The BigAss 2nd term thread

[KevinNYC]

A place for politics.

Bunch of stuff happened recently that is pretty interesting politics-wise.

We know have new Secretary of State: John Kerry. Which means there will be a Senate race in Massachusetts. And the last Republican who won a Senate race in MA, doesn't want the job. Scott Brown who won his seat during height of the Tea Party and the probable nadir of the Obama administration, doesn't want the Job. (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/02/01/170864263/reports-republican-scott-brown-wont-seek-massachusetts-senate-seat) Instead he will join Fox News.

Fox News meanwhile has recognized it needs to make some changes to help support the Republican party better and they have dropped Sarah Palin and Dick Morris who was comically wrong about nearly everything. Fox is still the highest rated news channel, but their ratings are down. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/fox-news-ratings-february-oreilly-hannity_n_2768265.html) Some have speculated that viewers have tuned them out after they predicted Romney would win and the truth was Obama won by almost 4 percentage points and it was wasn't too hard to predict (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7913306&postcount=9). Either way their audience is aging out of the demographic that is the most valuable for advertisers. Talk radio ratings seem to be down as well. Clear Channel has been losing money.

Obama's election has led to what promises to be ongoing fight for control of the Republican Party. Karl Rove (The establishment is trying to kick the Tea Party overboard and the Tea Party is riled to vote in another two terrible Senate candidates in Republican primaries....which if they hadn't done in the two previous cyles, they might have controlled the Senate.

How bad is it? Karl Rove got called a Nazi the other day by conservatives. Chris Christie who is possibly the most popular Republican in the country (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/27/chris-christie-the-gop-s-most-popular-governor-not-welcome-at-cpac.html) was not invited to a conservative gathering this month and might have trouble going through republican primaries.

The split in the Republican Party was evident during the confirmation voting for Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. Hagel, a Republican and a Senator from Nebraska actually had other Republicans filibuster him. We have never had a filibuster over a defense secretary ever.

[KevinNYC]

The cia vote happens next week.

The Obama adminstration is trying to prevent Congress from seeing their I-can-kill-Americans-with-drones memos.

Instead they pulled some BS switcheroo where they showed more Benghazi emails and kept the drone memos secret.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/02/white-house-benghazi-drones/62371/


The White House is refusing to share fully with Congress the legal opinions that justify targeted killings, while maneuvering to make sure its stance does not do anything to endanger the confirmation of John O. Brennan as C.I.A. director.

Rather than agreeing to some Democratic senators’ demands for full access to the classified legal memos on the targeted killing program, Obama administration officials are negotiating with Republicans to provide more information on the lethal attack last year on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, according to three Congressional staff members.

The strategy is intended to produce a bipartisan majority vote for Mr. Brennan in the Senate Intelligence Committee without giving its members seven additional legal opinions on targeted killing sought by senators and while protecting what the White House views as the confidentiality of the Justice Department’s legal advice to the president.

There's something about that just shows ****ed up priorities on both sides and it seems that Obama faces more pressure on this from the left than the right.

Has any of the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee put pressure on Obama over drones?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Chris Christie who is possibly the most popular Republican in the country (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/27/chris-christie-the-gop-s-most-popular-governor-not-welcome-at-cpac.html) was not invited to a conservative gathering this month and might have trouble going through republican primaries.
I doubt that. If the Tea Party had united behind one guy early on Romney would have lost. Similarly the Republicans that are mad at Christie for his public appreciation of Obama during the Sandy crisis probably won't have one guy they're unified behind and that could let Christie win while getting 35-40% of republican support. If he gets stopped it will be for something else that happens between now and then.

[KevinNYC]

I doubt that. If the Tea Party had united behind one guy early on Romney would have lost. Similarly the Republicans that are mad at Christie for his public appreciation of Obama during the Sandy crisis probably won't have one guy they're unified behind and that could let Christie win while getting 35-40% of republican support. If he gets stopped it will be for something else that happens between now and then.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chris-christie-approval-rating-hits-record-high-152537599--election.html

[KevinNYC]

Also the administration is arguing that Prop 8 in California is unconstitutional (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/politics/administration-to-urge-justices-to-overturn-a-gay-marriage-ban.html) which is probably the strongest official support of gay rights ever in the US.

Obama was officially opposed to gay marriage very recently.

Also a lot of prominent Republicans came out in support of gay marriage. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/prominent-republicans-sign-brief-in-support-of-gay-marriage.html?hp)

Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.

[KevinNYC]

Also the conservatives on the Supreme Court are hinting at overthrowing the Votings Rights Act of 1965. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/conservative-justices-voice-skepticism-on-voting-law.html?_r=0)

Rachel Maddow called out Antonia Scalia for "trolling" on this issue.

[KevinNYC]

Also the sequester that nobody wants seems to be happening.

[longhornfan1234]

Obama is acting different. In his first term he was more right than Bush. As of today...Obama is more progressive.

[KevinNYC]

Obama is acting different. In his first term he was more right than Bush. As of today...Obama is more progressive.

In what ways was he to the right of Bush?

Sotomayor vs Alito?
Kagan vs John Roberts?
Hilliary/Kerry vs Powell/Condi?
Eric Holder vs Ashcroft/Gonzales/Mukasey?
Biden vs Cheney?
Gates/Panetta/Hagel vs Rumsfeld/Gates


Hyperbole much? You don't seriously believe that do you? Bush's main goal in the second terms was to privatize social security.

If Obama was so right-wing, what was all the conservative anger about? Was that just racism?

Oh, I get it. You're trying pretend Bush wasn't a conservative, just like all those folks who pretend that Bush wasn't representative of the Republican party. The guy won two terms and they still won't have him at the convention. (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/29/nation/la-na-bush-20120830)

[johndeeregreen]

Oh, I get it. You're trying pretend Bush wasn't a conservative, just like all those folks who pretend that Bush wasn't representative of the Republican party. The guy won two terms and they still won't have him at the convention. (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/29/nation/la-na-bush-20120830)
W. I understand being ashamed of, but that's just wrong to do to Sr.

[KevinNYC]

H.W. was called weak and a pansy for not going further once we drove Saddam out of Iraq, for the decade after the first Gulf War. Then his son spent the next decade showing us the wisdom of that decision.

[Rose]

The cia vote happens next week.

The Obama adminstration is trying to prevent Congress from seeing their I-can-kill-Americans-with-drones memos.

Instead they pulled some BS switcheroo where they showed more Benghazi emails and kept the drone memos secret.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/02/white-house-benghazi-drones/62371/



There's something about that just shows ****ed up priorities on both sides and it seems that Obama faces more pressure on this from the left than the right.

Has any of the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee put pressure on Obama over drones?
It's absolutely hilarious how terribly illegal this is. And some of the cases they site in the white pages as for how it's "constitutional" by mentioning "citizens"....the word Citizen(s) doesn't even appear on that page, and the case may or may not be related to citizen(s) or terrorism. My professor devoted 30 minutes one class explaining how it was illegal regardless of whatever cases they incorrectly cite.

Hopefully the administration catches shit not only for potentially using drones on Americans but also people overseas.

[kNicKz]

http://www.neoabolition.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/barack-drone-bomber-obama.jpg

[longhornfan1234]

In what ways was he to the right of Bush?

Sotomayor vs Alito?
Kagan vs John Roberts?
Hilliary/Kerry vs Powell/Condi?
Eric Holder vs Ashcroft/Gonzales/Mukasey?
Biden vs Cheney?
Gates/Panetta/Hagel vs Rumsfeld/Gates


Hyperbole much? You don't seriously believe that do you? Bush's main goal in the second terms was to privatize social security.

If Obama was so right-wing, what was all the conservative anger about? Was that just racism?

Oh, I get it. You're trying pretend Bush wasn't a conservative, just like all those folks who pretend that Bush wasn't representative of the Republican party. The guy won two terms and they still won't have him at the convention. (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/29/nation/la-na-bush-20120830)

Libs are constantly denying Obama is really a republican(Obama's first term) :facepalm
Obama signed two extensions of the Patriot Act, signed NDAA into law (allows for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charges), assassinated an American citizen (Bush didn't even do this), kept Guantanamo open (after promising to close it in his first year), kept Monsanto people high up in the FDA (Christine Escobar), still raids legal medical marijuana facilities (after saying he would stop this practice), tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan (morphed it from an anti-terror campaign to a nation building campaign), kept Bush's guy running the federal reserve , extended the Bush tax cuts, opposed any effort to re-institute Glass-Steagall , mandated all citizens make a purchase from a for-profit company (rehashed REPUB. idea from the early 90s), send more illegal immigrants back to Mexico than Bush, kill lists, pharma deal, Affordable Care act was a 90s repub idea. Also...he doesn't give a fvck about the environment.

[Is He Ill]

Libs are constantly denying Obama is really a republican(Obama's first term) :facepalm
Obama signed two extensions of the Patriot Act, signed NDAA into law (allows for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charges), assassinated an American citizen (Bush didn't even do this), kept Guantanamo open (after promising to close it in his first year), kept Monsanto people high up in the FDA (Christine Escobar), still raids legal medical marijuana facilities (after saying he would stop this practice), tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan (morphed it from an anti-terror campaign to a nation building campaign), kept Bush's guy running the federal reserve , extended the Bush tax cuts, opposed any effort to re-institute Glass-Steagall , mandated all citizens make a purchase from a for-profit company (rehashed REPUB. idea from the early 90s), send more illegal immigrants back to Mexico than Bush, kill lists, pharma deal, Affordable Care act was a 90s repub idea. Also...he doesn't give a fvck about the environment.

So....If he was a republican, why did you dislike him?

[longhornfan1234]

So....If he was a republican, why did you dislike him?
I'm not a fan of big government republicans. :biggums:

[kNicKz]

Libs are constantly denying Obama is really a republican(Obama's first term) :facepalm
Obama signed two extensions of the Patriot Act, signed NDAA into law (allows for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charges), assassinated an American citizen (Bush didn't even do this), kept Guantanamo open (after promising to close it in his first year), kept Monsanto people high up in the FDA (Christine Escobar), still raids legal medical marijuana facilities (after saying he would stop this practice), tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan (morphed it from an anti-terror campaign to a nation building campaign), kept Bush's guy running the federal reserve , extended the Bush tax cuts, opposed any effort to re-institute Glass-Steagall , mandated all citizens make a purchase from a for-profit company (rehashed REPUB. idea from the early 90s), send more illegal immigrants back to Mexico than Bush, kill lists, pharma deal, Affordable Care act was a 90s repub idea. Also...he doesn't give a fvck about the environment.

yep. but his party has blue on instead of red so we're getting change LOL

If you are truly a liberal to the core, there is no way you can endorse this man...

[kNicKz]

like really really conservative dudes see bush as a liberal, really really liberal dudes consider obama conservative

[KevinNYC]

Libs are constantly denying Obama is really a republican(Obama's first term) :facepalm Longhorn, given how spectacularly wrong you have proven yourself here over and over again, you truly have no right to facepalm anyone. And you know that.

Even if one were to concede every point above, it still wouldn't move him to right of Bush. It's also a cherry picked list. And leaves out tons of things he did do. If you had said Obama was an Eisenhower style of Republican, you'd be closer to understanding him. Now let's look at your laundry list.
assassinated an American citizenI think this qualifies him as a centrist. (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/cbs-poll-broad-bipartisan-support-for-drone-program) Let's face it no one is shedding a tear over the death of the father, the son yes.


Obama signed two extensions of the Patriot Act,Yes he did. He also had the Justice Department enact several reforms (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/179/revise-the-patriot-act-to-increase-oversight-on-go/) from a bill sponsored by Pat Leahy and Rand Paul that never got to a vote. So policy has changed, but the law has not. Politifact rates this a compromise.
signed NDAA into law (allows for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charges) I've dealt with this stupidity before. The NDAA does a lot of things. The main thing it does is lets us pay for our military. There would be a shitstorm if this thing didn't go through. It also passed with veto proof majorities of 93% in the Senate and 86% in the house. If you read your Constitution, the president is not a king. The controversial provisions were not put by Democrats and opposed by Obama before and after the bill's passage. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=98513&st=&st1=#axzz1iE5qy7a3) So your argument boils down to he lost a political battle.

Which is the same thing you can say about Guantanamo. Again he's not a king. He couldn't even get his own party to support him on this and Congress shoved the following language into another spending bill
Sec. 1032. Prohibition on the use of funds for the transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.....
Sec. 1034. Prohibition on the use of funds to modify or construct facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.You can find a balanced view of Obama's similarities to and difference with Bush on counterterrorism here. (http://www.propublica.org/special/chart-bush-and-obama-a-counterterrorism-comparison)
kept Monsanto people high up in the FDA (Christine Escobar), still raids legal medical marijuana facilities (after saying he would stop this practice), tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan (morphed it from an anti-terror campaign to a nation building campaign), kept Bush's guy running the federal reserve , extended the Bush tax cuts, opposed any effort to re-institute Glass-Steagall , mandated all citizens make a purchase from a for-profit company (rehashed REPUB. idea from the early 90s), send more illegal immigrants back to Mexico than Bush, kill lists, pharma deal, Affordable Care act was a 90s repub idea. Also...he doesn't give a fvck about the environment.
You got the Monsanto thing backwards, Escobar is a critic of Monsanto, not the person in the FDA
He didn't say he would stop the medical marijuana raids, just not go after small timers who were operating legally (i.e. non-profit in CA. They were still required to follow state law, which a lot of these operations were not. (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/97203/Obama-medical-marijuana-crackdown#)

You got the Aghanistan thing wrong. He refocused on counterrorism in Afghanistan (and used it as base to go after Al Qaeda in the Pakistani tribal areas.) Anyhow he campaigned on that, it wasn't a surprise. He did get rolled by the generals on the timetable.

You may want to look at the current tax rates, especially the top marginal rate.

Bush's guy running the Federal Reserve just told Congress (http://www.businessinsider.com/bernanke-versus-corker-fed-testimony-2013-2) that he agrees with Paul Krugman. (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/bernanke-joins-the-hippies-677508/) :lol

As for Glass Steagal, Obama has had Geithner on his team, but also pushed for Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Finance Protection Board....this is the type of thing I'm thinking of when I say you are cherry picking.

Also if he didn't care about the enviroment, what was all that screming from the right about green jobs and cap and trade?Also (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-21/politics/35499522_1_mercury-emissions-greenhouse-gas-emissions-michael-brune)
t he day after the November 2010 elections made clear President Obama’s greenhouse-gas legislation was doomed, he vowed to keep trying to curb emissions linked to global warming. There’s more than one way of “skinning the cat,” he told reporters.

Since then, Obama has used his executive powers — including his authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act — to press the most sweeping attack on air pollution in U.S. history. He has imposed the first carbon-dioxide limits on new power plants, tightened fuel-efficiency rules as part of the auto bailout and steered billions of federal dollars to clean-energy projects. Obama’s standards for new vehicles, said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, rank as “the biggest move to get us off our oil dependence by any president ever.” The rules, which took effect this year, will require the U.S. auto fleet to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

I have to say I think my absolute favorite is to pretend that Republicans would have pushed for the Affordable Care Act....yes they may have come up with it in the 1990's but only as a way to prevent the Democrats from passing their plan.

[KevinNYC]

Gotta give him props for being honest. Romney said it kills him (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/mitt-romney-it-kills-me-not-to-be-president-88332.html#ixzz2MVD2uKYa) that he is not president.


Both Romneys said he would be more effective at navigating the current political moment.
“I’ll look at what’s happening right now, I wish I were there,” Mitt Romney said. “It kills me not to be there, not to be in the White House doing what needs to be done. The president is the leader of the nation. The president brings people together, does the deals, does the trades, knocks the heads together; the president leads. And – and I don’t see that kind of – of leadership happening right now”
.....
Ann Romney said her husband, had he won, would have solved the sequester by now.
“I totally believe at this moment, if Mitt were there in the office, that we would not be facing sequestration right now,” she said.


I think the quote by Ann Romney is interesting. Basically saying that the Republicans would have avoid sequestration if the president was a Republican. Seems to reinforce the view that the current Congressional Republicans put political success over solving the problems of the country. This basically confirms what was exposed in Robert Draper's book about the House (http://www.amazon.com/Not-Ask-What-Good-Representatives/dp/1451642083/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362335770&sr=1-1) where he exposed a private strategy meeting among republican Leadership on the day of Obama's innauguration. The strategy was essentially to oppose everything Obama would try to do and turn him into a failed one-term president.


...revelations about a private dinner of House Republicans on inauguration day in 2009 in which they plotted a campaign of obstruction against newly installed president Barack Obama.

During a lengthy discussion, the senior GOP members worked out a plan to repeatedly block Obama over the coming four years to try to ensure he would not be re-elected....
Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations..... "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."

The Republicans have done that, bringing Washington to a near standstill several times during Obama's first term over debt and other issues....They would also ....demonstrate united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies, ....

Frontline not only confirmed that the meeting happened as Draper said, but got Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich to go on the record and discuss the meeting on camera.

[Jailblazers7]

Gotta give him props for being honest. Romney said it kills him (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/mitt-romney-it-kills-me-not-to-be-president-88332.html#ixzz2MVD2uKYa) that he is not president.



I think the quote by Ann Romney is interesting. Basically saying that the Republicans would have avoid sequestration if the president was a Republican. Seems to reinforce the view that the current Congressional Republicans put political success over solving the problems of the country. This basically confirms what was exposed in Robert Draper's book about the House (http://www.amazon.com/Not-Ask-What-Good-Representatives/dp/1451642083/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362335770&sr=1-1) where he exposed a private strategy meeting among republican Leadership on the day of Obama's innauguration. The strategy was essentially to oppose everything Obama would try to do and turn him into a failed one-term president.



Frontline not only confirmed that the meeting happened as Draper said, but got Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich to go on the record and discuss the meeting on camera.

