Hahaha, Visible Penis Humor mojo for Strangler Lewis!

Heh, the 3000th random political thought (Part Deux) was about co<ks and mojo. Welcome to the LoT.

Doesn't seem like Romney is completely dead yet - he has a lead (though a slim 38-35 lead) in delegate rich CA, and a national poll shows a 38-38 tie with McCain. There are Rasmussen polls just released today (or at least that I only heard about today).

Filed poll says 32-24 McCain as of today. Meanwhile, Obama's shot up to within 2% of Clinton in California, with 18% undecided. Too close to call.

Completely my bad. I misread and the 38-38 tie was in CA. Still what I've read today isn't 34-24 McCain, it's 33-29.

However, the numbers certainly vary. I've seen 38-35 Romney over McCain in CA, 37-33 Romney over McCain in CA, and anywhere from a 4-7 pt McCain national advantage.

Why do I bother to look at polls anyway?

Obama IS energizing young voters
 

I have seen it, right in my own family.

My daughters (15 and 18) are for Obama. They are actually getting involved. They are organizing a voter registration drive at their high school for the Wisconsin primary and very much looking forward to an Obama event on Tuesday night here (Mr. Wonderful won't be there but whatever).

Why doesn't this surprise me?

I love the government forcing the populace to do stuff.

Romney won the Gold in Maine yesterday 52% to 21%:)

You mean like passing a driving test and getting a license and paying registration, those kind of things?

Yes, i get the difference ... the new one is a regulation and tax on simply being alive, while the other is for the privilege of driving.

But make no mistake, driving has become central and irrevocably entangled with my, and millions of others', prosperous american lifestyles. And i don't balk that the government makes me do it.

If this is what it takes to improve healthcare significantly in this country, it will hardly seem more of a sacrifice of freedom to me than a driver's license or hand gun license.

It seems like a better analogy would be that since driving is so important to freedom that everyone should be taxed to provide all with a car and insurance. Afterall, it isn't fair that some people don't have a car or a reliable one. So let's garnish wages and raise taxes to force everyone who doesn't have a car to get one....it's only fair.

It seems like a better analogy would be that since education is so important to ensuring a trained work force and a law abiding populace that there should be public schools and that those who do not have children should pay for the education of all to a minimum level rather than leaving them to learn citizenship and civics in the gutter or at their megachurch, yeshiva or madrassah. And those who are armed to the teeth should pay for the police protection of those who are not.

At any rate, I don't think the legitimacy of requiring people to get health insurance can be questioned so long as we can identify some societal consequence of their failure to do so. I haven't looked into it deeply enough to say what's better. It may be that the societal consequence is akin to those behind seatbelt and helmet laws. It may also be that leaving people the "choice" of going uninsured means extra burdens on public hospitals, also a legitimate consideration in my opinion.

Hmm....and look at the condition of public education in general. Constant harping on how our kids don't do as well in science and math as other industrialized nations, and the solution is typically to throw more money at it, as if money solves the basic problems. There is a reason my kids go to private school. Regardless of where my kids go, the education system is an example of why I don't think such a health system will work.

For their own good, and for the benefit of society in general, the obese should be forced into exercise and weight reduction programs, and have their wages garnished if they will not do it willingly. After all, who can argue that eliminating obesity would not be good for the individual and society in general, and reduce the overall cost of health care?

I thought you sent your kids to private school in the hope of having them avoid cultural influences that you believe to be negative. In that sense, the money you're throwing at that problem may be well spent. It may not be. As far as academic performance goes, no kid in public or private school will do well without parental involvement and interest in what they're doing.

If crack or gay sex were as likely to cause obesity as overeating, I imagine the conservative lawmakers among us would cast a more suspicious eye on it. It may be appropriate that we defend our freedoms most strongly when they result in bad behavior, but it's sad. In fact, I imagine that it 's the unhealthy exercise of various cherished freedoms that you're trying to avoid when you send your children to private schools.

There are a variety of reasons I send my children to private school, which include both social and academic reasons. However, I am not so ignorant as to think that private school shelters them from all the influences that I see as negative.

In my example, the cause of the obesity isn't the issue. If health insurance should be required to the point of garnishment of wages because it is deemed best for the individual and society, then why not have mandatory exercise programs? People who exercise are typically more healthy than those who do not. Let's require vitamins and an oat bran muffin daily as well.

I don't understand the concept the concept of acceptance of the ever growing nanny state, nor the encouragement for it to grow ever larger.

The Netherlands' Institute for National Health would.

That "and" can get you in trouble, can't it?

Interesting link, Scrooge.

Let's go the Logan's Run route then.;)

Nah... just when we meet, you may want to buy me a double cheese cake with bitter chocolate sauce.... ooo ooo ooo and whipped cream.

It'll be cheaper for you in the long run.

Just trying to help

Just trying to be a blessing.

The willingness to drop dead in the face of rising health care costs shows what a southern gentleman Sam truly is.

Just got this in an email from a friend in Italy:

Do you Speak Huckabee?

This cracked me up. (Of course, I got all but the bonus round. :rolleyes:)

I'm down with what Huckabee's doing. I, too, like to pepper my conversations with obscure references from an ancient text -- Kama Sutra.

I'm not a Christian, but I got most of those! Sheesh!

So Romney's endorsed McCain. What that means in terms of delegates is clear as mud. Here's a good explanation of the complications involved.

Not that it's going to matter much in regards to who the nominee will be.....all this really does is dilute Huckabees leverage towards VP-hood.

And let's face it......McCain may not be running for re-election in 2012 so the VP spot is a bit more important here than it normally would be.

With Romney no longer splitting the base votes, Huckabee was starting to pick up some momentum. If he had carried that AND gotten the support of Romney and whatever delegates would end up shuttled his way from that, it would have made the race pretty interesting. But yeah, Romney's clearly angling for the VP nod.

