2009 American Politics Thread II - My President Has a Goofy Sidekick

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

http://4.media.tumblr.com/7gSB5gka1kcxnvqfmB2QgMm2o1_400.jpg

"Because nobody messes with Joe."

итало электро брейк (daria-g), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:41 (seventeen years ago)

http://ath0.com/bn/obama1.jpg

the table is the table, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:41 (seventeen years ago)

The GOP Comeback Begins Now!

итало электро брейк (daria-g), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:43 (seventeen years ago)

i missed the first half of the speech what the hell was going on at that moment in the OP

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:44 (seventeen years ago)

obama said "no one messes with joe biden!" or something and biden was like "who? meee? me? biiiiiiden baaaaby"

J0rdan S., Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:45 (seventeen years ago)

the quote in the OP, I am pretty sure!
"That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort," the president continued, "because nobody messes with Joe."

итало электро брейк (daria-g), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:45 (seventeen years ago)

Well done.
http://i17.tinypic.com/6ptj2ua.gifnobody messes with joe

JtM Is Ruled By A Black Man (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:52 (seventeen years ago)

i'm just sad that phil hartman couldn't have lived to get in at least one dead-on biden impression.

the pelvis of a mammoth (get bent), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:53 (seventeen years ago)

obama: "nobody messes with joe."
biden: "awwww yeah. whozyodaddy."

the pelvis of a mammoth (get bent), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:59 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=53556541031

The internet: shutting down careers before they start since 1990

JtM Is Ruled By A Black Man (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 06:09 (seventeen years ago)

For those w/o FB:

http://profile.ak.facebook.com/object3/1859/109/n53556541031_4205.jpg

JtM Is Ruled By A Black Man (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 06:10 (seventeen years ago)

I got sent an invite to one of those groups approx 20 minutes after his speech! I don't even watch the show in question..

http://profile.ak.facebook.com/object3/164/4/n56677586999_9036.jpg

итало электро брейк (daria-g), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 06:40 (seventeen years ago)

just watching this... holy shit

J0rdan S., Wednesday, 25 February 2009 09:37 (seventeen years ago)

"and on your left you'll see our zoo's flamingos, one of the most beauuuuuutiful species of birds on the planet"

J0rdan S., Wednesday, 25 February 2009 09:38 (seventeen years ago)

I was blissfully asleep when all of this was on but thanks ILX for making me laugh first thing.

I'd like it if the entire internet would realize that Bobby Jindal may be all kinds of Mayberry exorcist douche, but that doesn't make it okay to let fly with Slumdog Governor namecalls or any of the other oh-haha-Indian-reference racisms that would make us go o_0 if people were sniding Obama's colour or background.

The 'outsourced speech' comments from Chris Matthews were LOLstayclassy too.

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 10:11 (seventeen years ago)

i'm just sad that phil hartman couldn't have lived to get in at least one dead-on biden impression.

― the pelvis of a mammoth (get bent)

me too now.

but i always get sad when i think about phil hartman.

estela, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 10:16 (seventeen years ago)

While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a ‘magnetic levitation’ line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called ‘volcano monitoring.’ Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, DC.

AMIRITE?? help me somebody!

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 11:24 (seventeen years ago)

Billions for RAIL projects?!?!?! How on earth do they figure that's going to create jobs?! Throw the bums out!

Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 14:16 (seventeen years ago)

I love how "magnetic levitation" goes in scare quotes to make it seem more like some sort of new-agey exercise in faith-based transportation.

Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 14:17 (seventeen years ago)

Ed, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 14:26 (seventeen years ago)

hmmm, it appears tabes and suzy can carry the ball well here til day 101. :D

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 14:50 (seventeen years ago)

Passive Aggressive 101

M.V., Wednesday, 25 February 2009 14:53 (seventeen years ago)

Defining a bit broadly, one could argue that for the previous 28 years our President was the goofy sidekick.

M.V., Wednesday, 25 February 2009 15:00 (seventeen years ago)

Waitwaitwait I think Morbs just made a JOEK.

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 15:34 (seventeen years ago)

? no, if you laughed i probably didn't.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 15:39 (seventeen years ago)

I'd like it if the entire internet would realize that Bobby Jindal may be all kinds of Mayberry exorcist douche, but that doesn't make it okay to let fly with Slumdog Governor namecalls or any of the other oh-haha-Indian-reference racisms that would make us go o_0 if people were sniding Obama's colour or background.

i have not read/heard/seen a single person, on the internet or on the television or in my presence, say anything resembling this comment, save for chris matthews's "outsourced speech" comment which i think was more of an unfortunate turn of phrase more than a "lol indian" joke.

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:19 (seventeen years ago)

i mean why would you even go there when you're talking about someone who gave a speech as laughably incompetent, to the point of shockingly incompetent?

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:20 (seventeen years ago)

I think Wonkette was making "slumdog millionaire" jokes. But honestly, do you expect more?

Mordy, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:21 (seventeen years ago)

people be dbags iirc

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:23 (seventeen years ago)

me neither, and i would sincerely like to see examples if you've got them, suzy. i'm trying to imagine applying a popular stereotype about indians to that speech and failing, but if anyone did, it's probably lolsy.

if there's anything racially awkward to be said, chris matthews will say it, but it's hard to take that seriously at this point.

xposts

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:23 (seventeen years ago)

I love how "magnetic levitation" goes in scare quotes to make it seem more like some sort of new-agey exercise in faith-based transportation.

― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:17 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

totally my favorite moment

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:24 (seventeen years ago)

okay i will go look for this "slumdog jindal" post on wonkette, but it just sounds dumb and nonsensical.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:24 (seventeen years ago)

Okay, I just woke up so I am a bit groggy, but for some reason ILX has brought this to the fore of my mind, so I'm just gonna come out and say it, no matter how conservative it might seem:

I wanted to believe in Barack Obama. But first, he surrounded himself with such a hideous number of douchebag, free-market-gospel, wealthy Clintonites, that I sort of sighed and shook my head. Then he said in his inauguration speech that we, as Americans, "are not going to apologize for our way of life," which is a completely fucked statement no matter which way you look at it. Finally, he seems even more intent than he did during the campaign to prop up the military-industrial funtime military mishaps in the middle east, no matter the cost to a country that "is slowly dying beyond our grasp."

Yes, there are some major, major policy differences between him and Bush, as well as some major personality and intellectual differences of which we are all aware. That said, I do not trust the man, and I have come to see him as yet another pawn being used to present an illusion to an illusion-eager American public, who don't want to change, who don't want to sacrifice, and who simply want to shovel as much shit into their shopping carts as humanly possible.

The problem here IS free-market capitalism, and along with unsustainable living communities and unrealistic monetary/material expectations, it has brought this country to its knees. Still, we don't want to apologize? Not only to the rest of the world for what we have wrought for the past eight years, but to ourselves, after some self-examination? No, the American public is feeding on delusional hope, and as I've said in other thread, HOPE IS A CHAIN OF SUBMISSION. It is used to keep people ignorant and un-self-conscious.

Now, I eat my store-brand-ghetto Cheerios. Adieu.

the table is the table, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:25 (seventeen years ago)

fave moment: Obama promising to cure cancer!

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:26 (seventeen years ago)

wonkette compared jindal to the apple dumpling gang last night but you might note that is a different movie...? if you're going to throw around hateful accusations against people maybe you could do a 30 second search of the site for the word "slumdog" or the words "bobby jindal" and see if you can actually tie these two things together, mordy.

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:26 (seventeen years ago)

OMG President of the United States hasn't repudiated free-market Capitalism yet?????? xxp

Mordy, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:27 (seventeen years ago)

I kinda flinched when I read him being called "Mr. Raj-ers", but it was all joeks, so what the hey.

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:28 (seventeen years ago)

hey schef:

2009 American Politics Thread I - My President Likes Spiderman

I guess "Mr. wog-ers" is too British.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:28 (seventeen years ago)

yeah okay that's dumb

xpost to pp

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:28 (seventeen years ago)

lolz Mordy otm

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:29 (seventeen years ago)

(if that takes forever to load, gbx called him "Mr Raj-ers")

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:30 (seventeen years ago)

are the weird racist comments on, like, some other ilx thread or something?

xpost thankin u morbius for answering this question!

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:30 (seventeen years ago)

Mocking someone for his or her race or ethnicity is always wrong.
Mocking someone's religion or culture is almost always wrong.
Mocking the public or political manifestations of someone's religion or culture is and should be perfectly acceptable.

M.V., Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:30 (seventeen years ago)

so love me, looooooooove me, love me... I'm a liberal

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:31 (seventeen years ago)

fave moment: Obama promising to cure cancer!

― Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:26 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah my man was channeling some serious jed bartlett last night

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:32 (seventeen years ago)

gbx called him "Mr Raj-ers"

No, get bent = JBR

Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:32 (seventeen years ago)

fave moment: Obama promising to cure cancer!

― Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:26 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah my man was channeling some serious jed bartlett last night

― now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:32 AM (16 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ha i had the same thought.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:33 (seventeen years ago)

apologies, i couldn't load the thread either. it was get bent.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:33 (seventeen years ago)

dudes, sorry to gbx or whoever 3 ppl were annoying you guys on the other thread but there's a reason there are moderators on this board and surprisingly it's not just so they can get tipsy and delete 77 threads -- go complain there instead of making sweeping grand generalizations about internet/political discourse! enact the change. because that thread is now literally the only place i've seen shit like that -- even weirdly maligned on this thread wonkette deletes comments tht are just racist bullshit! which is why i haven't seen it about jindal i guess. xpost ok sorry to get bent or whoever 3 ppls

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:34 (seventeen years ago)

anyway shame on anyone who'd say a thing like that not just because it's unfunny and kinda racist but because bobby jindal is just hilarious in and of himself without having to resort to being like lol he's foreignesque. did you hear the things he said? dude thinks louisiana is a good example of a) economic growth b) education c) private sector success in stabilizing communities! what the hell!

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:35 (seventeen years ago)

Yes, there are some major, major policy differences between him and Bush, as well as some major personality and intellectual differences of which we are all aware. That said, I do not trust the man, and I have come to see him as yet another pawn being used to present an illusion to an illusion-eager American public, who don't want to change, who don't want to sacrifice, and who simply want to shovel as much shit into their shopping carts as humanly possible.

I'm glad you're opening your eyes, but shouldn't you hold every candidate to the same standard? Besides, there's lots of people here who never believed in Hope, Change, and unicorns, but voted for Obama because they believed in some of his policies.

also: fuck that! if I have money, why shouldn't I shovel as much shit into my shopping cart as I want?

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:36 (seventeen years ago)

haha alfred the problem is that most of the ppl who are doing that do not have the moneys

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:36 (seventeen years ago)

schef otm about jindal

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:37 (seventeen years ago)

Something tells me that I'm never cooking for table.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:37 (seventeen years ago)

fact: some people live in shopping carts

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:38 (seventeen years ago)

To be fair, a commenter on Wonkette last night tried to make a Slumdog joke about Jindal, but it's not exactly biting:

simetrias says at 10:23 pm, February 24th, 2009

Slumdog Millionaire Jindal, take it away@!

Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:38 (seventeen years ago)

Thanks for finding that. That's what I remember reading.

Mordy, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:39 (seventeen years ago)

i think maybe there are no funny racist jokes to be made about indians. people always are just like, "he's indian lol!"

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:39 (seventeen years ago)

most racist jokes about indians that im aware of work better w/ jews

max, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:40 (seventeen years ago)

Then he said in his inauguration speech that we, as Americans, "are not going to apologize for our way of life," which is a completely fucked statement no matter which way you look at it.

One thing I wanted the leader of our country to do was to repudiate us as a nation!

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:41 (seventeen years ago)

or if yr Rahm Emanuel's dad, A-rabs

xp

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:41 (seventeen years ago)

Dan, Jimmy Carter did that. Truest thing he ever said.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:42 (seventeen years ago)

You know, I bet you Obama drinks corporate water.

Mordy, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:42 (seventeen years ago)

I was just going o_0 over the Wonkette comments, mostly. THERE'S NO FIRE HERE.

Jindal, sucking: a given.

LOL you cannot cure cancer, whatever. About all you can do is screen better for it and treat it at an earlier stage, lowering risk.

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:43 (seventeen years ago)

ok on some level - and this is not some "racism is ok if its used against republicans" shit - remember the bill maher "witchdoctor" cracks about sarah palin? because she had this african pentacostal shamen dude all up in her church? that got a lot of shit being being str8 up racist but i thought it was a semi-clever subversion of a lot of the lol-foreign cracks at obama, being used against miss polly prettyface the crackeriest cracker i ever saw. so yeah , a joke like "mr raj-ers" from jbr, who is known mostly for making bad puns constantly on ilx, i didnt laugh but i dont really get the great sin here. its off limits to say a dude reminds you of an indian mr rogers? i guess raj is a ref to british occupation, is that what bugs folks? it is a racial/ethnic/nationality joke, i just dont get this whole "DEMOCRATS ARE THE REAL RACISTS" faux outrage that comes up from selfrighteous leftier-than-thou types when this type of shit comes up. it's worth mentioning, and joking about, dude being indian + GOP fundie douche, and saying "just focus on the mayberry exorcist stuff" misses the point

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:44 (seventeen years ago)

it's not a sin. but it's not funny. the content of that joke is he's indian and he's like mr. rogers--why is that funny?

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:45 (seventeen years ago)

Sully today on Jindal and American exceptionalism:

What was a necessary pep-talk in the 1980s from Reagan became calcified into a dogma that verges on national self-idolatry. The point of the American founding was not that Americans are somehow better than any other people on earth, but that they had figured out a way to make government more amenable to freedom, stability and prosperity. Many other countries have figured this out too. But not many others have dug themselves into the ditch the US now inhabits. I don't think more cant on the Jindal lines helps.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:46 (seventeen years ago)

i guess this is just one of those things you should leave to aasif mandvi or whatever but really i dont think you can be all lol-i-dont-see-race l0u1s jagg3r style and treat bobby jindal as just another rick santorum

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:46 (seventeen years ago)

i agree about the "democrats are the real racists" faux outrage being dumb

xpost

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:46 (seventeen years ago)

i'm saying, these jokes can be made, but you have to work a little harder than, "dude's indian"

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:48 (seventeen years ago)

given that last night I had to hear someone refer to taking a shit as "dropping the President off at the pool", I'm not really seeing "Mr. Raj-ers" as anything more than a bad probably-had-to-be-there pun

Also, the point around here is never "democrats are the REAL racists", it's "democrats can be racist too, stop fronting".

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:48 (seventeen years ago)

it's not a sin. but it's not funny. the content of that joke is he's indian and he's like mr. rogers--why is that funny?

― horseshoe, Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:45 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

the content of the joke is that he's black and he's like mr rogers, why is that funny?
http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:kczLaSiHtW3GTM:http://www.retrojunk.com/img/art-images/img_0390.jpg

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:49 (seventeen years ago)

dude

max, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:50 (seventeen years ago)

that skit is hardly lazy; whatever, ethan.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:50 (seventeen years ago)

what neologism can we squeeze out of "Jindal" is the real question

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:51 (seventeen years ago)

Nochindal

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:51 (seventeen years ago)

i'm not saying its the greatest joke of all time but suzy & morbz getting all three-paragraph smug over the racist democratic reaction to jindal "all over the internet" because of a jbr screenname style joke is def pretty f'n lame

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:52 (seventeen years ago)

given that last night I had to hear someone refer to taking a shit as "dropping the President off at the pool"

Your restraint in not beating this person senseless is admirable.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:52 (seventeen years ago)

except that was only Morbs doing that, since Suzy was reacting to a stupid comment on a Wonkette thread

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:54 (seventeen years ago)

they were actually talking about little known 29th president warren g. turding

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:54 (seventeen years ago)

it's not a sin. but it's not funny. the content of that joke is he's indian and he's like mr. rogers--why is that funny?

I think it's more clever than funny. It's wordplay.

Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:54 (seventeen years ago)

i saw "Barbie Jingle" posted somewhere else last night, there's that

kingfish, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:55 (seventeen years ago)

mr jindal's neighborhood is la's first congressional district, which has the fewest african-americans of any congressional district in the state

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:55 (seventeen years ago)

lo ethan

Ned, i'ts kind of hard to beat someone up over Ventrilo. I did consider quitting the group/guild but remembered "oh right, douchebags on the Internet" and went on to get more epic lootz.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:56 (seventeen years ago)

you can refer to someone's race or gender or religion or national origin or sexual orientation without meaning to hate on them for it - it's a pretty standard joke structure about new faces on the scene to describe them as {established character} + {aspect of xxx} - sarah palin is "moosealini" bcz - lol wait for it - she is kinda fascist + she is from alaska lol - not hardly a next level zing but thats the script

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:58 (seventeen years ago)

I think it's more clever than funny. It's wordplay.

― Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:54 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

okay. i like puns; i think my dismissal is in part because i've developed an irritation at the mere fact of indian-ness being presented as humorous after having seen that many, many times. it's not necessarily what jbr intended, of course. also arguing about whether something is funny is useless, so

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:58 (seventeen years ago)

Really, the funny thing about Jindal isn't that he is of Indian descent, it's that he looks like someone melted a plastic bag over a Cabbage Patch Doll's head.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:00 (seventeen years ago)

More like a Saffron Patch Doll amirite?

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:01 (seventeen years ago)

Sorry.

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:01 (seventeen years ago)

sarah palin is "moosealini" bcz - lol wait for it - she is kinda fascist + she is from alaska lol

this is already funnier to me because someone having fascist tendencies is mockworthy?

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:01 (seventeen years ago)

I'm sorry moosealini is totally funny

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:01 (seventeen years ago)

I don't care if Jindal's black, white, yellow, brown, or orange, A COON-ASS IS A COON-ASS.

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:02 (seventeen years ago)

stay classy

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:03 (seventeen years ago)

I still can't believe Jindal's college exorcism story, largely because I can't imagine him doing anything at an exorcism beyond screaming "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" while running around the room flailing his hands above his head.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:03 (seventeen years ago)

the way the dude emerged from the hallway last night was creeeeeepy

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:04 (seventeen years ago)

jindal's a fundamentalist nitwit. that's always mockworthy

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:04 (seventeen years ago)

What if you put a voice chip in a slightly melted cabbage patch doll that just ranted about volcanoes and maglev trains in that voice

kingfish, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:04 (seventeen years ago)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Coonass2.jpg

wtf is this shit

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:05 (seventeen years ago)

I still can't believe Jindal's college exorcism story, largely because I can't imagine him doing anything at an exorcism beyond screaming "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" while running around the room flailing his hands above his head

And this is the man the GOP wants to put in charge of volcano regulation.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:05 (seventeen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coonass

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:05 (seventeen years ago)

And this is the man the GOP wants to put in charge of volcano regulation.

Jindal vs. the Volcano

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:07 (seventeen years ago)

lolololol I just saw the clip of Rachel Maddow after Jindal's speech:

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:08 (seventeen years ago)

"And Obama wants billions for 'magnetic levitation' trains! What we really need is for CONGRESS to LEVITATE itself above the ideology and partisan politics of the past!! amirite"

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:10 (seventeen years ago)

"National health insurance? Democrats need to INSURE that they start paying attention to the HEALTH of small business owners amirite"

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:10 (seventeen years ago)

Loving it when Ethan uses his amazing clairvoyance to tell distant ILX posters what they're thinking when they post and why, otherwise how would we get through life not knowing our own minds? <facepalm.jpg>

LOLtracer YHM, get to it!

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:11 (seventeen years ago)

high speed rail czar

http://magicalsite.com/images/mr.magic.gif

mullah mangenius (brownie), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:12 (seventeen years ago)

"Billions for half-baked higher-education funding? What the government needs to do GET BAKED and GET HIGH amirite"

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:13 (seventeen years ago)

Then he said in his inauguration speech that we, as Americans, "are not going to apologize for our way of life," which is a completely fucked statement no matter which way you look at it.

that was the best thing in the inaugural! on the surface the same kind of statement as "they hate us for our freedoms" but really a total inversion of it.

goole, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:15 (seventeen years ago)

jindal's a fundamentalist nitwit. that's always mockworthy

― now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:04 AM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

if this is in response to me, you're preaching to the choir. he's an entirely ridiculous person.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:18 (seventeen years ago)

our way of life is egomaniacal and wasteful. (yeah i include myself)

the point around here is never "democrats are the REAL racists", it's "democrats can be racist too, stop fronting".

yes.

I haven't seen Jindal yet -- he's ludicrous -- but gee, Al Gore never sounded like Mr Rogers huh

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:19 (seventeen years ago)

no morbs, you really need to hear jindal's voice; it's hilarious

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:19 (seventeen years ago)

fwiw Gore got/gets mocked for his voice a lot

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:21 (seventeen years ago)

Note, I prefer this guy for head of high-speed rail, already knows his wheels of steel etc etc etc

http://www.dustygroove.com/images/products/z/zzmrmagicsrapattack_2_101b.jpg

kingfish, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:21 (seventeen years ago)

also i'm not calling JBR racist -- I'm sure I've said similar things in weak moments -- but it struck me as somrhing ppl would get angry about if the target was different.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:21 (seventeen years ago)

I still can't believe Jindal's college exorcism story, largely because I can't imagine him doing anything at an exorcism beyond screaming "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" while running around the room flailing his hands above his head

And this is the man the GOP wants to put in charge of volcano regulation.

― The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, February 25, 2009 5:05 PM (1 minute ago)

well who else are we supposed to trust to pick the right virgins to throw into it to keep it from being angry at us?

Ackman? Ackman? I nearly killed 'em! (jjjusten), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:23 (seventeen years ago)

http://images.celeb9.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/paris-hilton1.jpg

This person's always been pretty good at doing rails at high speed.

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:25 (seventeen years ago)

amirite

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:26 (seventeen years ago)

also i'm not calling JBR racist -- I'm sure I've said similar things in weak moments -- but it struck me as somrhing ppl would get angry about if the target was different.

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:21 AM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

X 2

I would also add "it struck me as something ppl would get angry about if the person posting it was different."

All in context.

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:26 (seventeen years ago)

horseshoe: that's me agreeing. no need for anyone to go after his ethnicity when there's so much other awesome ridiculousness to choose from.

otoh the sadly transparent & cynical maneuver by the GOP to find someone not male or not white to carry their banner of bullshit deserves some poking fun at i s'pose

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:27 (seventeen years ago)

yeah totally. someone in another thread called it the GOPs "other kind of racism" and that seems right.

horseshoe, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:28 (seventeen years ago)

And to answer HI DERE's question about coon-asses, I would advise googling "LSU 'corn-dogs'".