That quote just makes Romney sound naive. Here is a good Ezra Klein video about why its stupid.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/vp/50913650#51013261

And here is a good rundown by Klein on how Republicans have been stalling on sequester talks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/02/this-is-why-obama-cant-make-a-deal-with-republicans/

[KevinNYC]

That quote just makes Romney sound naive. Here is a good Ezra Klein video about why its stupid.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/vp/50913650#51013261

Good Ezra Klein clip. I reference that idea that the president is not a king upthread. I particularly liked when he called out this tweet by a reporter
Ron Fournier @ron_fournier

Can handle Bin laden, not Boehner?

As Klein rightly points out, we handled Bin Laden by sending Navy Seals to kill him. Is that what this reporter is suggesting he should do to John Boehner? The reporter later doubled down after being called out on this stupidity (http://gawker.com/5987972/national-journal-writer-wants-to-know-why-the-president-doesnt-just-murder-john-boehner) by saying that Bin Laden didn't compromise just like Boehner.

[KevinNYC]

Giant article on Medical Costs (http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/print/)in Time magazine that is getting a lot of attention. One of the themes of the article is that how Medicare buys the same services, far more cheaply than private insurance....that is hospitals are ripping off people with private insurance.


I got the idea for this article when I was visiting Rice University last year. As I was leaving the campus, which is just outside the central business district of Houston, I noticed a group of glass skyscrapers about a mile away lighting up the evening sky. The scene looked like Dubai. I was looking at the Texas Medical Center, a nearly 1,300-acre, 280-building complex of hospitals and related medical facilities, of which MD Anderson is the lead brand name. Medicine had obviously become a huge business. In fact, of Houston’s top 10 employers, five are hospitals, including MD Anderson with 19,000 employees; three, led by ExxonMobil with 14,000 employees, are energy companies. How did that happen, I wondered. Where’s all that money coming from? And where is it going? I have spent the past seven months trying to find out by analyzing a variety of bills from hospitals like MD Anderson, doctors, drug companies and every other player in the American health care ecosystem.

When you look behind the bills that Sean Recchi and other patients receive, you see nothing rational — no rhyme or reason — about the costs they faced in a marketplace they enter through no choice of their own. The only constant is the sticker shock for the patients who are asked to pay.

Yet those who work in the health care industry and those who argue over health care policy seem inured to the shock. When we debate health care policy, we seem to jump right to the issue of who should pay the bills, blowing past what should be the first question: Why exactly are the bills so high?

Some examples of inflated bills
Gauze Pads
Charge for each of four boxes of sterile gauze pads, as itemized in a $348,000 bill following a patient’s diagnosis of lung cancer

Test Strips
Patient was charged $18 each for Accu-chek diabetes test strips. Amazon sells boxes of 50 for about $27, or 55

[TheMan]

Good Ezra Klein clip. I reference that idea that the president is not a king upthread. I particularly liked when he called out this tweet by a reporter

As Klein rightly points out, we handled Bin Laden by sending Navy Seals to kill him. Is that what this reporter is suggesting he should do to John Boehner? The reporter later doubled down after being called out on this stupidity (http://gawker.com/5987972/national-journal-writer-wants-to-know-why-the-president-doesnt-just-murder-john-boehner) by saying that Bin Laden didn't compromise just like Boehner.
That's actually a great idea that that reporter seems to suggest...have Obama send out a Navy Seals team and off Boenher, then watch the GOP opposition crumble and all of them fall in line:applause:

Obama should then announce it in a press confrence and give mad props to that reporter for the awesome idea:rockon:

[KevinNYC]

The CIA nomination passed the Senate Intelligence Commitee 12-3.

I guess he'll be confirmed easily.

Also I liked this headline on Google News

Jurors in New York "cannibal cop" trial get some comic relief

[KevinNYC]

It seems they did give the info on the drone program to the Senators that asked for it and those Senators voted for Brennan
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-collins-statement-on-committee-access-to-targeted-killing-documents

And

From Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/obama-admin-says-it-can-use-lethal-force-against-americans-us-soil)

The attorney general reserves the right (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/609809-holder-response-to-rand-paul.html) "in extraordinary circumstances" to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a US citizen, on US Soil without a trial.

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

[KevinNYC]

Funny clip of Bill O'Reilly losing his mind. (http://tv.msnbc.com/shows/the-last-word/) Start at 1:50

Apparently Bill thinks if he shouts loud enough his own ignorance about Obama's policies will go away.

He gets so angry that he won't admit that Medicare is a "specific" government program.


Another good clip (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/vp/51060425#51060425) from Lawrence O'Donnell is this one where he shows a bunch of clips from Fox Business Network the day after Obama's election blaming a one day drop in the Dow on Obama. He also shows clips of the "Romney rally" from October last year. He contrasts that with clips from today when the Dow hit a new high and suddenly no one mentions Obama at all.

[KevinNYC]

I don't know much about Rand Paul but I think I'm predisposed to hating him because his name is Rand.

You've done good Macho Man. I'm going to overlook your willingness to fund a Michael Bay movie.

[reppy]

Even if one were to concede every point above, it still wouldn't move him to right of Bush. It's also a cherry picked list. And leaves out tons of things he did do. If you had said Obama was an Eisenhower style of Republican, you'd be closer to understanding him. Now let's look at your laundry list.I think this qualifies him as a centrist. (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/cbs-poll-broad-bipartisan-support-for-drone-program) Let's face it no one is shedding a tear over the death of the father, the son yes.


Since when does public opinion have anything to do with whether or not a certain action is legitimate and where exactly such action would place one on the left/right dichotomy?

[KevinNYC]

If you don't like Bad Boys 2 there's something wrong with you.

My friend is all over Paul's nuts. Give me reasons to dislike him besides his stupid name so I can talk shit to my friend and not sound like an idiot.

The "Friends of Hamas story" was pretty funny
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/14/_friends_of_hamas_the_scary_sounding_pro_hagel_gro up_that_doesn_t_actually.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/friends-hamas-rumor-started-article-1.1268284

Conservatives who wanted to stop the Chuck Hagel confirmation started pushing this rumor that Hagel had spoken to or accepted money from "Friends of Hamas." They demanded the White House respond to this rumor, instead the White House just hung up on them.

Two problems with the rumor.
1. Friends of Hamas doesn't exist
2. The whole thing started as a joke that the conservative didn't understand
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/friends-hamas-rumor-started-article-1.1268284


He's also named after psychopathic troll who wrote these long turgid books where nobody acts like a human being. And the troll who was a scathing critic of "the Welfare State" got Social Security and Medicare payments under her married name. (http://boingboing.net/2011/01/28/ayn-rand-took-govern.html) One of her earliest attempts at fiction was inspired by a child murderer who she seemed admire very, very much (http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html). She wrote of the character she based on the child murderer (http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html) that he
is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other peop (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/)le do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should."

You can read about his truly horrific crime here (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/child_abduction/6.html?sect=19).


I would just make a bet with him: That you watch part one and part two of the movie based on her most famous book (http://www.atlasshruggedmovie.com/) (there's at least one more part still to be filmed) together and for every minute that is entertaining (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/) you pay him a dollar and for every minute that is not entertaining (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_ii/)he pays you a dollar.

[KevinNYC]

Since when does public opinion have anything to do with whether or not a certain action is legitimate and where exactly such action would place one on the left/right dichotomy?
Your first point is irrelevant because we are not discussing legitimacy, but yes public opinion does have something to do being left right or center.

If something is in the mainstream it by definition is in the center. That is mutable and something that is in center can move to the margins or something on the margins can move to the mainstream.

[KevinNYC]

American cleric is a nice touch.

[Ne 1]

Rand Paul is filibustering some shit. Is it just me or is filibustering the most childish shit. There's gotta be a better way of doing shit.

Ending every sentence with the word "shit".

I don't know much about Rand Paul but I think I'm predisposed to hating him because his name is Rand.

http://oi46.tinypic.com/fxh6q.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BEuaN7vCIAALFy3.jpg:large

[reppy]

Your first point is irrelevant because we are not discussing legitimacy, but yes public opinion does have something to do being left right or center.

If something is in the mainstream it by definition is in the center. That is mutable and something that is in center can move to the margins or something on the margins can move to the mainstream.

So how do you determine if it's left or right then? Apparently if everyone agrees on it, it's a center position . . but if they don't? How do you decide then? Is it whether or not it has more support or not on the left or right?

Were the policies of Hugo Chavez centrist? In his own country? He seemed to enjoy a lot of public support.

I don't think that mainstream support of a policy means that it is a "centrist" position.

[KevinNYC]

So how do you determine if it's left or right then? Apparently if everyone agrees on it, it's a center position . . but if they don't? How do you decide then? Is it whether or not it has more support or not on the left or right?

Were the policies of Hugo Chavez centrist? In his own country? He seemed to enjoy a lot of public support.

I don't think that mainstream support of a policy means that it is a "centrist" position.

I don't think it has to be everyone who agrees on it to be centrist position.

You do bring up good points though and part of the problem is left-right doesn't really capture all the dimensions of politics. Nazis and Communists believe in the murder of their political enemies while Republicans and Democrats generally do not. So how do you rate them? by their acceptance of political murder or their support of nationalism? or their support of social programs.

[KevinNYC]

Also Jeb Bush has started to run for President.

So far it seems we have Rubio, Bush, Biden and Clinton all making like they are going to go for it.

[KevinNYC]

Bin Laden's Son in Law is in a jail in NYC. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/world/middleeast/bin-laden-son-in-law-is-being-held-in-a-new-york-jail.html?_r=0)

Brennan just got confirmed. The vote was 63-34.
Holder clarified his earlier statement to Rand Paul.


"Senator Paul has raised questions about the president's authority to use leghal force within the United States, which John Brennan and the Attorney General have both answered," Carney said. "Today, Sen. Paul raised an additional question and the Attorney General has answered it."

According to Carney, Paul asked, "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?"

In his response, also read by Carney, Holder replied succinctly: "The answer to that question is no."

Economic news seems stronger recently.

"4-Week Average Of Jobless Claims Drops To 5-Year Low"
"Household wealth in the U.S. climbed in the fourth quarter to the highest level in five years, propelled by a gain in home prices that is helping repair family finances."

[johndeeregreen]

Charlie Filibusters. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEFB0ozhcUU)

[Rose]

First debates are happening in committees on gun laws.

Straw purchases (buying guns for people who aren't allowed to own guns) got out fairly easily. Can't find if it's the only thing they voted on today or not. But it was a party-line one.

But seriously? That shit wasn't illegal before?(except for buying guns for minors) And people wonder why Murrica has gun violence.:facepalm

[Scoooter]

Why are drones so disagreeable now? They're more versatile than long range missiles, and it's a hell of a lot better then sending in ground troops. Civilians getting killed is unfortunate, but that's not exactly a new issue.

[Balla_Status]

Why are drones so disagreeable now? They're more versatile than long range missiles, and it's a hell of a lot better then sending in ground troops. Civilians getting killed is unfortunate, but that's not exactly a new issue.

They were disagreeable by Obama supporters under Bush but turn the other way when Obama does it.

Plus they are being used on american citizens without a trial. And Bush killed citizens in Iraq in a country we had no business being in and Obama railed him for it. He's now doing the same thing in similar countries yet Obama supporters don't bat an eye. KevinNYC is blatantly ignoring it.

[Rose]

Why are drones so disagreeable now? They're more versatile than long range missiles, and it's a hell of a lot better then sending in ground troops. Civilians getting killed is unfortunate, but that's not exactly a new issue.
It's more so the government having the ability to attack it's own citizens at anytime is the real reason. I'm glad the issue is being raised, although I dislike that it's by Rand Paul. No one gives a shit when we attack overseas countries, because they're all turrists!

[MMM]

They were disagreeable by Obama supporters under Bush but turn the other way when Obama does it.

Plus they are being used on american citizens without a trial. And Bush killed citizens in Iraq in a country we had no business being in and Obama railed him for it. He's now doing the same thing in similar countries yet Obama supporters don't bat an eye. KevinNYC is blatantly ignoring it.

What are you talking about???

the left has been just as disagreeable about drones. I don't really want to classify them as left but there are a lot of individuals who are identified as leftist that expressed concern about drone strikes.

[KevinNYC]

He's now doing the same thing in similar countries yet Obama supporters don't bat an eye. KevinNYC is blatantly ignoring it.

I've never discussed the drone program? Balla, are you just being intellectually-dishonest or have you not read the thread you are posting in?

Read this thread again and tell me I ignore the drone program.

[KevinNYC]

It's more so the government having the ability to attack it's own citizens at anytime

Rose, there's a fallacy at the heart of what you said. Think about the above and see if you can recognize it. I think this fallacy clouds a lot of the discussion on drones.

[KevinNYC]

Bin Laden's Son in Law is in a jail in NYC. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/world/middleeast/bin-laden-son-in-law-is-being-held-in-a-new-york-jail.html?_r=0)

This guy is going to be in a federal court about a mile from where I work.

I might try to go over there, if I can find out when it scheduled for.

[reppy]

I don't think it has to be everyone who agrees on it to be centrist position.

You do bring up good points though and part of the problem is left-right doesn't really capture all the dimensions of politics. Nazis and Communists believe in the murder of their political enemies while Republicans and Democrats generally do not. So how do you rate them? by their acceptance of political murder or their support of nationalism? or their support of social programs.

I like the 4 quadrant system that is used on sites like politicalcompass.org

Left/right doesn't really capture everything.

[KevinNYC]

The last word had a good bit on Sen. Paul's paranoia
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/vp/51092205

I think my favorite bit was that the government was going to kill you if had more than 7 days of food in your house. Yes. he said that.

He actually made John McCain and Lindsay Graham look wise yesterday.

[kNicKz]

It's more so the government having the ability to attack it's own citizens at anytime is the real reason.

Luckily for our sake, power has never been abused in the history of mankind

[KevinNYC]

Also in the last two week, two of three biggest Obama political strategist have quit the administration and joined MSNBC. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/21/opinion/kurtz-axelrod-gibbs/index.html)

[Patrick Chewing]

Also in the last two week, two of three biggest Obama political strategist have quit the administration and joined MSNBC. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/21/opinion/kurtz-axelrod-gibbs/index.html)


So they got promoted then

[KevinNYC]

:lol
So they got promoted then

That's pretty good.

You also wonder who they will favor in a Biden-Clinton race in 2016

[sunsfan1357]

Elizabeth Warren continues to push for bankers to get jail time for money laundering.


"If you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to jail. If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life," an exasperated Warren said, as she wrapped up her questioning. "But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night - every single individual associated with this - and I just think that's fundamentally wrong."
http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=18678717&sid=77&cid=77

[KevinNYC]

Rand Paul said this on twitter yesterday
The President is advocating a drone strike program in America.

It's pretty clearly false and Politifact ruled it false.

We asked the White House for its response to Paul’s assertion that the president was "advocating a drone strike program in America."

"On the record, that claim is false," said Caitlin Hayden, spokesperson for the National Security Council...............


We reviewed earlier Brennan speeches — such as the one in which he acknowledged the government’s overseas drone program — as well as speeches and news briefings by Obama and his press secretaries Robert Gibbs and Jay Carney.

We found nothing to indicate the administration was "advocating" domestic drone strikes. The most direct statements we saw from the administration on the idea of domestic drone strikes came from Brennan’s nomination testimony and Holder’s letters.

....
We also asked eight experts in drone-strike policy and law whether they thought Paul was correct that the Obama administration was "advocating a drone strike program in America." None of them did.

[Rose]

Rose, there's a fallacy at the heart of what you said. Think about the above and see if you can recognize it. I think this fallacy clouds a lot of the discussion on drones.
I referred to the government as it?:confusedshrug:

Whether or not a president ever uses drones on Americans is one thing. The fact that they think the constitution allows them to is another. Generally speaking I'll defend the democrats more than the republicans. But this is terrible, and one of the times I'm glad someone is talking about it even if it is Rand. Hell even if it may be an attempt to squash stories about the effects of the sequester. I didn't like it when we did it to so called terrorists either, for the exact same reasons.

[Ne 1]

Rand Paul said this on twitter yesterday

It's pretty clearly false and Politifact ruled it false.

First Response from Eric Holder:

[DonDadda59]

The economy adds c. 240K jobs and the unemployment rate drops to its lowest level since December of '08:

[INDENT]US economy adds 236,000 jobs in February; jobless rate falls to 7.7 pct., lowest in 4 years

By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, March 8, 11:43 AM

WASHINGTON

[Rose]

I think the Times (or maybe the washington post) had an article a few weeks ago about how if we kept getting positive jobs reports that eventually the money companies have been saving might be spent on new jobs. I hope so.

[KevinNYC]

I referred to the government as it?:confusedshrug:
.
I wanted to make a new thread just to discuss drone stuff, but I'm super busy at work these days and I know I won't get around to it. However this is the the fallacy I was referring to

It's more so the government having the ability to attack it's own citizens at anytime is the real reason. The fallacy is acting like this is new.
Lawyers often simplify an argument to principles to clarify the issues at stake and you can do this with drones. What, in principle separates from a drone from a crossbow? The government already possessed the ability to attack its own citizens at anytime for decades before drones etc. Drones are just the ability to kill at a distance. The government already possess a lot of ways to kill at a distance. Pistols, Rifles, tanks, artillery, B-29's, cruise missiles etc. Drones are simply a new technology. Illegitimate use of drones is not all that different from the illegitimate use of a crossbow

So the question becomes why hasn't the government done this and the answer is still pretty much we are government of laws and not men. And it's illegal to use force except in certain circumstance. The government can't just go ahead and kill you whether by drone or by crossbow. This was true before Rand Paul's filibuster and it's true now. Paul portrayed Holder's answer to him as some sort of policy shift and that's just not true. He simply asked a different, more direct question. A cop on the beat has the right to use force to prevent an attack. So does the President. In Holder's first letter to Paul, it's quite, quite obvious that the two examples he cites, the Pearl Harbor Attacks and the 9/11 attacks are examples of COMBAT against the United States. Paul tried to portray it as Holder being evasive, when the truth was Paul asked a very tendentious question and then pretended not to understand the answer. Holder also made it very clear, that there would need to be a reason that law enforcement or the regular military couldn't act.

