s attack. He told Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, "I’ve repeatedly condemned [Hamas]. I’ve repeatedly said ... since [Hamas] is a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and abide by previous agreements." To reinforce this message, Obama dropped Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group from his list of advisors. Malley’s offense had been to meet with Hamas leaders. Given the ICG’s mission - the peaceful, negotiated resolution of conflicts - Malley would not have been doing his job if he hadn’t met with Hamas. And given Obama’s oft-stated position that we should be talking to all parties in the region, the Illinois Senator’s position on Hamas can only be considered a sad abandonment of principles.

[sleepyjeff]

^He's moving away from the Primary campaign and the left.

Time to seize the middle......not a small task considering his foe has been there his whole career.

[wendybeth]

Hillary is in the middle?


Ohhhh....."his". Do you mean McCain? He's hardly a foe. He's toast, and you know it. Even you guys don't want him.:D

[sleepyjeff]

Hillary is in the middle?


Ohhhh....."his". Do you mean McCain? He's hardly a foe. He's toast, and you know it. Even you guys don't want him.:D


http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May18.html

I'd hardly call him "toast" at this point.

You are right though, I don't want him....but given the choice between two things you don't want don't you pick the one that is the least objectionable to you? Assuming you voted for Kerry 4 years ago....did you vote for him because you liked him or was there some other force compelling you to make that choice;)

[wendybeth]

McCain is going to lose. You know it, I know it- even Faux-News knows it. Limbaugh's Operation Push against Obama only confirmed that he knows it as well.

Oh, and I voted for Kerry because I didn't think Bush was a good alternative. I think events have proved that to be so. I didn't vote for him because he was a Dem, that's for sure. If there was a Republican candidate with a moderate stance on the issues and the ability to string together a semi-intelligent sentence, I would have voted for him/her. There wasn't.

[sleepyjeff]

McCain is going to lose. You know it, I know it- even Faux-News knows it. Limbaugh's Operation Push against Obama only confirmed that he knows it as well.



He might lose, I just don't see any evidence out there to convince me he's "toast" just yet....

However, if he does lose I can look back to this post and say, "see, I allowed for the possiblilty that he could lose"..........if he wins though, what will you say?

[Prudence]

He might lose, I just don't see any evidence out there to convince me he's "toast" just yet....

However, if he does lose I can look back to this post and say, "see, I allowed for the possiblilty that he could lose"..........if he wins though, what will you say?

Not to speak for wendybeth, but maybe something like: gosh, is that Satan on ice skates?!

[wendybeth]

Not to speak for wendybeth, but maybe something like: gosh, is that Satan on ice skates?!


You can speak for me anytime, dear.:cheers:

It's all about covering the bases then, Jeff?

[sleepyjeff]

You can speak for me anytime, dear.:cheers:

It's all about covering the bases then, Jeff?

No, it's about keeping an open mind.

[sleepyjeff]

Not to speak for wendybeth, but maybe something like: gosh, is that Satan on ice skates?!


:snap:

[Ghoulish Delight]

Okay, I hate the chain letter antics at the end of this video, but otherwise it pretty much says exactly what I think about McCain.

http://therealmccain.com/

[BDBopper]

A few weeks ago I wrote the following at my blog:

http://ohbabythatswhatilike.blogspot.com/2008/05/thought-for-today-dont-vote-for-lesser.html

My dad and I are in disagreement on this end. He voted for Perot twice and regrets it and says that in doing so he wasted his vote. I disagree. However he is a realist and I am an idealist. I believe voting for someone because he is the lesser of two evils is throwing your vote away. It is interesting though that we did not talk about this until just now. That's why it crossed my mind again.


Do you think I am right or a complete moron?

[Strangler Lewis]

How about principled but wrong? You can cast a meaningful third party vote for the future. However, to my mind, unless your candidate is a member of a party that has some realistic chance of gaining momentum and winning something somewhere in the foreseeable future, then voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. Measured by that test, voting for Perot the first time arguably was not a waste since there seemed the possibility that something with legs was being built. I don't think the same thing could be said about his second candidacy.

But Green votes? Libertarian? Peace and Freedom? All a waste.

[sleepyjeff]

.... I disagree. However he is a realist and I am an idealist. I believe voting for someone because he is the lesser of two evils is throwing your vote away. It is interesting though that we did not talk about this until just now. That's why it crossed my mind again.


Do you think I am right or a complete moron?


Let's say you are at a small bus station:

The station serves 3 bus lines: The Red Bus, The Blue Bus, and the Yellow Bus.

You wish to go to Town A.

The Red Bus used to go to Town A but now only stops near it...requiring a considerable walk to get to the town center.

The Blue Bus doesn't go to Town A at all but instead takes you straight to Town B.

The Yellow Bus goes to town A, but has 3 flat tires and the hood is currently up..

"Ideally", the Yellow Bus would work or the Red Bus would still go to Town A....but since the ideal is not possible, how are you going to get to Town A?

Red Bus/walk?

or

Sit on the Yellow bus and hope it starts some day;)

[Strangler Lewis]

The blue bus is a much bigger bus, and it goes to Town B to pick up people who also want to go to Town A.

When the people in Town B would call the red bus company, they would say, "No, we can't pick you up. But be patient, and we will bring Town A to you."

Other than that, good analogy.

[BDBopper]

Can't argue with that analogy, Jeff.

[Alex]

Except a lot of people don't buy into the basic assumptions of the analogy.

For quite a few people they agree that the Red Bus goes to Town B and not anywhere near Town A. However, they don't agree that the Blue Bus goes near enough to Town A that you can walk, they just think that the Blue Bus goes to Town B, calls it Town A, and thinks you should be happy that they at least pretend to be helping you get where you want to be.

If a vote for a person or party that has zero chance of winning is a wasted vote then there are significant parts of this country where the only rational behavior is to vote Republican (or vice versa) for local office since there is zero chance of the other party winning locally. Voting for a Republican mayor in San Francisco (where Gavin Newsom is widely labeled as too conservative) is just as wasted as voting for Nader for president in 2008.

Vote for you want.

Plus, third parties don't need to have a chance to win in order to impact policy. They just need to be strong enough for one of the major parties to feel like they being weakened. At which point they'll try to absorb the issues of the fringe

[scaeagles]

Bus Driver of Company 1 says "I'm going to take you to City A." Bus Driver of Company 2 says "I'm going to take you to city A, but I'll do it faster and my bus will take more people." They argue and both take a group.

Each bus wreck. Both Bus Drivers say "stay on the bus! All is fine! There's no problem, and we actually didn't wreck at all."

Each bus has an unaffiliated mechanic and body repair specialist who offer to help, but out of fear of losing control of the bus, each bus driver insists that they have the problems well under control and the passengers can all just go about their business on the wrecked busses.

Meanwhile, their busses block the road to City A for anyone else trying to get there, so no one gets to City A.

[sleepyjeff]

Except a lot of people don't buy into the basic assumptions of the analogy.

For quite a few people they agree that the Red Bus goes to Town B and not anywhere near Town A. However, they don't agree that the Blue Bus goes near enough to Town A that you can walk, they just think that the Blue Bus goes to Town B, calls it Town A, and thinks you should be happy that they at least pretend to be helping you get where you want to be.




Good points.....can I call you Fiorello?

[sleepyjeff]

Meanwhile, their busses block the road to City A for anyone else trying to get there, so no one gets to City A.

:snap:

[JWBear]

Lets all just take the train....