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:28 (seventeen years ago)

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/ut9099/LSWho/lsu-fans-corndogs.jpg
http://vmedia.rivals.com/UserMedia/FanPagesPhoto/Gallery/20/O68007.jpg
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4074/lsulessailorjf3.jpg

actually this just makes things more confusing...?

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:31 (seventeen years ago)

given that last night I had to hear someone refer to taking a shit as "dropping the President off at the pool"

Your restraint in not beating this person senseless is admirable.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:52 AM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, I was about to post that I hope you followed him into the bathroom and drowned him in the toilet, preferably in his own president

鬼の手 (Edward III), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:34 (seventeen years ago)

Yes, it looks like the most retarded Vikes fans hit the MN State Fair...xpost

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:35 (seventeen years ago)

i dunno what there is to get, dan

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:36 (seventeen years ago)

xp: I realize now my response should have been "you mean 'dropping the President off in Nebraska'"

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:36 (seventeen years ago)

I'd hate to hear what that guy was calling cunnilingus for the past eight years.

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:37 (seventeen years ago)

Shockin' Oral

WmC, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:38 (seventeen years ago)

IT WAS A PUN. i have very little self-control when it comes to these. i acknowledged his ethnicity in a totally value-neutral way while saying he reminded me of mr. rogers, big whoop.

there's still a novelty factor (novelty meaning "new," not the weird al kind of novelty) to seeing indian-american politicians in the public eye, especially ones with thick louisiana accents, especially ones who are repping for the newly inclusive (lol) GOP.

the pelvis of a mammoth (get bent), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 17:59 (seventeen years ago)

youre absolved! remember, no fish on Fridays til Easter.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:05 (seventeen years ago)

i mean, no meat

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:05 (seventeen years ago)

ok massive lol

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:06 (seventeen years ago)

more accidental joeks, rite

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:07 (seventeen years ago)

just don't eat anything on friday

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:07 (seventeen years ago)

i mean it's a strange cultural moment to process, for largely GOP-related reasons (sigh, xposts)

the pelvis of a mammoth (get bent), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:07 (seventeen years ago)

people who eat meat on fridays at any time of year are disgusting savages imo

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:08 (seventeen years ago)

Tracer is playing Streep role in new staging of Doubt

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:09 (seventeen years ago)

it's been pretty funny how the gop over the past year has had these moments where it's like, "a-ha now we've got the dems where we want them, wait until they see our new secret weapon" and they unleash a couple of clumsy homemade pipe bombs like palin and jindal.

pro bowl was fun (omar little), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:10 (seventeen years ago)

i'm gonna eat pork on friday and piss most of the world off!

the pelvis of a mammoth (get bent), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:10 (seventeen years ago)

pork's not meat

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:13 (seventeen years ago)

pork snot meat

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:15 (seventeen years ago)

pork is Catholic meat (if there are no altar boys around)

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:15 (seventeen years ago)

i'm not saying its the greatest joke of all time but suzy & morbz getting all three-paragraph smug over the racist democratic reaction to jindal "all over the internet" because of a jbr screenname style joke is def pretty f'n lame

― it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:52 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

except that was only Morbs doing that, since Suzy was reacting to a stupid comment on a Wonkette thread

― Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, February 25, 2009

haha wait i only just had time to go back and read everything but how is this a repudiation of what ethan said?

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:16 (seventeen years ago)

ugh morbius

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:16 (seventeen years ago)

how the hell you get off being all "omg a bobby jindal is an indian joke! heavens to betsy" but then make a rape joke??

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:16 (seventeen years ago)

dr morbius is a complicated man

max, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:17 (seventeen years ago)

And nobody understands him but Dennis Perrin.

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:18 (seventeen years ago)

rape is universal! like loudmouth mother-in-laws.

andtwat saying i posted anything about "all over the internet" is his usual fucking lie. My carpal tunnel is too bad to go "all over."

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:19 (seventeen years ago)

lol brutal crime v "mr. raj-ers" i mean c'mon dude don't make it easy on "andtwat" to bust on you at the very least

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:21 (seventeen years ago)

bad image there

xpost

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:21 (seventeen years ago)

so for the record, ethan's busting on morbius but morbius can't go all over? cool thx

J0rdan S., Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:22 (seventeen years ago)

don't make me go Rickles on your ass

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:22 (seventeen years ago)

tmi

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:22 (seventeen years ago)

morbs' carpal tunnel prevents him from going all over but he is still capable of going Rickles on an ass

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:23 (seventeen years ago)

duly noted

J0rdan S., Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:24 (seventeen years ago)

i'm shrivelling inside just trying to picture what that would even mean

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:25 (seventeen years ago)

mercifully like Marisa Tomei I can still climb the pole

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:25 (seventeen years ago)

somebody needs to get those Rickles checked out, they could be habit-forming

kingfish, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:25 (seventeen years ago)

rickles' ass tunnel

velko, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:27 (seventeen years ago)

*reminds self that she has work to do, clicks "x" button in top right corner*

the pelvis of a mammoth (get bent), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:27 (seventeen years ago)

OK fine. We're not even talking about the night's most awes moment: Ruth Bader Ginsberg walking in and getting hugged.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:28 (seventeen years ago)

someone needs to cast joan cusack in a movie about a hapless new yorker who keeps meeting unsuitable boyfriends, one of whom takes her home and once in bed wants her to tell insulting jokes about his parents and wear a leathery neck mask

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:28 (seventeen years ago)

Meantime, 'a very plugged-in Republican strategist' speaks. To Byron York, but anyway.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:41 (seventeen years ago)

Sphere: So, it's a "major doctrinal shift" for the Republicans to start talking about actual policy? This just highlights the sad state of the GOP

lol

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:45 (seventeen years ago)

Sphere: So, it's a "major doctrinal shift" for the Republicans to start talking about actual policy? This just highlights the sad state of the GOP

along the same lines, paul krugman makes a (legitimate) funny

"The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead."

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:49 (seventeen years ago)

^eg Rudy Guiliani & "community organizer"

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:52 (seventeen years ago)

the GOP's philosophy would line them up fairly well with anarchists if they weren't so in love with police states/military action/uniforms

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:54 (seventeen years ago)

I mean they're really painting themselves into an ideological corner with this whole "basically we don't believe the government should do anything" malarkey

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:55 (seventeen years ago)

at least B&B had their good taste in music to redeem that somewhat

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:56 (seventeen years ago)

wait a minute i somehow missed jindal saying that the best response to katrina is neighbors with rowboats??

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:57 (seventeen years ago)

it's an interesting take

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:03 (seventeen years ago)

Apparently the feds came down and told the rowers they shouldn't go rescuing folks without licenses and insurance, there was something about arresting a sheriff.

Ed, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:04 (seventeen years ago)

^^^ here is a clip of what bobby jindal said about how to best respond to katrina

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:06 (seventeen years ago)

b/w that and the paulie walnuts commercials, denny's makes some pretty damn fine ads

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:08 (seventeen years ago)

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:08 (seventeen years ago)

the GOP's philosophy would line them up fairly well with anarchists if they weren't so in love with police states/military action/uniforms

lol not to mention their need to browbeat political discourse with a laughably hypocritical strain of Christianity

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:08 (seventeen years ago)

i seriously couldn't get over this parTICKalur motherfucker talking about the federal government's inept response to hurricane katrina

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:09 (seventeen years ago)

From the headline on, a classic of vacuity.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:13 (seventeen years ago)

it's sort of like a thousand points of light, except with rowboats. and extra cruelty.

yeah ed i read that part but he's telling the story for a reason, and in the context of a "govt spending bad - individual enterprise good" speech it's kind of hard to escape the conclusion that he feels the best way to handle katrina would be to let a thousand sean penns bloom

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:16 (seventeen years ago)

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:18 (seventeen years ago)

As a child, I remember going to the grocery store with my dad. Growing up in India, he had seen extreme poverty. And as we walked through the aisles, looking at the endless variety on the shelves, he would tell me: 'Bobby, Americans can do anything.'

wait, isnt this a lie

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:20 (seventeen years ago)

when did he take his name from bobby brady

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:20 (seventeen years ago)

From Ned's link: Jindal is a smart guy, a frighteningly smart guy. I'd love to hear his real, honest, not-positioning-for-2012 response to Obama's speech tonight because I suspect he'd have some sharp and useful criticisms.

anybody know where i can find such pearls??

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:22 (seventeen years ago)

To find work, my dad picked up the yellow pages and started calling local businesses. Even after landing a job, he could still not afford to pay for my delivery -- so he worked out an installment plan with the doctor. Fortunately for me, he never missed a payment.

... What did he think was going to happen if his father missed a payment?

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:25 (seventeen years ago)

The first family dog saga is almost over.

Michelle Obama, who is on the cover of People again, told the magazine that her daughters Sasha and Malia will get their promised pooch in April, after spring break, and they are looking for a Portuguese Water Dog to adopt from a shelter.

"Temperamentally they're supposed to be pretty good," Obama says in the issue hitting newsstands on Friday. "From the size perspective, they're sort of middle of the road -- it's not small, but it's not a huge dog. And the folks that we know who own them have raved about them. So that's where we're leaning."

During the campaign, President Obama promised his girls the dog at the end -- and it became a subject of much speculation and lobbying by advocates of various breeds. There was early talk that the Obamas would get a labradoodle.

The first couple and their daughters have been going back and forth on possible names, and Michelle Obama told People she nixed "Frank" or "Moose."

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:25 (seventeen years ago)

frank would be an awesome name for the Obama dog

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:26 (seventeen years ago)

traumatic amniotic re-insertion

xxp

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:27 (seventeen years ago)

Rush Limbaugh just ordered his fans to stop picking on Jindal: HE liked Jindal's speech and ideas, thank you very much, and says it's no good that the GOP pick on "one of their own."

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:27 (seventeen years ago)

ok so ned's link means i have to retract the "no one is diong that slumdog millionaire thing, ppl" claim

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:27 (seventeen years ago)

btw E, I thought you were lying about the Bobby Brady thing! Apparently it happened when he was four: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:28 (seventeen years ago)

traumatic amniotic re-insertion

Psycho-somatic addict-insane

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:30 (seventeen years ago)

dont wanna get back into this but isnt this really just A + B?? like ok if right before obama's big primary win or something there was a movie about kenyans filmed in kenya that won a dozen oscars wouldnt maybe some people be drawing comparisons between the two

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:30 (seventeen years ago)

Bobby Jindal broke Florence Henderson's favorite vase

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:31 (seventeen years ago)

Rush Limbaugh just ordered his fans to stop picking on Jindal: HE liked Jindal's speech and ideas, thank you very much, and says it's no good that the GOP pick on "one of their own."

I wonder if this is where the penny drops for a lot of said fans.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:31 (seventeen years ago)

dont wanna get back into this but isnt this really just A + B?? like ok if right before obama's big primary win or something there was a movie about kenyans filmed in kenya that won a dozen oscars wouldnt maybe some people be drawing comparisons between the two

― it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, February 25, 2009

why do you keep saying various versions of this metaphor over and over?

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:33 (seventeen years ago)

He's following the rhetorical pattern from Jindal's speech; pick a point ("Americans can do anything if [x]") and repeat it over and over and over until people think you're a little obsessed.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:35 (seventeen years ago)

why do you keep saying various versions of this metaphor over and over?

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:33 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

wtf are you talking about? the moosealini thing?

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:36 (seventeen years ago)

to be fair i don't think even eddie murphy would have called that sketch "mr robeson's neighborhood"

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:38 (seventeen years ago)

After reading Jindal's speech, I can't imagine how poorly it must have been delivered if lots and lots of ppl are saying "it comes across better written" because it reads like it was written by a slow fifth-grader.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:39 (seventeen years ago)

on the corner there's a youtube of Jindal on the Today show and a reader emailed in

UPDATE: An e-mail:

THAT was the Jindal I wanted last night. He should never be allowed near a teleprompter again!

02/25 10:15 AM

hahaha who does THAT sound like? hint: MOOSE.

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:41 (seventeen years ago)

I'm getting a little tired of everytime Obama does something really awesome, the Republicans standing up and going, "YEah, we've come a durn near ways from the firehoses, haven't we?"

I mean, yeah, it's historic, but the whole "why-lookee-there, ain't-it-somethin'?" line from them is getting stale.

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:45 (seventeen years ago)

Rush Limbaugh just ordered his fans to stop picking on Jindal: HE liked Jindal's speech and ideas, thank you very much, and says it's no good that the GOP pick on "one of their own."

I wonder if this is where the penny drops for a lot of said fans.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:31 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark

i wouldn't count on it -- limbaugh's had plenty of Ceausescu-on-the-balcony moments already.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:45 (seventeen years ago)

Jindal totally is Kenneth from 30 Rock.

2nd-place ladyboy (Nicole), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:48 (seventeen years ago)

wtf are you talking about? the moosealini thing?

― it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, February 25, 2009

you just keep explaining it is "a+b"! but morbs & suzy dropped their points pretty quickly so it just seems hilarious to me to say it now!

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:51 (seventeen years ago)

After reading Jindal's speech, I can't imagine how poorly it must have been delivered if lots and lots of ppl are saying "it comes across better written" because it reads like it was written by a slow fifth-grader.

― Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, February 25, 2009

it doesn't come across better written, i mean anyone who is saying this is insane -- it's full of awful lies and twisted logic and it bore no bearings on reality! yes, he read it in the creepiest fashion possible but it was a terrible speech to begin with. pplz standards are set low after the sarah palin "thing" i guess.

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 20:53 (seventeen years ago)

... What did he think was going to happen if his father missed a payment?

― Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:25 PM (2 hours ago)

duh dan thats where gogortions come from

Exodus 14 VS 14 CAGE MATCH FITE (jjjusten), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:27 (seventeen years ago)

from urbandictionary.com:

jindal 1 thumb up love ithate it

noun: a dude's junk
Bitch was slammin on my jindal last night.

junk jim uncle jim buster the mexican
by drpoon3 Feb 11, 2009 share this

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:31 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/02/24/bobby-jindal-catholic-draws-the-same-secret-muslim-allegations-that-haunted-obama.html

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:39 (seventeen years ago)

http://newsbusters.org/polls/should-msnbc-apologize-blasphemy-gov-jindals-response-president-obamas-s-o-t-u-speech-28416

it's darn and ielle is hot (and what), Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:44 (seventeen years ago)

i trust this has been discussed here? if so, carry on. if not, well ho-leee shit.

RNC chair wants Hip Hop party??

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Thursday, 26 February 2009 01:29 (seventeen years ago)

CNN has a couple of nice comebacks:

"Does the governor have a volcano in his backyard?" Royce Pollard, the mayor of Vancouver, Washington, said on Wednesday. "We have one that's very active, and it still rumbles and spits and coughs very frequently."

[...]

"Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington," Jindal said.

But Marianne Guffanti, a volcano researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey, said, "We don't throw the money down the crater of the volcano and watch it burn up."

Doctor Casino, Thursday, 26 February 2009 02:27 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah, i live in a city built atop a volcano, and can see another one every time I cross the Fremont Bridge. Its the same thing with the planetarium funding during the debates...

kingfish, Thursday, 26 February 2009 02:32 (seventeen years ago)

it's pretty funny to see how long the gop is gonna keep going before they realize that most people don't give a shit about earmarks or pork-barrel spending. hannity's calling the stimulus bill the "porkulus bill" and it's just like, dude, no one gives a shit about earmarks, didn't you see mccain talk about that shit throughout the whole campaign and absolutely no one gave a fuck????

mark cl, Thursday, 26 February 2009 02:38 (seventeen years ago)

I think most people realize that "pork" tends to = goodies for their community. In fact, at least in my neighborhood, we keep electing the same dude (Rangel) because he does so much and gets us so much pork. One man's pork is another community's youth center.

Mordy, Thursday, 26 February 2009 02:47 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah a friend of mine keeps bringing up the fact that "pork is how we GET things in our communities goddammit, why doesn't somebody SAY that??"

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 26 February 2009 02:50 (seventeen years ago)

right

mark cl, Thursday, 26 February 2009 02:51 (seventeen years ago)

i know i'm risking the wrath of morbz here, but being still in the new-car-small period of the presidency, i can't help just enjoying a headline like this:

Obama to Seek Higher Tax on Affluent to Pay for Health Care

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 26 February 2009 06:47 (seventeen years ago)

And its not like Republicans weren't all about flushing money down the toilet when they were in power. Except now that theyre not they get to spew some bullshit like how they've "gotten religion" and are getting back to their fiscally responsible ways.

Fuck these dudes.

mayor jingleberries, Thursday, 26 February 2009 06:59 (seventeen years ago)

Oh dear.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3602/3307907531_ae18e2694d_o.jpg

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Thursday, 26 February 2009 08:41 (seventeen years ago)

see now that's quality

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 26 February 2009 09:26 (seventeen years ago)

now all we need is someone to do a picture of limbaugh as the Skipper, and we'll be all set.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 12:40 (seventeen years ago)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/02/25/twittering-helen-thomas

I am linking this solely for the terrifying freeze frame on the video.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Thursday, 26 February 2009 14:41 (seventeen years ago)

cut Helen a break, she had an affair w/ James Madison

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 26 February 2009 14:44 (seventeen years ago)

Meantime, the inevitable Jack McBrayer response to Jindal:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Kenneth_the_Page_responds_to_Jindal.html?showall

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 15:58 (seventeen years ago)

Hollywood Hollywood - what a joke! Excuse them citizens of the United States and world. They are still so excited about the STD fund created especially for them, and possibly managed by John Edwards that the kool aid is spilling over in mysterious ways.

Posted By: | February 26, 2009 at 10:12 AM

sippin margaritas on the beach in my adidas (and what), Thursday, 26 February 2009 15:59 (seventeen years ago)

I love that.

Then there are some of the responses to this Patrick Ruffini piece essentially saying "Are we out of our goddamn minds on the right?":

Puhleez!
Submitted by Lynn on Thu, 02/26/2009 - 10:19.

Why are you going to CPAC anyway?

I took this website off my list a long time ago when I realized that it was Republican-lite and it's founders thought that all we needed to regain power was technology, not conservative values, not conservative leadership, just a computer and the Internet.

I wouldn't be here now if Hot Air hadn't linked to this diatribe.

Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin speak for American conservatives because John McCain and the Ruffinis of this party won't.

As long as you continue to think that you can define the next right by letting liberals weigh in and with nothing more than a keyboard to deliver your conservalite message this website will remain off my list.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 16:01 (seventeen years ago)

I pity them...oh wait, no I don't:

It's early February, and the happy hour at the Union Pub on Capitol Hill is jammed with an unlikely slice of young Washington strivers: conservatives, libertarians, free-market/small-government types, anyone right of center. People, in other words, in their 20s or early 30s who actually groan at the label Generation Obama.

Organized by an employee at the Grover Norquist-led Americans for Tax Reform, the party in the pub's back barroom seems naturally suited for this group: Fox News is playing alongside the Dave Matthews tracks. One drink special, $5 for a down-on-the-heels set, seems almost too perfect a nostalgic prop: "The Gipper," concocted with bourbon.

Spencer Barrs, 22, a Heritage Foundation intern, is talking with his buddies about feelings of alienation.

"My best friend called and asked who I voted for and I told him I wasn't voting for Obama," Barrs says. "And then he told me, 'I just think you hate black people.' It was a shot to the gut. You feel like you're surrounded on all corners."

His friend John O'Keefe, 23, another conservative think-tank intern who might be out of a job after his internship ends in May, dismisses his liberal contemporaries. "The only thing they have are blogs. They feel like gods of our generation," he says, before ruminating on a very Washington cure-all. "I'm hoping that people get (angry) at Obama and start forming political action committees."

Which I presume he will suggest on his blog. Er.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:49 (seventeen years ago)

Progress!

At the Union Pub, Dustin Siggins, 24, says he sometimes uses humor to deflect the awkwardness of being on the margins of his generation. "I met a girl today at the gym from Boston College. She was getting a law degree from George Washington. She was cute," he says. "But she wants to work for the ACLU, and I said, 'Oh, you're one of those.' "

Later, in a phone interview, Siggins says he struggles with some of his party's more culturally orthodox ideals. "Because I am in this generation and was raised in a pro-gay-marriage era, I am only a little bit against gay marriage, but only a little, like 53 percent to 47," he says. "I have about a dozen gay friends, 30 or 20, and they would all back me up. In college, I used to have lunch with them. . . . We went ice skating once."

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:51 (seventeen years ago)

At the Union Pub, Dustin Siggins, 24, says he sometimes uses humor to deflect the awkwardness of being on the margins of his generation. "I met a girl today at the gym from Boston College. She was getting a law degree from George Washington. She was cute," he says. "But she wants to work for the ACLU, and I said, 'Oh, you're one of those.' "

hilarious!

bobby dijindal (and what), Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:51 (seventeen years ago)

At the Union Pub, Dustin Siggins, 24, says he sometimes uses humor awkwardness to deflect the awkwardness of being on the margins of his generation. "I met a girl today at the gym from Boston College. She was

horseshoe, Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:53 (seventeen years ago)

tne drink special, $5 for a down-on-the-heels set, seems almost too perfect a nostalgic prop: "The Gipper," concocted with bourbon.

take this with a pinch of salt amirite

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:53 (seventeen years ago)

Dustin Efil4Zaggin

bobby dijindal (and what), Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:53 (seventeen years ago)

Dustin can show you his ice skating moves for a drink.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:54 (seventeen years ago)

At the Union Pub, Dustin Siggins, 24, says he sometimes uses humor to deflect the awkwardness of being on the margins of his generation. "I met a girl today at the gym from Boston College. She was getting a law degree from George Washington. She was cute," he says. "But she wants to work for the ACLU, and I said, 'Fuck you, you Commie bitch.' Then I punched her in the tit."

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:55 (seventeen years ago)

At the Union Pub, Dustin Siggins, 24, says he sometimes uses rape to deflect the awkwardness of being on the margins of his generation

bobby dijindal (and what), Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:56 (seventeen years ago)

so ACLU = sandy vagina to conservatives?!?

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:56 (seventeen years ago)

it means she's probably not into being sexually tortured

goole, Thursday, 26 February 2009 18:58 (seventeen years ago)

Honestly it's the 53 to 47 percent calculation that's the craziest bit. Is there a checklist?

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:04 (seventeen years ago)

"I have about a dozen gay friends, 30 or 20, and they would all back me up."

lol

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:04 (seventeen years ago)

The 47 percent covers the sodomy clause.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:05 (seventeen years ago)

At the Union Pub, Dustin Siggins, 24, says he sometimes uses humor to deflect the awkwardness of being on the margins of his generation. "I met a girl today at the gym from Boston College. She was getting a law degree from George Washington. She was cute," he says. "But I'm into guys. I have about a dozen gay friends, 30 or 20, and they would all back me up."

max, Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:05 (seventeen years ago)

Honestly it's the 53 to 47 percent calculation that's the craziest bit. Is there a checklist?