Romney getting the VP nod would seal the deal against my voting for McCain, even with Hillary as the dem candidate. Guess I'd better starting reading up on the libertarian candidates in case Obama doesn't win the nomination...

If I hear one more bloody story about Cuba :mad:

I know it's big news, but Jeebus, how many ways can you possibly say, "It's unclear what this means for Cuba. It remains to be seen what the person or people who take over do and how much power Fidel will still hold behind the scenes." There. That's the story in two freaking sentences. There's absolutely nothing more to report. Zip. Aaaaargh!

You need to stop listening to NPR......go over to whatever station plays Dr. Laura for an hour and you'll on top of the world:D

You know, I think I smell a banning in the works.......;)

You mean somebody still broadcasts her!? And people still listen!!??

Good Lord. Who would want to listen to the homophobic rantings of a hate-inspired crusty old mummy who took mediocre nude pictures of her va-jay-jay that has haunted the internet since 1998? She's as appealing as a Coprophiliac's smile after sex.

Which begs the question, is smile about hidden knowledge called a sh!t-eating grin?

True....but it would make the never-ending cycle of news out of Cuba not seem so bad;)

Both Obama and McCain are lefties. So as it stands now, there's a very good chance that the new President will be a lefty. Depending on if you count Regan or not (he wrote with his right hand, but it's widely believed he was among the many of his generation forced to switch when young...might explain his somewhat odd way of speaking), that would make either 4 or 5 of the last 7. Significantly out of proportion with the percentage of lefties in the population over that period. However looking at the full history of the US, prior to Ford, there had been only 3, so the current run is just making up for decades of under-representation.

I wonder for the older ones how many of them had it trained out of them as children for reasons of superstition.

Statistically, there's a good chance that there were at least a couple.

James Garfield was ambidextrous.

I thought that was James Buchanan.

Kind of a neat article I found today that reinforces what I was saying about the importance of a candidate's ability to build and lead their campaign team:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23261850/

No Garfield was the one who could write in Latin and Greek simultaneously using both hands.

So could Buchanan.

Or maybe it was just Greek.

I'm not finding anything that references Buchanan being ambidextrous in any language.

May be Strangler is confusing "ambidextrous" with "ambiguous". ;)








(For those that don't get it... Buchanan is widely considered to have been homosexual.)

Bless you.

Will he be featured in your next avatar?

Ah, I'd forgotten that particular theory about Buchanan (though personally I don't particularly buy into it when considering his younger behavior) so I was wooshed.

Your wish is my command!

Hmmm, I'm gonna have a hard (or less hard, as the case may be) time masturbating to this one ... but i'll give it my best shot.


(I'm a righty, btw) ;)

So lemme get this straight... Hillary's answer to people being without health care is to just mandate that we buy what we already couldn't afford? May as well just frigging tax us and then provide us with the coverage, period. What a stupid "plan".

"Oooh... my plan to address the fact that so many Americans are without health care is to fine them if they don't buy insurance!"

I'm probably oversimplifying, but so, I think, are they.

(and to be fair, it sounds like that's pretty much also Obama's plan, so I'm mad at them both over this)

Yeah, you are way oversimplifying. Considering that most careful political and economic analysis has hers as the most comprehensive and practical health care plan ever devised, I think you might be missing something.

I'm not planing on delving into the details of it. But that's why I won't attack it.

CNN.com dinglecheeses!

With all due respect, GC.... If you "failed" every newspaper and internet news feed that had a typo in a headline there wouldn't be any left. They are quite common, and always have been.

I can' wait to catch G.C. in a misspelling of dinglecheese.

Weekend daddy says the checks will soon be in the mail.

Good, because then it's no longer funny :)

I think the major internet news sites should not have any mistakes in their articles. Especially not the headline for their top story on their homepage.

Keep dreaming. Newspapers have always been chock full of typos. It's nothing new and it's not going away.

Incidentally, I remember when my mom would actually write a letter every time she saw a newspaper article make the its/it's mistake.

Plus, it was fixed within 5 minutes (I checked it out as soon as you posted the picture).

I see several typos a day in the San Francisco Chronicle and the hurdle to fixing a mistake is much higher in print.

Yeah, it was really kinda awkward the other day when a very out of breath editor knocked on my door with whiteout and a pen. I hated to have to tell him that we only get the Sunday paper.

I stand by my F.

:D

Then you're a dinglecheese.


(But, we still like you.) :D

That will not help them get a better grade. No amount of extra credit will help them now.

I'm not allowed to use "dinglecheese" anymore. It's my new favorite curse word. But Maddy's picked it up and used it in front of a guy a few weeks ago and was embarassed that he looked at her like she was, well, a dinglecheese. So I'm not supposed to say it - but I do anyway. It's so darn useful.

More than 1% of adult U.S. population is in jail.

Highest by percentage and by sheer # in the world. We're #1 baby!

Take that, Russia! Eat My Shorts, China!!

Yes, but how many of those are political prisoners? I'd bet Russia and China are ahead of us there.

Keep em coming. The main industry in my hometown are prisons. We've got two huge california ones and they just opened a federal.

Most of ours aren't political prisoners. I'll certainly grant you that.

But way too many of them are social prudery prisoners and I don't know that this is a whole lot better.

Without its prison, Tehachapi, CA would be bankrupt.

Susanville would be too, since the mills closed it's almost all we have.

Interesting.
Tehachapi has windmills too. Half of them are defunct.

Certainly. I would suspect, however, that most of those who live under oppressive governments are too fearful to even consider breaking the law and perhaps don't have the chance because of societal controls.

OK I'm dying. Because my best friend's dad - was totally invseted in the Techachapi windmill thing. And he's from Susanville. Egads.

Not sure what you mean by this unless you mean that crime in America is somehow an expression of our freedom. The rhetoric behind all anti-crime legislation in this country is certainly as harsh, punitive and, occasionally, cruel as anything you'd expect to hear in Islamic countries, China, Singapore, etc.