[Morrigoon]

A few weeks ago I wrote the following at my blog:

http://ohbabythatswhatilike.blogspot.com/2008/05/thought-for-today-dont-vote-for-lesser.html

My dad and I are in disagreement on this end. He voted for Perot twice and regrets it and says that in doing so he wasted his vote. I disagree. However he is a realist and I am an idealist. I believe voting for someone because he is the lesser of two evils is throwing your vote away. It is interesting though that we did not talk about this until just now. That's why it crossed my mind again.


Do you think I am right or a complete moron?

So... voting for someone just because they'll be the winner isn't throwing your vote away?

Until I decided to like Obama, my plan was to vote for the Libertarian candidate, because by voting for a can't-win candidate I make myself a "swing" voter who dem and rep candidates will need to try to bring on board to give them the edge in future elections. And who I give my vote to indicates what kind of direction they're going to have to move politically to grab my vote.

[wendybeth]

Bus Driver of Company 1 says "I'm going to take you to City A." Bus Driver of Company 2 says "I'm going to take you to city A, but I'll do it faster and my bus will take more people." They argue and both take a group.

Each bus wreck. Both Bus Drivers say "stay on the bus! All is fine! There's no problem, and we actually didn't wreck at all."

Each bus has an unaffiliated mechanic and body repair specialist who offer to help, but out of fear of losing control of the bus, each bus driver insists that they have the problems well under control and the passengers can all just go about their business on the wrecked busses.

Meanwhile, their busses block the road to City A for anyone else trying to get there, so no one gets to City A.

Then the sharp pencil boys from the parent bus company of all involved buses (which just happens to be a subsidiary of Halliburton) decides that they'll retrofit all the buses in corrugated tin and ship them to Baghdad. The bus drivers are concerned about their safety, but the Company assures them that the Girl Scout security troop accompanying them have been specially trained by Blackwater, and will be well supplied with cookies.

[BDBopper]

In what is a very interesting development the establishment of the Libertarian party is trying very hard to defeat Bob Barr at the convention. It is very possible at this moment that Barr won't get the nomination despite all the publicity to the contrary. If you watched the media in the last few weeks you would get the idea he had the nomination in the bag. They were dead wrong!

The procedings are on C-SPAN if you have nothing else to do. They are currently on ballot 5.

[BDBopper]

It took six ballots but Bob Barr is now the official Libertarian candidate for President.

[BDBopper]

A big question continues to be who John McCain will pick as his running mate. I am certain of who he should pick but I have no faith he will do it. Obama is new and fresh and really connects with the people and inspires passion. McCain is the total opposite. He needs someone on his ticket that would do the same. There are only two people who I can think of that could do that for McCain and that is Governor Jindal of Louisiana and Mike Huckabee. McCain would be foolish to tap Jindal's shoulders because he just took office in the Pelican State and the GOP is rarely in power there at the State level (one of the last states in the former the Democratic Solid South to fall - Only Arkansas and West Virgina are left). That leaves Mike Huckabee. However (while the media leaves you to think otherwise) he is showing no real signs of wanting the nod or he isn't campaigning for the job. McCain invited several potential candidates for the job (including Huck) to his home in Arizona this past weekend. Huckabee turned down the invitation as it was his wife's (Janet) wedding anniversary over the weekend.

Another reason I don't think McCain will tap Huckabee is that while Mike will inject a huge amount of passion into the ticket, it won't be for McCain. Most of Huckabee's supporters are not very fond of McCain for various reasons and won't vote for him without Huckabee on the ticket. However they are barraging the McCain HQ with E-mails, phone calls, and faxes every day trying to get Huck on the ticket. In addition at every step of the way Huckabee outshined his rival during the primary season on the trail. That's not something you want in a running mate. Just ask Dukakis.

My guess would be Romney (bleh), Govorner Crist of Florida, or Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota. Romney may be the best bet because while he is a major jerk he did try to play to the Conservative base while Crist or Pawlenty are nowhere close. If so watch for the Dems to go back to all the fights both Romney and McCain had at debates and in ads in January and play them ad nauseum.

[3894]

McCain was taken as a POW in 1967. He was emprisoned for five years. Which, among many other things, means he essentially missed the '60's.

I'm just saying.

[Morrigoon]

Brian: You're leaving out the possibility of a Hail Mary move by McCain - he could always appoint a female running mate.

[BDBopper]

Brian: You're leaving out the possibility of a Hail Mary move by McCain - he could always appoint a female running mate.

He really could. At the top of that list would be governor Palin of Alaska - but she just had her 5th child (and the baby was born premature and with disabilities). Another pick could be Condolezza Rice but if I remember correctly she said she would turn down an offer if it came. the only other female choice I can think of would be Elizabeth Dole who I actually like and have met in person (during the '96 campaign she visited the Georgia Academy For The Blind while it was holing a summer camp I was attending). I actually shook her hand and she was very polite and gracious despite the fact that I told her that if I was voting age I would be voting for Perot. She looked at me and smiled and said "I am very proud of you because you are already interested in the political process at your young age even though you would not vote for my husband." Needless to say I was disappointed when she failed to get the GOP's nomination in 2000.

[Gemini Cricket]

It took six ballots but Bob Barr is now the official Libertarian candidate for President.
I just read this article (http://advocate.com/news_detail_ektid54947.asp) that said Barr would repeal DOMA if he was president. Barr was the dinglecheese authored DOMA! Oy. Even Clinton said he doesn't support it any more.
:rolleyes:

[Alex]

Yeah, Lani and I were laughing over the weekend about Barr being the Lib candidate. A socially conservative Libertarian. I assume his platform is "everybody can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't involve butts."

[BDBopper]

It is very clear to me that Bob Barr has PMS (Power, Money, Sex) syndrome. I can see right through him. He won't be getting my vote.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well shoot, now it's clear why Bush could say he wouldn't deal directly with Iran. It seems he'd already found a contractor (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-halliburton-charged-with-selling-nuclear-technologies-to-iran) to handle it for him.

[sleepyjeff]

Well shoot, now it's clear why Bush could say he wouldn't deal directly with Iran. It seems he'd already found a contractor (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-halliburton-charged-with-selling-nuclear-technologies-to-iran) to handle it for him.


....and in other news from your site:http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/16-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/

[Ghoulish Delight]

http://pussycatstickers.com/i/ahmadinejad.jpg

[scaeagles]

I can pronounce it....it's the spelling that gets me.

[Alex]

Spelling is easy:

محمود احمدی نژا

[JWBear]

Or, as Stephanie Miller would have it, "I'madinnerjacket".

[sleepyjeff]

Can't wait for Scott's new book to come out?

Proving that the nut does indeed fall close to the tree you can read a book his father wrote several years ago:

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Money-Power-L-B-J-Killed/dp/0963784625

[JWBear]

Cheap shot, Jeff. And so typical of the Republican tactics that have converted me (and many others) from an independent to a Democrat.

If someone says something that dares shed bad light on Bush and his administration, then he is to be publicly smeared; while a member of the administration who committed treasonous acts, and remains loyal and keeps his mouth shut, has his sentence is commuted.

[scaeagles]

I'm so glad that dems have never turned to such tactics and that the Clintons, during his administration, never did such things.

Make it right? I'm not arguing that at all. But the whole "this is why I'm a dem now"......very, very hard to take seriously.

And this is from someone who thinks LBJ was probably behind JFK's assassination.