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:04 PM (55 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

http://z.hubpages.com/u/216730_f520.jpg

bobby dijindal (and what), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:07 (seventeen years ago)

At the Union Pub, Dustin Siggins, 24, says he sometimes uses humor to deflect the awkwardness of being on the margins of his generation. "I met a girl today at the gym from Boston College. She was getting a law degree from George Washington. She was cute," he says. "But she wants to work for the ACLU, and then I suggest banned her "

J0rdan S., Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:08 (seventeen years ago)

His friend John O'Keefe, 23, another conservative think-tank intern who might be out of a job after his internship ends in May, dismisses his liberal contemporaries. "The only thing they have are blogs. They feel like gods of our generation," he says

he is right, the only thing i have is my blog...and a job, unlike him lol

the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:12 (seventeen years ago)

lol

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:13 (seventeen years ago)

lolololz keep em comin

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:14 (seventeen years ago)

yeahyeah guy and how does a god feel?

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:15 (seventeen years ago)

y'know libertarians might actually be able to make some headway with 'millenials' if they expressed even a little concern for reproductive rights, separation of church & state, ridiculous drug laws and irresponsible and unethical foreign entaglements etc, rather than constantly frothing at the mouth with their free-market, anti-reg bitch-fits.

otherwise you're basically aligning yourself with dicks like Dustin ("only a little bit against gay marriage, but only a little, like 53 percent to 47") and Justin (formerly a "confidential assistant" in the White House's drug policy office) who nobody can fucking stand, probably not even their own mothers.

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:35 (seventeen years ago)

The most prominent libertarian bloggers I know, like Radley Balko and Jim Henley, talk about that stuff all the time! I don't think there's a more anti-drug-war person on the web than Balko. And Henley has been anti-Iraq-war from the beginning, as far as I remember. Ditto church/state issues.

The problem might be that the people you're calling "libertarians" here are actually what some bloggers call "glibertarians." They don't really have any principles aside from preserving existing power structures.

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:38 (seventeen years ago)

for a lot of libertarians being "libertarian" just means "young republican"

bobby dijindal (and what), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:39 (seventeen years ago)

^^^yeah i think this. i'm sure there are plenty of folks that have well-considered philosophical and policy arguments, i'm really just talkin about assholes you meet at lame parties & bars and stuff

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:44 (seventeen years ago)

folks who

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:46 (seventeen years ago)

plenty people who are politically 'libertarian' but who also ... just happen to be ... fundamentalist christians. (like say, ron paul.) which prevents them from being very good libertarians.

iatee, Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:51 (seventeen years ago)

libertarians are often just young republicans who are at least vaguely aware that it isn't cool to call yerself a republican. and this goes back to (at least) the clinton era -- it's nothing new.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:58 (seventeen years ago)

Wait so it's not just "I hate taxes and like weed" anymore, it's something even stupider?

Oilyrags, Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:59 (seventeen years ago)

dustin & justin are fucking everywhere

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:01 (seventeen years ago)

really though, 2 years ago it mighta been cooler to disassociate yourself with the republican party but calling yourself a libertarian TODAY is prolly even worse than calling yourself a republican. they really don't have a coherent free market response to the economic crisis. there's really nothing for them to say about anything. at all. it's always been easy to make fun of libertarians but this is prolly the golden era.

iatee, Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:01 (seventeen years ago)

actually, libertarians DO have something coherent to say about the economic crisis -- namely, let the banks go bankrupt, let the people upside-down on their mortgages get foreclosed, no bailout programs, etc. none of that is particularly POPULAR, but it isn't incoherent.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:03 (seventeen years ago)

libertarians are often just young republicans who are at least vaguely aware that it isn't cool to call yerself a republican. and this goes back to (at least) the clinton era -- it's nothing new.

― LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:58 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

tad otm

that old joe diffie classic (Curt1s Stephens), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:05 (seventeen years ago)

for a lot of libertarians being "libertarian" just means "young republican"

― bobby dijindal (and what), Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:39 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

u mean andtwat otm

bobby dijindal (and what), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:08 (seventeen years ago)

Anyway, getting back to making fun of Bobby Jindal, turns out he may not be entirely scrupulous in the truth-telling department:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/jindals_katrina_story_a_tall_tale.php

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:13 (seventeen years ago)

Meantime, Joe the Plumber, tribune of the people:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/02/26/PH2009022600120.jpg

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:46 (seventeen years ago)

He wore a gray long-sleeve undershirt and baggy jeans, and looked as if he just walked in from a construction site. Joe says he plans to work in construction (hello, stimulus package!) once his gig doing commentary for a conservative Web site runs out at the end of March. Plumbing? Not happening. "I show up on a plumbing job and the first thing someone's going to say is 'Joe the Plumber didn't do the job right,' " he said. "The next thing you know, it's on the national news. It would be naive to go back to it."

Wurzelbacher says he's still no fan of Obama, but confessed that he never liked McCain all that much, either. Nor has he cared for the politicians he's met on Capitol Hill. "Liars and thieves," he called them.

The only heat generated by Joe's appearance last night came when a young man named Jabari Zakiya recounted great moments in American racism (slavery, annihilation of Native Americans, segregation, etc.) and asked Wurzelbacher if the "hegemony" of the white man in America is "doomed" now that five states and the District of Columbia have majority minority populations.

Joe replied that he believes "our American heritage is being torn apart" by flag burners, critics of the military, and those who mock Christian values. He expressed his admiration for patriotic immigrants, and said he dislikes terms like African American and Asian American ("We're all Americans," he said). For some reason, he concluded by saying, "America has always been a kick-butt, take-names kind of country."

Wurzelbacher was scheduled to speak and sign books for three hours, but the Joe Show was over in 55 minutes. Total copies of "Joe the Plumber" sold: five.

But hey they'll love him at CPAC lemme tell ya!

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:47 (seventeen years ago)

Flag-burners?

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:49 (seventeen years ago)

Meanwhile that story is gold for this bit buried in the comments:

Eleven people showed up!
That's a huge crowd compared to what I saw on CSPAN2 10 years ago.
There was impeached & removed Arizona governor Evan Mecham, talking about his book & there wasn't a single person in the seats. At the end of his loony lecture, an apparent homeless guy wandered up & it looked like he was arguing with Mecham. The the publisher's flack came up and started to get Mecham out of there.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:50 (seventeen years ago)

Elsewhere:

STEELE: I love it. (inaudible)...some slum love out to my buddy, gov. Bobby Jindal is doing a friggin' awesome job in his state. He's really turned around on some core principles -- like hey, government ought not be corrupt. The good stuff...the easy stuff.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:54 (seventeen years ago)

i was gonna say ... other public enemy fans, who the hell would've remembered who evan mecham was even a decade ago?!?

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:56 (seventeen years ago)

uhh what xp

the powerful claw (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:57 (seventeen years ago)

"friggin' awesome"

who is this bozo

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:59 (seventeen years ago)

i know that insulting the intelligence of the average american voter has been the MO for the GOP for god knows how long, and hit a fever crescendo with sarah lol palin. but really -- "slum love"? "frigging"?!? this is some sub-high school shit.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 21:01 (seventeen years ago)

and speaking about idiots who insult everyone's intelligence on a daily basis ...

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Thursday, 26 February 2009 21:03 (seventeen years ago)

actually, libertarians DO have something coherent to say about the economic crisis -- namely, let the banks go bankrupt, let the people upside-down on their mortgages get foreclosed, no bailout programs, etc. none of that is particularly POPULAR, but it isn't incoherent.

I think to a pretty large degree it is incoherent! letting pretty much every large bank in the world collapse goes beyond 'unpopular opinion' - it's pretty much crazy person talk. this became even more true after everyone got to see the results of Paulson's experiment w/ lehman brothers.

iatee, Thursday, 26 February 2009 21:04 (seventeen years ago)

Asked to comment on Limbaugh’s statement, Joel Sawyer, Sanford’s Communications Director, said that “the governor was not referring to anyone” in particular when he said that anyone hoping for Obama to fail is an “idiot.” Rather, Sawyer said, Sanford was speaking “generically” and did not know that Limbaugh had previously said he hopes that Obama will fail.

Is today candyland day for laughing at morons?

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 21:05 (seventeen years ago)

truly a golden-age of political spectatorship right here. i hope somebody is writing a book on the post-'08 election Republican makeover and its fallout.

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Thursday, 26 February 2009 21:05 (seventeen years ago)

this cpac is.. something. gonna be a fun next couple of days

итало электро брейк (daria-g), Thursday, 26 February 2009 21:49 (seventeen years ago)

i take it you are there, Daria?

totally J

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Thursday, 26 February 2009 21:58 (seventeen years ago)

oh hell no! just following the news.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/02/john-bolton-cpac-benefits-nuking-chicago

итало электро брейк (daria-g), Thursday, 26 February 2009 22:31 (seventeen years ago)

Meantime, Joe the Plumber, tribune of the people:

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:46 (2 hours ago)

To be fair, that photo was taken in Washington DC, about the last place J the P is going to draw a crowd. Plus it was at Borders.

Bonobos in Paneradise (Hurting 2), Thursday, 26 February 2009 23:33 (seventeen years ago)

Cpac agenda bits posted over on other thread, too

kingfish, Thursday, 26 February 2009 23:46 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30860
I found someone making Slumdog Millionaire "jokes"...

urban-suburban hip-hop settings (hmmmm), Friday, 27 February 2009 00:57 (seventeen years ago)

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 27 February 2009 03:56 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/michele-bachmann-tells-mi_n_170426.html

“Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man,” she said.

iatee, Friday, 27 February 2009 04:20 (seventeen years ago)

You know, this whole day has been insane, now this.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 04:28 (seventeen years ago)

holy

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Friday, 27 February 2009 04:29 (seventeen years ago)

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k56/blogspotdog/027CongMichelleBachmann.jpg

JtM Is Ruled By A Black Man (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 27 February 2009 04:29 (seventeen years ago)

Been caught reading
Once
When she was forty-five.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 04:30 (seventeen years ago)

btw, how many continents could be populated by Pleasant Plains' ejaculate evry time the prez utters a sentence?

Dr Morbius, Friday, 27 February 2009 04:51 (seventeen years ago)

morbz the two people i know who resort most reliably to the "omg u ppl love obama he's ur messiah" line are you and a republican judge in tennessee. you should get a talk show together.

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Friday, 27 February 2009 05:18 (seventeen years ago)

<3 the Steele era sooo much

urban-suburban hip-hop settings (hmmmm), Friday, 27 February 2009 05:20 (seventeen years ago)

never before have so many republicans discussed race so awkwardly

urban-suburban hip-hop settings (hmmmm), Friday, 27 February 2009 05:23 (seventeen years ago)

actually tips, PP is an outlier around here.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 27 February 2009 05:24 (seventeen years ago)

what does that make you?

iatee, Friday, 27 February 2009 05:26 (seventeen years ago)

ok. i still think you should get a talk show with a southern republican judge.

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Friday, 27 February 2009 05:42 (seventeen years ago)

what should be the first week of topics?

kingfish, Friday, 27 February 2009 05:44 (seventeen years ago)

twinks vs bears

Bill Clinton being a rightwing motherfucker

Dr Morbius, Friday, 27 February 2009 05:53 (seventeen years ago)

btw, how many continents could be populated by Pleasant Plains' ejaculate evry time the prez utters a sentence?

Where in the fuck did that come from?

To answer your question, at least eight.

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Friday, 27 February 2009 06:08 (seventeen years ago)

back to easy layups:

"the values it’s intellectual leaders spent so long ignoring…"

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Friday, 27 February 2009 06:23 (seventeen years ago)

I like how Sodahead is nothing more than just another way to push talking points, only thru banner ads and "polls"

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CJ_0u6a97oKREBCgARjCBDIIANnVM-xKqQA

kingfish, Friday, 27 February 2009 06:34 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.thegopcomeback.com/

kingfish, Friday, 27 February 2009 06:55 (seventeen years ago)

still can't get enough of this dude

http://7.media.tumblr.com/7gSB5gka1kcyps125Q44GmWbo1_400.jpg

the powerful claw (J0rdan S.), Friday, 27 February 2009 07:48 (seventeen years ago)

he be da man

its gotta be HOOSy para steen (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 27 February 2009 07:56 (seventeen years ago)

we might have missed this one:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09007/940141-100.stm

McCain volunteer begins probation program for made-up story
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
By Daniel Malloy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The McCain campaign volunteer who falsely claimed a Barack Obama supporter carved the letter "B" into her face with a knife entered a probation program this morning...

kingfish, Friday, 27 February 2009 08:18 (seventeen years ago)

looool

Joe Biddden (The Reverend), Friday, 27 February 2009 08:28 (seventeen years ago)

i'm sorry PP, but when u said "everytime O does something AWESOME..." it was too much to resist.

btw I am cautiously non-pessimistic about some of the budget goals. (I know youre all relieved.)

Dr Morbius, Friday, 27 February 2009 14:30 (seventeen years ago)

I'm casually pessimistic about halving the deficit, or was Cheney right after all?

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 27 February 2009 14:36 (seventeen years ago)

lol racism:

LOS ALAMITOS, Calif. – The mayor of a small Southern California city says he will resign after being criticized for sharing an e-mail picture depicting the White House lawn planted with watermelons under the title "No Easter egg hunt this year."

Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose issued a statement Thursday saying he is sorry and will step down as mayor at Monday's City Council meeting.

Grose came under fire for sending the picture to what he called "a small group of friends." One of the recipients, a local businesswoman and city volunteer, publicly scolded the mayor for his actions.

Grose says he accepts that the e-mail was in poor taste and has affected his ability to lead the city. Grose said he didn't mean to offend anyone and claimed he was unaware of the racial stereotype linking black people with eating watermelons.

Located in Orange County, Los Alamitos is a 2 1/4-square-mile city of around 12,000 people.

If he was unaware of it, why would he have had any interest in or understanding of the photo in the first place? Also, dude looks like this:

http://www.grose-for-losalamitos.com/Dean.Wendy.Kody-058A.jpg

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 27 February 2009 14:39 (seventeen years ago)

My boss's assistant sent me that watermelon email a few weeks ago and that was finally the prompt I needed to tell her to take me off the list for her allegedly hilarious joeks.

WmC, Friday, 27 February 2009 14:44 (seventeen years ago)

Your boss' assistant should get shitcanned for that.

Please to whack hizzoner's face onto a Skipper body next to Jindal Gilligan.

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Friday, 27 February 2009 14:47 (seventeen years ago)

Speaking of Jindal, Ann Althouse is saddened at all your reactions and gently wishes to demonstrate your errors. Are you not persuaded?

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:02 (seventeen years ago)

"Both Obama and Jindal are at the geeky end of the spectrum among American politicians. "

You lost me there...

JtM Is Ruled By A Black Man (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:22 (seventeen years ago)

i'm sorry PP, but when u said "everytime O does something AWESOME..." it was too much to resist.

no problem, morbs. I was more like "what did I do this time?" after finding nothing in a CTRL+F search of this thread.

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:24 (seventeen years ago)

Via RH Reality Check, we learn that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton intends to name Michael Posner, the current president of Human Right First, as Assistant Secretary of State.

Posner has a 30-year history involved in human rights work, with a focus on refugees' rights, the protection of and justice for torture victims as well as strengthening accountability for war crimes. He also helped found the Fair Labor Association, which promotes corporate accountability for working conditions in the apparel industry.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/013927.html

schlump, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:35 (seventeen years ago)

Dennis Perrin writing a post right now about how this guy actually eats roast babies.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:38 (seventeen years ago)

holy shit

Tracer Hand, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:38 (seventeen years ago)

i mean, babies should only be eaten tartare imo

Tracer Hand, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:39 (seventeen years ago)

roasted Israeli babies.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:39 (seventeen years ago)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/27/senator-calls-obama-world%E2%80%99s-best-salesman-of-socialism/

lolz Huckabee calling Obama a Leninist/Stalinist

to the gulag with him!

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:44 (seventeen years ago)

DeMint, but anyway.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:46 (seventeen years ago)

Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, the only member of the senate to earn a perfect rating from the American Conservative Union,

I mean, there you go.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:46 (seventeen years ago)

His remarks comes a day after Mike Huckabee told the conference of conservative activists that “the Union of American Socialist Republics is being born” with the president’s stimulus package.

“Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff,” Huckabee said of the government bailing out financial institutions

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:46 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah, Lenin and Stalin sure were big fans of gigantic capitalist banking institutions.

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:47 (seventeen years ago)

Keep in mind that this is coming from the dude who wanted to send sick people to a remote island.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:48 (seventeen years ago)

Remember that time Stalin leant Russia's capitalist banks billions of dollars? Good times.

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:50 (seventeen years ago)

lolz x-post

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:50 (seventeen years ago)

but Stalin also ate babies tartare.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:55 (seventeen years ago)

he ate tatars tartare

mullah mangenius (brownie), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:56 (seventeen years ago)

remember the "affection" ILXors had for Huckabee a year ago?

Dr Morbius, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:57 (seventeen years ago)

um, no...? Guy's always been an entertaining bozo.

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:57 (seventeen years ago)

It's not our fault! We thought he was a Socialist! XP

Mordy, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:58 (seventeen years ago)

His bass lines were Peter Hook-style buttah.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 27 February 2009 16:58 (seventeen years ago)

What affection there was was rooted in watching Rush, Malkin etc. get mortally offended by his existence.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 17:01 (seventeen years ago)

and in the schadenfreude of watching conservatives moan when 25 years of courting the fundie base finally bit their fat asses.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:02 (seventeen years ago)

remember the "affection" ILXors had for Huckabee a year ago?

If you mean the "affection" where everyone said "he seems to be genuinely nice and certainly is genuinely charismatic, which makes the fact that he is batshit psycho insane even scarier", yes I do remember that.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:04 (seventeen years ago)

personally I was always a bigger fan of his son, the dog murderer

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:05 (seventeen years ago)

http://fromtheleft.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/071214_ps11huckabeejr_vm-vertical.jpg

^^psychoooooooo

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:06 (seventeen years ago)

http://cm1.theinsider.com/media/0/53/36/hucktyra.0.0.0x0.432x335.jpeg

kingfish, Friday, 27 February 2009 17:07 (seventeen years ago)

See? They're playing Gang of Four's "Damaged Goods."

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:08 (seventeen years ago)

They found that essence rare.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 17:09 (seventeen years ago)

actually, isn't it worse to the dennis perrins of the world to eat palestinian babies than israeli ones?!?

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:11 (seventeen years ago)

but do they love men in uniform?!?

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:11 (seventeen years ago)

I'm wondering which person on their staff had the presence of mind to give her a telecaster bass

kingfish, Friday, 27 February 2009 17:11 (seventeen years ago)

Fuck you guys for ruining my favorite song.

Oilyrags, Friday, 27 February 2009 17:13 (seventeen years ago)

george packer, on the GOP, quotes a surrendering confederate officer at appomatox: “You may forgive us, but we will not be forgiven. There is a rankle in our hearts of which you little dream. We hate you, sir.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2009/02/obama-swings-fo.html

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:19 (seventeen years ago)

that was the best thing in the inaugural! on the surface the same kind of statement as "they hate us for our freedoms" but really a total inversion of it.

― goole, Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:15 AM (2 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

way old but u are responding to a heated argument from table is the table, the dude who gets heated about 2 things, 1) capitalism and 2) minimal techno

deej da 5'9 (deej), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:19 (seventeen years ago)

also new yorker writers

max, Friday, 27 February 2009 17:21 (seventeen years ago)

they hate us for our m_nus

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:21 (seventeen years ago)

i dunno about anyone else, but i for one would love to hear an Obama speech with a Kompakt soundtrack.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:22 (seventeen years ago)

"I wanted to like Obama, I really did ... but when he failed to move the U.S. capital to Berlin ... I just couldnt take it any more."

deej da 5'9 (deej), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:23 (seventeen years ago)

Barack Obama wanted to get back to Chicago after law school FOR THE HOUSE MUSIC.

Let's just have Kevin Spacey play Huck in the movie and be done with it.

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:24 (seventeen years ago)

I've been hoping that Huckabee has been an extended performance art piece for some time now.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:25 (seventeen years ago)

i dunno about anyone else, but i for one would love to see a Mike Huckabee performance art piece accompanied by either Annie Sprinkle or Karen Finley.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:26 (seventeen years ago)

I... would not.

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:27 (seventeen years ago)

I still have the picture at home.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

― HI DERE, Monday, May 7, 2007 4:50 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:29 (seventeen years ago)

¿huckabee rim jobs - c/d?

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:32 (seventeen years ago)

newsbusters:

There ought to be republican tour of Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Michele Bachman where they can go out and energize the base.

'lop chalpagne (and what), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:37 (seventeen years ago)

“You may forgive us, but we will not be forgiven. There is a rankle in our hearts of which you little dream. We hate you, sir. PS, we have no intentions of winning another election, ever. Have fun!”

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:39 (seventeen years ago)

There ought to be republican tour of Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Michele Bachman where they can go out and energize the base.

omg plz plz plz plz plz do this

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:42 (seventeen years ago)

you be da man

'lop chalpagne (and what), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:43 (seventeen years ago)

it'll be the Reagraham Lincool skit, brought to life.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:44 (seventeen years ago)

so proud of my homegirl michele right now

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:44 (seventeen years ago)

There ought to be republican tour of Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Michele Bachman where they can go out and energize the base.

i'm thinking 'VH1 Series'

kingfish, Friday, 27 February 2009 17:49 (seventeen years ago)

OH YES PLZ

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:50 (seventeen years ago)

they should add custos, then they'd get the mood exactly right.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:51 (seventeen years ago)

so apparently combat in iraq will end by august 2010 dudes

deej da 5'9 (deej), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:53 (seventeen years ago)

well at least with americans around it will

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:55 (seventeen years ago)

what about combat for Iraqi hearts and minds?

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:00 (seventeen years ago)

What should they use as a theme song for this series?

kingfish, Friday, 27 February 2009 18:04 (seventeen years ago)

Skee-Lo, "I Wish"

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 18:09 (seventeen years ago)

aw don't ruin Skee-Lo like that

anyway it should be Michael Jackson's "They Don't Care About Us"

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:11 (seventeen years ago)

Fuck that "Let the Eagle Soar"

Oilyrags, Friday, 27 February 2009 18:12 (seventeen years ago)

There ya go, have John Ashcroft be the opening act.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 18:12 (seventeen years ago)

Not jaunty enough. You have a packed RV full of headcases, a bizarro "Comedians of Comedy" tour if you will. Needs jauntiness.

kingfish, Friday, 27 February 2009 18:13 (seventeen years ago)

lyrics like "Jew me/Sue me/Everybody do me/Kick me/Kike me" will even appeal to their core constituents.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:14 (seventeen years ago)

god having michelle bachman representing my state is so humiliating.

sterns county syndrome!