I disagree. We don't chop off hands for stealing. I'm not suggesting that we begin doing that, but I would guess that if every kid who stole from a convenience store was missing a hand, other kids might think twice about doing it. That person who has their hand chopped off doesn't go to prison in whatever country, their punishment is immediate and physical.

I don't think crime is necessarily an expression of freedom, but often times occurs because of lack of fear of penalty.

Wait, so us having more people in prison than any other country is a sign that people are able to act without fear of penalty?

Why isn't it just a sign that we put people in jail for a lot of stupid ****?

It is as well. I'm just saying that when someone steals something, they can go to jail. Elsewhere jail doesn't happen, it's caning or chopping a hand off or some other form of physical punishment. All I'm saying is that's a contributing factor. I would also regard it as stupid to put someone in prison for daring to look and spread information on democracy.

Take minor drug offenders out of prison and I wonder what the percentage is then. That's not meant to be rhetorical, i really do wonder.

I imagine it would reduce it by a substantial amount.

I saw one stat, not sure about its accuracy, that figured there are about 1.5 million prisoners in for non-violent drug offenses.

ETA: Nevermind, that's a total number incarcerated, not total number currently in jail.

Leo! Why you're nothing but a long-haired, hemp smoking, Joan Baez humping, barefooted hippie caked with the mud from the grounds of Woodstock!





:D

Just to give equal time to white collar crime, we also don't blow out the brains of corrupt executives and government officials like they do in China.


I agree, but this doesn't mean that the penalty isn't there. If you're suggesting that jail isn't a harsh enough punishment, I disagree. None of my clients like being in jail or having been in jail. Nonetheless, they often have served prior jail or prison terms. They all know people in jail or prison. I think it comes down to the fact that a lot of our poor criminal class has no investment in the larger social structure, and they just can't put two and two together. I don't know that it would be meaningfully different if we started chopping off hands.

Local NPR morning show has Ralph Nader on and a caller just called in and talked about how they were glad that Nader was running but the caller thinks it is time for a second American Revolution and he had hoped that Ron Paul would be triggering that but since he hasn't he was glad to support Nader.

I'm just boggled trying to figure out the worldview that would result in Ron Paul and Ralph Nader both being acceptable leaders.

With the excpetion of humping Baez....

lol!
:D

*sniff* *sniff*

Something is in the air. A lot of somethings. Perhaps too many somethings.

Lear Jets to be precise. Flying over my house. Why so many tonight?

Congress is already in session.

Is there a war breaking out somewhere?

:eek:

Were there a lot of Lear Jets flying over last time we broke out in war?

Pretty much every time there is a major politial crisis (or congress goes into session) you can count on that.

It's rather like the Domino effect ....

Perhaps this has something to do with the Venezuela/Columbia/Ecuador situation?

Actually if I had to bet money, I'd go with primary related travel.

Interesting. Today seems to be following the super Tuesday pattern. For whatever reason, Clinton's got a big advantage among people who make up their mind on the last day (or at least tell pollsters that they're undecided until the last day). I wonder what is it about her that attracts indecisive people?

Safety. They know what to expect from her [based upon the last time a Clinton was in the White House].

I think it's more about doubt. I know that's what did it for me.

I do find it interesting how expectations change interpretation. Two weeks ago, when discussing Ohio and Texas the tone was that Clinton was well ahead, could Obama catch up and make it close, etc., etc.

By the time the night rolls around everybody has convinced themselves he'll win them both and therefore not winning is a huge setback. Somehow this becomes a story of Obama having lost his appeal in Ohio when in reality the result in Ohio isn't all that different from the way its been polling for a while. And even being close in Texas would be a huge story if viewed from the story line of two weeks ago.

Oh well, I was mostly just hoping that after tonight I'd be able to ignore the presidential race until the conventions.

Yeah, the reality is that she's not going to be able to catch him on pledged delegates. He will go into the convention with the lead. So she's still got an uphill battle to convince super delegates or to get people to vote against their pledge.

I've seen a couple people theorize that she's going to start getting pressure form the party to drop out to avoid a street battle for delegates.

My thought as well.

I was hoping it would be a knockout so we could finish tearing each other up and go after the other side. I must say that as things stand now, I really don't think I could in good conscience vote for Hillary, so if she gets nominated I may sit out my first Presidential election ever. My husband and MIL feel the same way. I hope Richardson and the other super-delegates go the way I think they might.

Me? I'm hoping for a huge fight for months between Obama and Clinton so they keep spending money to beat each other. Now that McCain has the Rep nomination officially, he can continue to build up funds (but wait! Didn't campaign finance reform eliminate money from politics???? Sigh.....still feel like I have to take a shower supporting McCain.) for the big fight.

That's just lemonade in that glass, right, Brother BDBopper?

Signed,
A Nice Quaker Lady

Condolences, BDB. You fought the good fight.

That was no Obamarama last night. I do not think it is a change in momentum and I think the spin on Ohio being the state that seals the nomination for the winner in the primary is hooey. Hooey for the last 100 or so years, but still hooey to me!

I'm totally on the fence about November if Hillary wins the nomniation. I cannot, in good conscience, not cast a vote. One vote less from me would mean one more vote for McCain and I cannot in all good conscience place a vote in his column.

Sigh, no matter how much things change, they always stay the same?

Vote Nadar.

Nader. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Rumors abound that should Clinton win, she'll offer the VP spot to Obama. The apoplexy potential for HateRadio hosts and bloggers is just too inviting- I would probably be able to vote that ticket.:evil:


(Picturing Scaeagles breaking out in hives now....)

Hell will freeze over first. :p

McCain, too!

It would be interesting if she actually offered. But she never actually would (no president wants a VP that might outshine them) and if she did he'd never accept (since it would taint his attempt to run again in 8 years).