[JWBear]

I'm so glad that dems have never turned to such tactics and that the Clintons, during his administration, never did such things.

Make it right? I'm not arguing that at all. But the whole "this is why I'm a dem now"......very, very hard to take seriously.

And this is from someone who thinks LBJ was probably behind JFK's assassination.

Name someone in Clinton's administration who outed a covert CIA agent, had their involvement covered up by the White House, and got away scott free.

Show me where the Democrats, during the Clinton administration, instituted a smear campaign against critics of Clinton.

Show me any examples abuse of power or treasonous acts, by any member of the Clinton administration, that comes anywhere near the level of abuse and treason being committed by the Bush administration.

President Clinton was far from perfect, but try and compare him to President Bush is ridiculous.

[BDBopper]

Can we all agree on one thing here...that both the clinton and Bush Administations have been terrible embarassments with a complete lack of responsibility, honesty, and trust? Probably has to be the two worst Presidents we've had back to back in a long time!

[Scrooge McSam]

Nope, sorry

[Moonliner]

Can we all agree on one thing here...that both the clinton and Bush Administations have been terrible embarassments with a complete lack of responsibility, honesty, and trust? Probably has to be the two worst Presidents we've had back to back in a long time!

Can we make a footnote that Clinton's lack of responsibility resulted in a stained blue dress while Bush's resulted in the deaths of over two thousand Americans?

[Morrigoon]

Only if you go back and nail Clinton for the genocides he didn't address

[innerSpaceman]

No takers from this quarter either, BD. I'm no big Clinton fan ... but egads, never on the same level as Bush ... not even remotely.


Bush has Nixon beat.

[sleepyjeff]

Cheap shot, Jeff. And so typical of the Republican tactics that have converted me (and many others) from an independent to a Democrat.



Are you saying ideology takes a back seat to tactics when you make your choice at the ballot box:confused:

That aside though, I don't think it was really a cheap shot at all; I just found it interesting that Scotts Dad also worked for a President, parted ways with him(for whatever reason) and then wrote a book with nasty accusations.....

Scott has a brother who also worked in the Bush administration; come to think of it, I think he quit the same year as Scott---I look forward to his book;)

[Strangler Lewis]

Everybody quits and writes a book. That's one of the perks of government service.

I always wondered what was up with Scott McClellan. I can't think of another press secretary who looked as queasy and uncomfortable with his job as he did.

[JWBear]

They've got to be kidding! (http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2008/05/29/20080529biz-DunkinDonutsAd-29.html) This country is officially insane.

Dunkin' Donuts has pulled an online advertisement featuring Rachael Ray after complaints that a fringed black-and-white scarf that the celebrity chef wore in the ad offers symbolic support for Muslim extremism and terrorism....

...A statement issued by Canton, Mass.-based Dunkin' Brands Inc., however, said the scarf had a paisley design...

[Ghoulish Delight]

Some commentary on that b.s.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/index.php?s=rachel+ray
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/25/oh-noes-is-meghan-mccain-a-terrorist-sympathiser-too/

[innerSpaceman]

OMG, well, if I ever ate donuts in the first place, I'd never buy another Dunkin again!!! Huffity Huff Huff!

[scaeagles]

Name someone in Clinton's administration who outed a covert CIA agent, had their involvement covered up by the White House, and got away scott free.

Actually, I can....the person who outed PLame was a man named Richard Armitage, a Clinton appointee in the state department. This is old news.

Show me where the Democrats, during the Clinton administration, instituted a smear campaign against critics of Clinton.

Off the top of my head I can think of 900 or so illegally acquired FBI files, and historically, a Nixon staffer went to jail for only illegally having access to one.

Show me any examples abuse of power or treasonous acts, by any member of the Clinton administration, that comes anywhere near the level of abuse and treason being committed by the Bush administration.

Abuse of power? How about burning the Branch Dividians alive? Treason? How about giving missile tech to China and nukes to North Korea? There's also the case of classified documents being stuffed in the pants of one Sandy Berger so they could be removed from the national archives. There is acceptance of lots of campaign contributions from foreign nationals.

President Clinton was far from perfect, but try and compare him to President Bush is ridiculous.

I am no fan of Bush, which I have made clear here over and over. Trying to say that abuse of power is unique to the republicans is the outragous claim here.

I keep editing this to add more, but what's the point? Not going to go anywhere, change anyone's mind.

[innerSpaceman]

OMG, scaeagles has some good points. Burning the Davidians alive was beyond fuctup!

Um, but while Richard Armitage may have once been a member of the Clinton Administration, he was not at the time he committed treason ... he was a member of the Bush Administration.

[scaeagles]

Technically you are correct, ICM. He was a Clinton appointee, but currently still on holdover in the state department. I am not aware of any cover up to protect him, though.

I suppose the cover up must have been very effective, then.

[JWBear]

Actually, I can....the person who outed PLame was a man named Richard Armitage, a Clinton appointee in the state department. This is old news.



Off the top of my head I can think of 900 or so illegally acquired FBI files, and historically, a Nixon staffer went to jail for only illegally having access to one.



Abuse of power? How about burning the Branch Dividians alive? Treason? How about giving missile tech to China and nukes to North Korea? There's also the case of classified documents being stuffed in the pants of one Sandy Berger so they could be removed from the national archives. There is acceptance of lots of campaign contributions from foreign nationals.



I am no fan of Bush, which I have made clear here over and over. Trying to say that abuse of power is unique to the republicans is the outragous claim here.

I keep editing this to add more, but what's the point? Not going to go anywhere, change anyone's mind.

IsM covered your 1st point, so I won’t respond to it.

I’ll probably be the lone voice on this, but I see no abuse of power in the actions taken against the Branch Davidians. It ended in a tragedy, yes. But I lay the blame on the Davidians themselves. Even if the justice department were to blame, how does that handful of deaths compare the thousands killed by the federal government’s incompetent (or culpable) response to Katrina. A violent, messianic cult wiped out compared to a whole city? Not even close.

As to the others, again… They are nowhere near the scale of abuse and treason committed by the Bush administration. Actions, btw, that are routinely glossed and ignored over by the , so called, “liberal” press.

How about illegal warrantless wiretaps of US citizens?
How about firing career prosecutors because they won’t prosecute according to the President’s political whim?
How about the systematic trashing of the Constitution?
How about lying to get us in to a war against a nation that has never attacked the US (and had nothing to attack us with), was anti-Islamic extremist, and cost us the lives of thousands of US military personnel… All for nothing.

I could go on, but as you said, but what's the point? Not going to go anywhere, change anyone's mind.

[scaeagles]

Well, we'll always disagree....I just started going through what you'd written to debate and or counter, but I won't....because there' no point, blah, blah blah.

[BDBopper]

History was made at the South Carolina GOP Convention last Saturday as they elected the South's very first black Republican National Committeeman (http://ohbabythatswhatilike.blogspot.com/2008/05/history-made-in-south-carolina-as.html)! It's about frickin' time! So why am I doubly excited? Well the candidate that won, Glenn McCall was endorsed by Mike Huckabee and he beat the pants off of the incumbent, who was endorsed by the Dinglecheese Mitt Romney! :D

[Ghoulish Delight]

The realization that Ted Olson is McCain's legal adviser makes me extra scared to think of a McCain Presidency.
Damnit sometimes I hate being right. Surprise surprise, with Olson as legal adviser, McCain's coming to the same idiotic conclusions as the Bush administration:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html

[Strangler Lewis]

Of course, we don't know if he actually means it or if he's simply decided that he can't get elected 1) by disavowing Bush and 2) without running on a "Scare America First" platform.