The Notorious B.Y.O.B. (M@tt He1ges0n), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:16 (seventeen years ago)

TNC offers up an idea:

Distinguished Officials for Proper Ebonics

27 Feb 2009 10:00 am
Michael Steele's message to America:

We know the past, we know we did wrong. My bad.

Michele Bachman, professional fool, on Michael Steele:

"Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man,"

This. Must. Stop.

I'm here to announce the formation of DOPE (Distinguished Officials for Proper Ebonics) whose sole mission will be to prevent such abominable phrases as "You be da man." We have sat quietly by, during the era "Oh no she din't" and "Women, be shopping." We have endured the apostasy of Stuart Scott. ("Holla at a player if you see him in the streets!"). We can no longer be silent. The war is on.

And as one of the comments reminds me, some of these guys must have taken that one episode of the Office to heart; the scene where Darryl starts giving Michael new slang to use.

kingfish, Friday, 27 February 2009 18:20 (seventeen years ago)

not sure if this is the correct thread to mention this, but James Dobson resigns as Focus on the Family chair.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:21 (seventeen years ago)

the hits just keep on comin', as it were.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:21 (seventeen years ago)

aw cheer up matt, we have intentional lols on our side

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/06/post_1.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18443.html

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:23 (seventeen years ago)

Whelp, that was quick:

Remember that story Bobby Jindal told in his big speech Tuesday night -- about how during Katrina, he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a local sheriff who was battling government red tape to try to rescue stranded victims?

Turns out it wasn't actually, you know, true.

In the last few days, first Daily Kos, and then TPMmuckraker, raised serious questions about the story, based in part on the fact that no news reports we could find place Jindal in the affected area at the specific time at issue.

Jindal had described being in the office of Sheriff Harry Lee "during Katrina," and hearing him yelling into the phone at a government bureaucrat who was refusing to let him send volunteer boats out to rescue stranded storm victims, because they didn't have the necessary permits. Jindal said he told Lee, "that's ridiculous," prompting Lee to tell the bureaucrat that the rescue effort would go ahead and he or she could arrest both Lee and Jindal.

But now, a Jindal spokeswoman has admitted to Politico that in reality, Jindal overheard Lee talking about the episode to someone else by phone "days later." The spokeswoman said she thought Lee, who died in 2007, was being interviewed about the incident at the time.

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:32 (seventeen years ago)

After the dinner McCarthy, told Politico he knew he was in trouble following Klobuchar. "When she was finished, Tom Pryce emailed me and said 'What are you going to do now?' And then I thought, 'my last joke is about the clap!'"

see why didn't he use that, that is hysterical

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:36 (seventeen years ago)

^^^dead men tell no contradictory tales, eh jindal?

Dan, incidentally a dance remix cover moderne of Sex Shooter is playing on Radio 1 right now...

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:37 (seventeen years ago)

so apparently combat in iraq will end by august 2010 dudes

― deej da 5'9 (deej), Friday, February 27, 2009 5:53 PM (43 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

well at least with americans around it will

― cindy (goole), Friday, February 27, 2009 5:55 PM

except for the 30-50,000 "advisors."

Dr Morbius, Friday, 27 February 2009 18:39 (seventeen years ago)

he did!

klobuchar's transcript:

http://blogs.twincities.com/politics/2009/02/sen_klobuchara_transcript_of_t.html

it's not like real comedy funny but for corny politics bs its pretty lolzy

xp morbs they will only be armed with pillows and daffodils

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:40 (seventeen years ago)

he did!

i mean, mccarthy did go with the clap joke

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:41 (seventeen years ago)

I gotta wonder how that phonecall between Dubya and Obama about withdrawing from Iraq went

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:42 (seventeen years ago)

and sweets

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED II

XxP

Dr Morbius, Friday, 27 February 2009 18:42 (seventeen years ago)

uh sorry dan my reading comprehension is off at the moment

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:43 (seventeen years ago)

Now, Washington DC is such a crazy place it is very different from Minnesota.

After seeing all those black limos at the inauguration I realize I went from the gopher state to the chauffeur state.

klobuchar for sec'y of dadjoeks

'lop chalpagne (and what), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:44 (seventeen years ago)

all killer dadjoeks imo

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:44 (seventeen years ago)

Since this is your night off, I’ll do the reporting and fill you in on what a few of our friends have been up to.

Hillary Clinton is of course Secretary of State and she is currently brokering a ceasefire between Caroline Kennedy and David Patterson.

Chris Dodd has been working on helping homeowners get rid of their unwanted homes that they can’t afford. Like that house he bought in Iowa. I tried that joke on him too.

And John Edwards is still talking about two Americas, which apparently is the greatest pickup line in history.

Now we have a new president. And he’s our first wired president. He is never without his Blackberry. Although like many Americans I look forward to a colorblind society when we can just call it a Berry.

Ok, oh come on you guys, I’m only like five minutes into this speech, it is still shorter than a Joe Biden sound bite.

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:45 (seventeen years ago)

― cindy (goole),

is this a shot at somebodys ex like when jess was "katie quirk" for a year

'lop chalpagne (and what), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:48 (seventeen years ago)

"There is Rick Warren, his hair looks messy in this photograph. And this is what happens if you have offended every gay stylist in the United States of America."

WIN: Klobuchar. I have all kinds of fond for her dad too.

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:49 (seventeen years ago)

uh sorry dan my reading comprehension is off at the moment

haha I was gonna say!

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:51 (seventeen years ago)

e i know u love that story but no! it's from that passive aggressive notes thread and i kind of forgot about it

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:59 (seventeen years ago)

Latest Gallup poll: Obama gets post-speech bump. The real shock? GOP support jumps to 42 percent.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 27 February 2009 20:08 (seventeen years ago)

For a second I'm all 'wait, support *for* the GOP jumped to 42 percent?'

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 20:10 (seventeen years ago)

jumps to 42% from 27%! wau

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 20:27 (seventeen years ago)

Meanwhile, the story going around some blog comments is apparently at one of these 'Tea Party' things happening today somebody got the crowd to all agree they were 'teabaggers.' Needless to say, video proof or it didn't happen but here's hoping.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 20:29 (seventeen years ago)

oh man

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 20:30 (seventeen years ago)

Possible source of the story -- less roffly than I would have hoped on the teabagging front but on the 'look at our overwhelming numbers!' level, a source of joy.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 20:35 (seventeen years ago)

Check out the new standard-bearer for the conservative moment:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/27/jonathan-krohn-13-year-ol_n_170642.html

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Friday, 27 February 2009 22:32 (seventeen years ago)

He talks fast and with high-pitched emotion (no cracking of the voice), often banging his two fists against the table (each one holding a pen) for dramatic effect.

uh

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 22:37 (seventeen years ago)

Krohn's Disease.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 22:39 (seventeen years ago)

although from Ned's link:

This lady was nice enough to raise her hand when I said "Raise your hands if you're tea bagging!"

lololol

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 22:39 (seventeen years ago)

"He came up to me, grabbed my hand, and shook it," said Joe the Plumber.

Lucky him.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 22:40 (seventeen years ago)

What did he expect the kid to do? Come up to him, grab his hand, then wet himself and scream "MOMMY THE GREATNESS BURNS ME"?

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 22:41 (seventeen years ago)

"He came up to me, grabbed my penis, and shook it," said Joe the Plumber.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 27 February 2009 22:41 (seventeen years ago)

okay no

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 22:42 (seventeen years ago)

"He came up to me, grabbed my hand, and shook it," said Joe the Plumber. "If I didn't know any better I would say he was 30 years old. He definitely has a great confidence about him. I enjoyed talking with him.... He's definitely sharp."

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 22:43 (seventeen years ago)

^^ in a movement stocked to the brim with creepy manboys like tucker carlson and ralph reed you can't really blame this on joe wurtzelbacher being a dunce

cindy (goole), Friday, 27 February 2009 22:44 (seventeen years ago)

The future of the conservative movement presented himself on Friday, and he was 13.

wait, you mean this ISN'T TUcker Carlson?

Comic Book Morbius (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 February 2009 22:48 (seventeen years ago)

>>"I listened to Bill Bennett and tons of other talk show hosts... I listened to him every morning from 6 to 9 for, oh, years."

What parent has their (I'm guessing home-schooled) kid listening to endless hours of rant radio?

Dan Peterson, Friday, 27 February 2009 22:50 (seventeen years ago)

>>"I listened to Bill Bennett and tons of other talk show hosts... I listened to him every morning from 6 to 9 for, oh, years."

What parent has their (I'm guessing home-schooled) kid listening to endless hours of rant radio?

yeah, that's only slightly less cruel than speaking to your child in Klingon only.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 27 February 2009 22:57 (seventeen years ago)

just getting around to reading Klobuchar's transcript, some pretty good jokes/zings in there

But I love our lakes. And it was great to take Barack Obama to campaign in Minnesota. Because with 10,000 lakes he had plenty of water to walk on.

This room has the greatest, the most thorough, the most hard working, most brilliant reporters in the world, all of whom were scooped on the John Edwards story by the National Enquirer.
<--- super A+ on this one

Instead you asked me and a rising star in the Republican Party, Kevin McCarthy, who like every other rising star in the Republican Party must have once been on the short list for GOP vice president. How do you go home and tell your wife that it didn’t work out. “Honey I was on the short list for vice president but they didn’t think I was as qualified as Sarah Palin.”

Ok, now we have next, Aretha’s hat. Ok, now if you look carefully at this photo, and this is a new development, I know there has been a lot written about the hat, but the hat is actually larger than George Bush. And it was a tough choice for the organizers: Should they let in 50,000 more people or let in the hat? They went with the hat.
<--- lol

Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 23:05 (seventeen years ago)

That whole Klobuchar speech pretty much rules. STORM!

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Friday, 27 February 2009 23:26 (seventeen years ago)

Wait, I might have missed it; have we made a 'Black Steele in the Hour of Chaos' joke on this thread yet?

kingfish, Saturday, 28 February 2009 00:14 (seventeen years ago)

No! Nice work, you be da man etc.

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Saturday, 28 February 2009 00:16 (seventeen years ago)

No credit for me, thanks. Joke already made on at least two other forums...

kingfish, Saturday, 28 February 2009 00:18 (seventeen years ago)

Lyrics are here, I'm too tired to satirize them....

http://www.publicenemy.com/index.php?page=page5&item=9&num=51

Choom Gang Gang Dance (suzy), Saturday, 28 February 2009 00:19 (seventeen years ago)

and, apparently, every other forum.

kingfish, Saturday, 28 February 2009 00:20 (seventeen years ago)

Cspan will be broadcasting Rush Limbaugh's address at CPAC later tonight at 8pm EST, I think.

So, have fun with that.

kingfish, Saturday, 28 February 2009 18:34 (seventeen years ago)

lolll

z-hongro (J0rdan S.), Saturday, 28 February 2009 18:57 (seventeen years ago)

That's odd, nothing about ice skating.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 28 February 2009 19:14 (seventeen years ago)

Meanwhile, Cspan has been broadcasting from the 'State of the Black Union' at the L.A. Convention Center.

The panel they just had was excellent. I'm trying to find vid of Michael Eric Dyson just tearing it up. One of the things he said which stuck with me was "They've called him 'marxist,' they've called him 'socialist,' but since January 21st, they've called him 'President'"

kingfish, Saturday, 28 February 2009 19:50 (seventeen years ago)

And the next panel coming up will have Al Shaprton AND Michael Steele(i.t.H.o.C.)

Meanwhile, 30 minutes of Michelle Malkin! (really!)

(online feed)

kingfish, Saturday, 28 February 2009 19:59 (seventeen years ago)

one year ago:

oh lol, senator clinton: "As far as I know" Obama is not a Muslim.

― Clay, Monday, March 3, 2008 2:50 AM (1 year ago) Bookmark

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 07:46 (seventeen years ago)

(not posting that as a swipe at hilz per se, it's just sort of amazing how much can happen in a year.)

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 07:48 (seventeen years ago)

that bullshit was absolutely infuriating. she did no such thing. though it reminds me, a year ago, it was so called progressives/democrats who distorted her comments, shamelessly & deliberately, and did everything they could to drive the phony story. no words, really. i'm supposed to consider huffpo, talking points memo, olbermann etc as progressive allies, but when the subject is hillary, they instantly turn into the drudge report. burn the witch

anyway.

I actually revived this thread to post this story because it is fantastic and hilarious:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2009/03/the_wizards_fan_who_talked_tra.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/rawlsobama4.jpg

итало электро брейк (daria-g), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 22:20 (seventeen years ago)

hahaha this guy! for real
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/rawlsobama1.jpg

итало электро брейк (daria-g), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 22:22 (seventeen years ago)

i love that guy.

and i wasn't trying to restart any obama-hillary stuff, i just got curious what was going on a year ago and called up the old thread. how things change.

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 23:06 (seventeen years ago)

You're talking about the guy in the prez seal T-shirt, no?

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 23:07 (seventeen years ago)

holy shit:

http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry

kingfish, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 02:56 (seventeen years ago)

O_O

ilx has drained my soul (The Reverend), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 03:12 (seventeen years ago)

Wonder when they first thought that up.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 03:12 (seventeen years ago)

ayyyo

burt_stanton and ernie (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 03:14 (seventeen years ago)

rush limblol

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 03:34 (seventeen years ago)

dems feelin feisty.

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 04:10 (seventeen years ago)

Meanwhile, Meghan McCain has not found love.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 04:20 (seventeen years ago)

I don’t want to see my father’s picture near any picture of a guy I am attracted to, especially if we haven’t even had dinner yet.

this is the first time i have ever had sympathy for meghan mccain.

One extreme fan of my mother’s recently told me I could be “his Cindy.” And then asked me if I ever wore pearls because they probably would look as good on me as they do on my mother. No, I'm not kidding. Any guy that has a fetish for older women in pantsuits and large pearls obviously only finds my last name attractive about me.

and this is the second time.

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 05:04 (seventeen years ago)

sticking this here b/c w/ever:

http://www.badpaintingsofbarackobama.com/

kingfish, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 08:20 (seventeen years ago)

Gordon BRown such a dork :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/mar/03/gordon-brown-usa1

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: I've enjoyed every conversation that we've had, both on the telephone and when we've met. I don't think I could ever compete with you at basketball -- perhaps tennis.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Tennis, I hear you got a game.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Yes, we could maybe have a --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We haven't tried it yet.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: I don't know if you -- I think you'd be better. But there we are. He writes better than I do as well, he's clearly a better father than I am and he certainly lasts longer than I do in bed. I wish he was MY president too.

speaking as a mwahahahaha (Upt0eleven), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 12:56 (seventeen years ago)

Looking for Mr. Far Right

Henry Frog (Frogman Henry), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 13:25 (seventeen years ago)

It’s like someone taking Lisa Marie Presley out on a date and singing “Hound Dog” in the middle of dinner.

I think Nicholas Cage did this.

2nd-place ladyboy (Nicole), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 13:54 (seventeen years ago)

And at one point, Obama seemed about to touch the prime minister on the arm, and instead let his fingers hover an inch or two above Brown's sleeve.

born_stuntin (rent), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 14:10 (seventeen years ago)

Still the ultrageek:

Now, Mr. Obama is surrounded by telephones. There is a large, gray Raytheon phone — programmed with speed dial buttons to most of his top aides (from “Senior Advisor Axelrod” to the “CIA Director”) — in nearly each room of the White House. He also has one in his office aboard Air Force One. And, Mr. Gibbs said, the president was particularly impressed by the many phones inside the presidential limousine.

“He thinks the coolest thing about this,” Mr. Gibbs said, “is that you can pick up the phone and say, ‘I need to reach so and so,’ and a minute later, the phone rings and they are on the line.”

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 15:59 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.privateline.com/TelephoneHistory5/information_operators.jpg

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 16:04 (seventeen years ago)

omg that apology thing

One of the Most High Profile Comedy Directors of the 90s (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 16:21 (seventeen years ago)

Gordon Brown has told the US Congress that the partnership between the UK and the US is "unbreakable" and that "no power on earth can ever draw us apart".

If Obama wanted to bomb say, Sutton Coldfield, just for "RONG"s, I'd be okay with that.

speaking as a mwahahahaha (Upt0eleven), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 16:28 (seventeen years ago)

I'd rather he bomb Coldplay.

2nd-place ladyboy (Nicole), Wednesday, 4 March 2009 16:29 (seventeen years ago)

I can't remember a more active President at this early stage of his term (can't really recall Reagan's first 50 days, tho I'm old enough to). The stimulus package, deciding to shut down Gitmo, reversing Bush's position on how to treat alleged "enemy combatants," the foreclosure plan, disclosing some Bush Admin. legal memos, unveiling a budget that represents some fundamental progressive shifts, now a major overhaul of the government contracting process (which was horribly abused under the Bush Admin.), and -- aside from the policy stuff -- Obama seems to be everywhere at once, speaking to Congress and at events across the country. By contrast, and with two possible exceptions (the run-up to the Iraq War and the effort to privatize Social Security), I thought of Bush as being in Washington, running things top-down. I mean, I know Bush liked to bypass the "media filters" to "speak directly to the people," but I thought of that as mostly him using right-wing media figures to pass along his views.

It feels like Obama's running the Presidency like a very effective community organizer.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:00 (seventeen years ago)

But the governor of Alaska said that was a bad thing.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:05 (seventeen years ago)

It's awesome to see Obama govern as he said he would, with the policies he said would. It's especially awesome given the "can we trust him?" chatter in the primary period.

Euler, Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:07 (seventeen years ago)

But the governor of Alaska said that was a bad thing.

She did. OTOH, she's an idiot.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:09 (seventeen years ago)

What I like is how his MO is 'Remember that thing I promised in the campaign? Well, here it is.'

We Need To Talk About Kevin Smith (suzy), Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:11 (seventeen years ago)

Well, from all I've read, Reagan was just this active (he had splendid relations with Congress because, as Tip O'Neil remarked, "we've seen more of the President in one month than Carter in four years"), and had economic necessity as a catalyst. A fiscal crisis gives the Executive a stronger mandate.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:15 (seventeen years ago)

Interestingly, tho, Reagan's activity was to go against his campaign promises. He fought the recession by raising taxes. I think later, when things stabalized, he went back to tax cuts.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:18 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah, the old bugger raised taxes several times, passed under the radar using Orwellian titles.

I'm pleased with the flurry of activity emanating from the White House (especially on the health care front), but I'm really skeptical about our ability to pay for it.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 March 2009 14:22 (seventeen years ago)

Alfred, do you recall whether Reagan's 1982 tax increase was (a) merely a partial rollback of his earlier tax cuts (n.1) or (b) an increase to levels above those in place when he took office?

______________________________
(n.1) Again, I vaguely remember him cutting -- then increasing -- taxes, all early in his first term.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:48 (seventeen years ago)

Kind of shitty that Yahoo is running Politico articles like this one as the featured story on their homepage.

Eazy, Friday, 6 March 2009 03:50 (seventeen years ago)

Alfred, do you recall whether Reagan's 1982 tax increase was (a) merely a partial rollback of his earlier tax cuts (n.1) or (b) an increase to levels above those in place when he took office?

The top tax rate never -- has never -- returned to its pre-1981 levels. As far as the tax increases, the OMB cleverly turned them into payroll taxes.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 March 2009 03:56 (seventeen years ago)

this six-year-old Washington Monthly article talks about the Reagan tax increases (as well as the other occasions when Reagan didn't act like the Limbaughesque caricature that some Republicans think that he was)

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 6 March 2009 15:23 (seventeen years ago)

which isn't to say that reagan was a stealth liberal (he wasn't), that he'd have a better handle on what's going on now than Obama or anyone else (he wouldn't -- the S&L crisis [a mini-version of our present shitstorm] started under his watch and was left to Bush, Sr. to clean up after), or that one doesn't have legitimate beefs with his administration (they do).

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Friday, 6 March 2009 15:26 (seventeen years ago)

The Lou Cannon biography is exemplary.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 March 2009 15:31 (seventeen years ago)

this slate article is a great antidote for idiots who bitch about tax increases
http://www.slate.com/id/2213029/

kamerad, Friday, 6 March 2009 15:34 (seventeen years ago)

A transcript of an interview with Obama yesterday.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 7 March 2009 21:31 (seventeen years ago)

If these deluded ideologues want to dump their portfolios, I'm more than willing to buy the stocks they're pounding, thus transferring future wealth from douchebags to me.

M.V., Sunday, 8 March 2009 03:16 (seventeen years ago)

haha "future wealth"

iatee, Sunday, 8 March 2009 03:31 (seventeen years ago)

Daniel Esq & Euler's droling lapdoggism is mega-deluded.

Dr Morbius, Sunday, 8 March 2009 07:57 (seventeen years ago)

drOoling, obv. more on the 101st day.

Dr Morbius, Sunday, 8 March 2009 07:58 (seventeen years ago)

Yes, you've obviously been saving yourself 'til then.

kingfish, Sunday, 8 March 2009 08:00 (seventeen years ago)

uh huh.

Dr Morbius, Sunday, 8 March 2009 08:06 (seventeen years ago)

woof. At least I'm droll about it.

Euler, Sunday, 8 March 2009 14:38 (seventeen years ago)

also not sure how what I've said lately counts at lapdoggery. Maybe that I'm impressed at how Obama has done what he said he'd do? That's a pretty low standard for lapdoggery methinks.

Euler, Sunday, 8 March 2009 14:39 (seventeen years ago)

"remember how I kept mum on whether I'd continue Bush policy on detainees and rendition? Well..."

Dr Morbius, Sunday, 8 March 2009 14:56 (seventeen years ago)

I'm under the impression that this hasn't been finalized yet. Also the Bush policy was pretty far-reaching, and in order to satisfy your characterization, all he'd have to do was discontinue parts of the Clinton-Bush rendition policy, like e.g. sending people to Egypt to be tortured, and obv. not torturing them ourselves. I dunno, does it make me complicit in the moral evil of America to think US agents can apprehend on foreign soil people against whom we have firm evidence that will be fully aired in a public trial? I'd say no. It gets grey when the government of that nation disapprove, but provided the evidence is public, I'm inclined to think this is ok.

Euler, Sunday, 8 March 2009 15:03 (seventeen years ago)

Morbs. Come on. Obviously we all want Bush and his whackers to be tried but the idea has to gather force outside of people who are to the left of Obama and that momentum is just not there yet, so it's not just his fault. Also a case has to be built out of incontrovertible facts and how can you be sure those are not being gathered?