Whoever gets the Democratic nomination will pick Bill Richardson. McCain will pick Huckabee. Then, when McCain busts out in a new round of melanomas and the Democratic nominee is assassinated, it will be Richardson v. Huckabee, as I divined.

Any ticket that includes Hillary is, from my point of view, unacceptable.

However she is unlikely to win the nomination and he's unlikely to pick her as a running mate.

Obama would not pick Hillary as his VP. If he did, he'd best be looking over his shoulder because I believe she'd orchestrate his assassination. Seriously. In 8 years her chance at the Presidency would be greately reduced.

I'd LOVE a Hillary-Obama ticket, but not necessarily an Obama-Hillary ticket.

Why do you all keep saying 8 years? Is there a reason it wouldn't be in 4 years, when we do this all over again?

Sorry, I'm sure it's a stupid question but I've seen a few of you make the same reference and I just don't understand.

He has to assume that if he doesn't get the nomination this time it will be 8 years before he has another shot.

Because, as a Democrat he has to make his decisions on the assumption that the Democrat will win this time (and there is no real reason for that to seem obviously wrong at this time).

That means that he has to assume that in 4 years there will be an incumbent Democrat president and unless she is just a complete failure there would be no realistic chance for anybody else to win the nomination.

Yes, if Clinton gets the nomination this time and McCain wins, then he will certainly try again in four years, but I don't think he can make plans on the assumption that this will be an option available to him.

And that's also why this is probably Clinton's only real chance at it. She has to assume her next opportunity will be 2016. And by then she'll be 69.

Yes, McCain is 71 but we're going to soon start hearing a lot of whispering about how he is too old for the job (I agree, he is) and I think that will be even more difficult for a woman to overcome.

Thank you Alex, now it makes more sense to me. I don't know why my brain couldn't grasp that this morning.

I bet those rumors were started by the Clinton camp.....best way to win an election you're behind in is to act like you're ahead;)

I love it! (I like both of these guys better than anyone who is still currently running.

Now, now....all of those mysterious deaths that seem to surround the Clintons have been explained away don't you know;)

It's not really a rumor, or from her "camp". She said it on the early show. She was asked about the possibility and she said it's in the realm of possibility but first we have to see who would be at the top of the ticket.

Visible mojo, GD.:snap:

More reasons to doubt man made global warming.....

Climate panel on the hot seat

Well, my goodness... what more would anyone need than a commentary by H. Sterling Burnett.

He had me when he compared Gore to Goebbels.

But I was completely convinced when he attacked Krugman in the NYT for criticizing Exxon's CEO compensation, all while failing to mention his "independent" think tank was funded by Exxon.

*yawn*

Funny.....either the methodology is flawed or it isn't regardless of the source revealing it is flawed. Don't like the info? Attack the source.

No... but thanks for attempting to put words in my mouth.

I'll be glad to read the science, and regularly do.

But I laugh at anyone who would put this putz up as some authority on anything.

You wanna trust him? Pray, continue.

Hmmm....I do believe you attacked the source, and used that as a way to discount what was being presented.

Surely you're not claiming to have never attacked one's source, Scaeagles? Please don't make me do a search.;)

I am not at all above dismissing an article based on the source. Anything from O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc, I will automatically dismiss without even bothering to read. Since you didn't dispute Scrooge's description of the author, I would be inclined to do the same with this link as well. He sounds like more of the same, but if he adds to your comfort zone then have at it.

OK... If that's the way things have to work for you, that's just fine with me.

What you charitably call "info", I see as propaganda funded by the oil companies, presented by an individual with fundamental "honesty" issues.

I don't generally trust paid liars. I attacked the paid liar you cited and feel confident using my distrust of this paid liar to discount what he has to say on the subject.

Better?

But I must say I commend you on your quest for the truth. Times past I've seen you discount criticism, since proved to be true, as untrustworthy because "the guy has a book to sell". Kudos to you for realizing and trying to correct the error of your ways, and special thanks for trying to help me do the same.

I am forever in your debt.

Well Richard Clarke did have a book to sell, didn't he?

Without reading anything else in this thread, I just don't understand why everyone believes Obama and his "we're changing! I'm all about change!" line, when EVERY politician says crap like that when they aren't an incumbent. Why does everyone just automatically believe him? It's odd to me.

Having voted for Edwards and not an Obamabot yet, I must say i am impressed with his Charisma. Why does everyone buy the "Change" line? Well right now we live under such a clusterf*ck of an administration, people are are willing to do anything for "Change" and Obama conveys that message the best. Lets "Hope" he delivers the goods. He will however have quite a mess to clean up as did Carter after Nixon/Ford.

\

Those who dont believe man has any impact on "Global Warming" isn't paying attention. Here in the Bay Area we can trace some of our polution we are breathing all the way to China! We all live under the same sky, like it or not.

More CO2, more retention of greenhouse gasses, more changes in the climates, and so on. We cant stop it, but we can slow it so all of us will be able to adapt much easier. Especially those in areas that will be hardest hit by flooding, stronger storms, more extreme winters and hotter summers.

First it was the coming Ice Age...

Then it was Global Warming...

Now it's Climate Change....

Funny thing is, I thought "Change" was supposed to be good;)

Of course you did. :)

:D

Well, I guess everyone is still fighting over whether or not Michigan and Florida Democrats will have their voices heard or not......

The funny thing is, Republicans in these later contests, knowing that their candidate has already been chosen, will get to have more say in who is the eventual nominee than these Dems who have been abandoned by their own party's recklessness/stupidity;)

In what I suspect was a shock to both sides, the SC upheld WA's "top two" primary law. (In even more shocking news - Justice Thomas's majority opinion didn't make me want to blow chunks, although I preferred the Roberts concurrence.)

Ooh. I wish I lived in Nebraska!
Scott Kleeb for Senate
Political cowboy.
Hmmmm.
:)

Here he is talking.
I don't know about you but I'm in love.
:D

Here's another Scott Kleeb ad.
It plays more like a Brawny commercial more than anything else.
I hope he wins.