[3894]

Win a trip to the Republican Convention! (http://youtube.com/gopconvention)

Hey, it's a free trip to the Mall of America. Also, Garrison Keillor might be performing in St. Paul. Otherwise ...

[Alex]

Minneapolis also has (or at least had a decade ago), a couple strip clubs that actually served decent food. The perfect escape for when you're on a business trip and and want to get some dinner and yet be absolutely certain you won't run into any coworkers. I don't know if that works for Republican conventions.

Probably not.

[BDBopper]

Minneapolis also has (or at least had a decade ago), a couple strip clubs that actually served decent food. The perfect escape for when you're on a business trip and and want to get some dinner and yet be absolutely certain you won't run into any coworkers. I don't know if that works for Republican conventions.

Probably not.

Well since there are Republicans interested in sexual innuendo in bathroom stalls and with office interns who knows? LOL

[BDBopper]

FINALLY THE TRUTH IS REVEALED!!

Huckabee Supporters were not mostly Evangelicals...they were mostly poor (http://www.cjr.org/essay/the_devil_in_the_details.php).

I am a follower of Christ but I refuse to be labeled as an Evangelical. In the past few months it bothered...no....offended me to be labeled as such because of the overly NEGATIVE connotation the label comes with. Plus I am not a Social Conservative. I disagreed with Huckabee on those issues but his views on them helped me choose my candidate. Out of all the other major GOP candidates Huckabee was the only one with consistent views on social issues. Why did that make a difference? It gave Huckabee an aura of trust and authenticity that no one else had. I felt I could trust him with the issues I did agree with him on.

I don't mind being labeled as "poor" because I am...economically speaking.

In other news More and more evangelicals are now Democrats.

[Strangler Lewis]

Surely he's not saying
We have the resources
To save the poor from their lot.

[3894]

I am a follower of Christ but I refuse to be labeled as an Evangelical.

My BIL was in charge of a new members meeting at an Evangelical Free Church (E-Free, they call themselves). He began to explain that the following Saturday, volunteers from the church would canvass the area to invite unchurched neighbors to worship.

"But I thought," objected one new member in the audience, "that this denomination doesn't evangelize. We're E-Free - you know, like Fat-Free, Sugar-Free, Pepsi Free, E-Free?"

[Stan4dSteph]

"But I thought," objected one new member in the audience, "that this denomination doesn't evangelize. We're E-Free - you know, like Fat-Free, Sugar-Free, Pepsi Free, E-Free?"teh awesome!

[scaeagles]

I'm back to thinking I just may sit this election out.

I expect Obama to be ignorant of economics and call for windfall profits taxes on oil companies, but McCain has basically done the same thing, saying that oil companies should "give back to the consumer".

I say they do give back. They put gasoline at virtually every other frickin corner so I can get access to it for my needs. It's worth a profit. This is all about volume, not margin. I read that 127 other Fortune 500 companies make a higher profit margin than Exxon.

Freakin idiot politicians.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I'm back to thinking I just may sit this election out.



If it makes you feel any better, I think that is a fine idea. :)

[JWBear]

Yes, please do. And ask the rest of your fellow Rebublicans to join you! ;)

[BarTopDancer]

I'm back to thinking I just may sit this election out.

I'll be the dissenting voice and not encourage you to sit it out.

But if do you, remember this. If you don't vote, you can't complain. So, you can either vote and bitch for the next 4 years, or don't vote and sit quietly.

[innerSpaceman]

Which means we will delete every post you make for the next four years on the subject of politics.


So please vote, and vote often.

[wendybeth]

Four years of quiet from Scaeagles? No way. He couldn't do it.;):p

[scaeagles]

I'll be the dissenting voice and not encourage you to sit it out.

But if do you, remember this. If you don't vote, you can't complain. So, you can either vote and bitch for the next 4 years, or don't vote and sit quietly.

Please know that this is responsible for at least one vote for the opposition to Obama. I'm eating dinner right now and can't bring myself to say who it is for. And it isn't for anyone. It's against Obama.

[scaeagles]

Four years of quiet from Scaeagles? No way. He couldn't do it.;):p

I almost wrote "I can't last 4 minutes", but I know what that would have been twisted into.

[Not Afraid]

Oh, the missed opportunities!!!!!

[BarTopDancer]

Please know that this is responsible for at least one vote for the opposition to Obama. I'm eating dinner right now and can't bring myself to say who it is for. And it isn't for anyone. It's against Obama.

Hey, I'd much rather you make an educated vote for McCain over an uneducated voter just voting blindly down party lines regardless of what they are*.

I've voted for the "lesser of two weasels" or against someone plenty of times. I won't give you crap for it. Throwing away the vote it may be, but it's still your voice.

*At least you can explain why you believe the way you do.

[BarTopDancer]

"I can't last 4 minutes"

Fun with delete.

And because I am 15, this is page 69. Giggle.

[Gemini Cricket]

Not for the squeamish.
A U.S. Marine videotaped throwing a puppy over a cliff while on patrol in Iraq has been kicked out of the Corps, and a second Marine involved has been disciplined, according to a statement released by the Marines.Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/marine.puppy/index.html)
WTF?!
Fvcking horrible story.
:(

[Morrigoon]

I can't even hear about it w/out being furious. The news showed a photo. Puppy was incredibly cute too (not that that should figure into it)

[innerSpaceman]

The U.S. Supreme Court just pwned the Bush Administration for the THIRD TIME about the prisoners at Guantanemo ... ruling they do have recourse to the U.S. judicial system to challenge their detainment, and that nothing the Congress or Administration has done to get around their two prior rulings is a sufficient substitute for such judicial access.


FVCK YOU GEORGE BUSH. You are a freaking TYRANT!

[Alex]

But it also reminded me of all the congressmen who, when passing the thing just knocked down, said some form of "I think this is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will strike it down but I'm voting for it anyway."

I'm still of the opinion that any congressman or president voting for or signing a law while saying "I think this is unconstitutional" should be automatically impeached and removed from office.

While I don't and didn't support that law at least I have confidence that Bush really does believe it to be constitutional.

[innerSpaceman]

I'll go you one further, Alex. I think they should be hauled out into the streets to be drawn and quartered.


Ok, maybe Bush thought it was a constitutional laws. But when he signs laws passed by Congress, and simultaneously issues a "signing statement" indicating he has no intention of obeying said laws .... yup, drawn and freaking quartered.

[Morrigoon]

Can't wait to see him brought up for war crimes

[scaeagles]

I must say that I don't understand the ruling. Seriously. Ununiformed enemy combatants aren't even covered by the Geneva convention (in fact, I believe ununiformed enemy combatants were allowed to be shot on capture without question). Why should they be given the same rights as US citizens? I'm not trying to be a jerk. I really don't understand. They aren't US citizens and are not criminals per se, they are soldiers fighting our military in foreign countries. Why should this be under the jurisdiction of the court system?

[innerSpaceman]

Who says they're soldiers? The U.S. Military? What gives them that right? They picked up enemies of the Northern Alliance on the say-so of that tyranical militia. They were not "combatants" - they were on our convenient-ally's enemies list.

If that's how our military selects "enemy combatants," then it must be up to someone else to decide their fate. If not the U.S. Courts, than who?

[scaeagles]

I don't know how the courts are qualified to make the decision. The battlefield isn't a crime scene. There is no evidence collected.