As for Paul raising this issues, you make want to look into Senator Wyden. He has a way of addressing the civil liberty issues without implying the government is going bomb you while you sleep or sit in a cafe.

I liked Charlie Pierce's 5 Minute Rule for Ron or Rand Paul. (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Thanks_To_The_Senator) For the first 5 minutes what they are saying is perfectly sensible, then at 5:01 the train goes off the tracks straight to crazytown. Rand Paul kept coming up with examples where the person could be easily apprehended by law enforcement, like when they are sleeping in their bed or sitting in a cafe.

[KevinNYC]

Also Paul Ryan has introduced his new budget. I don't know if this is the official Republican budge yet. But his critics say it's more of the same thing we saw from him before.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3920
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/flimflam-forever/

If the Republicans do get behind this, you can simply ignore all that talk about changing the party and reaching out to voters. Here's where their money, not their mouth is.

[RidonKs]

Illegitimate use of drones is not all that different from the illegitimate use of a crossbow
Maybe not in principle. And in principle, not according to its words but according to its deeds, the united states has been a rogue bullying state since its very inception. So yes, drones don't change that fact, they merely reinforce it.


But forget that because we'll be here for months. The sameness you describe is that they can "kill at a distance"... which is a fallacy in its own right because it ignores everything else and reduces the comparison to a single totally inane factor.

The difference you dismiss can be easily understood in terms of precision, and consequently, in terms of collateral damage. The probability of innocent bystanders in foreign countries losing their lives increased between the crossbow and the introduction of the rifle, just not by very much. Even more so with the machine gun. Major "progress" was made as tanks and missiles came on the scene. Air campaigns. Remote controlled missile launches or whatever, I dunno the military jargon. Drones happen to be the next step. And they're different from goddamn crossbows because they're WAAAAAAAY different from goddamn crossbows. Think about the line of argument you've taken here.

Additionally, maybe you've noticed the parallel and inverse correlation inherent to the technological progression. As foreign civilians come closer and closer to incidental harm, American soldiers move further and further away. That's because while compassionate Americans care very much about foreign civilian casualties, ALL Americans care about lives lost on their side. A democratically elected government is compelled to care about what their own nationals think. Not so much with dem ferners.

As it happens, and this is where it gets really weird, scary weird and obtuse to say the least; the carelessness with which the United States treats civilian casualties around the world inevitably engenders the very antagonism it uses to justify its war games.

All of this absurd imperialism comes part and parcel with "The War on Terror". A war with no clear aims, no clear enemy, no clear territorial borders, and most importantly, no clear end. The post-911 authorization for use of force provides legal grounding for the executive branch of the government to murder anybody associated with an organization that happens to work its way onto the "terrorist list", a list with the most appalling history of inconsistency and double standard and subject to the most stringent interpretation of realpolitik you could imagine.

And if that wasn't bad enough, to come around full circle, it also legitimizes the murder of any innocent bystanders who happen to be unfortunate enough to have wandered within the vicinity of somebody associated to somebody involved in an organization on that list, or "disposition matrix" or random terrorist generator. I don't care how retardedly sophisticated they say it is, it's demonstrably arbitrary.


How can you ignore the clear continuum running between Holder's acknowledgement that the us government can assassinate its own citizens, whether on American soil or not, with its current and very much actualized ability to indefinitely detain whomever it chooses... in either case without even offering so much as a facade of due process? How can you defend the rhetorical garbage and ambiguous legalisms, alongside consistent backtracking and misdirection, that this administration has been feeding the American public the past few years? Why can't you see the heinous cycle that has for a dozen years perpetuated the justification for "use of force in certain circumstances" as you so maddeningly put it?



the whole thing is a goddamn farce. Good for Rand Paul to force the real issues, or as close to them as your country's gonna get, into the national discourse. I salute his courage, if not his actual convictions and the policies that follow.

[Balla_Status]

Comparing a crossbow to a drone.

You are the biggest tool on this board Kevin. Jesus.

[rufuspaul]

As it happens, and this is where it gets really weird, scary weird and obtuse to say the least; the carelessness with which the United States treats civilian casualties around the world inevitably engenders the very antagonism it uses to justify its war games.

:applause:

[Rose]

I wanted to make a new thread just to discuss drone stuff, but I'm super busy at work these days and I know I won't get around to it. However this is the the fallacy I was referring to
The fallacy is acting like this is new.

Ridonks basically gave a way more wordy reply than I would have so I'm eager to see what you have to say to him about the issue.

But in my original statement it was in context of "why it matters now" which I said because now the american people KNOW it CAN happen to them, will it? Probably not. But they definitely didn't give a shit a few weeks ago before the white pages came out that every time the drones were striking we were doing so to non-Americans. Who are affected by our Bill of Rights. Constitutionally, we can't/shouldn't be using drones against countries we're not at war against. Especially when we're killing innocent people. That's how I meant my response.

[longhornfan1234]

Obama put Medicare, SS, and Medicaid on the table. But...but... Obama is a liberal. :roll:

Progressives are pisseed. Obama fooled them again.

[longhornfan1234]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/senate-democrats-budget-challenges-obama-on-medicare-social-security-cuts/2013/03/13/b17a39c2-8c12-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html

Democrats are slow to back Obama's Medicare and SS cuts.

[KevinNYC]

Rob Portman who was very nearly the guy Romney picked for VP has come out in favor of gay marriage. His son is gay and told his parents two years ago. Portman did tell this to Romney. Now I understand why Romney picked someone from Wisconsin instead of Ohio. If Portman was VP, this issue would have come to the surface

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/15/portman-gay-marriage-republican/1991593/

[KevinNYC]

Obama put Medicare, SS, and Medicaid on the table. But...but... Obama is a liberal. :roll:

Progressives are pisseed. Obama fooled them again.

At this point, there's no details about anything right? I just tried looking for them and couldn't find anything.

This would be part of the "grand bargain" the Obama has been talking about. This would require Republicans to vote increase revenue. That is tax increases. So Republicans would have to willing to move as well. It's like when you tell your girlfriend, that you're willing to drive across town to take her to that restaurant she's always talking about and sounds really expensive, but you offer to do it on a night when she is tired and has an early business meeting.

You make her an offer you know she's going to turn down, but you get credit for making it. This could be one of those. Where Obama gets to keep his reputation for being reasonable while it portrays the other side as being intransigent. The more they are seen that when, the more the lose the public and the more they lose political capital.

So it's a negotiating ploy and it's hard to know how to judge it since no specifics are attached yet. However, when he was on TV the other day Obama didn't sound too optimisitic they would reach this grand bargain. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/whats-the-realistic-outlook-for-a-grand-bargain-budget-deal/)[QUOTE]Right now, what I

[KevinNYC]

I think it's good to hear Obama talking about the fact we don't have an immediate debt crisis. The truth is we are going to have deficits for the next decade until the economy takes off in some crazy way. The point is that deficits are coming down and will become affordable if the economy keeps growing. This is what happened the last time we had debt to GDP ratio this high. We didn't pay down the WWII deficit to zero, the economy grew so much that the debt was became a smaller and smaller percent of the GDP.

We are not going to see a yearly deficit of less than $300 billion in the next 10 years. We have two things driving this. The aftershocks of the financial crisis and the bulge of baby boomers moving though their senior years. This means our debt will $20 trillion soon.

However, Obama and others are starting to recognize that growing the economy is a much bigger nearterm problem that balancing the budget is. Balancing the budget and paying down the debt is a long term problem is not the crisis we are in. Also growing the economy helps with the deficit and debt issues.

[InspiredLebowski]

Three dozen Indiana kids are being dumped from Head Start (http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20130313/NEWS07/303139938/1067) because of the sequester starting Friday. By the end of it potentially 1000 kids will lose their spot.

[Jailblazers7]

The problem isn't really deficits or debt. The problem is future obligations to SS and especially Medicare within the next 20 years. All this "balance the budget" talk means nothing because Republicans have come up with zero policy ideas to address these problems.

[KevinNYC]

The problem isn't really deficits or debt. The problem is future obligations to SS and especially Medicare within the next 20 years. All this "balance the budget" talk means nothing because Republicans have come up with zero policy ideas to address these problems.

Paul Krugman has these phrase he uses when people talk about government spending. Since so much of the spending is military or healthcare. He says that the government is basically a military with an insurance company.

To get a handle on spending, you have to deal with the big chunks of spending, the other programs don't have much to spare.

[longhornfan1234]

At this point, there's no details about anything right? I just tried looking for them and couldn't find anything.

This would be part of the "grand bargain" the Obama has been talking about. This would require Republicans to vote increase revenue. That is tax increases. So Republicans would have to willing to move as well. It's like when you tell your girlfriend, that you're willing to drive across town to take her to that restaurant she's always talking about and sounds really expensive, but you offer to do it on a night when she is tired and has an early business meeting.

You make her an offer you know she's going to turn down, but you get credit for making it. This could be one of those. Where Obama gets to keep his reputation for being reasonable while it portrays the other side as being intransigent. The more they are seen that when, the more the lose the public and the more they lose political capital.




So it's a negotiating ploy and it's hard to know how to judge it since no specifics are attached yet. However, when he was on TV the other day Obama didn't sound too optimisitic they would reach this grand bargain. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/whats-the-realistic-outlook-for-a-grand-bargain-budget-deal/)

You must have missed my second post on this page. Here's some details.

Quote:

Obama got few complaints about his deficit-reduction plan during a lunchtime meeting Tuesday with Senate Democrats, administration officials said. But 107 House Democrats — more than half the caucus — have signed a letter declaring their “vigorous opposition to cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits.” And the complaints are likely to grow louder as Republicans press Obama for more details about his proposals to charge wealthy seniors more for Medicare coverage and to implement the Social Security inflation change, known as the chained consumer price index, or chained CPI.

That process is just now getting underway. In his meeting Wednesday with GOP lawmakers, Obama again outlined the offer he made in December to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and more recently to more than a dozen Senate Republicans.

That proposal would replace $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts, known as the sequester, with $1.8 trillion in alternate policies over the next decade, including roughly $700 billion in fresh tax revenue. An additional $400*billion would come from reforms to Medicare, and $130*billion would come from applying the chained CPI to Social Security.

[KevinNYC]

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/3_women_were_paid_to_say_they.html

3 women were paid to falsely claim they had sex with Menendez, Dominican police say

Three women were paid to falsely claim in videotaped interviews that they had sex for money with U.S. Senator Robert Menendez in the Dominican Republic, a spokesman for the police said today.

The women, whose claims generated media attention in the United States, were hired by a Dominican attorney to make the videotaped statements, spokesman Maximo Baez told reporters. Two of the women received about $425 and the other was paid about $300, he said.

This allegation got shopped around to several news outlets, but only The Daily Caller published the story.[QUOTE]In the days before November

[KevinNYC]

Here's why ABC wouldn't publish (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/woman-paid-lie-claim-sex-senator-menendez/story?id=18653773) this story.
Her account of sex with Menendez in the video interview was almost word-for-word the account given by two other women who were produced for interviews about having sex with the man they knew only as "Bob."

Asked during the interview with ABC News how she knew that the man named "Bob" was a United States Senator, one of the other women said she had put the name "Bob" into a web search site and a picture of Menendez popped up.
:roll:

Now we'll see if the real stuff on Menedez brings him down.

[longhornfan1234]

I think Carson/Rubio ticket would win in a landslide in 2016. Here's my reason...25% of the population are libs. The true libs/Progs didn't determine the last election.* They vote the same every time, regardless of candidate.

The remaining 75% are either Conservative or Middle of the Road.

Run the 2012 election again, but swing just 10% of Latino voters (half of what GWB got) and 2% of Women, and Mitt Romney wins.

With a Carson/Rubio ticket... you'd probably see a swing of at least 15%*Latinos and 10% of Women.* Don't discount the impact of Dr. Carson's care for children...and how it will affect women's perceptions. That = landslide.

[DonDadda59]

I think Carson/Rubio ticket would win in a landslide in 2016. Here's my reason...25% of the population are libs. The true libs/Progs didn't determine the last election.* They vote the same every time, regardless of candidate.

The remaining 75% are either Conservative or Middle of the Road.

Run the 2012 election again, but swing just 10% of Latino voters (half of what GWB got) and 2% of Women, and Mitt Romney wins.

With a Carson/Rubio ticket... you'd probably see a swing of at least 15%*Latinos and 10% of Women.* Don't discount the impact of Dr. Carson's care for children...and how it will affect women's perceptions. That = landslide.

A visual representation of election night 2016:

http://guyism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Karl-Rove-640x355.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/2f161c45a61d6b074117b0ea287d1420/tumblr_mgf5r6TK9H1s2jx30o1_1280.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lo8rfbMjHT1qmim5to1_500.jpg

[longhornfan1234]

A visual representation of election night 2016:

http://guyism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Karl-Rove-640x355.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/2f161c45a61d6b074117b0ea287d1420/tumblr_mgf5r6TK9H1s2jx30o1_1280.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lo8rfbMjHT1qmim5to1_500.jpg


:lol


You cant refute the truth.

[kNicKz]

omfg faux got pwned!!! this solves everything!

[DonDadda59]

:lol


You cant refute the truth.

Karl Rove lookin ass :oldlol:


Hillary Clinton Trounces Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan in New Poll

http://www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/hillary-clinton-chill.jpg

A new Quinnipiac University poll found that Hillary Clinton would trounce any of the top three Republican 2016 contenders, but Vice President Joe Biden would lose to Christie, struggle against Ryan, and defeat Rubio.

If the election were held today, former Sec. of State Clinton would have an easy time against either Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, or Paul Ryan. Clinton would defeat Sen. Marco Rubio 50%-34%. She would also win by double digits over Rep. Paul Ryan 50%-38. The Republican that would give her the most trouble is the one that the conservative base likes the least. Clinton would defeat Gov. Chris Christie 45%-37%.

http://www.politicususa.com/hillary-clinton-trounces-chris-christie-marco-rubio-paul-ryan-poll.html


Hillary Clinton Hits Record Favorability, Poll Shows Wide Support For 2016 Candidacy

A decision by Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016 would be welcomed by most Americans, according to a Washington Post/ABC poll released Wednesday.

As she prepares to step down as secretary of state, Clinton has a lifetime high favorability rating of 66 percent, according to the Post/ABC poll, with less than a third of respondents holding unfavorable views. Two-thirds of Americans approve of her job performance in the Obama administration.

That goodwill translates into broad support for Clinton to make a second run at the presidency in four years, with 57 percent supporting her candidacy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/hillary-clinton-2016-poll_n_2243843.html

Carson = Hermain Cain redux :lol

http://cdn.straightfromthea.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/You+Cant+Handle+The+Truth.gif

[KevinNYC]

I think Carson/Rubio ticket would win in a landslide in 2016.

Are you aware when you are trolling? This is a serious question. Or does it just happen?

Like when you posted about a landslide presidential candidate who is not a politician that virtually no one has ever heard of---was there any consciousness on your part that this is just some nonsense and maybe it will get people riled up?

Or are you just so taken by whatever is the passing fad on Fox and Friends that you believe it for a day or two?

[longhornfan1234]

Are you aware when you are trolling? This is a serious question. Or does it just happen?

Like when you posted about a landslide presidential candidate who is not a politician that virtually no one has ever heard of---was there any consciousness on your part that this is just some nonsense and maybe it will get people riled up?

Or are you just so taken by whatever is the passing fad on Fox and Friends that you believe it for a day or two?


:facepalm

You're better than this, Kevin. You're letting your emotions take over. Believe it or not... a lot of women don't like Hillary.They think she is shrewd. I think that is a big reason she lost the primary.She has also moved further Left...the media won't be able to attack Carson the way they normally do the conservative candidate. I'm not saying anything out of the norm.

[longhornfan1234]

:sleeping Liberal biased polls. Did not read.
Karl Rove lookin ass :oldlol:


Hillary Clinton Trounces Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan in New Poll

http://www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/hillary-clinton-chill.jpg

A new Quinnipiac University poll found that Hillary Clinton would trounce any of the top three Republican 2016 contenders, but Vice President Joe Biden would lose to Christie, struggle against Ryan, and defeat Rubio.

If the election were held today, former Sec. of State Clinton would have an easy time against either Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, or Paul Ryan. Clinton would defeat Sen. Marco Rubio 50%-34%. She would also win by double digits over Rep. Paul Ryan 50%-38. The Republican that would give her the most trouble is the one that the conservative base likes the least. Clinton would defeat Gov. Chris Christie 45%-37%.

http://www.politicususa.com/hillary-clinton-trounces-chris-christie-marco-rubio-paul-ryan-poll.html


Hillary Clinton Hits Record Favorability, Poll Shows Wide Support For 2016 Candidacy

A decision by Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016 would be welcomed by most Americans, according to a Washington Post/ABC poll released Wednesday.

As she prepares to step down as secretary of state, Clinton has a lifetime high favorability rating of 66 percent, according to the Post/ABC poll, with less than a third of respondents holding unfavorable views. Two-thirds of Americans approve of her job performance in the Obama administration.

That goodwill translates into broad support for Clinton to make a second run at the presidency in four years, with 57 percent supporting her candidacy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/hillary-clinton-2016-poll_n_2243843.html

Liberal biased polls. Did not read.

Carson = Hermain Cain redux :lol

http://cdn.straightfromthea.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/You+Cant+Handle+The+Truth.gif

[Jailblazers7]

:sleeping Liberal biased polls. Did not read.

Ignoring "liberal biased polls" really helped Republicans last time around. :lol

[DonDadda59]

:facepalm

You're better than this, Kevin. You're letting your emotions take over. Believe it or not... a lot of women don't like Hillary.They think she is shrewd.

From the damn article I linked you to:


The demographics of her support provide a sense of what could be a key constituency for a Clinton campaign: women, especially those who are younger or middle-aged. Two-thirds of women, including 75 percent of those under age 50, say they would like to see her run.

You have to be trolling at this point, right? :confusedshrug:


the media won't be able to attack Carson the way they normally do the conservative candidate. I'm not saying anything out of the norm.

http://o-pd.com/photos/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1.gif


:sleeping Liberal biased polls. Did not read.