We Need To Talk About Kevin Smith (suzy), Sunday, 8 March 2009 15:08 (seventeen years ago)

Besides, John Conyers is out there quietly gathering evidence, as the NYT reported this week.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 8 March 2009 15:20 (seventeen years ago)

I feel like there was this notion (though I may be overreading it) that if a Democratic took the White House there'd be a ton of evidence just lying around the Oval Office that would indict Bush immediately for all sorts of things. So there may be some disappointment that this Disney conclusion hasn't quite come to pass.

Mordy, Sunday, 8 March 2009 15:21 (seventeen years ago)

Well, there IS tons of evidence! But why would a Chief Executive refuse some of the superpowers that Bush bequeathed to his successors? Therein lies the problem.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 8 March 2009 15:27 (seventeen years ago)

Seems to me that there'd be more power value in sending your predecessor to jail, possibly destroying the minority party, and guaranteeing the 2012 elections (and all the associated bargaining power that comes along with) than just maintaining Bush's Executive Privileges. But I'm willing to be wrong about that.

Mordy, Sunday, 8 March 2009 15:29 (seventeen years ago)

Given that 'the minority party' still got 60 million votes in the 2008 presidential election, I don't think destroying it should be paramount. Of course I hope the Congress pursues whatever evidence they have against Bush-administration malfeasance, of which I suppose there's ample. But let the aim be the good of America rather than settling scores or ensuring the future dominance of another political party which is full of corruption as well.

Euler, Sunday, 8 March 2009 15:37 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah -- political parties aren't "destroyed."

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 8 March 2009 15:38 (seventeen years ago)

XP I'm just saying that if you're reading ulterior power-hungry motives into Obama's hiding evidence that would result in Bush being indicted... you might as well go all the way?

Mordy, Sunday, 8 March 2009 15:40 (seventeen years ago)

There are people who ask for the impossible, because they live to be disappointed.

M.V., Sunday, 8 March 2009 16:07 (seventeen years ago)

^YES. Unfortunately we have a situation where the FBI is reporting a ridiculous rise in the level and vitriol of hate groups who want to do evil things to Obama and FISA helps catch the fuckers, which is an unintended consequence for sure... ::makes 'weighing up' gesture::

We Need To Talk About Kevin Smith (suzy), Sunday, 8 March 2009 16:35 (seventeen years ago)

Daniel Esq & Euler's droling lapdoggism is mega-deluded.

lol.

Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 8 March 2009 19:27 (seventeen years ago)

the imaginary etymology of "droling" is killing me right now

been HOOS, where yyyou steene!? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 8 March 2009 20:39 (seventeen years ago)

"neologism combining the terms for dry wit, unmodulated voice & a lack of social graces & motor skills"

been HOOS, where yyyou steene!? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Sunday, 8 March 2009 20:40 (seventeen years ago)

Droling, you know, like this mf:

http://www.exclaim.ca/images/up-steven_wright_lg.jpg

Euler, Sunday, 8 March 2009 20:41 (seventeen years ago)

if you're reading ulterior power-hungry motives into Obama's hiding evidence that would result in Bush being indicted

People will just never get it.

Dr Morbius, Monday, 9 March 2009 00:02 (seventeen years ago)

We get that you're a snide asshole when it comes to politics.

Wes HI DEREson (HI DERE), Monday, 9 March 2009 00:09 (seventeen years ago)

just when it comes to refusing to put my tongue... NEVAH MIND

I think I'm gonna give you good Amerikans 1,000 days.

Dr Morbius, Monday, 9 March 2009 00:16 (seventeen years ago)

more like ameriKKKans right

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Monday, 9 March 2009 00:17 (seventeen years ago)

oh maxiepaws

Dr Morbius, Monday, 9 March 2009 00:20 (seventeen years ago)

Prezzes are much more like Mafia dons than Grand Wizards

anyway turnin on the WBC

Dr Morbius, Monday, 9 March 2009 00:22 (seventeen years ago)

People will never get it.

Dr. Morbius gets it.

Therefore . . .

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Monday, 9 March 2009 00:24 (seventeen years ago)

the Pope shits in the woods.

Dr Morbius, Monday, 9 March 2009 00:27 (seventeen years ago)

drO_oling lapdogs

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Monday, 9 March 2009 00:34 (seventeen years ago)

http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/JumpTheShark.jpg

Terius (The Reverend), Monday, 9 March 2009 00:36 (seventeen years ago)

is that obama or morbz?

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Monday, 9 March 2009 00:40 (seventeen years ago)

Lookit his thighs!

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 March 2009 00:43 (seventeen years ago)

morbs

Terius (The Reverend), Monday, 9 March 2009 00:45 (seventeen years ago)

I think I'm gonna give you good Amerikans 1,000 days.

That's generous.

Daniel, Esq., Monday, 9 March 2009 01:16 (seventeen years ago)

People will just never get it.

Morbius, you argue like ...NEVAH MIND.

M.V., Monday, 9 March 2009 02:46 (seventeen years ago)

If you ever actually made an argument as opposed to snide, orthoganol statements veiled in MYSTERY and dripping with enough self-satisfied smugness to make Tom Cruise pause, I might have the slightest interestin what your opinion was. Since you don't and, more to the point, you won't, fuck off.

Wes HI DEREson (HI DERE), Monday, 9 March 2009 04:25 (seventeen years ago)

J0hn D and the table is the table have also expressed misgivings from the left re: Obama and no one wants them to to gag on their rhetoric; just you. You are worse than anyone else on these threads because you feel absolutely no need to justify your viewpoint; all you want to do is gloat and feel superior as to how much more enlightened you are. We get it, you're fucking amazing. Kudos to you. Go away.

Wes HI DEREson (HI DERE), Monday, 9 March 2009 04:27 (seventeen years ago)

Morbius would like you to know that you misspelled orthogoNEVAH MIND.

M.V., Monday, 9 March 2009 04:55 (seventeen years ago)

snide, orthoganol statements veiled in MYSTERY and dripping with enough self-satisfied smugness to make Tom Cruise pause

You know , personally I can't detect this alleged "mystery" (which I might actually admire were I to detect any), only gnomism and a free-floating sense of grievance. The latter is slightly touching but extremely irritating, and its manifestations are so predictable they could as well be computer generated.

M.V., Monday, 9 March 2009 05:08 (seventeen years ago)

http://images.dawgsports.com/images/admin/Nicholson_closeup_A_Few_Good_Men.jpg

The number of suggest bans required to send ILXors to the corn field (stevie), Monday, 9 March 2009 09:10 (seventeen years ago)

i like morbs's contributions to politics threads

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Monday, 9 March 2009 10:12 (seventeen years ago)

you could always just not read them!

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Monday, 9 March 2009 10:12 (seventeen years ago)

We need an emoticon for eyeball-rolling.

We Need To Talk About Kevin Smith (suzy), Monday, 9 March 2009 10:38 (seventeen years ago)

yer always a snide fucking asshole, chorister. May you enjoy your dissent-free zone.

Dr Morbius, Monday, 9 March 2009 10:57 (seventeen years ago)

http://linked2leadership.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/drunk-on-power6.jpg

Dr Morbius, Monday, 9 March 2009 11:03 (seventeen years ago)

Morbs, sweetie, take a chill pill: I wasn't talking about you. And who still drinks Absolut anyway?

We Need To Talk About Kevin Smith (suzy), Monday, 9 March 2009 11:11 (seventeen years ago)

That was to me and basically proves that Morbius is so fucking full of himself that he doesn't see or understand that I don't give two shots
about "dissent".

Wes HI DEREson (HI DERE), Monday, 9 March 2009 11:48 (seventeen years ago)

Dr. Morbius you know you & I are nearer the same side of a lot of questions than you and, say, others, but do you see how you're accusing Dan of not brooking dissent as a sort of "stop telling me what you think" move, and how that's not really in line with your values? He didn't threaten to ban you, he didn't hint at any use of "power." He told you what he thought, and it made you mad. How is telling somebody you think they're talking like an asshole a drunk-on-power move? It isn't.

J0hn D and the table is the table have also expressed misgivings from the left re: Obama and no one wants them to to gag on their rhetoric

in fairness Dan I got told to stfu a lot (often with good reason but sometimes not) & I usually get increased tips from the customers when I offer to gag on rhetoric, my own or theirs

Cindy Sherman I'm Your #1 Fan (J0hn D.), Monday, 9 March 2009 12:25 (seventeen years ago)

haha I hate typing ON IPHONE

All I want, Morbius, is for you to state, without sneering hyperbole and with factual backup, instances where Obama reneges on his campaign promises. Your pithy one-liners would actually be worth something if there was more to them than "look, I'm clever and I hate American politics!" (yes yes very rich coming from me, I'm fully aware of the contradiction)

Wes HI DEREson (HI DERE), Monday, 9 March 2009 12:50 (seventeen years ago)

meanwhile, an NY Times reporter asked him "are you a socialist?" and he answered kinda boilerplate at first but then sent this completely awesome addendum:


Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter. It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question. I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn't on my watch. And it wasn't on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement - the prescription drug plan without a source of funding. And so I think it's important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we've actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word socialist around can't say the same.

Cindy Sherman I'm Your #1 Fan (J0hn D.), Monday, 9 March 2009 13:04 (seventeen years ago)

also, ty President Obama for my new screen name

Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter (J0hn D.), Monday, 9 March 2009 13:06 (seventeen years ago)

As I was getting on the copter = l'esprit de l'escalier FOR TODAY.

We Need To Talk About Kevin Smith (suzy), Monday, 9 March 2009 13:12 (seventeen years ago)

suzy, I didn't know you had any power, not directed @you.

Life's too short to do detailed arguments here (for mine, mix Chomsky & Rev Wright, shake well).

and Bam blew up his Iraq withdrawal schedule already (yeah, I know it came with a bullshit loophole caveats). As I didn't vote for him in November, you know how I feel about his "promises."

Dr Morbius, Monday, 9 March 2009 14:59 (seventeen years ago)

no we don't please tell us

Mr. Que, Monday, 9 March 2009 15:05 (seventeen years ago)

hah I didn't think I had power but I did feel like I was being called a chorister of something or other.

We Need To Talk About Kevin Smith (suzy), Monday, 9 March 2009 15:19 (seventeen years ago)

morbs i think the problem here is, on one hand, a lot of people who voted for obama with their eyes open and a reluctant but realistic sense of what can be accomplished in the basically corrupt and distorted american political process -- with all the expectations of disappointment, compromise and failures of vision and nerve that implies -- and on the other hand, you pointing out over and over that obama is not in fact a golden unicorn who poops diamonds. there might be a couple people around here who were expecting diamond poop, i don't know, but i don't think there are many, and so you tend to look like you're mostly setting strawmen on fire.

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Monday, 9 March 2009 16:05 (seventeen years ago)

and if your point is just, "the game is rigged and i refuse to play," i think that's a respectable position. but it sort of leaves the actual dirty work of governing up to whoever comes along. which i think is why a lot of people choose to get invested in the system one way or another.

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Monday, 9 March 2009 16:09 (seventeen years ago)

Morbs' problem is, like Limbaugh and my mother, he assumes that people on this board voted for Hope and Change instead of for the candidate who best addressed their concerns. Posters trying to whitewash Obama's record here are rare!

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 March 2009 16:13 (seventeen years ago)

w/in those built-in limits, he could do lots better. I do believe it.

Dr Morbius, Monday, 9 March 2009 16:15 (seventeen years ago)

i agree! get rid of geithner and summers, for a start. but he could also do lots worse.

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Monday, 9 March 2009 16:16 (seventeen years ago)

He should nationalize the banks already. Is that WWI proviso on which FDR relied still legal?

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 March 2009 16:19 (seventeen years ago)

^^^seems inevitable at this point

One of the Most High Profile Comedy Directors of the 90s (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 9 March 2009 16:21 (seventeen years ago)

The problem for me with deciding what to do about the banks is that I suspect I don't understand finance well enough. That's true of our political class generally (including the mainstream national media), I think---and the few who do understand it well enough, have had their allegiance bought, implicitly or explicitly, by Wall Street.

Our political turgidity depends on a populace of economically under-informed people like me. I should try to learn how e.g. derivatives work. The problem would be how to get a profile high enough to make a difference---without having been co-opted by Wall Street and thus afforded business-class "authority", I wouldn't be taken seriously by enough people to make a difference, I fear.

Euler, Monday, 9 March 2009 16:32 (seventeen years ago)

Thanks to Tipsy for the new user name.

a golden unicorn who poops diamonds (EZ Snappin), Monday, 9 March 2009 16:33 (seventeen years ago)

The problem for me with deciding what to do about the banks is that I suspect I don't understand finance well enough.

I've been looking for a few good articles explaining, in straightforward language, the options for bank nationalization and/or conservatorship, and what the various options mean. If anyone's found any useful articles along those lines, please link them.

Daniel, Esq., Monday, 9 March 2009 16:37 (seventeen years ago)

(I know there's a ton of materials to sift through on this, but most of the articles I've seen haven't been as helpful as I'd hoped).

Daniel, Esq., Monday, 9 March 2009 16:38 (seventeen years ago)

Yes, as I read about this, I get the nagging suspicion that few know what they're talking about. The ones who do are keeping their mouths shut (to keep their wallets open).

Euler, Monday, 9 March 2009 16:39 (seventeen years ago)

Our political turgidity depends on a populace of economically under-informed people like me. I should try to learn how e.g. derivatives work. The problem would be how to get a profile high enough to make a difference---without having been co-opted by Wall Street and thus afforded business-class "authority", I wouldn't be taken seriously by enough people to make a difference, I fear.

don't be so sure that those that you think are "in the know" really ARE. there was an awful lot of "plug and play" going on along Wall Street regarding derivatives -- and even Bernanke himself at one point acknowledged that he wasn't (initially) very knowledgeable about derivatives, CDOs, etc.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Monday, 9 March 2009 16:42 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah, that's terrifying. I want to say: we should avoid resting the economic health of the nation (and world) on financial instruments our political leaders don't (can't?) understand. Isn't that common-sensical? But then a lot of people made a lot of money under this political neglect since the late 90s, and it's hard to resist that, I guess.

Euler, Monday, 9 March 2009 16:46 (seventeen years ago)

Derivatives--which function like risk purée-ers-- actually exacerbate the risk they purport to ameliorate. Averaging out the risk of default throughout the entire world financial system my seem like what re-insurers do, but old-style insurers and re-insurers, as callous as this sounds, are sort of protected from truly catastrophic loss contractually and because they have the the option of declaring force majeure.

M.V., Monday, 9 March 2009 18:15 (seventeen years ago)

I've been looking for a few good articles explaining, in straightforward language, the options for bank nationalization and/or conservatorship, and what the various options mean.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=375

I found this very helpful in explaining the options simply.

Event Horizon (Nicole), Monday, 9 March 2009 18:18 (seventeen years ago)

yes, that episode was great

WmC, Monday, 9 March 2009 18:21 (seventeen years ago)

Thanks, Nicole. I'll listen to it tonight (even better if I can download it to my iPod; we'll see if (a) it's possible and (b) if so, whether I'm tech-savvy enough to figure it out).

Daniel, Esq., Monday, 9 March 2009 18:23 (seventeen years ago)

I wanted to just mention that I personally need to learn a lot more of finance, from the personal to the national to even basic economics. Part of the kicker, tho, is that since I got laid off on thursday, my hesitancy to approach these subjects has exploded.

I fear that learning about how fucked we truly are on this planet will just drive my personal anxiety level(why just be morbid when you can be co-morbid?) into like 6000 rpm and the engine will blow up and we'll have catastrophic system failure. Heh. This is kinda like why I haven't been able to watch an ep of "Frontline" from about Nov 2004 onwards.

Part of the other thing is about the guys running this mess on the upper bank level tend to be of a certain personality type(Jim Cramer's onscreen persona IRL) where they're powered by 1) ego and 2) massive piles of blow, and steps taken to fix and even rewire this mess won't work because douchebags still have enough power to fuck it all up again.

In other news, it just started snowing again. Hooray.

kingfish, Monday, 9 March 2009 22:11 (seventeen years ago)

good luck usa

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Monday, 9 March 2009 22:13 (seventeen years ago)

first, sympathies about the layoff, kingfish. that sucks.

second, as far as figuring out what's going on, at least in one important corner of the clusterfuck, josh marshall has a good post about the catch-22 of dealing with the zombies.

paper plans (tipsy mothra), Monday, 9 March 2009 22:24 (seventeen years ago)

I'm sorry Kingfish.

been HOOS, where yyyou steene!? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Monday, 9 March 2009 22:36 (seventeen years ago)

Very sorry to hear about the layoff, Kingfish.

That's an interesting article, Tipsy (tho my questions focus on the "toxic assets" side of the issue). I wonder if it works like a garden-variety bankruptcy when a bank fails. That is, are assets -- e.g., the bank's investments, real estate seized via foreclosure, the right to foreclose on various properties if the debtor doesn't timely repay the loan -- gathered and sold "at the courthouse steps" with the stakeholders taking in the normal order (creditors, then shareholders (not sure where depositors above the 250k federal guarantee fit into that equasion)).

Daniel, Esq., Monday, 9 March 2009 22:50 (seventeen years ago)

Very sorry to hear this.

M.V., Tuesday, 10 March 2009 00:48 (seventeen years ago)

Re: Nationalization. Here's a 40-minute discussion on NPR with Simon Johnson (former Chief Economist of the IMF and a professor of Entrepreneurship at the Sloan School of Management at MIT) that's apparently pretty informative.

Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 10 March 2009 01:06 (seventeen years ago)

freeman out.

mas how i break it down tuo an extent (goole), Tuesday, 10 March 2009 21:12 (seventeen years ago)

because of a jewish conspiracy? http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/exiting-chas-fr.html

The Reverend, Wednesday, 11 March 2009 04:05 (seventeen years ago)

holy hell

czech blastcore and superHOOS culture (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 04:31 (seventeen years ago)

Thanks again, Nicole, for linking to that episode of This American Life. I just listened to it. It was very helpful. And sobering. The snippet that grabbed me most -- and it's something I've heard before, but didn't come alive for me until this radio show -- is how the sharp upward trajectory of consumer debt reached 100% of GDP in 2007 like it did only at one prior point in history: 1929. There's a bunch of interesting analysis of whether the "twin peaks" theory is right, BTW. In any event, it's frightening.

I still have lots of questions, such as how the government would "cleanse a bank of its toxic-assets" during a nationalized phase (i.e., before re-privatizing it). I mean, if I understand the idea of nationalization, the government swoops in, resolves the problems on the liabilities side of a bank's asset sheet, and takes over the bank (to greatly oversimplify, the government would say to Bank X: "Your assets are worth 50% of their booked value; we'll invest enough capital so you can cover your depositors and other creditors, in exchange for (temporary) ownership of the bank"). So now the government owns the bank, which in turn owns all these toxic assets. How do they deal with them any differently than the private bank did? How do they "cleanse the bank" of those assets more efficiently/successfully than the private bank?

That's a nice global economy you've got there . . . I'd be a shame if something should happen to it.

Scary.

Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 11 March 2009 10:02 (seventeen years ago)

BTW, the group website Simon Johnson contributes to -- The Baseline Scenario -- is another great resource on the financial crisis. In particular, check out the Financial Crisis for Beginners page.

Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 11 March 2009 11:48 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/10/freeman/

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 13:36 (seventeen years ago)

yeah Rev, recognizing that Likudnik lobbyists & their acolytes frame US public dialogue on Israel is not belief in "a jewish conspiracy."

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 11 March 2009 13:49 (seventeen years ago)

^OTM.

We Need To Talk About Kevin Smith (suzy), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 14:59 (seventeen years ago)

morbs.....otm?

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 15:00 (seventeen years ago)

It happens.

We Need To Talk About Kevin Smith (suzy), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 15:01 (seventeen years ago)

Charles Schumer, Likudist in Chief.

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 15:11 (seventeen years ago)

I wish NY had a senator.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 11 March 2009 15:18 (seventeen years ago)

right morbs, maybe I should have put up a big "LOLOLOL this be a j03k" signpost to warn all comers, but I thought the wry question mark sufficed

as per diddy's twitter (The Reverend), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 16:38 (seventeen years ago)

and meanwhile, one of my state's senators was holding up the omnibus spending bill because he still has a hard-on over "punishing" Fidel Castro.

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 18:58 (seventeen years ago)

i.e., you can take Bob Menendez outta [the muck that is] Hudson County, NJ; but you can't take the Hudson County, NJ outta Bob Menendez ...

LOLBJ (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 19:02 (seventeen years ago)

Menendez is one of the few Dems the Cubans here consider a hero (guess my senator Bill Nelson joined them).

The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 19:07 (seventeen years ago)

sorry Rev, things haven't been the same since I started looking at board at 7 a.m.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 11 March 2009 19:09 (seventeen years ago)

ay, np, just your coffee on I guess

as per diddy's twitter (The Reverend), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 20:43 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah in case it wasn't immediately clear I was "holy hell"ing at the article itself, not Freeman.

czech blastcore and superHOOS culture (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 21:13 (seventeen years ago)

House of cards continues to fall, Good Luck USA!

WASHINGTON - The federal agency that insures bank deposits, which is asking for emergency powers to borrow up to $500 billion to take over failed banks, is facing a potential major shortfall in part because it collected no insurance premiums from most banks from 1996 to 2006.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures deposits up to $250,000, tried for years to get congressional authority to collect the premiums in case of a looming crisis. But Congress believed that the fund was so well-capitalized - and that bank failures were so infrequent - that there was no need to collect the premiums for a decade, according to banking officials and analysts.

Now with 25 banks having failed last year, 17 so far this year, and many more expected in the coming months, the FDIC has proposed large new premiums for banks at the very time when many can least afford to pay. The agency collected $3 billion in the fees last year and has proposed collecting up to $27 billion this year, prompting an outcry from some banks that say it will force them to raise consumer fees and curtail lending.

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 23:25 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/uploaded_images/Head%20in%20Hands.jpg

as per diddy's twitter (The Reverend), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 23:39 (seventeen years ago)

I hope Alan Greenspan falls and breaks his hip soon.

Alex in SF, Wednesday, 11 March 2009 23:41 (seventeen years ago)

awesome.

czech blastcore and superHOOS culture (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 23:42 (seventeen years ago)

that FDIC thing was reported last week where ya been

One of the Most High Profile Comedy Directors of the 90s (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 March 2009 23:51 (seventeen years ago)

Sick with sinusitis, THANKS FOR ASKING!