Sorry....I just don't get it.

[€uroMeinke]

I think the Guantanamo thing was a mess from the start, as we tried to contrive some sort of quasi-place subject to no normal laws or jurisdictions where the laws of our country as well as the Geneva convention don't stand - we were trying to skirt all the laws through legal technicalities and loopholes. The whole notion of a just society rests on the premise that everyone is treated fairly, even the most odious, for that is where it is tested. If we cannot succeed in that fashion, then maybe it's time to pronounce our system dead and adopt a new model.

[scaeagles]

What of the Geneva Convention then? It seems as if the Geneva Convention is held in high regard when it comes to perceived torture, but not when it comes to the execution of ununiformed enemy combatants.

[€uroMeinke]

What of the Geneva Convention then? It seems as if the Geneva Convention is held in high regard when it comes to perceived torture, but not when it comes to the execution of ununiformed enemy combatants.

Then we should have executed those people on the battlefield - not take them away to legal limbo camp

[scaeagles]

I'm sure that would have gone over really well. I'd love to see the reaction of those who object to the detainment of (what I consider to be) POWs if they were executed under the geneva convention.

[€uroMeinke]

I'm sure that would have gone over really well. I'd love to see the reaction of those who object to the detainment of (what I consider to be) POWs if they were executed under the geneva convention.

The moment we decided to take them under our custody the obligation of fair treatment began. I think if we cannot hold to that principle then we have no grounds to complain about other nations.

If they were executed on the battlefield they would have been just another numeric casualty, and while we may have been momentarily appalled, they would have quickly joined the growing number of the anonymous dead.

[JWBear]

I must say that I don't understand the ruling. Seriously. Ununiformed enemy combatants aren't even covered by the Geneva convention (in fact, I believe ununiformed enemy combatants were allowed to be shot on capture without question). Why should they be given the same rights as US citizens? I'm not trying to be a jerk. I really don't understand. They aren't US citizens and are not criminals per se, they are soldiers fighting our military in foreign countries. Why should this be under the jurisdiction of the court system?

Because if we refuse to grant suspected enemies of the US to the same rights and dignities we would expect our own citizens to receive; then we might as well grant Bush his wish to wipe his ass with the Constitution - because that's all it will be good for.

[scaeagles]

Where in the Constitution do the rights afforded US Citizens apply to those fighting against the uS? All rights are not even guarantees foreign nationals within our country.

Where is the violation of the Constitution? This is what I do not understand.

[wendybeth]

Take it up with the Supreme Court then. They rendered a decision based upon their interpretation of the Constitution- read their decision (and not just the dissenting opinions), and you may have your question answered. (I'm not being flip- I haven't read the decision thoroughly yet, but I am fairly confident that their conclusion adheres to the meaning and intent set forth by the Constitution with regards to this subject. They are the Constitutional experts, after all. Even that Thomas guy.:rolleyes:).

[scaeagles]

Oh, I understand it, and in the same way the 2000 US Supreme court decisions of 7-2 and 5-4 were disagreed with by many who continue to complain about it to this day, so do I wonder about this. I honestly do not have time to read the entire 70 page decision. In what I have read, it appears to me that combatants are being afforded the same legal rights as US citizens, which I do have a problem with.

[wendybeth]

Scaeagles, it's just really sad that we even had to have such a thing in front of the Supreme Court. I think it shows how far we've slid away from our principles, and it only validates the criticism of our country by others. I know you don't care about what the world thinks of us, but we have to be a part of that world and it's up to us to present our best face forward. Guantanamo is a big old black eye, and we need to fix that.

[€uroMeinke]

Where in the Constitution do the rights afforded US Citizens apply to those fighting against the uS? All rights are not even guarantees foreign nationals within our country.

Where is the violation of the Constitution? This is what I do not understand.

Perhaps not in the constitution, but at least in the Declaration of Independence we speak of "inalienable rights of man," If we think our freedoms and liberties only belong to American citizens, then we have no basis to speak of the human rights of other nations and their citizens, or to invade other countries under the pretense of being "liberators."

[JWBear]

Hear, hear!

[innerSpaceman]

Scaeagles, I'm going to get personal for a moment, and maybe I will be rebuked for this ... but what the fvck is wrong with you?

[scaeagles]

I don't think anything, really. This is not even without precedent....in fact what is happening now is without precedent. In every major conflict - WWII, Korea, Vietnam, whatever - enemy combatants are held for purposes of intellgence gathering and to ensure they are not returning to assist the enemy. In fact, there are 30 documented cases of capturing someone (in this current conflict), releasing them, and then recapturing them.

Why is something wrong with me when I agree with the precedent previously set?

And ISM, I take no offense at your rhetorical question. I've been accused by you and others here of being a homophobe, a bigot, a racist, and countless other untrue things, so this is nothing, really.

[Gemini Cricket]

I've been accused by you and others here of being a homophobe, a bigot, a racist, and countless other untrue things, so this is nothing, really.
I don't think you're any of those things. But you really should take your kids to the Grand Canyon, you Grand Canyonophobe.
:D

[BDBopper]

Guess who's back with his fancy charts (http://perotcharts.com/)?

[wendybeth]

Omg, he looks the same- just like a cross between ET and Yoda.

[scaeagles]

It's funny that I hadn't looked at the picture, but upon reading WB's description I knew who it was.

[scaeagles]

My, my, my....I find it extremely hard to believe that the Senators Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd (who is chairman of the senate banking committee....hmmm....the BANKING COMMITTEE) didn't know they were getting special favors from Countrywide on loans to save a whole bunch of money on points and fees.

I'm sure it's every day that the head of Countrywide Angelo Mozilo directly gets involved in the loan process for common citizens as well as select senators on the banking committee. This is as well as some involved in Obama's campaign (former head of his VP search committee name Jim Johnson), a few former Clinton cabinet members, and to be fair, a former Bush cabinet member.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm glad you were being "fair." Not to diminish this bit of corruption (for which I think all involved should be, ya know, drawn and quartered), but sadly it's the type of thing that's rampant among all politicians of all stripes and parties.

[scaeagles]

It is.

I do wonder, considering Pelosi said of the congressional leadership that "We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history", if Dodd will need to step down from his leadershipo position on the banking committee.

Something tells me that won't happen.

[scaeagles]

I must be in a really pissy mood today because everything I see is annoying the hell out of me.

In a recently passed bill - the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008 - there was a 1.6 billion dollar earmark for plaintiffs' lawyers. Trial lawyers running class action suits are struggling middle class people that deserve tax breaks?

I don't mind tax breaks for anyone, really.....just get off this demagoguery (sp?) of tax breaks for the rich, Pelosi. Pelosi called the bill a tax cut for millions of middle income families. I think it went a bit beyond that.

[innerSpaceman]

Who says plaintiffs trial lawyers are rich? I'm a glorified legal secretary, decidedly in the barely-getting-by middle class economy of Los Angeles ... and I make more money than a good many plaintiffs' trial laywers.

[scaeagles]

Like I said, I'm in a pissy mood.

Now I've read where some democrats have been on the floor calling for the government take over of domestic oil refineries so that they can "control how much gets out into the market". I believe that's called central planning and failed miserably in the USSR.

Yeah, I'm in a pissy mood.

[cirquelover]

I'm confused, I know what's new, so can someone help me out with this?!