You've learned nothing from very recent History. But Karl Rove gonna Karl Rove I suppose :pimp:

[Balla_Status]

http://www.militariapress.com/miva/graphics/00000001/POL1036.gif

[KevinNYC]

:facepalm

You're better than this, Kevin. You're letting your emotions take over. Believe it or not... a lot of women don't like Hillary.They think she is shrewd. I think that is a big reason she lost the primary.She has also moved further Left...the media won't be able to attack Carson the way they normally do the conservative candidate. I'm not saying anything out of the norm.

No. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I think you have so internalized the trolling nature of the modern Republican media wing that you don't even recognize this as trolling. It's like it doesn't matter that the Fox News doesn't produce high quality news, as long as it pisses off fans of the Democratic Party, it must be OK. Wait make that the Democrat Party, let's pretend we don't know how to use adjectives. That will really piss them off. You just posted a bunch of nonsense that will never happen and now you're invested in defending it because it pisses off "libs." Your political instincts can be this bad naturally. You would have had to train them to be these bad.

My emotions? Nope, you go that wrong. My response was based on cognition not emotion. Because my first response to reading your post was "Who the **** is Carson?" Because I honestly had no idea who you meant. I'm a guy who is reasonably well-versed on the political scene and I was baffled.

I had to google him and find out he's a guy who made a speech in the past week. Maybe it was a really good speech. And maybe he's a real impressive guy. However, correct me if I'm wrong but, the guy hasn't run for dogcatcher. Oh, and also he's black. When's the last time a black Republican won a state-wide election? In your lifetime, I think the highest office won by a black Republican was Lieutenant Governor and that was in a reliably blue state. I believe the last time a black Republican won a big state election was when I was 2, back when Republicans supported Civil Rights. And that was in Massachusetts. So not only is he not the VP pick he's the presidential pick and a landslide one at that.

I wasn't even thinking along the lines of Don Dadda -- about him actually facing a Democrat because this guy winning a single primary is a fantasy. I thought it was funny that you thought a landslide candidate is someone who

A. Has virtually no name-recognition among Americans
B. Has no political experience whatsoever.

Even for folks who read threads like this, what percentage of people know who Carson is? I googled him a few hours ago and I don't remember his first name.

Long story short, Longhorn, I wish I could say your better than this, but it's par for the course.

[KevinNYC]

Obama became the first US president to win Israel's highest civilian honor.

The ceremony was carried live by some US cable networks.

http://i1.wp.com/farm9.staticflickr.com/8242/8579405836_da065c9714_o.jpg

:lol


In more substantial news, Obama got Israel and Turkey to hug it out and help deal with what is going in Syria.

[QUOTE]Barack Obama has persuaded Israel to apologise to Turkey for the loss of nine lives on board the Mavi Marmara

[KevinNYC]

3 women were paid to falsely claim they had sex with Menendez, Dominican police say.

This allegation got shopped around to several news outlets, but only The Daily Caller published the story.

The guy who gave this story to the Daily Caller is not claimed they hired him to hire prostitutes who were willing lie about sleeping with Menedez.
A top Dominican law enforcement official said Friday that a local lawyer has reported being paid by someone claiming to work for the conservative Web site the Daily Caller to find prostitutes who would lie and say they had sex for money with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

Dude is probably lying, but it just shows you who the Daily Caller is willing to get into bed with.

[KevinNYC]

Also in the last two week, two of three biggest Obama political strategist have quit the administration and joined MSNBC. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/21/opinion/kurtz-axelrod-gibbs/index.html)

MSNBC is getting younger.

In their M-F 8PM slot 34 year old Chris Hayes replaces Ed Schultz.

Hayes's Sunday show is being taken over by 33 year old Steve Kornacki.

Probably a good move for a long term strategy. Wonder if they will keep Sharpton.

[Scoooter]

Chris Hayes really bugs me. He's the epitome of the whiny, effete, liberal ******.

[KevinNYC]

Chris Hayes really bugs me. He's the epitome of the whiny, effete, liberal ******.

He bugs me less than he used to. He's gotten better as a host and he is not so hyper any more.

However, I do know what you mean. Even though I know know better, it bugs me every time some pronounces bona fides (http://www.merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day/2010/09/04/) correctly.

[longhornfan1234]

No one knew Obama before '04 Democratic convention. Dr. Carson is the hottest name out right now. He belittled Obama a month ago. :lol

[longhornfan1234]

MSNBC is getting younger.

In their M-F 8PM slot 34 year old Chris Hayes replaces Ed Schultz.

Hayes's Sunday show is being taken over by 33 year old Steve Kornacki.

Probably a good move for a long term strategy. Wonder if they will keep Sharpton.
Klein and Finney >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hayes and Kornacki.

[KevinNYC]

No one knew Obama before '04 Democratic convention. Dr. Carson is the hottest name out right now. He belittled Obama a month ago. :lol

I get it. You have a problem on your hands. Ryan's not gong to do it. Rubio's not up to it. The party's not going to meet John Huntsman halfway. Hell, Jeb Bush is probably going to be a top three candidate. You don't have that deep a bench and you're probably facing a candidate with a tremendous name, recognition, deep experience, massive connections and the ability to raise money. And that's just Biden. If you get Hilliary, you also get the chance for the first woman president.

So you're willing to shake it up with a candidate with no name recognition, deep experience in something other than politics, no connections and an unproven track record of raising money.

You're right that Obama's profile was raised by the '04 Democratic Convention. However, he won his first election in 1996 or twelve years before he won the presidency. So if we are going by that schedule, Carson might be the man for 2024.

Also you want to compare and contrast a big speech at a Democratic National Convention and a big speech at CPAC. I'll start, for one people know what the Democratic National Convention is. For two, the Democrat who is in the best position to become president is invited. Christ Christie was nowhere to be seen at CPAC. Also, are you still pretending to be a a blue dog Democrat?

You know what Obama else did in 2004, he won an election to become a US Senator. Call me when Carson wins anything.

It's going to be a tough ride. Your best candidate may not make it through the primaries. Your establishment candidate's last name is Bush. And you have a Senator who's ego is big enough that he may run as a Tea Party third candidate. But you're right a lot could happen in four years. I didn't think in 2004 Obama would be the 2008 nominee.

[KevinNYC]

Another Democratic Senator is retiring. Whole bunch of them going out in 2014.

Google just pointed me to this post on a Democratic message board.
****: 5th Democratic senator to retire (South Dakota Sen. Johnson won’t seek re-election)

[kNicKz]

Obama became the first US president to win Israel's highest civilian honor.

The ceremony was carried live by some US cable networks.

http://i1.wp.com/farm9.staticflickr.com/8242/8579405836_da065c9714_o.jpg

:lol


In more substantial news, Obama got Israel and Turkey to hug it out and help deal with what is going in Syria.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/22/israel-apologises-turkey-gaza-flotilla-deaths
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/23/world/middleeast/president-obama-israel.html?pagewanted=1

HOLY SHIT!! KevinNYC IS TOTALLY EXPOSING FOX RIGHT NOW!!!!

[KevinNYC]

Klein and Finney >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hayes and Kornacki.

Klein's still got a bunch to learn about TV. I didn't realize who you were talked about at first. Then Finney appeared on my TV. :lol


Edit: Also it looks like they are having her do some guest hosting which they usually use as auditions for the bigger slots.

[KevinNYC]

I think Carson/Rubio ticket would win in a landslide in 2016. ......

With a Carson/Rubio ticket... you'd probably see a swing of at least 15%*Latinos and 10% of Women.* Don't discount the impact of Dr. Carson's care for children...and how it will affect women's perceptions. That = landslide.

Alas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/dr-benjamin-carson-balancing-healing-with-political-activism/2013/03/24/f6d5b292-92fe-11e2-ba5b-550c7abf6384_story.html), it was not to be[QUOTE]After a several-day onslaught from fans and the media, many wanting to know his potential political plans, Carson has eased away from suggestions he may have his eyes on the White House. The 61-year-old doctor now says the likelihood of a presidential run is

[DonDadda59]

Alas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/dr-benjamin-carson-balancing-healing-with-political-activism/2013/03/24/f6d5b292-92fe-11e2-ba5b-550c7abf6384_story.html), it was not to be

Sorry, longhorn, better luck next month.

Chill... Cuba Gooding got this :pimp:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F5XpOJ4npeo/UAWrNmy3RSI/AAAAAAAABSc/gzv7RFmwTso/s1600/Gifted+Hands.png

Just give him a stethoscope and time to grow out his fro again and he can fill in for Ben one more time. We're gonna have a Ben Carson presidency, one way or another.

[KevinNYC]

We're gonna have a Ben Carson presidency, one way or another.

Well he had a good run. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-ben-carson-apologizes-gay-marriage-fox-20130329,0,320004.story) Remember those halcyon days, must have been a week ago, when he first learned his name and his future looked so bright.
Dr. Benjamin Carson, the famed Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon, apologized Friday for his "choice of words" and use of examples in discussing gay marriage on Fox News earlier in the week.

During Sean Hannity's show on Tuesday, when asked about the matter before the Supreme Court, Carson said, "Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition."

The comparison of gays to members of the North American Boy/Man Love Association and those who engage in bestiality set off a backlash of criticism in the media, online and on campus. There is now a petition circulating at Johns Hopkins Medical to have Carson removed as commencement speaker in May at the School of Medicine.

[longhornfan1234]

Ben Carson lost me after comparing gays to animals.

Jeb Bush 2016 :rockon:

[Nanners]

chris hedges does an excellent job explaining the tragedy of fake liberals like kevinnyc


-The rewriting of history by the power elite was painfully evident as the nation marked the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Some claimed they had opposed the war when they had not. Others among “Bush’s useful idiots” argued that they had merely acted in good faith on the information available; if they had known then what they know now, they assured us, they would have acted differently. This, of course, is false. The war boosters, especially the “liberal hawks”—who included Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Al Franken and John Kerry, along with academics, writers and journalists such as Bill Keller, Michael Ignatieff, Nicholas Kristof, David Remnick, Fareed Zakaria, Michael Walzer, Paul Berman, Thomas Friedman, George Packer, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Kanan Makiya and the late Christopher Hitchens—did what they always have done: engage in acts of self-preservation. To oppose the war would have been a career killer. And they knew it.

These apologists, however, acted not only as cheerleaders for war; in most cases they ridiculed and attempted to discredit anyone who questioned the call to invade Iraq. Kristof, in The New York Times, attacked the filmmaker Michael Moore as a conspiracy theorist and wrote that anti-war voices were only polarizing what he termed “the political cesspool.” Hitchens said that those who opposed the attack on Iraq “do not think that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy at all.” He called the typical anti-war protester a “blithering ex-flower child or ranting neo-Stalinist.” The halfhearted mea culpas by many of these courtiers a decade later always fail to mention the most pernicious and fundamental role they played in the buildup to the war—shutting down public debate. Those of us who spoke out against the war, faced with the onslaught of right-wing “patriots” and their liberal apologists, became pariahs. In my case it did not matter that I was an Arabic speaker. It did not matter that I had spent seven years in the Middle East, including months in Iraq, as a foreign correspondent. It did not matter that I knew the instrument of war. The critique that I and other opponents of war delivered, no matter how well grounded in fact and experience, turned us into objects of scorn by a liberal elite that cravenly wanted to demonstrate its own “patriotism” and “realism” about national security. The liberal class fueled a rabid, irrational hatred of all war critics. Many of us received death threats and lost our jobs, for me one at The New York Times. These liberal warmongers, 10 years later, remain both clueless about their moral bankruptcy and cloyingly sanctimonious. They have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents on their hands

.....Those who doggedly challenge the orthodoxy of belief, who question the reigning political passions, who refuse to sacrifice their integrity to serve the cult of power, are pushed to the margins. They are denounced by the very people who, years later, will often claim these moral battles as their own. It is only the outcasts and the rebels who keep truth and intellectual inquiry alive. They alone name the crimes of the state. They alone give a voice to the victims of oppression. They alone ask the difficult questions. Most important, they expose the powerful, along with their liberal apologists, for what they are.

the article continues: http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_treason_of_the_intellectuals_20130331/

[KevinNYC]

A lot of the people you mention were not liberals. You may need to broaden your understanding of political identities.

Particularly Christopher Hitchens. His earlier political incarnation was a Trotskyite not a liberal.

Fareed Zakaria was a member of the most conservative party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_the_Right_(Yale)) in the Yale Political Union.

Kanan Makiya, being an Iraqi exile, was pretty much a one issue voter and would have gone with whoever wanted to invade Iraq. However, he also, was another Trotskyite.

Also, personally, I opposed the invasion of Iraq.

[Nanners]

Also, personally, I opposed the invasion of Iraq.


just like how you "oppose" obamas nobel peace drone program..... right???

[Scoooter]

Ben Carson lost me after comparing gays to animals.

Jeb Bush 2016 :rockon:
Gays are animals.



Gay animals.

[longhornfan1234]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/05/politics/obama-budget/index.html


Obama puts Medicare and Social Security on table in his new budget.


I would accept this deal.



Jobs report was terrible. :facepalm

[KevinNYC]

Jobs report was terrible. :facepalm

I wonder if this was sequester related. Some folks are saying the expiration of the payroll tax cuts are already being felt in the retail sector.

Has anybody been seeing this reports that Walmarts are having bare shelves? (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-02/wal-mart-customers-complain-bare-shelves-are-widespread.html) Seems they cut back on employees during this downturn.

[longhornfan1234]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/05/1199363/-Chained-CPI-and-More-Austerity-are-Back-On-the-Table-in-Obama-s-Fresh-Budget-Plan-Offer


Liberals are having a melt down. :roll: :roll:

[Scoooter]

A lot of these jobs aren't coming back, ever. We might lose 2 billion of them in the next 20 years. Eventually just about every job is going to disappear.

As a society we have to come up with a better means of judging a person's worth than the scale, scope, and persistence of the menial drudgery they toil away at day after day.

"Job creators" are mostly a myth, job destroyers are leading the way. And ultimately it's a good thing.

[KevinNYC]

Klein and Finney >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hayes and Kornacki.

My wife came in the house over the weekend and said "Who's that guy with round face and glasses on MSNBC?

Chris Hayes?

Yeah, I think he's right in front of our house.

[KevinNYC]

GOP comes out in favor of ammunition contro (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/296471-gop-aims-to-slow-federal-bullet-buys#ixzz2RurtLiov)l and introduce the the Ammunition Management for More Obtainability (AMMO) Act. Yes, that is the name of the Act.

Click the link to see the twist in this story.

[KevinNYC]

Sandra Day O'Connor is having second thoughts, perhaps the Supreme Court shouldn't have stepped into Bush v Gore.
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-sandra-day-oconnor-edit-board-20130427,0,1201477.story) Now you tell us.

[KevinNYC]

We're giving big bags of cash to Hamid Karzai and so are the Iranians
For more than a decade, wads of American dollars packed into suitcases, backpacks and, on occasion, plastic shopping bags have been dropped off every month or so at the offices of Afghanistan’s president — courtesy of the Central Intelligence Agency......

Payments ordinarily range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, the officials said, though none could provide exact figures. The money is used to cover a slew of off-the-books expenses, like paying off lawmakers or underwriting delicate diplomatic trips or informal negotiations.

Much of it also still goes to keeping old warlords in line. One is Abdul Rashid Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek whose militia served as a C.I.A. proxy force in 2001. He receives nearly $100,000 a month from the palace, two Afghan officials said. Other officials said the amount was significantly lower.

Mr. Dostum, who declined requests for comment, had previously said he was given $80,000 a month to serve as Mr. Karzai’s emissary in northern Afghanistan. “I asked for a year up front in cash so that I could build my dream house,”

Hey Congress, Bring back the Boland Ammendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment)

[Real Men Wear Green]

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhVa0ee915QVJ7da4e

[longhornfan1234]

More funding needed to prevent ObamaCare from becoming 'train wreck'

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/297333-reid-says-more-funding-is-needed-to-prevent-healthcare-law-from-becoming-a-train-wreck#ixzz2SAWpifNr
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


:facepalm

[longhornfan1234]

Commerce nominee tangled in massive bank collapse that cost depositors millions

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/02/commerce-nominee-tangled-in-massive-bank-collapse-that-cost-depositors-millions/#ixzz2SAZvHZhO


:biggums:

[KevinNYC]

#DumpDeMarco

[millwad]

#DumpDeMarco

I would like to see what you have to say about this subject;

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=298256

[KevinNYC]

Commerce nominee tangled in massive bank collapse that cost depositors millions

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/02/commerce-nominee-tangled-in-massive-bank-collapse-that-cost-depositors-millions/#ixzz2SAZvHZhO


:biggums:

So longhorn, can you explain exactly what it is she is accused of doing?

[longhornfan1234]

So longhorn, can you explain exactly what it is she is accused of doing?


She isn't accused of doing anything except being a successful businesswoman and philanthropist. Union workers are unhappy with her because she has been tough on union workers... but she hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing. I'm just shocked Obama picked her. It wouldn't be liberals' first choice.

[KevinNYC]

She isn't accused of doing anything except being a successful businesswoman and philanthropist. Union workers are unhappy with her because she has been tough on union workers... but she hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing. I'm just shocked Obama picked her. It wouldn't be liberals' first choice.

Not by that article. :lol

She helped Obama get elected, big fundraiser, so that probably weighs pretty heavy on the scales.

[KevinNYC]

I would like to see what you have to say about this subject;

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=298256

Are you first going to apologize for putting my personal information on this board where I have deliberately chosen not to do so?

[longhornfan1234]

Decent job report; 165,000 new jobs.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/05/03/april-jobs-investors-analysis/2131135/

This could be attributed to the Obama's asset purchasing program...known as quantitative easing.

[KevinNYC]

This could be attributed to the Obama's asset purchasing program...known as quantitative easing.

Obama doesn't control the Fed.

[longhornfan1234]

Obama doesn't control the Fed.


My mistake. Get off me.