:)

lolling through my bagel (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 12 March 2009 00:08 (seventeen years ago)

uhoh

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Thursday, 12 March 2009 01:09 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,612684,00.html

A German frozen food company hopes to raise sales with a new product: Obama fingers. The tender, fried chicken bits come with a tasty curry sauce. The company says it was unaware of the possible racist overtones of the product...

kingfish, Thursday, 12 March 2009 09:37 (seventeen years ago)

change has come to washington
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123688875576610955.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter (J0hn D.), Thursday, 12 March 2009 21:32 (seventeen years ago)

"We're having a repeat of what Democrats bitterly complained about under President Bush," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R, Pa.), who drafted legislation to nullify Mr. Bush's signing statements. He added that if Mr. Obama "wants to pick a fight, Congress has plenty of authority to retaliate."

lol tough guy

Euler, Thursday, 12 March 2009 21:37 (seventeen years ago)

The company says it was unaware of the possible racist overtones of the product...

Between this and the mayor in California who sent around the watermelon cartoon, this sentence is fast becoming my favorite rong disclaimer of the year.

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Thursday, 12 March 2009 21:41 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/more-rights-claimed-for-detainees/

The Obama Administration, taking its first position in a federal court on claims of torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, urged the D.C. Circuit Court on Thursday to reject a lawsuit by four Britons formerly held there. In addition, the new filing argued that a recent appeals court ruling makes clear that “aliens held at Guantanamo do not have due process rights.”

Moreover, the document called for a sweeping ban on lawsuits against U.S. military officials, claiming constitutional violations by such officials. Allowing such lawsuits “for actions taken with respect to aliens during wartime,” it said, “would enmesh the courts in military, national security, and foreign affairs matters that are the exclusive province of the political branches.”

too many misters not enough sisters (milo z), Friday, 13 March 2009 18:49 (seventeen years ago)

FDIC thing is hilarious because someone defended it as "well, FDIC was well-funded, so there was no reason to demand premiums."

"So if Allstate was in the black last year, there's no reason for me to pay my auto premium this year?" was met with a blank stare.

too many misters not enough sisters (milo z), Friday, 13 March 2009 18:50 (seventeen years ago)

yeah my wife (an insurance broker) saw that and said "what kind of facachta insurance plan doesn't collect premiums"?

One of the Most High Profile Comedy Directors of the 90s (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 13 March 2009 18:53 (seventeen years ago)

JD abolishes enemy combatant designation

One of the Most High Profile Comedy Directors of the 90s (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 13 March 2009 20:06 (seventeen years ago)

four weeks pass...

greenwald, tpm, on obama and secrecy:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/09/tpm/index.html

doesn't look good. not sure what to do about this one, as a citizen. i voted for the right guy, wtf?

goole, Friday, 10 April 2009 00:58 (sixteen years ago)

the fact that not only greenwald, but TPM is on it.. well, it's a start. josh marshall was one of the lead people who helped torpedo bush's attempts to privatize social security back in 04, and he uncovered the firing of us attorneys scandal as well (bush justice department.. politicizing the judiciary system..). it even showed up on olbermann's show as the top story (i'm rather stunned that he's criticizing obama for anything, but i hold a grudge against him and don't watch his show, maybe he does have some integrity). so, that's something.

i'm not sure what next although i expect the blogs will make more noise about it. greenwald mentions 'civil libertarians' vaguely, not sure who that may be and if they're organized (just ACLU?) what also interests me in that regard is, jane hamsher (@ firedoglake) suggested just today that rahm emanuel in particular, how he rolls is - liberal interest groups are real hesitant to push back against the obama administration on issues that matter to them, b/c all it takes is rahm calling a big donor & their funding is cut & they are in deep shit.

the shep (shepard smith ha ha) (daria-g), Friday, 10 April 2009 02:39 (sixteen years ago)

It's contemptible, and I hope the blogs keep up the pressure.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 April 2009 02:44 (sixteen years ago)

incredible.

Kerm, Friday, 10 April 2009 14:28 (sixteen years ago)

Lame.

Although I can't say I really expected the genie to be shoved back into the bottle. This is the kind of extension of power that, if not immediately aggressively curbed by the other branches of gov't, tends to get quickly enshrined as standard practice.

This Board is a Prison on Planet Bullshit (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 April 2009 15:31 (sixteen years ago)

I have to admit that I was upset watching CNN give serious time to "Obama Critics Cry Fascism" until I realized the whole piece was devoted to mocking Beck et al.

HOOS talking about magic & spells & steen dude! (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 10 April 2009 21:14 (sixteen years ago)

Rove also said few presidents would spend a long time with anybody in the Oval Office, particularly "with all due respect, a blowhard like Joe Biden."

HOOS talking about magic & spells & steen dude! (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 10 April 2009 21:16 (sixteen years ago)

its funny to me that Rove and Cheney don't seem to realize that the more they open their mouths, the better it is for Obama. Too concerned with protecting their "legacy" I guess. meanwhile, Bush is sucking down brewskis and makin the lecture circuit, nary a care in the world...

This Board is a Prison on Planet Bullshit (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 April 2009 21:18 (sixteen years ago)

it seems like that whole story makes Rove look worse for bitching about it rather than Biden, but what do I know, I'm pretty biased

Mr. Que, Friday, 10 April 2009 21:21 (sixteen years ago)

"You should not exaggerate and lie like this when you are the vice president of the United States.”

lolz so true

I can't even process the layers of irony with these clowns anymore

This Board is a Prison on Planet Bullshit (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 April 2009 21:48 (sixteen years ago)

wait wait tell me again about the links between Al Qaeda and Sadaam that shit never gets old. I hear there was a meeting in Prague or something?

This Board is a Prison on Planet Bullshit (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 April 2009 21:48 (sixteen years ago)

On the Media on Bam's state secrets bullshit:

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/04/10/01

clearing my throat for what Gore V described as the sweetness of "I told you so..."

Dr Morbius, Sunday, 12 April 2009 14:17 (sixteen years ago)

torture memos coming out today

goole, Thursday, 16 April 2009 20:38 (sixteen years ago)

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/obama_releasing_four_torture_memos.php

goole, Thursday, 16 April 2009 20:38 (sixteen years ago)

But that is not what compelled the release of these legal documents today. While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

ie "you're gonna have to trust me". ehhh

goole, Thursday, 16 April 2009 20:40 (sixteen years ago)

Hooray!

Then, naturally, there's this:

Obama Will Release CIA Interrogation Memos [Andy McCarthy]

A terrible decision, pushed for aggressively by AG Eric Holder. NYTimes has details, here. Holder's press release, which suggests that the interrogators are in fact guilty of torture ("'The President has halted the use of the interrogation techniques described in these opinions, and this administration has made clear from day one that it will not condone torture,' said Attorney General Eric Holder.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 16 April 2009 20:43 (sixteen years ago)

bbbut--!

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

goole, Thursday, 16 April 2009 20:50 (sixteen years ago)

releasing these memos is an obvious bid to build up the political capital/credibility he will need to draw on when he needs to defend questionable, secretive actions in the future

Pre-Beatles Yoko Ono (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 April 2009 20:51 (sixteen years ago)

yes.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 16 April 2009 21:10 (sixteen years ago)

Fun:

"the use of waterboarding constitutes a threat of imminent death," but is nonethless permissible and legal because it does not result in "prolonged mental harm."

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 16 April 2009 21:17 (sixteen years ago)

I am curious what Dr. Morbius makes of the right-wing "Obama is a socialist" meme.

M.V., Thursday, 16 April 2009 21:30 (sixteen years ago)

I'm not.

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Thursday, 16 April 2009 21:34 (sixteen years ago)

Morbs would say "President Obama: Eugene V. Debs was a friend of mine, and you are no Eugene V. Debs..."

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Thursday, 16 April 2009 21:36 (sixteen years ago)

Obama is a socialist

Obama isn't a socialist.

He's a fascist.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 16 April 2009 21:37 (sixteen years ago)

he's both actually

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c582a53ef01156f2c4403970c-pi

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:44 (sixteen years ago)

that one in the middle makes my head hurt

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:44 (sixteen years ago)

nazis, commies what's the difference amirite? lolz

shit was shocking as fuck back then (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:45 (sixteen years ago)

it's been a longstanding meme on the right that the nazis weren't right-wing at all

goole, Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:46 (sixteen years ago)

liberal fascism :D

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:47 (sixteen years ago)

Yah rilly, I mean, they were called national -socialists- after all

kingfish, Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:50 (sixteen years ago)

hey did you know 'nazi' means 'national SOCIALISM'?

xp lawl

goole, Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:50 (sixteen years ago)

"OMG Obama is HItler! And Stalin! He's some kind of Stitler!"

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:51 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.ugo.com/versus/images/characters/gallery_Steve_Stifler_1.jpg

goole, Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:52 (sixteen years ago)

^ we on a wavelength or some shit dogg no lie

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:54 (sixteen years ago)

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/2033916.jpg

OK, fine, yes, I Goggled it (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:54 (sixteen years ago)

stifler-actors looks like one of the marionettes from that America World Police movie

Dr. Phil thinks only four boys can put out that burning fire. (stevie), Friday, 17 April 2009 07:26 (sixteen years ago)

“It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America "

Nice little dog, Holder, nice dog!

Shut up with "meme," but what I think of "O is a socialist" is the same as "the Clintons are socialists." The sound of heads speaking from rectums. Also, "if only."

Dr Morbius, Friday, 17 April 2009 12:08 (sixteen years ago)

"time for reflection, not retribution"

Kiss my ass you slick lying hustler

Dr Morbius, Friday, 17 April 2009 12:27 (sixteen years ago)

Shut up with "meme,"

― Dr Morbius, Friday, April 17, 2009 7:08 AM

I'll shut up with "meme" if you'll shut up with all the other words.

M.V., Friday, 17 April 2009 15:29 (sixteen years ago)

lol

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 17 April 2009 17:09 (sixteen years ago)

hoos did you really lol at that

Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter (J0hn D.), Friday, 17 April 2009 17:14 (sixteen years ago)

i did!

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 17 April 2009 17:14 (sixteen years ago)

I did too!

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 April 2009 17:15 (sixteen years ago)

well all right

Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter (J0hn D.), Friday, 17 April 2009 17:15 (sixteen years ago)

well I never learn, huh.

how many of you Bam devotees are still positive he's gonna punish SOMEBODY from the Bush era? maybe in the second term, right?

Dr Morbius, Friday, 17 April 2009 23:34 (sixteen years ago)

i don't think he will. or at least, he'll leave it to congress, meaning, nothing will happen.

he seems to have john brennan yammering in his ear about a full-on spook revolt within CIA and seems to be more worried about that than anything

goole, Friday, 17 April 2009 23:43 (sixteen years ago)

Panetta didn't want the memos released -- great appointment.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 17 April 2009 23:48 (sixteen years ago)

The memos got released: Panetta's not the president.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 18 April 2009 00:12 (sixteen years ago)

thx for clearin that up

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 18 April 2009 00:15 (sixteen years ago)

no worries

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 18 April 2009 00:38 (sixteen years ago)

Obama's going to govern from the center. The USA is still about 25% ultra-right crazies. There just aren't that many wobblies out there. Conclusion: the center is waaaaay too far right to satisfy Morbius. I'm not feeling anything remotely like a warm sense of satisfaction, yet, either, but I don't feel like heaping vitriol on Obama for a political climate he cannot control, but can only influence.

If O makes any headway on partly socializing health care, or even untangling some part of the unholy mess it has become, he will be doing more people more good than any president since LBJ, the baby-killer.

otoh, if even one Bush admin official gets indicted for one crime, I will be both astonished and mildly gratified. Real, deep, lasting satisfaction just isn't in the cards, sadly.

Aimless, Saturday, 18 April 2009 02:29 (sixteen years ago)

I would personally take universal health care over 1000 Bush admins in prison.

iatee, Saturday, 18 April 2009 02:31 (sixteen years ago)

The USA is still about 25% ultra-right crazies.

fuck yeah, this.

Dr Bob Altemeyer's early-mid '00s studies about current rightwing authoritarian followers in America still hold, as there's always a mix of between a fourth and a fifth of the voting population would happily march us into a totalitarian dictatorship and think everything was better for it. Thus Dubya's approval ratings, thus the '04 voter turnout for Alan Keyes running against the guy currently in power. Shit, thus even Nixon's final approval ratings, right as he quit.

We've always had a certain segment of loons, and we always will.

One thing I am happy about O in power is that even when he does shit that I/we/everybody ain't happy with, I feel reassured that most of the dudes he put into place can be influenced to go in even a slightly better direction. Fuck, even if we can only put just enough English on each particular shot to alter its trajectory by 5 degrees, it's a big ass improvement for everybody stuck on this stupid planet from even before this messageboard existed.

kingfish, Saturday, 18 April 2009 02:49 (sixteen years ago)

Obama's going to govern from the center. The USA is still about 25% ultra-right crazies. There just aren't that many wobblies out there. Conclusion: the center is waaaaay too far right to satisfy Morbius. . . . I don't feel like heaping vitriol on Obama for a political climate he cannot control, but can only influence.

Exactly right. To be fair, I think Obama's going to move the country considerably to the left on certain issues, while appearing to govern from the center (mostly as to his economic and domestic agenda). But on issues like this, Obama can only move incrementally and you have to also consider the prevailing climate:

All of that said, what really disturbs me about all of this, is that most Americans still don't think torture is a big deal. I think in the case of Bush, particularly after 2004, we--the American people--got the government we deserved. I think Bush said a lot about who we were post-9/11. I'd like to see some exploration into how to make this torture argument directly to the people. Maybe we can't. Maybe people really don't care that much. But if we're wondering why Obama isn't willing to press forward, I think it's fair to also wonder why the people aren't pressing him to press forward.

Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 18 April 2009 03:03 (sixteen years ago)

Increments just mean we get chainsaw-fucked slower.

I would personally take universal health care over 1000 Bush admins in prison.

You're not getting either.

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 18 April 2009 07:27 (sixteen years ago)

hoos did you really lol at that

― Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter (J0hn D.)

Poets=tough crowd.

M.V., Saturday, 18 April 2009 16:11 (sixteen years ago)

You are right on both counts, morbs. We are being chainsaw fucked -- and we won't get universal health care, either. But you are too long on anger and blame, and too short on practical remedies. Just saying what is right is weak beer, if you don't say how to get from here to there.

For the sake of argument, let us say that Obama gets religion and decides that he, alone, will put the brakes on coroporate abuse of power, the military-industrial comlpex and quasi-facist politics. It can't be done alone unless he assumes dictatorial powers and tosses out the constitution. So, he does. Morbs cheers him on!

The country would explode. The armed forces would step in. He'd be toast in 48 hours.

Alternatively, Obama stays within the constitution and steps up to accomplish all this. The bought-and-paid-for Congress would kill him. The carefully-crafted conservative courts would crucify him. The media attack machine would stonewall his message, distort his every word, and scream for his blood 24 hours a day. He would accomplish nothing, but spinning his wheels.

So, what works better?

Aimless, Saturday, 18 April 2009 16:53 (sixteen years ago)

You misunderstand me. The corruption is endemic in the system. The Big Boys paid for Obama's election. There will be no significant campaign finance reform, so there will be no real CHANGE.

I'm too old for fairy tales. We just have to hope he's the least damaging Michael Corleone possible.

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 18 April 2009 17:20 (sixteen years ago)

Dr. Morbius can complain, but I'd much rather see him organize, or at least participate in, a movement of Americans to force Obama's decisions. If he really wants socialism, it'll only happen from the ground up. Otherwise he's just holding out for a hero to take care of his problems for him. No wonder, then, that that's what he accuses Obama supporters of doing.

Euler, Saturday, 18 April 2009 17:21 (sixteen years ago)

It can't be done alone unless he assumes dictatorial powers and tosses out the constitution.

Who's asking him to do it alone? What's that wonderful progressive Democratic Party for? You know, the principled opposition to bigoted teabaggers!

Socialism will never come to America, it's anathema, and like that obnoxious Ferris Bueller, I don't believe in isms.

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 18 April 2009 17:24 (sixteen years ago)

i've never seen this Reynolds person before, but it's basically the gagfree version of Matthew McC's Dazed & Confused loser.

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 18 April 2009 17:25 (sixteen years ago)

You misunderstand me.

I think not. But you tell me.

What I see from your numerous comments is that you've spent a lot of time and energy coming to an understanding of the problem. You have also spent sufficient time and energy defining to yourself what you want that would be better than what we have now. But I see roughly zero time or energy spent figuring out how to solve the problem or how to get any small piece of what you would prefer.

This is not an uncommon position, but I always find it puzzling. It is not apathy, per se, but a kind of immobilized frustration that has to be doing damage to you the longer you stay there. Try doing something. You'll feel better.

We just have to hope he's the least damaging Michael Corleone possible.

It is good to see you've finally bought into the Obama message of hope, morbs.

Aimless, Saturday, 18 April 2009 17:47 (sixteen years ago)

Hope is the thing with oil-slicked feathers

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 18 April 2009 17:54 (sixteen years ago)

I could be bounded in a nutshell and account myself the king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.

Aimless, Saturday, 18 April 2009 18:07 (sixteen years ago)

$100 million in cuts? Is that so we're guaranteed an attainable goal?

Kerm, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 18:08 (sixteen years ago)

I would love $100 million. Think of all the cheeseburgers I can buy.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 April 2009 18:14 (sixteen years ago)

at ten dollars a cheeseburger, we're talking 10 million cheeseburgers

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Tuesday, 21 April 2009 18:22 (sixteen years ago)

socialism already has come to america, ever hear of rural electrification cooperatives?

open up a cat of whup-ass (dan m), Tuesday, 21 April 2009 18:24 (sixteen years ago)

In Texas they call that "the chair."

Kerm, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 18:25 (sixteen years ago)

lol u guys and your zings, so funny!

open up a cat of whup-ass (dan m), Tuesday, 21 April 2009 18:27 (sixteen years ago)

However much they try to pillory the $100M in cuts as completely insufficient, which it is in some respects, it's still more than W tried.

The possibility that someone might be prosecuted for the torture committed is intriguing.

Le présent se dégrade, d'abord en histoire, puis en (Michael White), Tuesday, 21 April 2009 18:27 (sixteen years ago)

wait wait wait I want to hear some more Morbz zings about Obama leaving the door open for Bush prosecutions re: torture cuz its makin headlines today

shit was shocking as fuck back then (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 April 2009 18:30 (sixteen years ago)

More than W tried to... what?

Kerm, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 18:36 (sixteen years ago)

http://content.archives.newyorker.com/djvu/Conde%20Nast/New%20Yorker/2009_04_27/webimages/page0000001_1.jpg

suggest bánh mi (suzy), Wednesday, 22 April 2009 06:12 (sixteen years ago)

this is kind of awesome

shit was shocking as fuck back then (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 22 April 2009 23:05 (sixteen years ago)

There is much to consider here:

"When Lehman Brothers collapsed in the fall, I knew pretty much straight away the campaign was finished," Schmidt confessed to an auditorium full of college students. When the number of people who thought the country was on the right track "dropped to 5 percent and the economy collapsed, I knew that was not going to be survivable for us."

The confessions were just beginning.

On the Bush-Cheney drag: "The first night of our convention was President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I literally thought by the second night of our convention we could be down 25 points."

On Katie Couric's interview of Sarah Palin: "That is one of the two most consequential interviews that a candidate for national office has given, in a negative way, the other being Roger Mudd's interview of Ted Kennedy . . . when he couldn't answer the question of why he wanted to be president."

On McCain's acceptance of inevitable defeat: "I was waiting for his bus to crash into a CDC truck carrying bubonic plague to release over Cincinnati and Ohio. It was just one thing after another, you know, and never to our benefit."

On the Republican Party: "It is near-extinct in many ways in the Northeast, it is extinct in many ways on the West Coast, and it is endangered in the Mountain West, increasingly endangered in the Southwest . . . and if you look at the state of the party, it is a shrinking entity."

...

Both politicos, in calm reflection, told the 400 students what they had refused to acknowledge last fall: that they both knew months before Election Day that Obama had it locked up.

Schmidt spoke openly of McCain's reluctant choice of Palin after hopes of running with former Democrat Joe Lieberman were scuttled by the right, which threatened a convention floor fight. "That would have had the effect of blowing up the Republican Party," he said, "and when you look at all the challenges we had during the 2008 election cycle, blowing up the party wasn't one of the menu items of things that were going to improve our situation."

Schmidt expanded on his earlier support for same-sex civil unions ("I believe people are born with their sexuality"), joked about the GOP leadership vacuum ("this 'Lord of the Flies' period"), mocked the party's presidential strategy ("Hold the South and we'll spend $80 million trying to flip Ohio") and celebrated Obama's "once-in-a-generation" political skills ("This was, in my view, the unfinished Bobby Kennedy campaign").

He willingly accepted responsibility for denying Palin the right to speak on election night, because "if you lose, the concession speech is a singular moment" that "acknowledges the legitimacy of the victory and refreshes, if you will, the constitutional order."

Whatever that fluid was on the stage, the Obama administration may want to bottle it. Schmidt even tossed the president laurels for his first months in office. "As a political proposition, his first 100 days have been successful," he said. "His approval rating is in the 60s, there has been dramatic improvement in the 'right track' number, he's had success . . . at passing legislation, and the Republican Party as a matter of reality in the first 100 days has not done anything to improve its political condition."

Ned Raggett, Friday, 24 April 2009 03:40 (sixteen years ago)

That Palin concession speech (or rather nonspeech) bit has already caused raised eyebrows at Balloon Juice and elsewhere. Ben Smith's Politico piece provides a bit more context:

He also explained his decision to deny Palin an election night speech as a nod to the fact that the concession is a “singular moment” in American public life.

“It begins the process by which power is transferred peacefully,” he said.

Hmmm.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 24 April 2009 03:43 (sixteen years ago)

Meantime, another interview with Obama for Morbz to complain about, doubtless. Also, his current reading:

At the end of our conversation, when I asked him if he was reading anything good, he said he had become sick enough of briefing books to begin reading a novel in the evenings — “Netherland,” by Joseph O’Neill

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 14:24 (sixteen years ago)

Obama seems very tired and unfocused tonight.

WmC, Thursday, 30 April 2009 00:36 (sixteen years ago)

Interesting, so far I've read a lot of chatter that he's actually pretty on game.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 30 April 2009 00:37 (sixteen years ago)

I am very tired of and unfocused on him. Turned on lopsided Yankee game.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 30 April 2009 00:54 (sixteen years ago)

cnn giving grades on the "national report card"

wait, there is a solution to this: don't watch it. why didn't i think of this before?

reche caldwell O_O (daria-g), Thursday, 30 April 2009 01:02 (sixteen years ago)

Lots of "erms" and "uhhs" tonight.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 April 2009 01:06 (sixteen years ago)

"This was, in my view, the unfinished Bobby Kennedy campaign"

Faux-insightful Greil Marcus-y bullshit.

M.V., Thursday, 30 April 2009 02:29 (sixteen years ago)

“I don't want to run auto companies,” the president says. “I don't want to run banks. I have got two wars I gotta run already..."