The news is making a big deal out of Obama not accepting public monies. Is he only allowed one or the other, as in if he takes that money he can't raise his own? Why wouldn't he take money from the general election fund for his campaign that all the nominees are eligible for? Don't they all usually partake in that money?

I am obviously missing some big piece of the puzzle!
Thank you for patience:blush:

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm confused, I know what's new, so can someone help me out with this?!

The news is making a big deal out of Obama not accepting public monies. Is he only allowed one or the other, as in if he takes that money he can't raise his own? Why wouldn't he take money from the general election fund for his campaign that all the nominees are eligible for? Don't they all usually partake in that money?The issue isn't so much whether it's good to take public money or not. The issue is that when you take public money, new campaign finance rules say that you are then limited in how much money you can raise privately. Early in the primaries, when Obama wasn't raising much private money, he said that in a general election, he'd make a deal with his opponent to use the public money and the restricted rules that come with it. Once he started raising boatloads of money, he backed away from that statement saying he'd have to wait and see what kind of deal his opponent was willing to make. Now he seems to be backing away from it entirely.

[innerSpaceman]

scaeagles, I think you need to back away from the televisison for a while.

[Alex]

To qualify for the public funds you have to accept spending limits.

So the math is:

Is the amount Obama can raise and spend personally greater than the total he'd be allowed to spend if he takes the public funds.

And the answer, if primary trends continue, is a clear yes. I'm not a fan of public financing of campaigns but this is still a disappointing decision from him since he is a supporter of it. But then I'm hugely opposed to McCain-Feingold so McCain gains no advantage in this particular issue.

[scaeagles]

Damn it, Alex, now I'm in a pissy mood about that, too. McCain-Feingold is a freakin' ridiculous piece of legislation and McCain should be drummed out of the Senate for authoring and sponsoring that trash.

Back to thinking I can't vote for him.

[scaeagles]

scaeagles, I think you need to back away from the televisison for a while.

I'm reading. I can't watch TV news anymore.

[cirquelover]

Ok, I should have known the government would have their own rules and stipulations that would go with the money.

So basically he thinks he would be better off on his own and not have to play by their limits and rules.

So what about McCain? I know Republicans seem to have a lot of fundraiser and such, will he follow suit? Who's Feingold?

[Ghoulish Delight]

So what about McCain? I know Republicans seem to have a lot of fundraiser and such, will he follow suit? Who's Feingold?Feingold was the cosponsor with McCain of the bill that would impose the spending limits.

They're both pretty equally guilty here. Back when Obama was pledging that he would abide by the limits, McCain was saying he wouldn't. Now that the rolls are reversed, the stories are predictably reversed.

[Gemini Cricket]

Heinz is pulling this ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cXNzcxDrN4) which was only airing in the UK, because Bill O'Reilly objects to it. Who the f*ck cares what Bill O'Reilly thinks. It's a funny video. Work safe.

[innerSpaceman]

Just how riled up do they want to get me before tonight's LHC meeting??

[Gemini Cricket]

So, do all Heinz commercials have to be pre-screened by O'Reilly from now on?

[Morrigoon]

Heinz is pulling this ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cXNzcxDrN4) which was only airing in the UK, because Bill O'Reilly objects to it. Who the f*ck cares what Bill O'Reilly thinks. It's a funny video. Work safe.

Haha, cute ad. You *almost* can't tell it's a Brit... until he says, "Eh! Hain't you forgettin' sump'n?" The H gives him away, :P

[scaeagles]

How is it that ABC has a poll with Obama up 15 and Gallup has a poll with them tied at 45?

That's very odd. Granted I haven't looked at them beyond the headlines, but that's a pretty huge difference between the two.

[wendybeth]

Because ABC is obviously run by Liberal Communist Scum, while Gallup is just regular folks. I may have to pop into FauxNews and see how many points they have McCain leading by.

[wendybeth]

NOthing at Faux that I could find, other than an article by one of McCain's former captors endorsing him for the Presidency. This is going to be a wacky election.

[Kevy Baby]

Heinz is pulling this ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cXNzcxDrN4) which was only airing in the UK, because Bill O'Reilly objects to it. Who the f*ck cares what Bill O'Reilly thinks. It's a funny video. Work safe.This gives WAY too much credit to Bill O'Reilly. He may have said some stupid things here in the US, but from reading the foreign press, I doubt the Brits even know who Bill O'Reilly is.

Even the UK version of The Guardian doesn't even mention BO in either (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/25/advertising) story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/25/advertising.gayrights)

[Gemini Cricket]

This gives WAY too much credit to Bill O'Reilly. He may have said some stupid things here in the US, but from reading the foreign press, I doubt the Brits even know who Bill O'Reilly is.

Even the UK version of The Guardian doesn't even mention BO in either (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/25/advertising) story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/25/advertising.gayrights)
This is from the UK's Independent:
The commercial also caused controversy in the US where the notoriously reactionary Fox News host Bill O'Reilly complained: "I just want mayonnaise, I don't want guys kissing." Source (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/kiss-goodbye-to-your-sales-stonewall-tells-homophobic-heinz-after-advert-is-pulled-853510.html)
Sadly, they know of him.
Even if they didn't, it would just take (apparently) a few of his viewers to complain.

[BDBopper]

I am doing cartwheels tonight! Why? Well my only regret during my involvement with the Mike Huckabee Presidential campaign is that I never got to hear him speak in person or meet him. I either could not get a ride or I was busy doing grassroots campaign work. He will be speaking at a local church this Sunday morning and I'M FINALLY GOING TO HEAR HIM SPEAK!! I couldn't be more happy! :D

[alphabassettgrrl]

That's awesome, Bopper! :)

[sleepyjeff]

I am doing cartwheels tonight! Why? Well my only regret during my involvement with the Mike Huckabee Presidential campaign is that I never got to hear him speak in person or meet him. I either could not get a ride or I was busy doing grassroots campaign work. He will be speaking at a local church this Sunday morning and I'M FINALLY GOING TO HEAR HIM SPEAK!! I couldn't be more happy! :D

Too cool......:snap:

[scaeagles]

Listening to your political heros in public can be such a remarkable experience. I got to hear Ronald Reagan in Sacramento in the summer of 1984 while he was campaigning for reelection and I can very vividly remember many, many things about it.

[Alex]

I wasn't voting for McCain anyway but if he picks Jindal it definitely won't strengthen his case with me.

Today Jindal signed a horrible bill allowing science teachers to use any "supplements" to the official textbooks they want until such time as the school board tells them a specific one isn't appropriate.

So, it doesn't mandate teaching creationism but that decision will be left to the individual teacher (and while the bill language tries to pretend it has nothing to do with religion that is quite clearly the goal).

So, I feel sorry for the children of Louisiana who hope to get an high school diploma with an education in something other than mythology. And it isn't just religion that I worry about but simply the gullible. I'm just as bothered by the idea that a teacher so inspired could teach as fact the reality of Richard Hoagland's Mars civilization.

A good recap on the bill here (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/26/18920/8497), from when it was first sent to the governor.

[BDBopper]

Welll i guess I am not going to get to see and hear my political hero speak tomorrow morning. My ride fell through. Such is my life I guess. :( I'm not too bummed. There will be other times I am sure of that. It's not that my friend isn't going it is just that his wife doesn't want to go out of the way just to get me. I am understanding and considerate of that. At least my friend offered to take a note and give it to Governor Huckabee for me.