:)

He's already won your heart.



What else is there?:)

Oh my!

I actually enjoyed George Bush's visit to ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball broadcast booth last night...and I usualy hate broadcast booth guests (unless it's Rick Sutcliffe and he's drunk). Bush was funny, knowledgeable about baseball, and self-deprecating. Good stuff.

I wonder if he got President of the United States confused with President of MLB.

How did he deal with the inevitable tough questions about juicing on the Rangers?

I believe in your right to not have your children vaccinated. But let it be known that I view this as covered by your right be a stupid ignoramus.

The realization that Ted Olson is McCain's legal adviser makes me extra scared to think of a McCain Presidency.

Source
Good for Pelosi.

Good for Pelosi but bad for Pelosi. As is pointed out, this wasn't a military rule that blocked her but a Congressional definition of who is allowed along in congressional delegations (spouses, but currently not domestic partners).

Good for Pelosi for waiving the rule this time. Bad for not just getting the rule changed.

Good for Pelosi in that if the House was led by a Republican, Ms. Azar would be left at the airport, riding back home in a taxi most likely by herself.

Even I agreed with something that Pelosi said recently, which scared the crud out of me, actually. She said china should have never been awarded the Olympics, and I could not agree more. I wish our government would take an official stance on it and perhaps even boycott them all together.

Well, I assume the average married Republican congressman would think, "If I don't get to bring my girlfriend, why should she get to bring hers?"

Because you don't like his politics or because it looks like a cynical attachment to someone whose wife died in 9/11?

Or the average democrat politician might think, "I get to bring my intern along, or I can simply contact a call girl when I get there, so why not let her go?"

A Republican politician may not even make it to the plane depending on how wide his stance is at the airport john...

I say we start a campaign for a minimum stall width to prevent further misunderstandings.:)

I had no idea about his wife. He was the legal council that came up with many of the interpretations that have convinced Bush he's above the law. It does not bode well for McCain reversing the direction the executive office is taking towards monarchy.

Because she'd point out that it's because of them that the girlfriend hasn't been made a wife.

Really? Because last time I looked most members of congress with a D after their name still oppose gay marriage.

Both Obama and Clinton are on record against it.

They all say that civil unions are good enough (though apparently Congress itself doesn't recognize them for purposes of defining "family").

Word

Reading above, it seems it's the average democrat and average republican that are the problem.

Or else our perception of same.

No... it's the actual politicians.

Oh, and PS, by the way...Mississippi thanks you for all the tax dollars we received. Citizens Against Government Waste said we were something like number 5 this year in funds received per capita. It's almost like that Thad Cochran can slip an earmark into a signed bill. He's just amazing, isn't he? We love the new stop signs.

You'll have to excuse me. My cheek is bleeding and if I don't stop grinding my teeth I'm gonna pop a molar.

Aren't you a bit old and white to be saying "word"?

Just saw Obama on Hardball and they were at Westchester University and a student asked his position on gay marriage.

He quite bluntly said he was against it. But that civil unions should have all the same legal advantages as marriage. So I'd have liked to hear his explanation of the distinction but they moved on.

Nah, lazy

Quicker than typing visible mojo

but none the less, guilty on both counts.

Lest you had forgotten about Mike Gravel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPZ7t4MwCJk

Okay! I said I was wrong!

And catch the subtle Spike Lee riff.

Holy crikes! That is the MOST INSANE campaign video that I have ever witnessed. What the hell is he even trying to say with it? I mean, I got the obvious references to potential candidates who might be assassinated, but... beyond that... er...

Assuming the date has any relevance and since the abolition of the IRS was one of his big campaign issues I'd guess it will be the announcement of some tax reform advocacy group or something similar.

Source
I find this story to be heartbreaking.
:(
And at the same time, I find this man to be truly heroic. And, boy, he was hot. (I know, I'm going to hell...)
:)

Where I will be jealous of you having the steamiest sweatiest uber-saunafied mansex with too-hot-for-hades Petty Officer Monsoor.


And if that doesn't get me admission to hell to join in the fun, how about if I poke fun at his last name that is likely how his father mispronounced the French word for Mister?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Rbs&refer=home

Now will this help the US dollar? After all, isn't a dollar basically 100 copper Pennies;)

Actually it will hurt. It costs the Mint more to make a penny (and a nickel) than they are worth. So if copper goes up, that just gets worse (though not necessarily much, pennies are only copper plated, most of their weight is zinc. It is actually the other nickel plated coins that are mostly copper.

I wish I could remember it correctly but I recently read about a guy who was doing a decent profit in melting down pre-1982 pennies for their copper but was blocked by some new regulation or law.

Maybe it is time to turn our backs on ol' William Jennings Bryan and return to the gold, silver (and copper) standard.

So thanks to TurboTax I got taxes done in an hour last night. It certainly made my life easier, but I wonder if it's a bad thing in the long run. It obscures the outrageous convoluted disaster that is U.S. tax code and actually makes things seem relatively straight forward. I fear that any chance of motivating the populace to demand serious reform will be diluted by the fact that fewer people are dealing with it hands-on.

You make an excellent point and I totally agree.

The ultimate power is the power to tax. The people with that power are the only ones with the ability to change how that power is wielded, and it will therefore never be resolved.

Then why make position on taxation such a central part of your decision on who to vote for if nobody will ever change it?

No one will change the system. An over all lowering of rates can, and does frequently, happen.

I did vote Forbes in the 2000 primaries. I believe he is someone who would have made an effort to change the tax code.

I can't remember when the primaries were so hotly contested. I guess since the candidate from each party usually seems so early annointed, I never paid much attention to how messed up the primary voting systems are.

If nothing else, this season has given us a glimpse into the mess that we otherwise might have missed. It may be depressing, but it's educational.