HEY, MAKE THE SWITCH, MOTHERFUCKER

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 30 April 2009 11:41 (sixteen years ago)

I am very tired of and unfocused on him. Turned on lopsided Yankee game.

I don't know who your team is doc but if it's the Yanks I am pulling all your lefty credentials, you fascist, you

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 30 April 2009 12:07 (sixteen years ago)

I hate them with a passion, foo'

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 30 April 2009 12:10 (sixteen years ago)

comrade, you have warmed a fellow worker's heart this morning

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 30 April 2009 12:16 (sixteen years ago)

Lots of "erms" and "uhhs" tonight.

He says "erm" and "uhh" all the time!

the freakish wonder of nature that is "Beat Me" (HI DERE), Thursday, 30 April 2009 12:41 (sixteen years ago)

EVERYBODY says "erm" and "uhh" all the time!

naturally unfunny, though mechanically sound (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 30 April 2009 12:47 (sixteen years ago)

It was less charming last night.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 April 2009 12:47 (sixteen years ago)

> "I'm proud of what we've achieved, but I'm not content," the president said. "I'm pleased with our progress, but I'm not satisfied."

"I wrote this speech with a thesaurus, but not a style guide."

Full Metal Slanket (Oilyrags), Thursday, 30 April 2009 13:32 (sixteen years ago)

I didn't watch this, but if the main complaints are stylistic, it sounds like it was a good night.

Euler, Thursday, 30 April 2009 13:34 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah, I didn't have any problems with his answers, I just think he needs a long weekend with his feet up on the couch.

WmC, Thursday, 30 April 2009 13:42 (sixteen years ago)

yeah i mean dude's got a full plate. some erms and uhhs never hurt anyone

Mr. Que, Thursday, 30 April 2009 13:57 (sixteen years ago)

lol at Biden on The Today Show this morning

the freakish wonder of nature that is "Beat Me" (HI DERE), Thursday, 30 April 2009 13:57 (sixteen years ago)

"having two wars to run," neither ending anytime soon, is NOT stylistic.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:44 (sixteen years ago)

The prez reads Sullivan, it seems.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:45 (sixteen years ago)

^add that to the "flaws" thread

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:47 (sixteen years ago)

there's not an Obama flaws thread--Obama is perfect in every way, so it would be a short pointless thread

Mr. Que, Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:49 (sixteen years ago)

The specific piece Obama was referencing.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:49 (sixteen years ago)

major flaw is not having any flaws for us to post about on a message board, really

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:50 (sixteen years ago)

ha i just said that on the flaws thread.

Mr. Que, Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:52 (sixteen years ago)

i know i was just about to post over there and point out your flaw of copy-cattism

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:52 (sixteen years ago)

please do--i need to work on my flaws

Mr. Que, Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:53 (sixteen years ago)

flaws pandemic imminent

Kerm, Thursday, 30 April 2009 15:08 (sixteen years ago)

Meantime, I'm not surprised by any of this:

The Obama administration will release its plans for a major overhaul of the nation's cyber security policies in the coming days, a senior administration official said today.
Speaking to intelligence industry professionals in McLean, VA, Melissa Hathaway, tasked by the White House with a 60-day review of the nation's cybersecurity infrastructure, said that the H1N1 flu response had delayed the roll-out.

...

A note on Hathaway: she's a trip. Her speech included references to pop psychology, marketing and advertising, the Nintendo Wii, the movie War Games and Star Wars.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 30 April 2009 22:49 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/02souter.html?hp

Gets an early court pick.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Friday, 1 May 2009 15:25 (sixteen years ago)

i hear gabbnebs on the short list

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Friday, 1 May 2009 15:27 (sixteen years ago)

souter! crazy! the universe is really giving O a handjob with its mouth right now isn't it.

goole, Friday, 1 May 2009 15:50 (sixteen years ago)

btw fuck mark halperin

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/halpern-court-340.jpg

goole, Friday, 1 May 2009 15:50 (sixteen years ago)

i'm not white btw

loaded forbear (gabbneb), Friday, 1 May 2009 15:53 (sixteen years ago)

lol mark halperin is maybe the dumbest man writing about politics today

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Friday, 1 May 2009 16:03 (sixteen years ago)

that's like a headline from 15 years ago

goole, Friday, 1 May 2009 16:06 (sixteen years ago)

Meantime, caption this photo:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/06/us/06diplo3-337.jpg

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 19:30 (sixteen years ago)

"No, only this much turkey."

I'm gone (HI DERE), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 19:31 (sixteen years ago)

The Screaming Lobsteress of Hope shows her claws.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 20:07 (sixteen years ago)

Even with a podium in front of you, rave dancing doesn't photograph well.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 20:28 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051103412.html

shit is fucking scary

Swat Valley High (goole), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 21:34 (sixteen years ago)

gee that's not suspicious in the least

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 12 May 2009 21:45 (sixteen years ago)

Meantime, Sullivan on 'the fierce urgency of whenever' -- strikes me as sound, but your thoughts?

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:23 (sixteen years ago)

Sullivan's not known for temperance, but are you surprised to read that I support him on this almost 100%? These paragraphs hit the root of the matter:

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:34 (sixteen years ago)

I mean, inviting gay couples for the Easter egg hunt makes great PR, but how many acts of pure symbolism will we have to take from an occupant of that house?

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:34 (sixteen years ago)

it sounds like they're working on lifting the travel ban

As for the HIV ban, legislatively lifted by overwhelming numbers of Republicans and Democrats almost a year ago, this is the state of play from an Obama HHS spokesman:

“The Department of Health and Human Services has submitted for OMB review a notice of proposed rule-making to implement this change.”

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:39 (sixteen years ago)

http://immigrationequality.org/blog/?cat=31

Gov. Sebelius: I am aware that the global health legislation – the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) bill – did repeal the ban on HIV-positive travelers to the U.S. If I am confirmed as Secretary, I will work to repeal this ban as quickly as possible to comply with the law. In addition, I will ensure that your staff receives regular updates on the status of this effort.

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:43 (sixteen years ago)

Alfred quit asking Obama for EVERYTHING. He can't do EVERYTHING.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:48 (sixteen years ago)

He'll do it once he's reelected, just you wait.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:48 (sixteen years ago)

we'll need him then more than ever!

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:49 (sixteen years ago)

i'm pretty sure he has to do it this way, he can't issue an executive order repealing the band--why can't you guys respect our democracy

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:51 (sixteen years ago)

repealing the ban

not the band

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:51 (sixteen years ago)

I was promised sunshine and lollipops within the first 100 days. WHY U LIE OBAMA

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:52 (sixteen years ago)

admit it, you meant the band

my band

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:52 (sixteen years ago)

The issue is that some stuff is not moving as fast as we want it to, not that nothing is being done (as pointed out by Que in his posts and the links they contain). No one should have to sit back and wait for their rights to be handed to them and it is absolutely right and necessary to agitate for them, but it is counter-productive and intellectually dishonest to blatantly ignore instances where someone is trying to do the right thing in favor of being a smug dick.

I am all for calling Obama on don't ask/don't tell, based on what I know. Calling him on the HIV stuff appears to be bullshit.

Unclench, y'all, unclench (HI DERE), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:52 (sixteen years ago)

sorry for the snark but Mr. Que otm

x-post

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:52 (sixteen years ago)

shakey mo right on time with the "they're asking for utopia!" horseshit, withering realities-of-politics apologism to follow

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:53 (sixteen years ago)

shakey obama has yr lollipops--they're his now

j0hn d. your band is suggest banned, sorry brah

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:53 (sixteen years ago)

also check this shit out

If I am confirmed as Secretary, I will work to repeal this ban as quickly as possible to comply with the law.

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:54 (sixteen years ago)

shakey mo right on time with the "they're asking for utopia!" horseshit, withering realities-of-politics apologism to follow

eh legislative priorities are a bitch aren't they

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:55 (sixteen years ago)

How long ago was Sebelius confirmed, three weeks?

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:56 (sixteen years ago)

april 28--wtf is she doing with her life

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:56 (sixteen years ago)

besides suckin on sunshine lollipops

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:56 (sixteen years ago)

Here we are, in the summer of 2009

well, at least obama changed the seasons, give him that!

velko, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 16:58 (sixteen years ago)

the president's m.o., it has always seemed like, is to not engage in any 'culture war' battles, while sort of pretending they've already been decided in the president's (or "our") favor -- smile and crack a joke about those crazy ppl on talk radio, and that's it.

but this is something that really is binary and zero-sum and the fight to take care of it never going to be convenient and the right is always going to howl. the WH doesn't seem to want to do it right now, which is the same thing as not wanting to do it ever.

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:01 (sixteen years ago)

I knew the HIV travel ban was voted on last year; I'm more interested in DADT as a legislative priority. I can guess that Robert Gates' uneasy answer a few weeks ago came as a result of discussions in the Oval Office. Clearly Obama can say more in public about undoing it.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:01 (sixteen years ago)

I am all for calling Obama on don't ask/don't tell, based on what I know

this is all I'm pissed about this morning btw, the HIV travelers ban c'mon yeah give Sebelius a chance to set up her desk. I do know for a fact, though, that if Obama never finds the time to prioritize repealing don't ask don't tell, Shakey Mo will find a way to say "come on, he had really important business ahead of him, he's not GOD, he can't really do anything about it, he can't order Congress around," etc. etc. etc.

I also know that if he does get around to it I will be overjoyed to eat crow right here just like I did during Obama's opening weeks - I'm not self-righteous, I'm pissed that Dems are such spineless scumbags about such an obvious issue as "should gays be prohibited from serving in the military and being open about who they are"

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:03 (sixteen years ago)

A: NO OF COURSE NOT

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:04 (sixteen years ago)

if you were a real hippie youd be asking for the repeal of the whole army

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:07 (sixteen years ago)

the only defense i can stand to make of foot-dragging on DADT is that, with a fairly useless senate caucus, and a completely psycho/autistic senate opposition armed with a ridiculous and undemocratic filibuster power, the president's personal popularity (esp. among independents) is their only real weapon. and it's only going to go down, it's just a matter of how fast.

if fighting over gays in the military jeopardizes efforts on energy, climate and health care, i can see the calculus (though frankly i wonder how divisive and damaging this would still be in 2009). but it's like sullivan says, sorry fags, back of the line for you.

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:08 (sixteen years ago)

this is all I'm pissed about this morning btw, the HIV travelers ban c'mon yeah give Sebelius a chance to set up her desk. I do know for a fact, though, that if Obama never finds the time to prioritize repealing don't ask don't tell, Shakey Mo will find a way to say "come on, he had really important business ahead of him, he's not GOD, he can't really do anything about it, he can't order Congress around," etc. etc. etc.

no, mostly I remember how Clinton completely wasted/squandered his political capital on this issue right out the gate, and how badly that made him shift to the center and sacrifice a bunch of his other yes, DARE I SAY IT, more important legislative issues. If Obama repeats that mistake I will be super-pissed. Likewise if he leaves office without repealling DADT I will be super-pissed. In some ways, the smartest thing for him to do, is to suspend it when he has the least amount of political capital to lose over it, ie, after 2010. Which is what his advisers have pubclicly said is the plan.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:15 (sixteen years ago)

It's so different now though! I guarantee you that repealing DADT won't cause half the flap it did in '93. Like I wrote here or in another thread, when my iron-lady-military-industrial-complex lovin' congresswoman openly, vocally calls for its repeal, there's a tear in the space-time continuum.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:17 (sixteen years ago)

Look, I understand that if you're straight you'll think there are more important "issues," but how is the CONTINUED EXISTENCE of an archaic prohibition of openly homosexual men and women any less a grotesque mockery of our ideals than condoning torture?

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:19 (sixteen years ago)

*archaic prohibition of openly homosexual men and women in the armed forces

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:20 (sixteen years ago)

hey it is grotesque, I agree. And I daresay climate change and healthcare legislation are both more important than this AND the torture flap (which seems largely retrospective in nature, not entirely sure we should be wasting time on it if the practices have been appropriately suspended). Those two are like "long-term surivival of the republic" kind of issues - if they aren't dealt with as quickly and aggressively as possible this country is going to be completely fucked for generations to come.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:28 (sixteen years ago)

It's so different now though! I guarantee you that repealing DADT won't cause half the flap it did in '93.

I'm not entirely sure about that. (see recent Prop 8 success in California, of all places). I imagine Obama isn't as sure of this either.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:29 (sixteen years ago)

Having my government acknowledge that I have rights and privileges as much as anybody else matters as much as climate change and health care, if not more. Why the fuck would I care about the polar ice caps melting if I can't join the armed forces or get an intensive care unit to allow my partner to visit?

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:30 (sixteen years ago)

Sullivan is right: the implication always is, We will act as if you don't exist.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:31 (sixteen years ago)

my guess is the obama people think we're almost (almost!! just a little bit more!!) to a tipping point when public opinion can do their hard work for them. the clintons, i have no idea what they really believed.

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:31 (sixteen years ago)

Sullivan is right: the implication always is, We will act as if you don't exist.

No one's implying this, though. I doubt there's anyone on this thread (or on ILX) that thinks DADT is good policy.

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:33 (sixteen years ago)

Pretty poor, this.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:34 (sixteen years ago)

No one's implying this, though.

Talk to the Clintons and Dubya.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:34 (sixteen years ago)

the torture flap (which seems largely retrospective in nature, not entirely sure we should be wasting time on it if the practices have been appropriately suspended).

whaaaa!? war crimes? if this gets swept under the rug and no one held accountable, it's going to happen again. cheney et al had to find those links between iraq and al qaeda..

cnn and the holograms (daria-g), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:35 (sixteen years ago)

ned - i know. stunned.

cnn and the holograms (daria-g), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:35 (sixteen years ago)

Why the fuck would I care about the polar ice caps melting if I can't join the armed forces or get an intensive care unit to allow my partner to visit?

I think the problem is more along the scale of "why would I care if I don't have electricity or can't afford any food or breathe the air and my house is underwater"....

x-post

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:36 (sixteen years ago)

Talk to the Clintons and Dubya.

hey guess what these people aren't the president anymore, etc etc

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:36 (sixteen years ago)

whaaaa!? war crimes? if this gets swept under the rug and no one held accountable, it's going to happen again. cheney et al had to find those links between iraq and al qaeda..

Obama should stay out of this and let Congress and the courts handle it. Administrations prosecuting each other will only result in a total breakdown of the executive branch.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:37 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah, repealing DADT is only a stroke of Obama's pen, so to speak. But what is expensive is what comes afterward.

It will use up political capital, dominate an unknown number of news cycles and require time and energy from both Obama and WH staff to keep pounding away on the message to counteract the feverish GOP spin.

If GLBT were a bigger constituency, then DADT would move up Obama's priority list of Shit Storms I Want to Walk Into. This is just politics. Be glad the court-centered initiatives are moving along so well.

Aimless, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:39 (sixteen years ago)

Sullivan's already openly wondering if this is to do with McChrystal, and I wouldn't be surprised, based on the story he linked/quoted here.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:40 (sixteen years ago)

hey guess what these people aren't the president anymore, etc et

But your boy Obama is, and I'm sure he'll appreciate your well-modulated demurrals.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:41 (sixteen years ago)

xpost - ok, yes - that makes a lot of sense re: congress/judicial handling it - but sounded like you thought it was.. relatively unimportant

cnn and the holograms (daria-g), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:41 (sixteen years ago)

It will use up political capital, dominate an unknown number of news cycles and require time and energy from both Obama and WH staff to keep pounding away on the message to counteract the feverish GOP spin

Hooray!

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:42 (sixteen years ago)

oh I think it is important daria, but its a procedural/legal kind of issue and I don't think Obama is really helping things with these public displays of releasing memos/photos/etc. Its one thing if those were being released to comply with a judicial ruling or something like that, but instead it makes it look like he's politicizing the issue and using it to abuse his predecessors. Congressional investigations should be allowed to run their course, charges should be brought, and the whole thing should be worked out through the legal system. Having the current occupant of the executive branch meddling in it... I dunno if its helpful in terms of achieving the desired goal of getting these assholes in jail and getting this stuff outlawed.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:45 (sixteen years ago)

Obama's not my boy Al

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:45 (sixteen years ago)

(obviously the most useful thing he can do from an executive standpoint is to ensure that no one is using torture tactics going forward, and that seems entirely within his purview)

x-post

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:46 (sixteen years ago)

possibly. still thinking it over. tend to agree that executive branch shouldn't be involved not only b/c it's not up to them whether or not to bring charges, but.. maybe we have an administration right now that is not going to abuse power on the scale of bush/cheney, but if bush/cheney aren't prosecuted, isn't the precedent still there for what they did?

cnn and the holograms (daria-g), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:59 (sixteen years ago)

oh yeah. precedent is dangerous. the courts need to strike this stuff down.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:02 (sixteen years ago)

Its one thing if those were being released to comply with a judicial ruling or something like that, but instead it makes it look like he's politicizing the issue and using it to abuse his predecessors.

But that's exactly why they have been being released!

naturally unfunny, though mechanically sound (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:05 (sixteen years ago)

the photos were part of an ACLU request, I thought....? Dunno about the memos, I thought that was done of Obama's own volition.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:08 (sixteen years ago)

never mind, I see its all part of the same thing

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:09 (sixteen years ago)

that being the case.... yeah, this looks bad on Obama's part. I do not approve.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 18:11 (sixteen years ago)

So is this really true? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8048774.stm Are people trying to justify it?

dowd, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 19:08 (sixteen years ago)

yeah, this looks bad on Obama's part

hater

The Contemptible (Dandy Don Weiner), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 19:47 (sixteen years ago)

That's fucking annoying. Those photos were subpoenaed, they should be released.

Unclench, y'all, unclench (HI DERE), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 20:44 (sixteen years ago)

agree, and the "see, Obama agrees w/Bush, Bush was right" chorus that'll inevitably follow is going to be super-annoying

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 20:57 (sixteen years ago)

here, welcome to Hell

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 20:58 (sixteen years ago)

hater

― The Contemptible (Dandy Don Weiner),

I think I have your balls around here somewhere...

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:07 (sixteen years ago)

I wouldn't advise peeking into The Corner this afternoon.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:08 (sixteen years ago)

I'll wait for Ned's report

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:09 (sixteen years ago)

But yeah this is lame. bad show O-bomb.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:09 (sixteen years ago)

I wonder if he's just getting scared off by the rightwing backlash (seems unlikely?) or if there's some other dynamic at play here

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:10 (sixteen years ago)

Gens. Odierno and the new guy in charge of the Afghan theatre exercised a major influence, sources say.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:11 (sixteen years ago)

I'll wait for Ned's report

Really haven't regularly checked in there for a while. You're on your own!

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:12 (sixteen years ago)

i swear i'm not trolling here: what's the rationale behind releasing the photos? in other words, why do people think they need to be released?

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:13 (sixteen years ago)

so the generals think this would exacerbate anti-American backlash given the current crisis/escalation happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is that it...?

Ned you're bumming me out!

x-post

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:13 (sixteen years ago)

i swear i'm not trolling here: what's the rationale behind releasing the photos? in other words, why do people think they need to be released?

ACLU, Freedom of Information Act, etc.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:13 (sixteen years ago)

Even Ambinder is befuddled:

Why Did Obama Reverse Course On The Torture Pictures?

I don't know.

The White House says that President Obama concluded that the photographs' release could bring harm to United States troops. His spokesman, Robert Gibbs, very carefully and slowly offered a further justification: that those who take photographs of abused detainees in the future might be harmed by the release of the photographs because a precedent would be set. Also, the release of the photographs will not enhance anyone's understanding of the specific cases. I'm not sure I understand what Gibbs means, or why these arguments suddenly occurred to Obama.

Power replicates power, the usual rubbish.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:14 (sixteen years ago)

(I don't disagree with the ACLU on this at all, btw - they are absolutely correct to force the government's hand re: accountability and transparency, particularly in things like this. The timing of this seems politically difficult for Obama, but they don't give a fuck about that)

x-post

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:15 (sixteen years ago)

Here's an idea:

Obama's Reversal [Jonah Goldberg]

I agree with the general consensus that President Obama has made the right call here, albeit later than he should have. The press's appetite has been fueled in ways it wouldn't have been if he'd made the right call from the outset. Moreover, I think Obama's decision debunks the claim that he had to release the torture memos either. Recall that lots of Obama's defenders, including Obama, wanted it both ways on the release of those memos. They wanted to argue he was courageous for his decision, but that the release was inevitable anyway because of an ACLU FOIA lawsuit. Well, he could have fought then, as he's decided to fight now. Right?

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:15 (sixteen years ago)

those who take photographs of abused detainees in the future might be harmed by the release of the photographs because a precedent would be set.

I don't understand this logic at all

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:16 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah. I've never understood how "informing" the terrorists about what we might do to them in captivity is harmful. Is it supposed to toughen them?

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:17 (sixteen years ago)

Power replicates power, the usual rubbish.

Well, maybe, but I don't think this is fair. Obama stopped the abuse itself, so he's hardly GWB. And fwiw, I'm not sure how I feel about his reversal.

Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:21 (sixteen years ago)

obviously the prevailing idea is to deprive extremist opponents of the U.S. any more recruitment material, but I have no clue what the circumstances of Obama's reversal are and if they employ that reasoning xpost

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:24 (sixteen years ago)

plz commence praise for my sussing out the Slick Hustler

Mr Que and Daniel Esq should start their Committee to Reelect the President canvassing now; I'm sure Rahm has some pamphlets for ya.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:30 (sixteen years ago)

plz commence praise for my sussing out the Slick Hustler

lolz plz to point out where you predicted Obama was going to reverse his decision to release photos

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:30 (sixteen years ago)

Funny coincidence, Dr., since I just spoke to Rahm this afternoon.

Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:31 (sixteen years ago)

btw Morbz posts blaming Israel for the conflict in Pakistan/Afghanistan don't count

x-post

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:31 (sixteen years ago)

sussing out the Slick Hustler

could use some proofreading

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:32 (sixteen years ago)

why do we need to see these photos again?

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:33 (sixteen years ago)

seems like another needle-threading attempt to me. from the admin's perspective americans need to be pissed off (to the correct degree, which is somewhere short of demanding prosecution) about torture but middle-east and central asian muslims do not need to be any more pissed off than they already are. or rather, we would like it very much if they were not any more pissed off.

seems like rather short term thinking to me.

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:34 (sixteen years ago)

xps oh morbs

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:34 (sixteen years ago)

MEET THE NEW BOSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:35 (sixteen years ago)

your blanket assumption that all people with political power are thoroughly evil doesn't get you any credit when the compromises and disappointments happen. what do you want, a medal?