[BDBopper]

I know I am going to really turn some heads at me by saying this but why does Creationism have to be a myth and why does Evolution have to be bull Crap? i subscribe to fusion of both. I believe that we were created by God to Evolve. And do I believe that God created the Universe in six days? Yes. But how long in our system of measurement did those days take? I believe that each of those six days actually lasted thousands of years. So why aren't the scriptures that exact? Well if the Bible was exact on every point it would be larger than the entire Encyclopedia Britanica. Who would want to study and read that that on a daily basis?

You may go ahead and point fingers and laugh at me hysterically. I don't mind.

[innerSpaceman]

Not to judge people I don't know, but your friend's wife sounds like a charming woman. (where's my "sneer" smiley??)



* * * *


Oh, and kudos to Pixar for having Fred Willard stick it to George Bush in their new movie.

[wendybeth]

BD- it sounds like you believe in Intelligent Design, with the caveat that the unit of time measurement that so many have problems with is either misunderstood or misstated. Entirely possible, especially given that many of the Scriptures were passed down through oral tradition and any kid whose ever played 'Telephone' knows how well that works out with regards to accuracy. Factor in the tendency towards superstition as a means to explain the terrors of the unknown that seems a part of human DNA (as virtually every known society that exists or has existed in humankind shows in their religion and folklore) and add the rather limited intellectual and technical capacity of humans during the time frame the Bible was being pieced together, and you have a slight potential for inaccuracy.

(Not to mention that time is most likely a unit of measurement created by humans to keep their lives in order, and may not really exist, at least as we think we understand it....)

I think most people do as you- they have a basic belief but they modify things to better fit their idea of spirituality. The problem is that most religions adhere strictly to their own interpretation and require their followers to do likewise. That's one reason why there are so many Protestant religions- the reformers keep splitting and reforming, and no matter how liberal they may seem they still require a profession of belief in their dogma. Same goes for the Islamic faith, Buddism, etc. It's just human nature. So, go and start your own church, already!;)

[innerSpaceman]

And tomorrow morning, the Church of Latter Day saints will require its followers to devote time and means to change the California Constitution to define marriage as between "one man and one woman."


I hope its grip on its followers is less than ironclad ... and that more than a few among them appreciate the irony of the Mormons, of all people, foisting a definition of marriage that's between one man and one woman. ;)

[Fab]

I heart separation of Church and State.

[Alex]

I know I am going to really turn some heads at me by saying this but why does Creationism have to be a myth and why does Evolution have to be bull Crap?

Creationism is mythology because, even in the unlikely event it were to turn out to be literally true, it fits the definition of mythology.

If Zeus were to walk down off of Mt. Olympus tomorrow and start tricking comely young ladies into having sex with him, that would not move the Greek pantheon out of the realm of mythology.

And there are plenty of people who believe that god created the universe with evolution as the means to the creation of humanity. Of course, that can't be proven and there is no evidence for it. It may certainly be true, but it isn't science. Which is why it shouldn't be taught as a scientific theory (as ID would do) in science classes.

And do I believe that God created the Universe in six days? Yes. But how long in our system of measurement did those days take? I believe that each of those six days actually lasted thousands of years.

First, those six days would have to have actually about a billion years each (though I'll grant that this is simply a whole lot of thousands). And second, that is a statement without any meaning. Titanic is a movie that is 6.8 millennia long, but each minute is only a decisecond long (don't check the math Kevy or GD, I just made up the numbers).

Well if the Bible was exact on every point it would be larger than the entire Encyclopedia Britanica. Who would want to study and read that that on a daily basis?

But if people are going to use the Bible as the explicit blueprint for how the world was created, works, and how we should behave, then "who wants to read all that" isn't a good excuse for its shortcomings. And while you may not be a proponent of biblical literalism there are millions of people in this country who are.

While I certainly would prefer children not be exposed to religion as reality until they are adults and can bear full responsibility for their decisions, I know that isn't going to happen. So I am going to continue strongly advocating that religion not be presented as scientifically valid.

[BDBopper]

Ugh. :( My friend was going to give Governor Huckabee a letter for me but it did not happen. they were having their pictures taken and my friend had the letter in his hand but my friend's wife was having problems with the camera and he had to help her. The letter was placed on a side table and forgotten until it was too late. As far as we know the letter is still sitting there or in the trash or something. No I am not upset with my friend. It is not his fault. However that won't change the fact that I am totally bummed now. :(

[scaeagles]

But if people are going to use the Bible as the explicit blueprint for how the world was created, works, and how we should behave, then "who wants to read all that" isn't a good excuse for its shortcomings.

There are hundreds of scholars who have taken the time to research the archealogical evidence and other historical references to happenings in the Bible. A large portion of the Bible is simply historical....not much of a purpose for the Book of Numbers in my life today. At least not that I've been able to figure out. You see, what I like about the whole new covenant aspect of the New Testament (everyone here gets the old covenent vs. the new covenent?) is that it is very NON restrictive. A lot of people think I'm stupid for saying that, btu that's the way I see it. There's a reference in the Book of Romans to people eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Some thought it sinful, others did not. Paul said something to the effect of "if you've got a problem with it, don't do it. If you don't have a problem with it, don't flaunt it in others faces and make them mad.". The way I see it, there are some absolute rights, some absolute wrongs, and a whole bunch of things that really don't matter much.

[Alex]

A large portion of the Bible is simply historical....not much of a purpose for the Book of Numbers in my life today.

Not necessarily very reliable history but sure. But in the context of what I'm talking about, so what? Herodotus is in the same boat of being unreliable history and a lot of moralizing, but nobody is telling us that modern zoology must be a hoax or a cover-up because since Herodotus reports the existence of unicorns they must exist.

If you don't feel that there is scientific controversy over evolution. That it would not be appropriate to teach ID or creationism as valid alternative theory in science classes, then your view of the Bible isn't necessarily what I'm talking about. But if you think those things then there are still millions of fundamentalist literalists in this country who do. And they're the ones I'm worried about and the ones pushing the bill in Louisiana I was responding to.

[scaeagles]

Not necessarily very reliable history but sure.

I'm not sure what kind of research you've done into the historical accuracy of the Bible, but it's pretty solid. Of course, I'm speaking of events that took place at certain times, not the context. Whether or not the Israelites were in exile at a certain time of conquered at a certain time is pretty much in line with other non Biblical texts. It's a certainty that the Israelites were in Babylon during the time of the book of Daniel, but I guess I can see why it might not be taken on its face that Sadrach, Meshach, and Abednigo were tossed into the fiery furnace and lived.

[BarTopDancer]

How do you explain talking burning bushes if drugs weren't involved?

[innerSpaceman]

Ugh. :( ... my friend's wife was having problems with the camera and he had to help her.that won't change the fact that I am totally bummed now.

Have I mentioned how fond I am of your friend's wife? :rolleyes:

[BDBopper]

Have I mentioned how fond I am of your friend's wife? :rolleyes:

I want tio throttle her right now, trust me. :mad:

[Alex]

I'm not sure what kind of research you've done into the historical accuracy of the Bible, but it's pretty solid.

I suppose it depends on your definition of solid. Yes, there are events in the bible that are known to have happened. And there are many more with no evidence outside of the bible that they happened, or happened in the way described.

But of course that is not particularly to the question of how the Earth was created. I'm guessing you'll find no scholarly research confirming the Bible's account of that.