[longhornfan1234]

Congressional Democrats on Sunday distanced themselves from the Obama administration

[rufuspaul]

[Quote]
Obama: The fall

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: May 2

Fate is fickle, power cyclical, and nothing is new under the sun. Especially in Washington, where after every election the losing party is sagely instructed to confess sin, rend garments and rethink its principles lest it go the way of the Whigs. And where the victor is hailed as the new Caesar, facing an open road to domination.

And where Barack Obama, already naturally inclined to believe his own loftiness, graciously accepted the kingly crown and proceeded to ride his reelection success to a crushing victory over the GOP at the fiscal cliff, leaving a humiliated John Boehner & Co. with nothing but naked tax hikes.

Thus emboldened, Obama turned his inaugural and State of the Union addresses into a left-wing dream factory, from his declaration of war on global warming (on a planet where temperatures are the same as 16 years ago and in a country whose CO2 emissions are at a 20-year low) to the invention of new entitlements

[KevinNYC]

Say what you want about Krauthammer, but this pretty much nails it.
Krauthammer has been so right on Obama time after time.

2012
[QUOTE]Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer:

[rufuspaul]

Krauthammer has been so right on Obama time after time.

2012



2006


He's not good a presidential election predictions. So what. He's not predicting anything in what I posted, just observing what has happened and is currently happening. And it's spot on.

[KevinNYC]

He's not good a presidential election predictions. So what. He's not predicting anything in what I posted, just observing what has happened and is currently happening. And it's spot on.

You had to be pretty much in the tank to not see Obama was going win in 2012. But my point is, it's Krauthammer. He's saying something bad Obama. And the sun rose in the east. Can you find a point in time when Krauthammer said anything good about Obama? Or any Democrat? His observations are pretty meaningless unless you already share his opinion. He's not just a partisan, he's highly partisan and willing to be dishonest about it.

[OldSkoolball#52]

You had to be pretty much in the tank to not see Obama was going win in 2012. But my point is, it's Krauthammer. He's saying something bad Obama. And the sun rose in the east. Can you find a point in time when Krauthammer said anything good about Obama? Or any Democrat? His observations are pretty meaningless unless you already share his opinion. He's not just a partisan, he's highly partisan and willing to be dishonest about it.


I just read through this whole thread. you seem to know about every political pundit in the world! and have knowledge of any news snippet that ever happened, major or minor. its impressive on the one hand, and from your tone it seems like you lean significantly to the left but i just have to ask because it seems like to be as current on every facet of everything as you are would be extremely time consuming.

do you have a job? what do you do?

[KevinNYC]

May 1st
FBI asks for help identifying three men in Benghazi attacks (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/01/18004780-fbi-seeks-help-identifying-three-suspects-seen-at-benghazi-mission-during-attack?lite)

May 2nd
CNN says its sources say that three or four Yemeni members of Al Qaeda believed to in Benghazi.
Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/world/africa/us-libya-benghazi-suspects/index.html) took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN.
One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that "three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," or AQAP, took part in the attack.
Another source briefed on the Benghazi investigation said Western intelligence services suspect the men may have been sent by the group specifically to carry out the attack. But it's not been ruled out that they were already in the city and participated as the opportunity arose.

[KevinNYC]

I just read through this whole thread. you seem to know about every political pundit in the world! and have knowledge of any news snippet that ever happened, major or minor. its impressive on the one hand, and from your tone it seems like you lean significantly to the left but i just have to ask because it seems like to be as current on every facet of everything as you are would be extremely time consuming.

do you have a job? what do you do?

I'm a part time political junkie and a full time site specific textile artist.

[RidonKs]

krauthammer is in the game. so he talks about it like it's a game. calling bluffs and crying wolf and investing political capital. from king of the world to dead in the water. gag me with a fking spoon.

it's pinheads like him who deliberately reduce the most important 'game' in the world to simple narrative, an easy to believe fantasy where two titanic's collide and the world munches on popcorn and comments on the explosion. it's bullshit. this stuff is important. it affects lives. pundits should comment on policy, explain potential consequences, offer their own views, and justify them with underlying values

krauthammer is just another example of an asshole who makes an honest to god citizen despise the whole circus. this article is absolutely no different. i'm not seeing what you're getting out of it rufus.

[OldSkoolball#52]

A lot of these jobs aren't coming back, ever. We might lose 2 billion of them in the next 20 years. Eventually just about every job is going to disappear.

As a society we have to come up with a better means of judging a person's worth than the scale, scope, and persistence of the menial drudgery they toil away at day after day.

"Job creators" are mostly a myth, job destroyers are leading the way. And ultimately it's a good thing.


The thing is, if your job is eliminated bc a machine can do it or someone overseas will do it cheaper, that typically means some fat cat in America is making his biz more viable by eliminating your salary.

But it also means that product or service becomes more cheaply available to everyone who wants it. and if people want it, its obviosly a good business.

So your job has been eliminated. but somebody's still making money at that company, and plenty of people throughout the country are still makin money. so figure out what they want to spend their money on, and go provide it. so many people in the USA just wait to be handed a job by the government, either directly or indirectly, and if they dont they complain and demand politicians who are more left wing. there are so many options of things you can do in exchange for money, especially if you have had the sense to develop a few skills over the course of your life.

but unfortunately too many people in the middle of nowhere places just drop out and smoke meth in their folks basement, and too many people in urban places name their kids shawniqua and latrondel and dont even teach them how to speak english, and all these people end up having to be provided for. food stamps, health care, education for dey keyids. how can they work when they literally have no value?? america tolerates the white people who do it out in the boondocks bc nobody really sees it, and they tolerate the black people who do it in the city bc they're afraid to "come down on" minorities. but its gonna be the ruin of america. there are so many people out there right now in generation x, and even more following them in generation y who are going to be ill equipped to be useful in the years ahead. and they're going to require massive government support. its gonna be ugly yall.

things fall apart. it happened to rome. its going to happen to america, because there arent enough people who will stand up for important things and have the guts to see them through. to get America back on the right track would require drawing a bold line in teh sand and having the balls to enforce it. and in a politically correct climate as Americas, it just probably will never happen. The ship will sink slow.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I'm a part time political junkie and a full time site specific textile artist.


Ah, cool stuff :cheers:

[Jailblazers7]

Not vetoing the reduction of air traffic delays was a mistake by Obama. Other than that I didnt care much for that piece but I understand why people who dislike Obama would enjoy it.

[KevinNYC]

Ah, cool stuff :cheers:

Not the response I was expecting. Here's the original time we discussed my job. (http://207.58.151.151/forum/showthread.php?t=297331&page=2)

[OldSkoolball#52]

Not vetoing the reduction of air traffic delays was a mistake by Obama. Other than that I didnt care much for that piece but I understand why people who dislike Obama would enjoy it.


Too many people are caught up in the politics of the president. 80% of what the president does whether hes a republican or democrat is just posturing. its a dog and pony show for his "base". during obamas first term, he maintained war and occupation in the middle east, then extended the bush tax cuts. as re-election drew near and it was time to blast some rhetoric for his base full of dum-dums, he started claiming that the rich need to pay more, the taxes should be higher, troops will be coming home soon etc.etc. Then once he secured re-election he agreed that corporate taxes need to be lowered (which is true but contrary to his election message) and the occupation in the middle east continues on.


Oh but he did turn around his stance on gay marriage. that was a nice little "here a bone for you, base" move. he implemented obamacare which I ultimately think is doomed to fail and be repealed but by passing it at least it makes it look like they tried to do something the left really wants.

Bc the thing is, the people in washington dont personally have the same fundamental difference of opinion as people think they do. they're mostly all well educated, successful, of the same generation, etc. etc. and they generally agree on whats best for America. most of the arguing is just simply a show in order to keep their repping whatever district or state they do. but the crucial decisions that really shape americas future, are going to be agreed on behind closed doors and put into place, and it doesnt matter how which R or D is in what office. They'll just pretend there's a whole bunch of battling and bickering.


Ppl need to stop playing tug of war with each other about the presidents reputaiton. they did it during bush, they're doing it during obama, and not even realizing its the same essential presidency. WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS. not enough people seem to want to take the time to think about major issues and come up with their own perspective methinks. as someone said, they just wanna sit back and eat popcorn, and occasionally jump in for their side. its just nonstop fighting.

there are actual objective truths that everyone should agree on. hard work and being responsible for your children are two things america should demand from every citizen and not be flexible on except under very mitigating circumstances. low tax rates should be the norm, there is no justification for the government to spend its own peoples money unnecessarily or for political gain. all these debates taht often center around religion, such as abortion etc. should be left up to the states. let the people decide which laws they want in their own locality. this stuff shouldnt even be brought up in presidential debates.

i dont know why Americans dont demand more pragmatism and far less bullshit. i guess everyone thinks its fun to watch keith olberman fight with bill oreilly, and they're too stupid or dont have the confidence to speak up on their own and say wait a minute, neither of these guys are right.

[RidonKs]

i dont know why Americans dont demand more pragmatism and far less bullshit
because they have no idea whats going on

[KevinNYC]

Too many people are caught up in the politics of the president. 80% of what the president does whether hes a republican or democrat is just posturing. its a dog and pony show for his "base". during obamas first term, he maintained war and occupation in the middle east, then extended the bush tax cuts. as re-election drew near and it was time to blast some rhetoric for his base full of dum-dums, he started claiming that the rich need to pay more, the taxes should be higher, troops will be coming home soon etc.etc. Then once he secured re-election he agreed that corporate taxes need to be lowered (which is true but contrary to his election message) and the occupation in the middle east continues on.


Oh but he did turn around his stance on gay marriage. that was a nice little "here a bone for you, base" move. he implemented obamacare which I ultimately think is doomed to fail and be repealed but by passing it at least it makes it look like they tried to do something the left really wants.

Bc the thing is, the people in washington dont personally have the same fundamental difference of opinion as people think they do. they're mostly all well educated, successful, of the same generation, etc. etc. and they generally agree on whats best for America. most of the arguing is just simply a show in order to keep their repping whatever district or state they do. but the crucial decisions that really shape americas future, are going to be agreed on behind closed doors and put into place, and it doesnt matter how which R or D is in what office. They'll just pretend there's a whole bunch of battling and bickering.


Ppl need to stop playing tug of war with each other about the presidents reputaiton. they did it during bush, they're doing it during obama, and not even realizing its the same essential presidency. WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS. not enough people seem to want to take the time to think about major issues and come up with their own perspective methinks. as someone said, they just wanna sit back and eat popcorn, and occasionally jump in for their side. its just nonstop fighting.

there are actual objective truths that everyone should agree on. hard work and being responsible for your children are two things america should demand from every citizen and not be flexible on except under very mitigating circumstances. low tax rates should be the norm, there is no justification for the government to spend its own peoples money unnecessarily or for political gain. all these debates taht often center around religion, such as abortion etc. should be left up to the states. let the people decide which laws they want in their own locality. this stuff shouldnt even be brought up in presidential debates.

i dont know why Americans dont demand more pragmatism and far less bullshit. i guess everyone thinks its fun to watch keith olberman fight with bill oreilly, and they're too stupid or dont have the confidence to speak up on their own and say wait a minute, neither of these guys are right.

Not everyone shares your sense of "pragmatism." People have disagreements, hence politics. Also what cable package do you have where you watch Keith Olbermann.

[Jailblazers7]

I think you are taking some liberties with what you consider an "objective truth." Sure, individual and family responsibility is something I'm sure everyone can agree on as true but once you get into tax rates and other policy questions that becomes much more complex. One problem with the government is the spending that occurs but the fact that little is ever done to evaluate the performance of government programs. Nobody really wants to know how well the money is being spent because then they couldn't base their arguments on vague ideological positions.

Pragmatism works in some instances but in other it isn't something either group is interested in. For example, gay rights and abortion aren't subjects that either side is particularly interested in pursuing a pragmatic solution.

I try to always approach things from a policy perspective, which is why I tend to avoid opinion based media. It is very easy to get sucked into the emotion fueled melodrama constantly being played out.

[RidonKs]

i think pro-choice and civil liberties for all are absolutely pragmatic choices. they just happen to be principled on the side. or maybe it's the other way around. lol

[OldSkoolball#52]

Not everyone shares your sense of "pragmatism." People have disagreements, hence politics. Also what cable package do you have where you watch Keith Olbermann.


Hence the tenuous position of America.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Pragmatism works in some instances but in other it isn't something either group is interested in. For example, gay rights and abortion aren't subjects that either side is particularly interested in pursuing a pragmatic solution.



Well yes of course a lot of it is opinion, its hard to argue any policy is factually the best. but where the two party machines are on each side of the spectrum is purposely farther apart than what actually makes sense. its designed to force you to make a commitment to being on one party's side, which by design is so far away from the other that you won't stray. theres no actual point to having republicans and democrats except that it makes it easier on people who dont have the capacity to judge ideas for themselves. they basically need to be spoon fed their ideas and talking points so they can participate in the discussion and feel like they have a clue.

as far as a practical approach to gay marriage, i'll tell you what my objective philosophy is. i accept homosexuals and heterosexuals as equals. i dont judge anyone based on their sexuality. i do feel that marriage as an institution evolved as a contract specifically tailored to opposite sex unions. historically marriage is based on a guy who wants sex, and a woman who needs security, and marriage sets out the ground rules. historically it basically protects a woman (and often her family) from being used for a few months by a man and then being left with no support. if he wants to bone her, hes gotta commit to her. thats why marriage exists. Nowadays there are a variety of things that go along with marriage such as medical power of attorney, visitation rights, and a whole slew of other things that one is able to do on behalf of their partner. IMO homosexuals should have these rights, except that there are a few possible exploitations I worry about. Will men "marry" their friends who are trying to gain citizenship? Will a guy with a good job out of college "marry" his friend who has no job and wants good healthcare? since same sex couples can't conceive, is there a need for them to use certain

also, im trepid about the children of same sex couples. i think its best for a child to have both parents, but at the very least i think a kid should have a parent of the same sex around to be a role model and teach the child about becoming a man/woman. its not that im trying to discredit homosexuals or make them feel bad, i just feel thats objectively most optimal. i am a straight male, and while i have absolutely no problem with two ladies who wish to join as a couple, i would not want to have been raised by a lesbian couple. sure, a loving home with two lesbians IS better than an empty crack home a lot of kids unfortunately grow up in, but its still not the best way for most kids to be raised. im sure there are plenty of kids who grew up that way and didnt mind. but on the other hand i bet it is tough for a lot of kids.


anyway, its a complicated ordeal to be sure, what im getting at is that i personally think we should just use civil unions that are 95% identical to marriage. basically, since marriage evolved as an institution intertwined to the opposite-sex dynamic, why not just implement a similar institution that is tailored to the same sex dynamic, which is mostly the same but still slightly different. This gives homosexuals what they say they want, which is the rights that go along with marriage (as opposed to just an 'equality' battle to fight) and it gives people on the right whatever peace of mind they want that marriage remains the same as its always been.

to me this seems like a good compromise that ends the debate and gets everyone moving on to the next thing. but the thing is neither side wants to compromise. they want to fight, not only because of some deeply held virtue, but because they want the opportunity to taunt the other political side after they win etc. So many people are just trained monkeys. Thats all they are.

now if i were a conservative, i would happily use somethign like this as a bargaining chip. if the left would make significant, meaningful cuts to entitlements, i would offer to personally marry a hundred gay couples myself. gay marriage really isnt a big DEAL either way, whether its there or its not. IMO people should either compromise on civil unions, or compromise by saying "we'll give you gay marriage if you give us spending cuts" or something of that effect.

[Nanners]

to me this seems like a good compromise that ends the debate and gets everyone moving on to the next thing. but the thing is neither side wants to compromise. they want to fight, not only because of some deeply held virtue, but because they want the opportunity to taunt the other political side after they win etc. So many people are just trained monkeys. Thats all they are.

now if i were a conservative, i would happily use somethign like this as a bargaining chip. if the left would make significant, meaningful cuts to entitlements, i would offer to personally marry a hundred gay couples myself. gay marriage really isnt a big DEAL either way, whether its there or its not. IMO people should either compromise on civil unions, or compromise by saying "we'll give you gay marriage if you give us spending cuts" or something of that effect.

Just so I am not misunderstanding anything- your proposal is for the right wing to allow "civil unions" with tax benefits similar to marriage, and in exchange for this gift the left wing makes "significant, meaningful" cuts to entitlements?

To quote KevinNYC: not everyone shares your sense of "pragmatism"

[OldSkoolball#52]

Just so I am not misunderstanding anything- your proposal is for the right wing to allow "civil unions" with tax benefits similar to marriage, and in exchange for this gift the left wing makes "significant, meaningful" cuts to entitlements?

No, I'm saying both sides, if they want a reasonable compromise on just this issue so that everyone can move on to something else, should agree to go the civil unions route. obviously i have not drafted any sort of civil union contract to be proposed so i couldnt tell you exactly how it would look, but i think if you include all teh basic inheritance, medical, decision making, legal, etc. etc. rights that come with marriage, but you dont necessarily include things like alimony, and whatever few marriage parameters that are based on the traditional man-woman dynamic, everyone should be happy, no? i mean the fact is, same sex relationships are not the EXACT SAME as heterosexual relationships. its not wrong to acknowledge that as fact, just like acknowledging that women are not physically equal to men as athletes. thats just teh way it is, no need to be sensitive. its not about denying anyone any basic fundamental rights, its just about creating a system tailored to same sex marriage. which is not GAY marriage. people confuse the two. right now, anyone gay or straight can marry the opposite sex. technically, that is equal. "gay" marriage is a misguided term because the word gay is ambiguous. same sex marriage is the issue and with a legitimately designed civil union contract, homosexuals or heterosexuals of the same sex could enter into a union. so in that way its designed to best suit that dynamic, while still being applied equally.