But oh do I love the irony of all those states that wet themselves trying to be first, when for the first time it turns out to be the last states that matter. Tee and Hee.

:p

I'm actually enjoying the fact that it looks like the Dems are going to have a convention to do what a convention is supposed to do - select a candidate!

If you want to select a candidate earlier, dump the prolonged primary and convention system and find another path, but don't complain that the process is doing is working the way it was originally designed for.

Clinton won - or at least it's being called that way.

On to GUAM!

I have no problem with the system. The primaries and delegate system was never intended to be the voice of the people. It was intended to help the party sort out who the best candidate would be for a general election. Their goal is to put the strongest candidate out there, and the rules, and the fact that in the end the popular vote is purely suggestion and entirely non-binding, ensure that if the party looks and says, "You know, this candidate is going to get slaughtered in a general election," they can do something about it.

I read the transcript of the 60 Minutes interview with Antonin Scalia. Those who like and dislike Scalia both should find this very interesting.

It is a lengthy read.

Is wishing him dead tantamount to disliking him?

I would suppose that might qualify.

Please... Not until we get a Democrat in the White House!

That could be another 32 years;)

Or weeks. :)

Perhaps:)


http://www.presidentelectionpolls.co...hn-mccain.html

http://www.presidentelectionpolls.co...hn-mccain.html

Small boo-boo by a CNN reporter....I wish I could find a link to the audio somewhere (just heard it on the radio). She was reporting on Hillary challanging Obama to more debates, and after the sound bite of Hillary finished, apparently the CNN reporter didn't know her mic was still on and she said "skanky". A CNN reporter called Hillary Clinton skanky! BWAHAHAHA!!!!

Humm... I tried to find it for you but I'm afraid a Google search for "Hillary" and "Skank" turned up far too many entries to wade through. Sorry.

What is McCain smoking? Either he's WAAAAAaaaaay off base, or he has some plan that's way too complex for simpletons like journalists to understand.

This looks like a recipe for disaster if you ask me. Consumerism will go up, health plan enrollment will go down, and after inflation catches up with the tax breaks, we'll all be just as badly off as we were before, only worse because our employers will no longer provide health insurance.

I generally dislike required employer-provided insurance. The only benefit it carries is protection for people who the insurance providers would otherwise consider intelligible. But it really has massively inflated the cost of insurance as well as expectations for what medical coverage should look like. Anyone who's ever had to go on cobra and/or shop for their own coverage knows that employer provided plans are intensely costly and seriously overkill for most people.

I think when the market gets involved and more consumers have more control over their individual choices that it is typically a good thing.

I, however, think that letting market forces control such basic needs as health care is just asking for disaster.

Why? I truly am curious and don't wish to jump to conclusions.

Either leave it to the free market or completely nationalize health care. Employer mandated seems like the worst of both worlds.

If something in between has to be done then individual mandates seem the better way to go. But all because of a historical accident (wage freezes during WWII) we're stuck with a method that really makes no sense (in that it puts all of your eggs in one basket: lose your job, lose your insurance. Might as well require that all investments be put in employer stock so that if your company goes tits up you score a hat trick of suck).

Well, since if you lose your job, you also lose your ability to pay for your insurance, I don't see why they shouldn't be linked.


I'm not saying it worked out that way, but isn't employer-based insurance supposed to benefit from the economy of scale that individually-purchased insurance could never match?

I think that is the intent, but doesn't always work out that way. For example, my children are insured through the school my wife teaches at. There, the employee is covered as a benefit, but when adding family members, there are added costs to the employee. We have three children and pay the exact same amount as someone with six children or some with one child.

So in pricipal, it's what was intended, but the limited choices often make it more expensive than it would be otherwise. Why should someone with one child pay the same amount as someone with six?

Yes and no. That's largely offset by 1) the fact that they can't refuse coverage to anyone, so the higher costs associated wite higher risk employees who would be charged higher rates individually are distributed across everyone and 2) to be sure that everyone's needs are met, the plans have a lot of overkill built in. A single man doesn't particularly need coverage that includes prenatal care, but that's what they pay for.


To answer Leo's question, while I have no doubt that a free market would result in more affordable options and I fully appreciate all of the drawbacks of any socialized situation, in the end I can't shake the feeling that it feels entirely wrong to me that a person's monetary situation dictates their access to health care. Money is a social tool, it is not a measure of the worth of someone's life.

Exactly!

Damn the economy and damn you, Bill Clinton.

If that were true, then we'd have compulsory military service and reality shows about homeless people.

The health coverage thing is always a two-edged sword for me. On one hand, wouldn't it be great if I never had to worry about the cost of a procedure and could just go to the doctor whenever. On the other hand - HMOs suck bad enough, how much worse would it be if the government were in charge? When you have politicians deciding how much doctors make, how on earth can you expect us to get decent care.

I think the compromise would perhaps be that the government provide a certain minimal level of coverage (much like medicare) to everyone, and set up an arrangement where individual insurers compete for the business of improvements upon that coverage. There would need to be a financial incentive of some type for doctors who exclusively (or a minimum percentage that comprises the majority of their patient pool) serve the government-insured. But then doctors who wish to could accept people with increased coverage (in other words, the government plan would be like an HMO, and privately insurance would be the upgrade to a PPO).

The whole thing still scares me.

I kind of like that rough outline of a plan you have there, Morrigoon. A solid crust of socialism with a tasty capitalist topping!

The same way you get it when insurance companies decide how much doctors make. Hopefully, you run into a doctor who is committed to providing it. Plus, if Sicko is any indication, the doctors in socialized systems are doing fine.

The politicians also decide how much public sector lawyers make on both the prosecution and defense side. The laws still get enforced. People get defended. I've had a number of clients who have bought into the myth that their public defender had to have been incompetent, so the family pooled money they couldn't afford to hire a private attorney that took their money and did nothing.

He's getting sh!t for it, but I for one give McCain credit for accidentally finally admitting that we're in Iraq because of oil.

link?