I am not questioning whether there is reason to bring up the Bible in school settings. I've studied the Bible in school settings many times without issue. I am questioning the appropriateness of it being presented as scientifically valid competitor to what science has actually demonstrated about the world. However, if a history class were to say "we're tossing out the textbook since the history presented in the Bible is so rock solid" I suppose I'd have a problem with it.

[Fab]

Hey, SCAEagles, do you watch The Naked Archaeologist? I love that show.

[Strangler Lewis]

Paul said something to the effect of "if you've got a problem with it, don't do it. If you don't have a problem with it, don't flaunt it in others faces and make them mad.". The way I see it, there are some absolute rights, some absolute wrongs, and a whole bunch of things that really don't matter much.

Of course, Paul said this in the context of the imminent end of the world.

Nonetheless, I certainly live my life in a new covenant way, and I consider Jesus to have been a very hip Jew.

By the way, one always hears Biblical literalist/creationist types quibble about the science of the fossil record. What do they say about the speed of light, distant astronomical objects, etc.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Nontrovercy du jours (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25459034/) - Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.) is getting ripped apart for daring to say that military service and being a P.O.W. does not de facto make you President material.

Umm, what's wrong with that statement? Are we to believe instead that every single member of the military, every single person who's ever been in command in the military is automatically qualified to be President? That's some pretty loose qualifications if so.

I wish Obama weren't playing so safe and trying to distance himself from the statement. It's exactly the kind of point that needs to be made. Perceived experience with no meat behind it should not be taken for granted just because the dude's a hero.

[innerSpaceman]

I'll go one further. Being endlessly tortured in a prisoner of war camp is likely the LAST thing that should qualify you to be President of the U.S.

It should qualify you for lifelong psychological monitoring, but that's about it.

[JWBear]

"A very indecent thing," said retired Air Force Col. Bud Day.

Day's appearance on the conference call spawned a new round of broadsides as the Democratic National Committee rushed to point out that Day had appeared in the so-called Swift Boat TV ads that cast aspersions during the 2004 election on the medals that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry earned in Vietnam. Committee spokesman Damien LaVera said that McCain himself had called the Swift Boat ads "dishonest and dishonorable."

Can we say "hypocrisy" boys and girls?

[scaeagles]

Of course this is all coordinated, and I don't know why one would think otherwise. The candidate arranges with various individuals to put things on the table and then distances themselves from the statement. Not uncommon, and of course Obama is doing it.

They just want it ouu there to say (incorrectly, IMO) that McCain is not experienced in these areas and bears no special qualifications, because that is a major area that McCain has Obama beaten. Obama has no experience whatsoever, so the goal is to make McCains seem not so impressive.

Frankly, this is about the only area I do have confidence in McCain.

[scaeagles]

And by the way, Clark speaking of Kerry's involvement in Vietnam is exactly the opposite of this.....He praised these thing about Kerry in 2004 and while did not directly say that it nmade him more qualified, the implication was clearly there. Hmmm....I wonder what changed....

[Tom]

Erik Estrada endorses John McCain. (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/01/chips-star-erik-estrada-endorses-mccain/)

[scaeagles]

Throw that in with Stephen Baldwin (Alec's brother) and McCain has this in the bag.

[scaeagles]

Well, there wasn't any doubt, but Striesand has thrown her support behind Obama. Does any candidate really want these?

[BDBopper]

If you know me well enough you know I love a good chuckle. I'll even be amused when the jokes are at the expense of my political hero. This (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=165572&title=gop-harmony) is a funny example and here's (http://youtube.com/watch?v=UX7V-F1irek) another one. Enjoy!

[Gemini Cricket]

The BBC News isn't perfect by any means, but I really like it when they have Q&A Articles like this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536018.stm). It educates the reader and gives them a history to a current story. Lots of times, I read articles where the writer assumes the reader is up to speed.

One of the questions about the wiretap bill:

What is this issue about?

After the 9/11 attacks, the US government started to monitor e-mails and phone calls in which one participant was abroad. It did so without going to a special court to ask for a warrant, arguing that there was no time. Phone companies agreed to provide the information but were subsequently sued for breach of privacy. Taps on communications wholly within the US still need a warrant.
A temporary law, the Protect America Act, was passed last year to allow for taps without warrants but it expired in February. President George W Bush's subsequent attempt to replace the temporary law triggered a fierce battle with the US House of Representatives.

[Gemini Cricket]

A Florida man is using billboards with an image of the burning World Trade Center to encourage votes for a Republican presidential candidate, drawing criticism for politicizing the 9/11 attacks. "Please Don't Vote for a Democrat" reads the type over the picture of the twin towers after hijacked airliners hit them on September, 11, 2001.
Mike Meehan, a St. Cloud, Florida, businessman who paid to post the billboards in the Orlando area, said former President Clinton should have put a stop to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda before 9/11. He said a Republican president would have done so.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/911.billboard/index.html)

So basically, it's an ad for him to sell his single. Wow. That stinketh.

[JWBear]

Ummmm... We have a Republican President, and he hasn't done anything about bin Laden...

[Gemini Cricket]

Ummmm... We have a Republican President, and he hasn't done anything about bin Laden...
Absolutely. But even more than that is the fact that he's doing this to pimp his song. That's really lame...

Hmm. Looks like his site is down...

[JWBear]

And btw... The outgoing Clinton Administration warned the incoming administration about al Qaeda. The Bush Administration had proof, a few days after the inauguration, that al Qaeda was responsible for the USS Cole bombing. They had over seven months to do something! They did nothing.

[scaeagles]

If we're going to rehash old stuff, I'm game -The previous administration was offered bin Laden by the Sudan - Clinton has said so in his own words and it is recorded - but did not take him.

And last I checked, JW - even though we don't have bin Laden , there hasn't been another attack. So I would suggest the current administration has done something.

[Moonliner]

If we're going to rehash old stuff, I'm game -The previous administration was offered bin Laden by the Sudan - Clinton has said so in his own words and it is recorded - but did not take him.

And last I checked, JW - even though we don't have bin Laden , there hasn't been another attack. So I would suggest the current administration has done something.

Would you mind adding an "on American soil" qualifier to that statement?

[scaeagles]

Yes, certainly. My oversight indeed.

[JWBear]

An interesting aside...

I was looking up members of the bin Laden family (just curiosity). Here is Omar bin Laden, one of Osama's 17 sons. He's rejected his father and al Qaeda, and has married an English woman.

http://www.beaumonde.net/weblog/images/bin_laden.jpg

[innerSpaceman]

And last I checked, JW - even though we don't have bin Laden , there hasn't been another attack. So I would suggest the current administration has done something.

What absurd LewisCarollian logic.

[JWBear]

What absurd LewisCarollian logic.

That's all the Republicans have left, that and fearmongering.

[scaeagles]

Funny....all democrats have left is empty talk of "hope".

[Ghoulish Delight]

If we're going to rehash old stuff, I'm game -The previous administration was offered bin Laden by the Sudan - Clinton has said so in his own words and it is recorded - but did not take him.

And last I checked, JW - even though we don't have bin Laden , there hasn't been another attack. So I would suggest the current administration has done something.
Actually, that is the result of the anti-terrorist rock I've been carrying in my pocket since 9/11.

Whether Clinton did or did not do the right thing is irrelevant in response to that inane billboard. The billboard is claiming that having a Republican in office is somehow going to magically make us safer than having a Democrat in office. The reality is that we were attacked with a Republican in office. What happened before not withstanding, there is concrete proof that having a Republican in office is not a mystical talisman against terrorist attack. Period.