As far as bartering same sex MARRIAGE, what im saying is if the right really wants entitlement reform (and typically when push comes to shove economic issues trump everything else) then the right should offer to drop the gay weddings fight in exchange for a significant entitlement overhaul.

unfortunately tho, because i am not a particularly religious person, i think i am in the minority of how people who lean right see this. i think many of them see it as a significant blow to religion to allow two men to marry each other. which is why if the left just calls it civil unions, they can probably get just about everything they want out of it and the right will probably breathe a huge sigh of relief that its not marriage and they'll think they've won and move on. but then the left wont be happy. they want to be loud and proud and make a show of insisting they get the exact same thing as marriage.

so on the one hand, people are digging in about preserving their religious tenets.
on the other hand, people are digging in just to make a point about how everyone has to see them the way they want to.

and so which side is gonna budge? probably neither. and people who should be discussing real issues with one another will just debate this thing to death here, there, and all across america. meanwhile nobody's offering any sort of input to their government representatives about things that the people themselves really should have more input and control over.

[rufuspaul]

krauthammer is in the game. so he talks about it like it's a game. calling bluffs and crying wolf and investing political capital. from king of the world to dead in the water. gag me with a fking spoon.

it's pinheads like him who deliberately reduce the most important 'game' in the world to simple narrative, an easy to believe fantasy where two titanic's collide and the world munches on popcorn and comments on the explosion. it's bullshit. this stuff is important. it affects lives. pundits should comment on policy, explain potential consequences, offer their own views, and justify them with underlying values

krauthammer is just another example of an asshole who makes an honest to god citizen despise the whole circus. this article is absolutely no different. i'm not seeing what you're getting out of it rufus.


Because i knew if I posted that column everyone would attack the messenger and not the message. People on the left are just as predictable as people on the right.

[KevinNYC]

Because i knew if I posted that column everyone would attack the messenger and not the message. People on the left are just as predictable as people on the right.

Isn't that the whole point of credibility? If you want to sift through his bullshit, to find the occasional speck of gold dust, you're welcome to. I can think of better ways to spend your time.

I mean if you're trolling, why not go hard and post some Glenn Beck or Alex Jones nonsense.

His message is going to the same as his message five years from now about the next Democratic president. See this space in 2018.

[rufuspaul]

Isn't that the whole point of credibility? If you want to sift through his bullshit, to find the occasional speck of gold dust, you're welcome to. I can think of better ways to spend your time.

I mean if you're trolling, why not go hard and post some Glenn Beck or Alex Jones nonsense.

His message is going to the same as his message five years from now about the next Democratic president. See this space in 2018.


:oldlol: I'm not trolling. I certainly wasn't surprised that Krauthammer wrote something negative about comrade Obama, but I was surprised that it rings true. I think our prez has overplayed his hand and is really lacking as a leader atm.

[rufuspaul]

Obama is extremely lacking as a leader, but not for the reasons that Krauthammer and the rest of the moronic right wing think he is lacking.

Obama is basically just the black version of Bush. If you cant see that its because you have been biased by the blue or red glasses through which you see the world.


The drone program pretty much sums up this administration.

[Nanners]

The drone program pretty much sums up this administration.

yeah, gotta love Obama and his "nobel peace drones" :oldlol:

[KevinNYC]

Set your clocks. Tomorrow is All Benghazi, All The Time.

[KevinNYC]

May 2013. The 2016 Presidential Campaign began in earnest this month.

Chris Christie just got gastric-band surgery to lose weight. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/07/chris-christie-underwent-weight-loss-surgery/) I really think this improves his chances.

We have another Benghazi hearing today. Any possibility this is related to Hillary Clinton (https://www.google.com/search?q=hilliary+clinton&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS380US385&aq=f&oq=hilliary+clinton&aqs=chrome.0.57.3080j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary+clinton&safe=off&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS380US385&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ei=QGuKUfzGO4TH0gGK-YG4Bg&ved=0CBwQpwUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=b15c589cd7cf0571&biw=1440&bih=783) being the frontrunner?

[longhornfan1234]

May 2013. The 2016 Presidential Campaign began in earnest this month.

Chris Christie just got gastric-band surgery to lose weight. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/07/chris-christie-underwent-weight-loss-surgery/) I really think this improves his chances.

We have another Benghazi hearing today. Any possibility this is related to Hillary Clinton (https://www.google.com/search?q=hilliary+clinton&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS380US385&aq=f&oq=hilliary+clinton&aqs=chrome.0.57.3080j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary+clinton&safe=off&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS380US385&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ei=QGuKUfzGO4TH0gGK-YG4Bg&ved=0CBwQpwUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=b15c589cd7cf0571&biw=1440&bih=783) being the frontrunner?


Christie is coming for your wife, Bubba. :bowdown: :bowdown:

[rufuspaul]

May 2013. The 2016 Presidential Campaign began in earnest this month.

Chris Christie just got gastric-band surgery to lose weight. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/07/chris-christie-underwent-weight-loss-surgery/) I really think this improves his chances.

We have another Benghazi hearing today. Any possibility this is related to Hillary Clinton (https://www.google.com/search?q=hilliary+clinton&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS380US385&aq=f&oq=hilliary+clinton&aqs=chrome.0.57.3080j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary+clinton&safe=off&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS380US385&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ei=QGuKUfzGO4TH0gGK-YG4Bg&ved=0CBwQpwUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=b15c589cd7cf0571&biw=1440&bih=783) being the frontrunner?


I like how Christie said he did it just for his family. You do that maybe if you're morbidly obese and nothing else has worked. Christie's just fat. You know that party central came to him and said if you want to get elected you need to lose weight fast.

[KevinNYC]

I like how Christie said he did it just for his family. You do that maybe if you're morbidly obese and nothing else has worked. Christie's just fat. You know that party central came to him and said if you want to get elected you need to lose weight fast.

I don't even think it was party central. I think it was his own advisors/own calculations. You would think that the party is neutral among candidates at this point. However, I think Roger Ailes at Fox is a big Christ Christie fan.

He still as a NJ Republican is going to have a tough time in the primaries, but he can be a good VP pick if you want to look balanced.


You do that maybe if you're morbidly obese and nothing else has worked. Christie's just fat.
I think he might meet the technical definition.


Personally, I want to go back to the days when a fat man can run for president. BRING BACK TAFT!
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzp59v7bUK1qzy8r9.jpg

[rufuspaul]

he can be a good VP pick if you want to look balanced.


Palin/Christie? :oldlol:

[KevinNYC]

BRING BACK TAFT!
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzp59v7bUK1qzy8r9.jpg

Who's the 27th President and later the tenth Chief Justice of the United States and is a sex machine to all the chicks

TAFT!

Hush, your mouth!

....I'm just talking about Taft!

[KevinNYC]

Palin/Christie? :oldlol:

By 2016, he's going to be better looking that her.

[Nanners]

I want elizabeth warren to run in 2016. She is one of very few politicians that actually cares about the public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-4FhsyvJdM&feature=youtu.be

[longhornfan1234]

Current deficit plunges 32%.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/07/news/economy/deficit-falling/index.html?iid=s_mpm

[KevinNYC]

Current deficit plunges 32%.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/07/news/economy/deficit-falling/index.html?iid=s_mpm


Krugman's rubbing it in a little

Oh, by the way, it is now 26 months since Bowles and Simpson predicted a US fiscal crisis within two years.

[longhornfan1234]

Krugman's rubbing it in a little
You raise taxes... people sell assets to avoid taxes. That generates revenue. It's a one time deal. Am I wrong?

[KevinNYC]

You raise taxes... people sell assets to avoid taxes. That generates revenue. It's a one time deal. Am I wrong?
yes.

[longhornfan1234]

yes.


Great input. :coleman:

[KevinNYC]

Great input. :coleman:
You asked a question. I answered.

It's not a one time deal, economists are predicting a smaller deficit next year and the year after that. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/goldman-sachs-deficit_n_3133746.html) Goldman Sachs is more bullish than the CBO on this, they see it down to $500 billion by 2015.

After beginning the year expecting a $900 billion deficit for 2013, Goldman's economic team, lead by Jan Hatzius, has now cut the figure twice, this time to $775 billion. By the close of 2014, the economists said, the deficit will decline to $600 billion, and clock in at $475 billion at the end of 2015. Goldman had previously expected a $650 billion deficit at the end of 2014 and $500 billion at the end of 2015If the question you wanted to ask is why is this occurring, then that requires a different answer. The short answer is the unemployment situation is better.

Your scenario seemed to imply it was all about the capital gains tax going up. However, that only applies to folks earning more than $400,000. How many of them are there? Since this expected to a longer term trend, then that implies this is broad-based. So what happened in 2012? The employment situation got better.
The last month of 2011, the unemployment rate was 8.5%. The last month of 2012, it was 7.8% (http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/labor/national-employment-monthly-update.aspx). Housing prices and the stock market rose too, which should mean more tax revenue.

There's a spending component to this as well as spending as gone down, however, it's mostly due to more revenue.

[KevinNYC]

AP weighs in on Benghazi-palooza.
The hours-long hearing produced no major revelation while reviving disputes over the widely debunked comments made by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attacks and the inability of the U.S. military to respond quickly.
"I don't think there's a smoking gun today. I don't think there's a lukewarm slingshot," said Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis.

[rufuspaul]

AP weighs in on Benghazi-palooza.


Well of course a Democrat would say that. These hearings probably won't produce much. I do find it interesting, however, that the mainstream media went out of their way to dismiss the hearings before they even started and how they are avoiding any headlining coverage. This morning my hometown paper buried the story in a small blurb on like page 8A. There was a huge headline and story on page 1 about how much money the head of NASCAR makes. (Rich people are the enemy you know).

NPR this morning was classic. They went with the Bengazi hearing 1st, simply stating that it happened and that the Democrats are dismissing it. No soundbite, no on-site reporter, no quote from the Republican side. Then they went to an extensive story about the president's trip to Texas today, complete with soundbites and on-the-scene reporter and segued from that into an expose of how Obama is helping the economy.

[KevinNYC]

Well of course a Democrat would say that.

I don't think the writer quoted anyone else. So it read to me that the AP felt that not much came out of these hearings and found on a on-the-record way to saying so, without editorializing.

[longhornfan1234]

Benghazi memos reportedly revised 12 times, official 'concerned' they would hurt Stat.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

[KevinNYC]

Benghazi memos reportedly revised 12 times, official 'concerned' they would hurt Stat.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/


It doesn't affect Hillary directly, but as first glance, this seems to be a more profitable scandal to mine
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/10/conservatives-have-themselves-a-real-scandal-on-their-hands/
The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday.

Also they just arrested one of the paramedics that in West, Texas fertilizer explosion for having pipe bomb.

[KevinNYC]

This might deserve its own thread, but Holy shit if true.

Hezbollah and Al Qaeda Fighters Edging Closer to Full Scale Confrontation in Syria (http://abcnews.go.com/International/hezbollah-al-qaeda-fighters-edging-closer-confrontation/story?id=19144119#.UY1ouLVwpqU)


Two men dressed in camouflage stand on a patch of dirt amid rubble, Kalashnikov rifles at their sides, at the entrance to a dark hole in the dirt. The wooden screens often found in mosques lay on the ground, cast aside. The hole was the burial place of Hujr bin Uday al-Kindi, one of the prophet Mohammad's companions, widely revered by Muslims, Shiites in particular.

The men standing on top of it are members of Jabhat al-Nusra, a Sunni Muslim extremist rebel group trying to topple the regime of President Bashar al-Assad that recently swore fealty to al Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The desecration of the shrine - and the removal of the remains - drew condemnation from the highest levels of Shiite Islam. Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called it "bitter and sad," while the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon issued a statement stark warning that it "foretells a large conflict and gloomy evil."

.....in December, Syrian rebels burned down a Shiite mosque in northern Idlib province. Fighting between Hezbollah and Jabhat al-Nusra is being waged closer and closer to the Zeinab shrine. Shiite villages are coming under attack by militants who praise Osama bin Laden and Sunni villagers are being slaughtered by regime loyalists. Sectarian fighting has already leaked across the border into northern Lebanon. The stage has been set.

[longhornfan1234]

DOJ Seizes AP Reporters' Phone Records, Won't Say Why



"Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a 'massive and unprecedented intrusion' into how news organizations gather the news. The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters."



http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/05/13/justice_department_associated_press_obama_adminsit ration_seizes_ap_s_phone.html

[kentatm]

I think its pretty clear why. The CIA was pissed about shit that got leaked concerning a strike on terrorists and wanted to know who the leak was.

[KevinNYC]

DOJ Seizes AP Reporters' Phone Records, Won't Say Why

Here's the full AP story.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe

Seems like it involves an operation against the main bombmaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_al-Asiri) for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Pennisula, Ibrahim_al-Asiri. al-Asiri is the guy who made the underwear bomb and the printer cartridges bomb. His own brother tried to kill the Saudi security chief using one of his bombs.

Somebody leaked to the AP that we foiled another underwear bomb plot. A couple of days later, articles like this one appeared saying that Saudi Arabia had a double agent inside Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18000351
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/world/meast/yemen-qaeda-plot/index.html

[KevinNYC]

I think its pretty clear why. The CIA was pissed about shit that got leaked concerning a strike on terrorists and wanted to know who the leak was.

The headline on the AP story is less sensational.

GOV'T OBTAINS WIDE AP PHONE RECORDS IN PROBE

One of the problems going forward with with online journalism is "linkbait." Using Web Analytics and Marketing tools like A/B testing, websites can determine which headline is going to cause the most clicks. You can look at Google News and see who is using which headline (https://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&topic=h&ncl=dXQwdtH-E0KbvGMcYmlfwppEqLMvM)

[KevinNYC]

You can compare this
Government subpoenas, obtains wide set of AP phone records in investigation
to this
DOJ Unconcerned About The Constitution, Obtained AP Reporters' Phone Records

[KevinNYC]

This seems to be the original AP article. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-07/al-qaeda-bomb-plot-foiled/54811054/1) They had him as a double agent a story the next, though they say he worked for the CIA.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/05/09/al-qaeda-setback-terror-group-fails-in-bomb-plots-past-3-years/

[KevinNYC]

4 in 10 Republicans think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history. Of those Republicans 4 in 10 don't know where Benghazi is.
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/05/13/Poll-Americans-angry-about-Benghazi-cant-find-it-on-a-map/7321368469022/


Last week, Sen. James Inhofe said in an interview that, “Of all the great cover-ups in history -- the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them -- this ... is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history." He further suggested President Obama could be impeached over it.

PPP put that question to voters. 41 percent of Republicans say they consider this to be the "biggest political scandal in American history" compared to only 43 percent who disagree. Only 10 percent of Democrats and 20 percent of independents agreed.

Of the 41 percent of Republicans who consider Benghazi to be the worst political scandal in American history, 39 percent are unaware that Benghazi is located in Libya. 10 percent said it's in Egypt, 9 percent in Iran, 6 percent in Cuba, 5 percent in Syria, 4 percent in Iraq, and 1 percent each in North Korea and Liberia, with 4 percent unwilling to venture a guess.

Voters trust Hillary Clinton over Congressional Republicans on the issue of Benghazi by a 49/39 margin and her favorability rating shows no signs of decline at 52 percent versus 44 percent unfavorable. Congressional Republicans remain unpopular with a 36/57 favorability rating.

By a 56/38 margin voters say passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill is more important, and by a 52/43 spread they think passing gun background checks should be a higher priority than Benghazi.

[longhornfan1234]

4 in 10 Republicans think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history. Of those Republicans 4 in 10 don't know where Benghazi is.
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/05/13/Poll-Americans-angry-about-Benghazi-cant-find-it-on-a-map/7321368469022/

Biased poll.

[KevinNYC]

Biased poll.:lol Longhorn takes the bait again. Swing and a miss. You don't have to swing at every pitch you know.

Also Google and Wikipedia are your friends

Elections
2008
PPP first entered prominence through its performance in the 2008 Democratic primaries between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The company performed very well, producing extremely accurate predictions in many states ranging from South Carolina to Wisconsin, many of which featured inaccurate results by other pollsters.[
After the November election, PPP was ranked by the Wall Street Journal as one of the two most accurate firms, among those who were most active in the presidential swing states.

2010
PPP was the first pollster to find Scott Brown with a lead over Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate special election; Brown ultimately won in what was considered an upset, and PPP's final poll in that race predicted Brown's winning margin exactly.

2011
PPP was praised for its accuracy in polling primaries and special elections, which are notoriously hard to predict. The contests they accurately predicted include the West Virginia gubernatorial primaries, special elections in New York and California, as well as all eight Wisconsin recall elections.

2012
A study by Fordham University found that, of 28 firms studied, PPP had the most accurate poll on the presidential national popular vote, both its independently conducted poll and the one it does in collaboration with Daily Kos and the SEIU. PPP correctly called the winner of the presidential election in all 19 states it polled in the final week of the election, as well as the winners of all the U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races it surveyed.

Does work for Daily Kos and SEIU. Is Highly Accurate. :pimp:

[longhornfan1234]

Q: *Where is Benghazi?

By political ideology:

Libya -*Very liberal: *55%, Somewhat liberal: *43%, Moderate: *55%, Somewhat conservative: *67%, Very conservative: *74%

By party affiliation:

Libya - Democrat: *49%, Republican: *60%, Independent/other: *68%


Go to sleep, Kevin :lol. Do a little research.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_51313.pdf

[KevinNYC]

Current deficit plunges 32%.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/07/news/economy/deficit-falling/index.html?iid=s_mpm

CBO has revised its deficit numbers even lower. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44172)

[QUOTE]If the current laws* that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion, CBO estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this year

[KevinNYC]

Q: *Where is Benghazi?

By political ideology:

Libya -*Very liberal: *55%, Somewhat liberal: *43%, Moderate: *55%, Somewhat conservative: *67%, Very conservative: *74%

By party affiliation:

Libya - Democrat: *49%, Republican: *60%, Independent/other: *68%


Go to sleep, Kevin :lol. Do a little research.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_51313.pdf
So now PPP is accurate?:lol Also, you're not doing an apples to apples comparison. First off, Benghazi is a republican obsession and it's not suprising that more republicans are generally aware of it than Democrats, secondly you're comparing the general pool of voters to the pool that expressed the opinion that Benghazi is the worst scandal in American history. So you're comparing different things. I'll give you a B+ on this one.