Well, it pains me to say it .. but just as his hundred years remark really wasn't saying the war or occupation would go on that long, his remark that we wouldn't fight future wars over oil was not really an admission that we are currently doing so.

"that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."

And I'm just not buying the, "Oh, I meant the FIRST Gulf War," CYA line. Who the hell, in 2008, would talk about war in the Middle East and figure that the default meaning, with no further qualification, means the war that ended 20 years ago and not the one that's ongoing and in the news every single minute of every single day. Does he really want us to believe he's that clueless?

Well, let's just say that is what he meant. Let's say for a moment (and I don't subscribe to this argument, but I'll play the game) that the current war is a war about oil.

As with Obama's comments on some issues that have been controversial, wouldn't this be an example of speaking the truth? Let's say Iraq went nuclear and used them on Iran and Saudi Arabia. The price of oil goes to, oh, about 1000/barrel destroying the world economy.

So, yeah, I think he's pulling a CYA like Obama has been pulling CYAs. I think he said what he meant and then realized he can't say it.

Agreed, thus my first post on the subject. Of course, it just reveals/confirms that he was and is in favor of war for oil, which I'm not, so even though I appreciate the accidental honesty, it doesn't much change what I think of his competency to lead the country.

If the Iraq war is not about oil, then what is it about? Because a whole lot of Americans truly have no idea why we are there, if it's not about oil.

My opinion on it has been stated over and over and over and over and over and over again, so restating it wouldn't be very productive.

Have to slam on Hillary for a moment. She has called for an investigation on the rapid rise of gas prices. Wow, that truly demonstrates some hard hitting plans as President.

Sheesh. It isn't hard to figure out.

Middle East instability. Weak dollar. Increased demand for oil with no increase in production by OPEC. Decreased American oil production. Limited refining capacity.

And it seems like some sort of eerie omen that the horse Hillary picked at the Derby was euthanized on the track. Along those lines, PETA is outdoing itself, saying that the jockey on that horse should be suspended from racing. I am certain there is no one who feels more sick about this than the jockey. Certainly a sad thing for that beautiful animal to have to be put down, but there was absolutely no sign that the horse had any distress whatsoever until the finish line was crossed. I don't know much about horses, but I don't think a horse with two broken ankles is going to be able to continue running because the jockey smacked his butt.

Okay, scaeagles. I'll do a search.

From what I read, they are calling for an investigation with possible suspension of the Jockey if wrongdoing on his part is found.

I believe their argument is that the Jockey should have been able to detect signs of stress in the animal and might have ignored them to finish the race.

More that scares me about Obama and Hillary....

When talking about the plan to eliminate the gas tax over the summer, Hillary says she doesn't care that economists think it's a bad idea because, well, she knows better than economists.

However, I like what she said about Iran.

But Obama doesn't like that kind of talk, apparently, which to me goes toward how naive he is when it comes to foreign policy. What should we say to Iran? If you attack Israel we'll sit down and stalk with you about it?

Talk is cheap. Saber rattling is just that. There are plenty of ways to communicate a serious threat that's not simply bluster, and that doesn't just serve to increase the level of aggression so that the threat becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

That takes a little more skill than saying you'd obliterate a nation of millions of people on national TV just to prove how "tough" you are.

In certain situations I would agree with you, but this is not one of them.

Bullies and terrorists only understand force. Ahmadinjad is interested in self preservation and certainly does not want Iran obliterated. What Iran and North Korea and Syria and the like are interested in are negotiations with other countries that will honor those agreements while they subvert and violate them.

Certain people only understand force and threats of force.

I regard it a lot like parenting. I tell my kids that if they make choice A, there will be consequence B. I let them know what my reaction will be to them doing something so they know upfront that they have a choice which will involve consequences. And yes, for my two younger ones, that choice can involve in extreme situations (gasp!) spanking. Haven't had to spank them (thankfully) in literally years, and no, they don't fear me. (not that I want this to become a discussion on spanking, but there is a certain parallel)

I'm curious as to why Clinton sees a 10 year window of Iran being willing to consider nuking Israel. When those 10 years are up is she saying that Iran will no longer be willing to consider that or that we'd no longer be able to obliterate them if they did? That 10 year part is just really weird.

What does, in the context of that question and answer, "obliterate" mean to you?

In the "Yes, we can" thread I did mention that I thought Obama slightly muffed that answer. The better answer would have been "Tim, of course we could obliterate Iran. We have military might to obliterate the entire world if that is what we chose to do. And if Iran were to attack Israel, whether with nuclear weapons or not, we'd act to protect and support a great ally. But if Iran uses nuclear weapons anywhere, it will not fall on us to "obliterate" them but the world will collectively turn its back on Iran and just as with the first Gulf War collectively retaliate as necessary and do whatever it takes to make sure Iran never again commits such an atrocity. And as president, rather than taking that burden entirely upon the United States I'd make sure it truly was a global response."

Perhaps it's because she knows that she or Obama will screw up the military so much we may not be able to after that 10 year period?:evil: :D

Yes, because the military is in such fine shape right now after 7+ years of Republican control.

I realize it isn't the greatest at present (and i have lots of reasons as to why I think that is, but won't go into it), which is why I posted my smilies, but I anticipate a Carter era type military decay with deep military budget cuts.

I think Iran is very much aware of what we would do should they attack Israel, not to mention what the very capable Israelies would do as well. I don't know why Hillary had to make such a strong statement based on a hypothetical situation, other than it's her usual posturing to show she has as big a set of cajones as the other boys.:rolleyes:

There really is something to be said for 'speaking softly and carrying a big stick'. I find it ironic that we are in a very similar situation as the Soviets, and we know how well that worked out for them, right?

How so? I'm not sure what parallel you see, but I might just be being stupid.

Are you referring to the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Oh, this wins for most pointless nontroversy of the campaigns:

Clinton campaign flips an image of a rifle on a mailer!!! That ignorant bitch!!!!!