[KingBeasley08]

So many controversies right now, what the hell :lol

[KevinNYC]

So many controversies right now, what the hell :lol

Pew just did a poll, pretty much right before these hit and Obama's approval was 51%.
May 1-5, 2013 51 43

Wondering what it will look like in 6 months. So mark this page and check back in November.

I don't think the Benghazi thing is going to resonate much in 6 months. I think the AP and the IRS thing are more likely to still be an issue in 6 months.

[KevinNYC]

Also overshadowed by the bigger news is this political nugget.

The head of Hispanic Outreach for the GOP in Florida quit today. Also he became a Democrat. (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/former-rnc-hispanic-outreach-director-in-florida-switches-to-democrat/2120764)
It doesn’t take much to see the culture of intolerance surrounding the Republican Party today. I have wondered before about the seemingly harsh undertones about immigrants and others. Look no further; a well-known organization recently confirms the intolerance of that which seems different or strange to them.

[Patrick Chewing]

First off, Benghazi is a republican obsession and it's not suprising that more republicans are generally aware of it than Democrats,


Says who?? Biased Liberals? No f'n doubt. If anything, it was a travesty that Liberal media outlets didn't cover it as much. Democrats are well aware of it, they are just choosing to ignore it as it tarnishes their Democratic leaders. Look at the hearing by the whistle-blowers. Every Dem Representative used their time to defend Hillary and completely ignored what the three of them had to say. They think this is an attack on Hillary.....please.

[KevinNYC]

Says who?? Biased Liberals? No f'n doubt. If anything, it was a travesty that Liberal media outlets didn't cover it as much. Democrats are well aware of it, they are just choosing to ignore it as it tarnishes their Democratic leaders. Look at the hearing by the whistle-blowers. Every Dem Representative used their time to defend Hillary and completely ignored what the three of them had to say. They think this is an attack on Hillary.....please.

What exactly did we learn from the most recent hearing? Some Republicans were predicting impeachment and explosive revelations and we learned stuff we knew months ago for the most part. What new info came out?

[Patrick Chewing]

What exactly did we learn from the most recent hearing? Some Republicans were predicting impeachment and explosive revelations and we learned stuff we knew months ago for the most part. What new info came out?


We learned what Republicans had assumed happened, that requests were shot down, that the State Department knew well in advance of the heightened situation, that one of those guys got demoted as a result, and that talking points were changed even though intelligence in the area predicted a possible terrorist attack. MSNBC and the other Liberal media outlets weren't even talking about Benghazi until now. And only severe pundits are talking about impeachment, but major media outlets especially ones on the Right are not focused on that.

The problem here is the lying by the Administration to the American people. Sure, it's not as severe as the other two issues going on right now, but to sit in front of Congress and tell the world that you didn't know certain things when the American people pay you to know these things is absurd. The Liberal media is doing their best to protect their Golden Girl, Hillary, but she's already put her foot in her mouth big time and the rest is now damage control. It's funny, for as many sound bites that you can play from her regarding Benghazi, the sheep don't seem to care. She's won a victory before the war and that's quite pathetic from an American's perspective.

[secund2nun]

2nd term 1st term it doesn't matter.

Both parties are control by the same people. It is all a show just like WWE.

Obama is a war loving corporate bailout loving patriot act loving monster just like Bush and the rest of the presidents who are nothing but puppets to the central bankers. They all have the same exact voting record on the major issues. Thank you Obama for bringing hope and change.

How many countries have you drone bombed? How many trillions in corporate welfare have you given to the big banks and big corporations? How many civil libery killing bills have you voted for?

Obama :bowdown:

The left= the right- Same old sh*t. The corporate media is BS.

[Nanners]

2nd term 1st term it doesn't matter.

Both parties are control by the same people. It is all a show just like WWE.

Obama is a war loving corporate bailout loving patriot act loving monster just like Bush and the rest of the presidents who are nothing but puppets to the central bankers. They all have the same exact voting record on the major issues. Thank you Obama for bringing hope and change.

How many countries have you drone bombed? How many trillions in corporate welfare have you given to the big banks and big corporations? How many civil libery killing bills have you voted for?

Obama :bowdown:

The left= the right- Same old sh*t. The corporate media is BS.

cannot agree more.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m39d6xKWqU1rqfhi2o1_400.gif

[rufuspaul]

Eric Holder getting grilled today. Probably won't amount to anything but I like watching him squirm.

[longhornfan1234]

Obama Student Loan Policy Reaping $51 Billion Profit.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/obama-student-loans-policy-profit_n_3276428.html

This is good news. The money represents the profits on loans that the tax payers were already having to guarantee. TP take the risk... TP should get the reward.

Before the change in the way we approached student loans... the banks made the loans... the tax payers guaranteed the loans... and the banks kept all the profit. It was essentially a profit without risk scam by the banks. Now that the government has cut out the middle man who siphoned off all the profits... there was bound to be a windfall.

[longhornfan1234]

So now PPP is accurate?:lol Also, you're not doing an apples to apples comparison. First off, Benghazi is a republican obsession and it's not suprising that more republicans are generally aware of it than Democrats, secondly you're comparing the general pool of voters to the pool that expressed the opinion that Benghazi is the worst scandal in American history. So you're comparing different things. I'll give you a B+ on this one.
:cheers:

[KevinNYC]

Eric Holder getting grilled today. Probably won't amount to anything but I like watching him squirm.

Damn, this does not look good for Holder. Not coming across well at all. Way too defensive. Let me see if I can find some quotes

[KevinNYC]

I Am Not Stupid All Of You Are. You Just Do Not Know Good Leak Investigations.

[KevinNYC]

Barack and I will stand strong through the oppression that has been thrown at us. We will not bend to the will of these haters and sinners

[KevinNYC]

We Do Not Need This. You Stupid People. America Is About Using The Irs Against Your Enemies. Do Not Blame Me. You Don't Know How Broad A Subpoena Should Be Written Because You Saw Some Stupid Tv Show. The Yelpers And The Reddits And The Ap Need To Back Off.

[KevinNYC]

To The Associated Press. I Forbid You From Spreading Your Hate In Your News Syndicate. This My Justice Department And I'm Not Allowing You To Use My Justice Department On Your Newsgathering Organization!

[KevinNYC]

We learned what Republicans had assumed happened, that requests were shot down, that the State Department knew well in advance of the heightened situation, that one of those guys got demoted as a result, and that talking points were changed even though intelligence in the area predicted a possible terrorist attack. MSNBC and the other Liberal media outlets weren't even talking about Benghazi until now. And only severe pundits are talking about impeachment, but major media outlets especially ones on the Right are not focused on that.

The problem here is the lying by the Administration to the American people. Sure, it's not as severe as the other two issues going on right now, but to sit in front of Congress and tell the world that you didn't know certain things when the American people pay you to know these things is absurd. The Liberal media is doing their best to protect their Golden Girl, Hillary, but she's already put her foot in her mouth big time and the rest is now damage control. It's funny, for as many sound bites that you can play from her regarding Benghazi, the sheep don't seem to care. She's won a victory before the war and that's quite pathetic from an American's perspective.

I'll try to tease apart some facts from your rant. And see if we "learned" this at the last hearing on May 8th

that the State Department knew well in advance of the heightened situation We knew this last year.[I]Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels
within two bureaus of the State Department(the

[longhornfan1234]

Men who are physically strong are more likely to have right wing political views

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html#ixzz2TSwDaIuY

[rufuspaul]

Barack and I will stand strong through the oppression that has been thrown at us. We will not bend to the will of these haters and sinners


That's my favorite one.

[KevinNYC]

That's my favorite one.
I had fun writing those.

My favorite was where Samy and Crazy Amy tried to ban Redditt users from commenting on their page. No, they forbid them to.

Also Crazy Amy was convicted of fraud because she used somebody else's social security number to get a line of credit at a bank.

http://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/20255/86-1.pdf

[D-Rose]

Man I really hope I don't get riled up with or sucked into politics ever again. I can't believe I supported any politician ever. It's funny how stressed and obsessed people become with all this, when it's a bunch of bull shit and the media is just playing everyone like puppets.

Seriously people, go out, breathe some fresh air or something...these guys don't give a **** about you or this country or anything other than themselves.

[longhornfan1234]

Kevin...if we closed the loopholes, could you get behind lowering the corporate tax rate to 22%?

[KevinNYC]

That "Oh Shit!" you heard someone scream earlier was coming from the White House.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story
[QUOTE]A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency

[longhornfan1234]

That "Oh Shit!" you heard someone scream earlier was coming from the White House.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story


I have been defending Barry on this scandal, but this doesn't look good.

[KevinNYC]

I have been defending Barry on this scandal, but this doesn't look good.

No it doesn't.

She is probably trying to get immunity. There's a Democrat from Queens who is saying she lied to him about this two days before she revealed this story.

She revealed it by having a friend ask her a question at a speech she was giving. Washington Post's Fact Checker gave her Four Pinocchios (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bushel-of-pinocchios-for-irss-lois-lerner/2013/05/19/771687d2-bfdd-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html)
Lerner then contacted a friend, Celia Roady, a tax attorney with the Washington firm Morgan Lewis, to get her to ask a question about the targeting, according to a statement by Roady on Friday. (Roady had previously denied this was a planted question when asked directly by participants at the meeting.)
So Lerner was dissembling when she suggested that a simple well-aimed question prompted the disclosure.
In fact, just two days before the ABA conference, Lerner appeared before Congress and was asked by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) about the status of investigations into 501(c)(4) groups. She provided a bland answer about a questionnaire on the IRS Web site, failing to take the opportunity to disclose the results of the probe. Small wonder that Crowley is now calling for her to resign, saying that Lerner lied to him.

[KevinNYC]

Interesting take on the AP case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fine-print-the-press-and-national-security/2013/05/20/04553d22-be3b-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html) by a long time national security reporter
[QUOTE]But how many times can the media claim such an action is

[gigantes]

i don't follow this stuff too much, but one thing i'm not very clear on-- is it realistic that hillary and bill return to the white house next term?

he almost died, she must be a bit burned out by now, and they're both getting older. i mean, with so many opportunities for them to make a difference across a spectrum of areas, do they really want to spend themselves to the bone on another high-stakes extended dance?

OTOH, do the dems have anyone else remotely ready?

[rufuspaul]

i don't follow this stuff too much, but one thing i'm not very clear on-- is it realistic that hillary and bill return to the white house next term?

he almost died, she must be a bit burned out by now, and they're both getting older. i mean, with so many opportunities for them to make a difference across a spectrum of areas, do they really want to spend themselves to the bone on another high-stakes extended dance?

OTOH, do the dems have anyone else remotely ready?


It depends how far these scandal hearings go. Right now it looks like they might impact some congressional elections, but by the time the presidential primaries roll around there's a good chance they will be done with and forgotten and Obama will have had time to put some distance between them and anyone associated with his administrations (Biden, Clinton, etc.).

Otherwise Al Gore maybe? :confusedshrug:

[KevinNYC]

i don't follow this stuff too much, but one thing i'm not very clear on-- is it realistic that hillary and bill return to the white house next term?

he almost died, she must be a bit burned out by now, and they're both getting older. i mean, with so many opportunities for them to make a difference across a spectrum of areas, do they really want to spend themselves to the bone on another high-stakes extended dance?

OTOH, do the dems have anyone else remotely ready?
BIDEN!

But yes, Hillary definitely does want to become President. Is your question, do they want to do this? The answer is yes. If the question is will she win, that remains to be seen.

She is definitely running though. A lot of Democrats were happy that she just got rid of some bad staff from 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/four-key-hillary-clinton-staffers-from-2008-unlikely-to-sign-on-for-2016-bid/2013/05/19/c9e43908-be4a-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html

[KevinNYC]

Wow.

Man with ties to Boston bombing suspect shot during FBI questioning
https://www.google.com/news?ncl=dDGS7ruS8Lq19WMy0VMnrZ6sIaBpM&q=fbi&lr=English&hl=en

[KevinNYC]

Lois Lerner plead the fifth. (http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/she_has_to_go.php?ref=fpblg)


Big Article looking into what was going on in the emails discussing Benghazi talking points and General Petraeus's involvemen (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/petraeuss-role-in-drafting-benghazi-talking-points-raises-questions/2013/05/21/db19f352-c165-11e2-ab60-67bba7be7813_story.html?hpid=z1)t, there was not only a fight between the CIA and the State Department. There was disagreement within the CIA with a couple of folks objecting to what Petraeus wanted.

[longhornfan1234]

In a First, U.S. Admits Drones Have Killed 4 Americans



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html?_r=1&

[KevinNYC]

In a First, U.S. Admits Drones Have Killed 4 Americans
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html?_r=1&

Obama's giving a speech on drones and Guantanamo tomorrow.

[rufuspaul]

Obama's giving a speech on drones and Guantanamo tomorrow.

I'll be interested in that.


On a side note, it looks like Anthony Foxx is sailing through confirmation as transportation secretary.

[KevinNYC]

I'll be interested in that.


On a side note, it looks like Anthony Foxx is sailing through confirmation as transportation secretary.
Was there any issue with him, I haven't even heard of him. I had heard the Labor guy was having issues.

[Nanners]

Eric Holder on drone strikes


In his letter to Congressional leaders, Mr. Holder confirmed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who died in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen. Mr. Holder also wrote that United States forces had killed three other Americans who “were not specifically targeted.”

Most americans never really consider the FACT that MANY innocent muslim children have been blown to shreds in these drone strikes.

This administration thinks that it is acceptable to kill children in their search for "millitants" as long as the children are collateral damage and "not specifically targeted". Think about that for a minute. Think about what it would feel like if a foreign country was bombing seemingly random locations in your neighborhood in the name of killing "terrorists".

Countless Americans are unable to understand why so many muslims continue to hate the US. I think its pretty damn obvious.

[KevinNYC]

His NYC mayoral candidacy that is. And thus avoided having the tabloids make the kind of puns I just did.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/anthony-weiner-tabloid-covers-mayor.php?ref=fpblg
By launching his bid via a video posted on his website around midnight Wednesday Weiner prevented the New York Daily News and New York Post from featuring him and lewd puns on their covers, leaving staffers at the papers convinced it was a deliberate dodge.

If you have to launch your candidacy at midnight, how successful do you think it will be? Perhaps he will uncover a mighty vein (see I did it again) of voters who like to send dick pics. The "sexy-selfie" set might be a huge block of untapped photos just waiting for a leader.

[KevinNYC]

In a First, U.S. Admits Drones Have Killed 4 Americans
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html?_r=1&

I think it was known, not widely known, that three Americans were killed in the two al-Awalaki attacks. There was an American, Samir Khan, with al-Awalaki when he was killed. He was a member of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/a-proud-traitor-samir-khan-reported-dead-alongside-aulaqi/2011/09/30/gIQAYhcdAL_blog.html) He also wrote an article in Al Qaeda's online magazine about how to make pressure cooker bombs and how to murder government workers

The third al-Awalaki's son who was not a terrorist. That was just a screwup.

The fourth guy is from Raleigh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raleigh_jihad_group). :wtf:

[KevinNYC]

I think it was known, not widely known, that three Americans were killed in the two al-Awalaki attacks. There was an American, Samir Khan, with al-Awalaki when he was killed. He was a member of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/a-proud-traitor-samir-khan-reported-dead-alongside-aulaqi/2011/09/30/gIQAYhcdAL_blog.html) He also wrote an article in Al Qaeda's online magazine about how to make pressure cooker bombs and how to murder government workers

The third al-Awalaki's son who was not a terrorist. That was just a screwup.

The fourth guy is from Raleigh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raleigh_jihad_group). :wtf:

EDIT
NY Times has an article up on the 4th man. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/one-drone-victims-trail-from-raleigh-to-pakistan.html?ref=us) He was killed in a signature strike in South Waziristan.

[Nanners]

Obama's giving a speech on drones and Guantanamo tomorrow.

I wonder how many nobel peace recipients are in charge of drone execution campaigns and torture prisons?

[KevinNYC]

Thinking about the Benghazi story and how it's become more and more apparent that the CIA ****ed up in a big way, probably even more so than the State Department. The NY Times has an editorial today that the CIA needs to come clean and own up to its failures. The State Department already had investigation and made changes and 4 people got removed from their jobs, but so far the CIA has gotten off the hook. It's been quite obvious for a while now that they way the Republicans have conducted themselves that this is about big political stakes and they had a target in mind. Who was head of the State Department during this? Hiliary Clinton, presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party in 2016.

However, perhaps the political stakes and trickery were not all on one side.
Who was the head of the CIA? A general who was famed for being insanely ambitious, who had a Republican PR firm (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Vets_for_Freedom#Leadership) work on a campaign to get him a fifth star (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576076270514563178.html), who has enough fans that a campaign url for him (http://petraeus2012.com/) is still active and who would be a very attractive candidate for the Republicans in 2016? Yes, David Petraeus. Two months after the Benghazi attack and just a few days after the presidential election, Petraeus is brought down by an piddling affair with a graduate student.

Interesting.

[longhornfan1234]

Looks like the healthcare exchanges will turn out to be pretty good deals.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113289/obamacare-california-no-sticker-shock-here#



Based on the premiums that insurers have submitted for final regulatory approval, the majority of Californians buying coverage on the state's new insurance exchange will be paying less

[longhornfan1234]

Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Chastain among the front-runners to play Hillary Clinton in Rodham.



http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/reese-witherspoon-scarlett-johansson-and-jessica-chastain-among-the-frontrunners-to-play-hillary-clinton-in-rodham-8632651.html

[Rose]

Elizabeth Warren wants to push down student loans rates to .75%


The same as the banks pay.:applause:

Can we just nominate her for president now? I mean do we REALLY have to wait a couple more years?

[Jailblazers7]

Elizabeth Warren wants to push down student loans rates to .75%


The same as the banks pay.:applause:

Can we just nominate her for president now? I mean do we REALLY have to wait a couple more years?

She is doing nothing more than political posturing with that policy.

[Rose]

She is doing nothing more than political posturing with that policy.
I know, but still she's at least doing something.

Watching the republicans squabble and say no like two year olds to anything involving this issue is hilarious though.:oldlol:

I still don't understand what their problem with allowing the interest to fluctuate with the economy is.

Actually I retract that, I don't think she's posturing per se. I really think she's out after the big banks. Do I think she's taking advantage of it? sure. But I wouldn't say she's ONLY posturing on it.

[Jailblazers7]

I don't question that she is against the banking lobby and whatnot but saying she wants student loan rates to be less than 1% a pipe dream and she knows it.

[rufuspaul]

Was there any issue with him, I haven't even heard of him.


He's the mayor of Charlotte. No real experience with transportation (our light rail system, freeway loops, etc were done under previous mayors), but he and POTUS are buds.

I'm all for it. It will get the city some needed funds for continuing the rail system and it gets Foxx out of the mayor's office.

And no, there doesn't seem to be any issue with him getting confirmed.

[KevinNYC]

Wow.

Man with ties to Boston bombing suspect shot during FBI questioning
https://www.google.com/news?ncl=dDGS7ruS8Lq19WMy0VMnrZ6sIaBpM&q=fbi&lr=English&hl=en

I've been wondering about this story ever since the initial reports couldn't even get the story straight which shouldn't have been hard since there were supposed to be FBI agents in the room with the guy. If you read those initial stories, it was obvious that they were quoting FBI sources who were NOT at the interrogation.

If you remember he was supposed to have lunged at an FBI with a knife in his hand.
Now there's this (http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/orange-county/sources-ibragim-todashev-was-unarmed-when-fbi-agent-killed-him/-/12978032/20342572/-/i2ok9h/-/index.html)
Sources: Ibragim Todashev was unarmed when FBI agent killed him

Sources said Todashev might have been lunging toward a sword, but he was not in possession of it.

Law enforcement officials said Todashev was in the process of confessing to a 2011 triple murder in Waltham, Mass., and was working on writing out the details of the crime when he snapped and turned violent.

Officials said Todashev pushed a table and possibly threw a chair.

It's a week later, and they still aren't definitive about anything.

The dead guy's wife is going to hold a press conference tonight. (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-fbi-orlando-investigation-20130529,0,1162461.story)
An Islamic group Wednesday called for a federal civil-rights investigation of last week's fatal shooting of an Orlando man by an FBI agent investigating the Boston Marathon bombing.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations' Florida chapter also cited unnamed sources within the FBI as saying Ibragim Todashev was not armed at the time of the shooting.

"We did confirm today with sources within the FBI that he was unarmed," CAIR-Tampa Executive Director Hassan Shibly told the Orlando Sentinel this afternoon.

The call for an independent investigation follows conflicting anonymous accounts of the shooting in south Orlando when the Muslim man was being questioned by FBI and Massachusetts State Police investigators about his possible role in a triple murder near Boston.

Those accounts from unnamed federal-law enforcement sources first claimed Todashev might have been armed with a knife.

Move over Trayvon Martin, Florida's got another investigation on their hands.

[longhornfan1234]

GDP report that was released today coupled with numerous other economic indicators show that private hiring is going to increase at a much faster pace than the last few years.

GDP was up 2.4% in the first quarter despite the fact that there has been a 12% reduction in government expenditures over the last two quarters. The Consumer Confidence Index is the strongest it has been since the recession... the stock market is setting records and companies have/are stockpilling cash reserves. Despite the last 3 metrics... corporate profits decreased 43.8 billion in the first quarter, and tax revenue from private companies has gone down the last two quarters. One can assume that a large part of that decrease can be attributed to a reinvestment in funds into their organizations... and that typically precipitates a rise in private hiring.

Many have wondered when the tipping point was going to occur for hiring with corporations experiancing expanding financial growth. It looks like it is happening now...

[KevinNYC]

The fact that he reminds nation what a real political scandal looks like, sticks it to opponents is just a bonus. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/us/politics/obama-to-pick-james-b-comey-to-lead-fbi.html?_r=0)
President Obama plans to nominate James B. Comey, a former hedge fund executive who served as a senior Justice Department official under President George W. Bush, to replace Robert S. Mueller III as the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to two people with knowledge of the selection.
By choosing Mr. Comey, a Republican, Mr. Obama made a strong statement about bipartisanship at a time when he faces renewed criticism from Republicans in Congress and has had difficulty winning confirmation of some important nominees. At the same time, Mr. Comey’s role in one of the most dramatic episodes of the Bush administration — in which he refused to acquiesce to White House aides and reauthorize a program for eavesdropping without warrants when he was serving as acting attorney general — should make him an acceptable choice to Democrats.

Here's his testimony, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/30/james-comey-and-the-most-watchable-20-minutes-of-congressional-testimony-maybe-ever/) if you don't know the name.
MSNBC was super excited about this last night.

[KevinNYC]

Also Tea Party Queen Michelle Bachman announced she is not running for re-election.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with this. (http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/209402391.html)
The civil lawsuit filed by a former Michele Bachmann presidential campaign staffer against the Minnesota Republican is headed to trial next year.
Barbara Heki alleges that senior member of the congresswoman's presidential campaign covered up the theft of a proprietary e-mail list of home-school families.
Scheduled for May 2014, the trial would not bring an end to the legal and ethical problems stemming from Bachmann's 2012 White House bid, which is under investigation by several federal agencies, including the FBI.
Heki, a campaign outreach director, also took her theft allegations to police in Urbandale, Iowa, where the matter remains under investigation.

I wonder if this is a good time to put my Michelle Bachman comic book up on Ebay.
http://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/1165209.jpg

[KevinNYC]

Biased poll.

You don't happen to work for the Virginia GOP, (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/cuccinelli-releases-mock-poll-from-republican-leaning-firm) do you?

[kentatm]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/e433633dd75a014d9db4edb54d774c32/tumblr_mnma93N3331ql10y6o1_500.jpg

[Jailblazers7]

Ran across this blog post explaining why shadowstats' inflation numbers blow and thought others might be interested.

http://azizonomics.com/2013/06/01/the-trouble-with-shadowstats/

[KevinNYC]

Obama just appointed Susan Rice as National Security Advisor. She was originally thought to be the pick for Secretary of State, but Republicans attacked her over Benghazi. This doesn't require Senate confirmation. Nice to see Obama stick by his people, I don't think there are too many examples of this.

[Nanners]

Obama just appointed Susan Rice as National Security Advisor. She was originally thought to be the pick for Secretary of State, but Republicans attacked her over Benghazi. This doesn't require Senate confirmation. Nice to see Obama stick by his people, I don't think there are too many examples of this.

i dont understand why he picked her.

unlike the rest of obamas administration, susan rice never worked at a blood sucking corporation like monsanto or one of the too big to fail banks.

[RidonKs]

i dont understand why he picked her.

unlike the rest of obamas administration, susan rice never worked at a blood sucking corporation like monsanto or one of the too big to fail banks.
i don't know about that. she's been entrenched in billion dollar multinationals for a long while now, consulting management security and all the rest

more importantly, isn't she a multi-millionaire with tens of millions of holdings in canadian oil and energy infrastructure companies, including just a few hundred thousand (i know, like, nothing right?) of TransCanada stock, that company bidding for approval of keystone xl with the state department. she made no mention of plan to recuse herself but i guess we should just assume she would never besmirch her reputation by ignoring such a blatant conflict of interest. i mean she IS an american bureaucrat afterall.


then theres the fact that she never fails accept with a smile every one of her boss' orders. calling rwanda "uhh.... anything but genocide, i dont know whats going on in rwanda but i kno it isnt genocide", naively pushing the video tape story while brennan flew off to safety, hell even swallowing iraq and using her high status to echo powell and cheney and whoever else in their attempts to convince the world of hussein's threat. i know those instances of nodding along aren't great since your entire political establishment did the same thing so if he doesn't choose her... who does he choose? but still

i'm sure she's nice and easy to get along with. but without knowing her personally or unfortunately hearing any stories in depth that aren't blatant propaganda, her generally mediocre uninspired record speaks for itself. she's a yes man. certainly not who you want as, what, 4th or 5th in line for the most powerful country in the world. and as a security advisor, i can't imagine she'd say anything that required the least bit of gumption let alone integrity.

[KevinNYC]

i don't know about that. she's been entrenched in billion dollar multinationals for a long while now, consulting management security and all the rest

more importantly, isn't she a multi-millionaire with tens of millions of holdings in canadian oil and energy infrastructure companies, including just a few hundred thousand (i know, like, nothing right?) of TransCanada stock, that company bidding for approval of keystone xl with the state department. she made no mention of plan to recuse herself but i guess we should just assume she would never besmirch her reputation by ignoring such a blatant conflict of interest. i mean she IS an american bureaucrat afterall.


then theres the fact that she never fails accept with a smile every one of her boss' orders. calling rwanda "uhh.... anything but genocide, i dont know whats going on in rwanda but i kno it isnt genocide", naively pushing the video tape story while brennan flew off to safety, hell even swallowing iraq and using her high status to echo powell and cheney and whoever else in their attempts to convince the world of hussein's threat. i know those instances of nodding along aren't great since your entire political establishment did the same thing so if he doesn't choose her... who does he choose? but still

i'm sure she's nice and easy to get along with. but without knowing her personally or unfortunately hearing any stories in depth that aren't blatant propaganda, her generally mediocre uninspired record speaks for itself. she's a yes man. certainly not who you want as, what, 4th or 5th in line for the most powerful country in the world. and as a security advisor, i can't imagine she'd say anything that required the least bit of gumption let alone integrity.


I don't know about your other assertions, but she's not fourth or fifth in line for anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession#Curr ent_order)


# Office Current officer
1 Vice President of the United States Joe Biden (D)
2 Speaker of the House John Boehner (R)
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Patrick Leahy (D)
4 Secretary of State John Kerry (D)
5 Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew (D)
6 Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (R)
7 Attorney General Eric Holder (D)
-- Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell (D)[3]
8 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (D)
-- Acting Secretary of Commerce Cameron Kerry (D) [4]
-- Acting Secretary of Labor Seth Harris (D) [4]
9 Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (D)
10 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan (D)
11 Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood (R)
12 Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz (D)
13 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (D)
14 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki (I)
15 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (D)

[Nanners]

i don't know about that. she's been entrenched in billion dollar multinationals for a long while now, consulting management security and all the rest

more importantly, isn't she a multi-millionaire with tens of millions of holdings in canadian oil and energy infrastructure companies, including just a few hundred thousand (i know, like, nothing right?) of TransCanada stock, that company bidding for approval of keystone xl with the state department. she made no mention of plan to recuse herself but i guess we should just assume she would never besmirch her reputation by ignoring such a blatant conflict of interest. i mean she IS an american bureaucrat afterall.


then theres the fact that she never fails accept with a smile every one of her boss' orders. calling rwanda "uhh.... anything but genocide, i dont know whats going on in rwanda but i kno it isnt genocide", naively pushing the video tape story while brennan flew off to safety, hell even swallowing iraq and using her high status to echo powell and cheney and whoever else in their attempts to convince the world of hussein's threat. i know those instances of nodding along aren't great since your entire political establishment did the same thing so if he doesn't choose her... who does he choose? but still

i'm sure she's nice and easy to get along with. but without knowing her personally or unfortunately hearing any stories in depth that aren't blatant propaganda, her generally mediocre uninspired record speaks for itself. she's a yes man. certainly not who you want as, what, 4th or 5th in line for the most powerful country in the world. and as a security advisor, i can't imagine she'd say anything that required the least bit of gumption let alone integrity.

Thanks for filling me in, I didnt know a lot of this stuff.

Now this appointment makes a lot more sense. I can see why KevinNYC is a fan.

[KevinNYC]

Thanks for filling me in, I didnt know a lot of this stuff.

Now this appointment makes a lot more sense. I can see why KevinNYC is a fan, he loves the ones who call themselves liberals and then act like neocons.

Please point to the part where I said I was a fan. I don't think I knew her name until Benghazi. I know a lot more about Samantha Powers who is being promoted to take Susan Rice's old job. The reason we know about Susan Rice's comments on Rwanda is due to an article Samantha Powers wrote. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/304571/)

[RidonKs]

I don't know about your other assertions, but she's not fourth or fifth in line for anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession#Curr ent_order)


# Office Current officer
1 Vice President of the United States Joe Biden (D)
2 Speaker of the House John Boehner (R)
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Patrick Leahy (D)
4 Secretary of State John Kerry (D)
5 Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew (D)
6 Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (R)
7 Attorney General Eric Holder (D)
-- Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell (D)[3]
8 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (D)
-- Acting Secretary of Commerce Cameron Kerry (D) [4]
-- Acting Secretary of Labor Seth Harris (D) [4]
9 Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (D)
10 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan (D)
11 Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood (R)
12 Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz (D)
13 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (D)
14 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki (I)
15 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (D)
obama wanted her as sec of state. hence 4th in line.


kevin im curious, had you heard about her holdings with TransCanada? heres the initial report, theres an opensecrets link inside (http://www.onearth.org/article/susan-rice-obama-secretary-state-tar-sands-finances)

since climate change is supposedly near the top of obama's second term agenda (im not holding my breath especially not after state's initial assessment) and keystone xl is at the top of the north american climate change agenda and TC is smack dab in the middle of keystone..... i just ran a google search and there's a times article buried in the science section, and a post article in the business section. fox has an article about leftist radicals blasting obama's appointment, their spin truly is impressive at times. then its in thehill, a bunch of independent media outlets, and then splashed all over the canadian press.

i mean, i guess assuming its true first and foremost, but considering the significance of this issue, not to mention its publicity, shouldn't a possibly gargantuan conflict of interest for the goddamn head of the department making this key decision have been at the very cutting edge of the news cycle for weeks?

if you'd heard it before, forgive me for this rant, but if not... for a guy who watches the news as avidly as you do, what excuse could the media possibly have for "missing" this story? quotations very much necessary

[gigantes]

2wks+ have passed, my killer ulcer is cooperating a bit, so it is time to see if i can find a lil closure.

It depends how far these scandal hearings go. Right now it looks like they might impact some congressional elections, but by the time the presidential primaries roll around there's a good chance they will be done with and forgotten and Obama will have had time to put some distance between them and anyone associated with his administrations (Biden, Clinton, etc.). Otherwise Al Gore maybe? :confusedshrug:
thanks, dr. paul.
well, he already won one presidential election and is a champion for action on GCC, so he's got my vote. noam chomsky and/or the greens would just have to do without my vote next time. :P


BIDEN!
yes indeed, as he is doing the 'verbally falling down a flight of stairs in front of a sympathetic crowd' thing, perhaps he could accidentally pull some useful political levers from time to time. good old joe.


But yes, Hillary definitely does want to become President. Is your question, do they want to do this? The answer is yes. If the question is will she win, that remains to be seen.
question was "why," really. they'd be in their early 70's by that point and the job of POTUS just gets harder every year as i see it. on top of the stuff i had previous mentioned. obvious answers are obvious and i guess i could try reading his book, but i was also fishing for any insights you guys might have, honestly.

i got about a third of the way through "game change" a couple years ago... very fun and interesting read, but it's just too much information for me to absorb and analyse at this pt. health and stability issues tend to demand all my spare mental energy, so i know a lot less about politics than i'd like. but then, that's what you're for. ^^

[RidonKs]

game change was a great movie. i didn't even know it was adapted from a book lol


here's something i just stumbled across, might interest you kevin since you said you were hoping to read scahill's book. scahill talking about balkins with samantha power from 2008 right after bush admin recognized kosovo and there was tension, sporadic violence, etc.

i'd like to hear power's interpretation of the rambouillet agreement, because from my understanding of it which was nicely summed up by scahill near the end of that conversation, there's just no way any claim that clinton negotiated with good faith and a preference for diplomacy rather than force can stand up to the actual provisions of that agreement.

mind you my source on this is rather biased too, i read A New Generation Draws the Line by chomsky about this conflict. my understanding was that most serbian violence was provoked by kosovo extremists, the KLA forces, which were committing "terrorist attacks" (quotes because its all terrorism, but this was terrorism in the specific american establishment sense) on police stations and government buildings... and if i'm not mistaken, it was explicitly revealed later on to have been in effort of provoking foreign intervention.

the numbers weren't exactly staggering iirc, a few thousand dead on the kosovo side due to disproportional retaliation by serbs, maybe a few hundred on the serb side. this is more or less israel/palestine without the actual occupation, thus weakening the kla justification for violent resistance, though ethnic nationalism being what it was they were still pissed off for legitimate reasons. after the bombing of course, things got unbelievably nasty on both sides. it was predictable and the general in charge has been quoted as ackowledging how predictable it was. lives saved vs lives lost? well thats a tough call and not even worth getting into because once you start those conversations, you've already degraded your own morality. and its no different for the argument justifying heroshima.



this power chick is very articulate, very mindful of the facts, clearly wants to come to an honest conclusion.... i just think her priorities are completely out of whack. like so many of the left liberals in the west who support their governments actions around the world. she's careful to acknowledge hundreds of thousands dead in iraq, all of these innocent civilian serb casualties in 99, kurds massacred in turkey with american weaponry, etc etc etc.

and then she just returns to "somebody had to do something" without even for a second understanding her own ridiculous selectivity that was pointed out just minutes before. it's silly.

she's a step up from susan rice undoubtedly but she's still everything that's wrong with your foreign policy. in fact i would argue she is actually worse because she isn't just a opportunist kook or a cynic who goes with the flow for selfish reasons. she really believes in this stuff, keeps a calm sort of detached disposition, understands everything thats said, and still fails to recognize the extent of the moral calamities that she's "brushing under the rug"... which she consistently says she isn't doing!


anyway sry for the rant heres the link lol, its just 15 minutes nothing mind shattering but intersting nonetheless

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/6/5/must_watch_2008_debate_un_ambassador_nominee_saman tha_power_vs_jeremy_scahill

btw her wiki photo is really really scary