Yeah, I saw that linked on Drudge this morning. Couldn't even work up the level of caring necessary to decide the story was stupid.

Yeah but it's part of her working-class heroine act. If that fools enough of the People, then I guess we deserve her. But geez, I hope she gets knocked out of the race tomorrow.

Trivial, yes. But it may hurt her more than help. As the article mentioned, most gun enthusiasts (whom I’m assuming the mailing was aimed at) will notice the gaff. Some may look less favorably on her campaign because of it.

I do agree that any effect on her standings – in either direction – because of this ad will be trivial.

It's not a gaffe, it's graphic design. Sure, the overall message of the thing is dumb anyway, but to nitpick because the graphics department decided the layout was better with the gun facing that way? Beyond lame.

I don't think too many gun enthusiasts are in the Hillary camp. ;)

Bill Kristol generally hasn't a clue (and I say that despite agreeing with him on policy for often than not) what he is talking about but he's among several I've seen recently mentioning Bobby Jindal as a McCain running mate.

I can't decide what I think of that. It would very much be stunt casting and I can't help but wonder if picking such a young running mate (36) would counter his age problem or just exacerbate it by making people think about the fact that he would literally be twice the age of his vice president.

Also, I am not keen on having someone in either the presidency or vice presidency that I could have gone to high school with.

Can you have a VP who is not old enough to become president?

No, the VP must meet the qualifications for being president. But the age requirement is 35 so Jindal qualifies.

Ah, I always get that messed up, thinking it's 40 or 45.

25 for the House, 30 for Senate, 35 for president, none for Supreme Court (the president could nominate an infant if the Senate was willing to confirm).

Would that be necessarily be a bad thing?

Depends on the infant, I imagine, and its view on whether Roe is settled law.

Okay shmartypants... at what political level does it become necessary to reveal one's personal financials?

Well… I imagine that most infants wouldn’t have any financial information to reveal; unless they are well advanced enough to be considered for the Supreme Court, then that may different.

Should the parents of infant Supreme Court nominees be expected to reveal their financial information?

Appointing infants and toddlers would be an invitation to multiple impeachment proceedings since federal court judges are only entitled to hold their office during periods of good behaviour.

I believe I could name some people who htink like infants that have been on the supreme court.

Perhaps infants would be better, when douchebags like Antonin Scalia say this week, "Get over it. It's so old by now" about critics of the Court's kingship ruling that put Bush in the White House ... as if a fundamental perversion of the Constitution in overthrowing the people's right to elect someone to the highest position in the government should be brushed aside in less time than the !RS requires us to keep our financial records.

How funny and yet ridiculous at the same time.

Spending tons of money to flex their international muscles, and bankrupting themselves in the process. The location of said flexing is only added irony. Reagan was very proud of himself for basically outlasting the Soviet martial spending spree, and here we are doing it to ourselves. Our economy is the worst it's been decades, and our military is overstretched and exhausted. If any new threats should arise, I wonder how we are to deal with them? Yet another irony is the state of our National Guard: the very entity that kept GW's chicken **** ass out of Nam is now a one-way ticket to the Middle East.:rolleyes:

Depends on what you mean by reveal. There is no requirement at any level (so far as I know) for providing the public with detailed personal financial information such as releasing tax returns. That is just something candidates are bullied into by the media, opposing candidates, and to a lesser extent the voters.

However, there are various regulations and body bylaws requiring various elected officials to make various less detailed disclosures (such as "I own between $50,000 and $500,000 in a DJIA indexed mutual fund; I own between $500,000 and $3 million in real estate, etc.). I know that congressman and senators have this requirements. I don't know if the president does (since I don't think Congress could force it on the president -- separation of powers -- it would seem to me voluntary).

That's my understanding of it, anyway.

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.

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.

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..)

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 (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.

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

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

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.

Sounds like the Nigerian Rebels have been punked.

Jimmy Carter and George Clooney? That's bizarre.

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.

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

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:)

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.

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

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

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?

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.

Golf = terrorism.

????

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.

Dang.
 

*slaps forehead, hard*

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Marry me, Keith Olbermann.

Keith Olberman is a raving lunatic.

No, you're thinking of Rush Limbaugh.

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

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

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.

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?

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?

That's what I was wondering:confused:

$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.

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.

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).

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.

Except. McCain will still be the war candidate. Here's a compendium of polls about the Iraq War.

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:

The name John Hagee may haunt McCain for a while.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Confidential to Hillary: You Never Heard Margaret Thatcher Whine
 

Source is here.

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

Signed,
Woman for whom Hillary does not speak

And McCain's foreign policy ignorance continues to slide under the radar. :mad:

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

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.

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!

Thank you. Yes! ;)

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.

Such is the nature of politics.

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?

I don't know, but I'm craven a Chipwich.

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.

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

I'm too lazy to paraphrase ...

^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.

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/evp200...aps/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;)

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.

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?!

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.

:snap:

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/

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.

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;)

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.

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

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.

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

:snap:

Lets all just take the train....

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.

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.

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.

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

I just read this article 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:

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."

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 to handle it for him.

....and in other news from your site:http://www.projectcensored.org/top-s...laden-to-9-11/

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

Spelling is easy:

محمود احمدی نژا

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

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-Po.../dp/0963784625

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.

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.

Nope, sorry

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?

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

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.

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;)

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.

They've got to be kidding! This country is officially insane.

Some commentary on that b.s.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/index.php?s=rachel+ray
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/0...mpathiser-too/

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/27bstroke6/200...-id-spy-o.html

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.

Win a trip to the Republican Convention!

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

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.

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

A little churchly humor for BDBopper from a Nice Quaker Lady.
 

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?"

teh awesome!

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Oh, the missed opportunities!!!!!

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.

Fun with delete.

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

Not for the squeamish.

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)

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!

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:).