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:37 (sixteen years ago)

FOIA EXEMPTIONS
It is the policy of the agency to make records available to the public to the greatest extent possible, in keeping with the spirit of the FOIA, while at the same time protecting sensitive information. The following is a list of FOIA exemptions which apply to Government information in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(b):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b)(1) EXEMPTION 1 Classified secret matters or national defense or foreign policy.
This exemption protects from disclosure national security information concerning the national defense or foreign policy, provided that it has been properly classified in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements of an executive order.

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:37 (sixteen years ago)

he said he wants to be praised. for slicking a sassy hustler. or something. xpost

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:38 (sixteen years ago)

why do we need to see these photos again?

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:33 PM (7 minutes ago)

que come on. if the abu ghraib photos hadn't come out, even if we had some some descriptions of what happened or some legal memos about what could have happened, the torture debate would be totally different. cheney would be out there saying it never fucking happened, you'd have glenn greenwald arguing against it, not presidential candidates. the emotional punch (or the lowest-common-denominator cable appeal, if you like) of an image has way more power. a pre-literate power, i'd argue.

it's my least favorite part of human nature but a lynndie england photo is worth a billion pages of john yoo, even tho the latter is where the action is. i want to see these photos, i want everyone to see them. i think they'd be another big step toward a real legal reckoning. but you'd probably also get riots in muslim cities, no matter what we might promise to do

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:49 (sixteen years ago)

your blanket assumption that all people with political power are thoroughly evil

never said "all" and "thoroughly," just the way to bet

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:52 (sixteen years ago)

ok, medal for you then

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 21:57 (sixteen years ago)

if the abu ghraib photos hadn't come out, even if we had some some descriptions of what happened or some legal memos about what could have happened, the torture debate would be totally different

Very true. But also arguably different from releasing new photos, unless the new photos shed new light on the situation. If they don't, releasing them may just create a new wave of recruiting material for terrorist groups and embolden rogue states/actors.

Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 13 May 2009 22:01 (sixteen years ago)

well, these photos aren't just from Abu Ghraib - they pertain to a wider swath of cases of alleged abuse and span Iraq and Afghanistan. It isn't clear to me whether these photos are from cases that have already been brought and dealt with, or whether the ACLU's plan is to use them to establish a "pattern of abuse" that they could bring a larger lawsuit about.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 22:05 (sixteen years ago)

genuinely, perhaps naively, surprised to find anybody on this thread asking "why do we need to see these?" I mean...didn't everybody agree that was a bogus question when it was the Bush administration asking it?

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 23:09 (sixteen years ago)

yeah but dude, bush was a dick

moved to the Home of Rest For Horses at Speen (jjjusten), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 23:13 (sixteen years ago)

i mean try to keep some perspective here j0hn

moved to the Home of Rest For Horses at Speen (jjjusten), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 23:14 (sixteen years ago)

not contesting this key point

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 23:19 (sixteen years ago)

Haha. I don't necessarily disagree, J0hn (as I said, I haven't made up my mind about Obama's reversal). But context is important. Bush authorized that abusive behavior, so people are rightly suspicious when Bush then claims the pictures can't be disclosed. Obama didn't authorize that abusive behavior -- indeed, he has put an end to those behaviors -- so I'm less suspicious of his motives, "perhaps naively," to quote a phrase.

But I hear you. You can argue that Obama is enabling or excusing the behavior, so we need to see the photos. It's just a different type of argument, and certainly (to me) weaker than the argument against the Bush Admin. in this regard.

Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 13 May 2009 23:22 (sixteen years ago)

my argument is just that the law says we have a right to see them. I don't even want to look at them, myself, but that's not the point. the right of the people to this information is established, in my opinion.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 23:44 (sixteen years ago)

but, I mean, having said that, there is a position I could totally get down with - it's probably quaint and it's moralistic for sure, but it moves me, and it's this: the stuff that's reported to be on these images & especially in the video parts sounds just horrible. just destroy-your-faith-in-humanity awful. and I'm pretty torn on the question of what good comes from seeing this. knowing just how low people've sunk is important, goes one argument; telling the truth is important. but in another sense, I think, you know (heads up: here comes the "what about the children?" argument), a bunch of kids are going to see U.S. servicemen raping prisoners with flashlights, and they're likely to see it in an LOL THAT GUY GOT PWN3D context, and I think, you know, if that can not happen...I see the good in that.

but I don't think it has anything to do with the decision, so it's a moot point. but do my fellow "Obama is wrong on this issue" agree at all with me - that there's a sort of psychic harm to releasing this stuff, having nothing to do with "oh no it'll make the terrorists mad"? (The terrorists btw are already mad.)

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 23:52 (sixteen years ago)

yeah tbf i get kind of a snuff film vibe from some of the reactions to this stuff - i for one didnt need to see that beheading video or the saddam hanging but good luck dodging it forever, internet peeps. for the purposes of possible legal action, hell yeah, but plenty of evidence is entered into court proceedings without being full on public eye material.

moved to the Home of Rest For Horses at Speen (jjjusten), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 23:57 (sixteen years ago)

thats the most scattered way possible for me to attempt to make the point im getting at, but ive been at work for 9 hours so you get what you get.

moved to the Home of Rest For Horses at Speen (jjjusten), Wednesday, 13 May 2009 23:58 (sixteen years ago)

no but I feel you. full descriptions of the videos should be entered into a court record, but the videos should be destroyed. weren't the ian brady & myra hindley tapes destroyed? I don't see how history or justice suffers by people not being able to ghoul out on that shit.

point stands though that it's not Obama's call to make imo

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 14 May 2009 00:13 (sixteen years ago)

you get what you get

You get what you get and you don't get upset.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 00:13 (sixteen years ago)

(from my daughter's second-grade class. ty, ty.)

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 00:14 (sixteen years ago)

I agree with J0hn, it's bullshit that Obama can block this or permit this. We have entirely too much reliance on the executive branch. A lot of the bitching on this thread (which I mostly agree with) is a result of this: what can WE do about it? But it's our democracy, surely WE ought to be able to do something, instead of relying on any ONE person to do it for us.

That there's no evident way to solve this gives me way more cause for despair than Obama's failings.

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Thursday, 14 May 2009 01:39 (sixteen years ago)

surprised to find anybody on this thread asking "why do we need to see these?"

It's the Cult of Peggy Noonan's Things to Remain Mysterious.

Doesn't Bam's cave here finally persuade the diehards that there ain't gonna be jack prosecutions of Bushco?

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 14 May 2009 01:40 (sixteen years ago)

It doesn't persuade me of anything, because it's not just Obama's decision.

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Thursday, 14 May 2009 01:41 (sixteen years ago)

OK FINE, THE SAVIOR ADMINISTRATION, THEN

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 14 May 2009 01:47 (sixteen years ago)

Well pace Greenwald, the pictures are even worse than we thought:

What is shown on the photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon has blocked from release? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images, "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe." They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added. . . .

"'The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,' Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.'. . .

In the same period, reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: "Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men ... . The women were passing messages saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.'

"Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out."

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 14 May 2009 01:48 (sixteen years ago)

(citing an interview in "Editor and Publisher").

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 14 May 2009 01:49 (sixteen years ago)

It shouldn't be this administration's decision, either. Our shitty congress could act on this too. I'm less willing to wait and see with them, b/c they've already proved themselves worthless. We should run for congress.

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Thursday, 14 May 2009 01:52 (sixteen years ago)

gabbneb as Robert Redford, Morbs as Peter Boyle.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 14 May 2009 01:53 (sixteen years ago)

Those pictures and videos sound horrible. On the one hand getting them out would help make the case not just against the Bush administration's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, but also against war and occupation in general. I'd favor that general case, but I suspect there aren't very many pacifists even on this board, let alone in the US populace in general. So I can see why Obama doesn't want them released (which isn't the same as saying that I agree with him).

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Thursday, 14 May 2009 01:55 (sixteen years ago)

I'd vote for both those guys. Maybe we could implement suggest ban in congress.

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Thursday, 14 May 2009 01:55 (sixteen years ago)

gabbneb surely doesn't want these released, THINK OF THE BACKLASH IN THE 2010 MIDTERMS!

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 14 May 2009 02:24 (sixteen years ago)

gabbneb surely doesn't want these released

Why, was he an abused detainee?

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 02:32 (sixteen years ago)

Ahhhhhhhhh . . . apologies.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 02:33 (sixteen years ago)

yeah all this stuff is detailed in Hersh's "Chain of Command" iirc (whether or not any of this has since been prosecuted/dealt with, I don't know). In principle I am totally down with this stuff being publicly available. Its our government, and we have a right to know what its up to. From a practical standpoint the only positive that could come of it is that it leads to prosecutions/convictions for Bush-era crimes. But like I said before, Obama should stay out of that as much as possible, and he's in a bind here cuz basically he has to politically "own" the transgressions of the previous administration so he can't really take himself out of the equation.... as for Morbz "I told you so"isms, Obama made it clear during the campaign that prosecuting DubyaCo was not on his agenda, and it shouldn't be. That should be up to congress and the courts, like I said.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 15:49 (sixteen years ago)

Interesting article on TPM rebutting Dick Cheney's media-tour in support of the "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Only point I'd quibble with is the author's assumption that "the fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11--much touted by Cheney--is due almost entirely to the nation's having deployed over 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan." It may also have a lot to do with how difficult it is to pull-off such a complicated operation successfully. I mean, an operation of that size and scope has only happened once here. But I still think that, even on this issue, Steve Clemons is making a good point.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:11 (sixteen years ago)

well Congress ain't doin shit. I take it you think Bam's "It's up to the Atty Gen" is crap at face value?

xp

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:12 (sixteen years ago)

good blog

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/thinking-again-about-those-photos.html

Mr. Que, Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:13 (sixteen years ago)

well Congress ain't doin shit. I take it you think Bam's "It's up to the Atty Gen" is crap at face value?

Leahy's pushing it, I'd bet if anything comes of this it will start there. Attorney General isn't just gonna bring charges out of nowhere.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:16 (sixteen years ago)

That is a struggle for patriots to engage, a Truth Commission to study, and the attorney-general to pursue, while allowing the president to do his job as commander-in-chief.

I don't like Sullivan at all but this is on point

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:18 (sixteen years ago)

yeah i'm not much on him either. "Truth Commission" is a pretty scary thought

Mr. Que, Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:19 (sixteen years ago)

That is a struggle for patriots to engage, a Truth Commission to study, and the attorney-general to pursue, while allowing the president to do his job as commander-in-chief

Which is why it was wrong for Obama to hold back the photos!

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:19 (sixteen years ago)

Judge Hellerstein's opinion. Nice use of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan's line: "Secrecy is for losers."

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:23 (sixteen years ago)

eh Moynihan can fuck right off (even if he is right in principle)

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:25 (sixteen years ago)

I liked the old fox.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:27 (sixteen years ago)

im still sort of confused by all this

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:27 (sixteen years ago)

Just want to put something out there, not related to the prisoner abuse discussion at hand, but regarding an assumption I've seen pop up repeatedly on this thread -- namely the premise that Obama's political capital will inevitably be spent during the first few years of his term, and why can't he do everything right now while he's still got juice. I just wonder if some of his current legislative priorities -- such as credit card reform, health care reform, and other economic agendas -- will actually end up actually diminishing his political influence. It seems just as likely, if they are ultimately successful, that Obama might end up reaping more public goodwill borne of these economic priorities if voters ultimately percieve themselves as having benefitted from them? Talking pure politics here.

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:28 (sixteen years ago)

x-post -- We're refusing to release the photos of Cheney being tortured by Carrie Prejean.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:28 (sixteen years ago)

so we're supposed to release the photos to initate debate. hmmm.

gotta say, even though it sounds like these prisoners were treated horrifically, in ways we can't even imagine. . . and even though i think everyone involved should be fully prosecuted, i don't see any value in releasing these photos. everyones focused on Obama being a pussy when we're talking about human beings who were tortured and humiliated and then photographed. . . don't they deserve some dignity and respect? how do you think it would feel to be fucked with like that and pictures taken and then, guess what, suprise, your pictures are now all over the Internet. just saying.

Mr. Que, Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:37 (sixteen years ago)

I don't think they should be released to the public but they absolutely should be released to the courts.

Unclench, y'all, unclench (HI DERE), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:43 (sixteen years ago)

that sounds ok to me

Mr. Que, Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:45 (sixteen years ago)

but the whole point of an FOIA request is that they go to the public! The ACLU is not requesting these as part of some criminal case or anything.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:45 (sixteen years ago)

I mean, there is no other legal rationale being argued in this particular instance apart from "this should be made public because of an FOIA request"

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:46 (sixteen years ago)

okay, but FOIA requests can be denied, there can be exceptions or information can be redacted

Mr. Que, Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:46 (sixteen years ago)

which is, if I'm not mistaken, what the President is doing

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:48 (sixteen years ago)

so obama is denying the FOIA request?

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:52 (sixteen years ago)

the value in releasing the pictures is a) truth and reconciliation, and b) making people who are personally invested in shaming depraved america feel good. idk what the midterms have to do with anything, but tell us more about what i think, dr morbius.

(i don't really read this thread, but i was bored for a minute so)

"the whale saw her" (gabbneb), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:54 (sixteen years ago)

so obama is denying the FOIA request?

Obama admin have filed that they are looking into asserting certiorari to deny the request

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:58 (sixteen years ago)

Elmo: I think that's right. The nice thing is that, for the first time in as long as I can remember, the ball is entirely in the Democratic Party's court. If Obama's policies are successful (and he avoids other scandals), there's no reason why his political capital won't stay very high, or even increase.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:59 (sixteen years ago)

Obama admin have filed that they are looking into asserting certiorari to deny the request

― High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:58 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

how could they assert certiorari?

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:07 (sixteen years ago)

They can't assert it. They can seek it (a writ of . . .).

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:09 (sixteen years ago)

which would involve... asking the supreme court to deny the FOIA request?

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:10 (sixteen years ago)

as far as I can tell (I am no legal scholar) yeah that's the deal

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:14 (sixteen years ago)

how likely is the supreme court to deny the request

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:16 (sixteen years ago)

lolz what do you think

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:17 (sixteen years ago)

"Truth Commission" is a pretty scary thought

The pos-apartheid one in South Africa seemed to work OK.

Of course, we'd likely get a Warren Commission.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:35 (sixteen years ago)

my fault--i meant the name Truth Commission, not the idea of one

Mr. Que, Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:37 (sixteen years ago)

for the HOMELAND

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:37 (sixteen years ago)

If they call it a Truthiness Commission, I'm all for it.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:38 (sixteen years ago)

I think it's important to remember that what's more important here is that the higherups finally get prosecuted. That could still happen. Not releasing the photos doesn't help anything toward that goal, though.

More Goth Than Your Grandmother (Bimble), Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:38 (sixteen years ago)

^^^yep. eyes on the prize, people

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:42 (sixteen years ago)

e're talking about human beings who were tortured and humiliated and then photographed. . . don't they deserve some dignity and respect? how do you think it would feel to be fucked with like that and pictures taken and then, guess what, suprise, your pictures are now all over the Internet. just saying.

agree 100% with this but I don't think it has anything to do with the admin's stance & haven't seen any evidence to suggest it does, you know? I also think that release of this awful stuff is more likely to result in prosecutions; suppression of it/selective release (to courts - theoretical courts at this point) will likely help it go away. it shouldn't be allowed to go away in my opinion.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:45 (sixteen years ago)

an interesting development

I can't keep track of how many court cases are pending about this stuff

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 17:53 (sixteen years ago)

lolz what do you think

― High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:17 PM (43 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i actually dont know...

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Thursday, 14 May 2009 18:03 (sixteen years ago)

Pelosi: the CIA misled me.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 14 May 2009 18:05 (sixteen years ago)

And now Pelosi and Cheney can hold a joint press conference to complain about the CIA. Fun fun!

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 14 May 2009 18:06 (sixteen years ago)

This is the true meaning of bipartisanship.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 18:09 (sixteen years ago)

Pelosi/Cheney fan fiction would be the grossest thing ever.

Hatfail of Hollow (Nicole), Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:26 (sixteen years ago)

a bipartisan hunting trip goes awry - WITH SEXY RESULTS

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:29 (sixteen years ago)

Add a bobble-head doll of Rep. Michele Bachmann tsk-tsk'ing Cheney and Pelosi and you're on to something, there.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:32 (sixteen years ago)

Then Sarah Palin shows up looking for wolves...

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:33 (sixteen years ago)

was just coming to add Sarah to the mix. . . let's add Todd, too, while we're at it

Mr. Que, Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:33 (sixteen years ago)

a bipartisan hunting trip goes awry - WITH SEXY RESULTS

ends with him shooting her in the face

joygoat, Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:34 (sixteen years ago)

"shooting"

Mr. Que, Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:35 (sixteen years ago)

Bachmann is an even better train-wreck than Palin these days. Look! She's hot for God:

Great comments, too.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:43 (sixteen years ago)

Well, actually, terrible comments. But funny for being so dumb, kinda.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:45 (sixteen years ago)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124223286506515765.html

I know: he's only weighing it, innocent til proven guilty, etc, but still, wtf you guys

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:47 (sixteen years ago)

at least we won the war on drugs

Mr. Que, Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:48 (sixteen years ago)

Am I wrong, or is the only source for that WSJ article Lindsey Graham??

Mordy, Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:50 (sixteen years ago)

Located that bouncing, bobble-head doll of Rep. Michele Bachmann I was looking for:

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 14 May 2009 20:51 (sixteen years ago)

pretty sure the meat of that WSJ story is "lindsey graham says that one of many proposals 'being discussed' involves holding them indefinitely"

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Thursday, 14 May 2009 21:03 (sixteen years ago)

at least we won the war on drugs

Mr Que otm

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 14 May 2009 21:03 (sixteen years ago)

how's the War on Cancer going?

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 14 May 2009 21:06 (sixteen years ago)

WSJ does that often btw. Makes shit up / Finds someone to say some stupid shit and then pretend that it's something super important.

Mordy, Thursday, 14 May 2009 21:07 (sixteen years ago)

It's the equivalent of the NYT's "senior administration official" attribute.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 14 May 2009 21:12 (sixteen years ago)

the hits keep coming

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 13:06 (sixteen years ago)

The administration officials stressed that the updated system will include expanded due-process rights for the suspects, which administration officials note is consistent with what Obama pushed for as a senator in 2006 in order to improve upon the widely criticized approach created by the Bush administration.

"the whale saw her" (gabbneb), Friday, 15 May 2009 13:25 (sixteen years ago)

That the Hamdan trial — the first military commission trial with a guilty verdict since 9/11 — took several years of legal challenges to secure a conviction for material support for terrorism underscores the dangerous flaws in the Administration's legal framework. It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice.
-Barack Obama, August 2008

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 13:27 (sixteen years ago)

glad to see you ferreted out the one part of this that doesn't suck balls, though - who doesn't love a half-full glass?

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 13:28 (sixteen years ago)

isn't that exactly what the big o is going to do though J?

Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 13:28 (sixteen years ago)

i mean your arg isn't that military courts serve no purpose in a democracy is it?

Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 13:30 (sixteen years ago)

nope

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 13:30 (sixteen years ago)

greenwald's better at explaining how this is disappointing than I'll be, and spills a lot of ink making sure everybody knows he's not saying bad things about Obama: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/15/military_commissions/

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 13:31 (sixteen years ago)

Abu Ghraib ad nauseum is entirely in line w/ this country's historical values

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 13:33 (sixteen years ago)

o i see xpost

hmmm

Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 13:35 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/15/military_commissions/

indeed. I trust there'll be explanations about how awesome this actually is before long though.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 13:45 (sixteen years ago)

i didn't realize they were keeping this whole made-up-out-of-whole-cloth military commissions idea

i would imagine there are some extremely knotty legal issues involved with yanking someone out of one framework and into another..

Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 13:47 (sixteen years ago)

i would imagine there are some extremely knotty legal issues involved with yanking someone out of one framework and into another..

good start! (that's friendly btw don't be mad ok)

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 13:49 (sixteen years ago)

I'm a little conflicted. On one hand, I'm deeply disappointed in a number of things Obama has done, and disappointed in people who have tried to defend those actions (especially ones who defend them with rhetoric used by the Bush administration / Bush apologists). That said, I wasn't horrified/furious at the Bush administration because of a special tribunal, or because they were sitting on torture photos. I was furious because they were literally torturing people, and because they were holding people for years without due process and because they started a war based on false evidence. So as disappointed as I may be, these aren't exactly the same things. I definitely think we should demand exactly what we want, no matter how much less criminal it may be than Bush. I mean, why settle for less than perfect? But I have a hard time working up Bush-level outrage about not releasing the photos, or having a military commission. Anally penetrating Muslim prisoners, and not allowing the release of photos of the same aren't the same thing. One is horrifying down to the deepest corners of my soul, and the other sounds like politics as usual.

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 13:51 (sixteen years ago)

heh rumbled though you know, seriously

you just know the administration is paralyzed by the thought that even one dude gets sprung on a technicality because of their approach here, and goes on to do bad shit. arrgh

Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 13:52 (sixteen years ago)

Sure, but, as the battery of clips Greenwald posts will attest, allowing military commissions suggests a distrust of the American legal system, and no matter how many "safeguards" are put in place these commissions are very tempting vehicles for executive branch power grabs.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 May 2009 13:54 (sixteen years ago)

(xpost Mordy)

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 May 2009 13:54 (sixteen years ago)

i guess what i'm saying is - if obama thought he COULD get rid of these commissions in toto - right now, in 2009 - he WOULD - wouldn't he?

Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 13:54 (sixteen years ago)

i guess what i'm saying is - if obama thought he COULD get rid of these commissions in toto - right now, in 2009 - he WOULD - wouldn't he?

if we're beginning with the assumption "he is awesome and agrees with us," yes.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 13:55 (sixteen years ago)

if he COULD he WOULD

I don't care, that equals zero. I've never thought about pols like thiat at least since Mario Silver Tongue Cuomo endorsed Al D'Amato for re-election. When one of them does the right thing it's almost always a coincidence.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:04 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah, Alfred, I'm totally not on board with Obama's decision here. I just think that the Greenwald (and Morbz here) trope of "Obama is just like Bush!" is either unfair to Obama (who isn't as bad as Bush), or is whitewashing the Bush legacy (oh, he was just a corrupt politician, just like Obama is!). I mean, Bush was really really horrific, and until we catch Obama authorizing torture, we should probably keep that trope in our pockets.

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:05 (sixteen years ago)

Greenwald has never said "Obama is just like Bush"!

They banned all interrogation techniques not in the Army Field Manual, guaranteed ICRC access to all detainees, loosened FOIA standards, diminished restrictions on government funding for stem cell research and family planning programs, implemented new children's health care coverage, made it easier for discrimination victims to sue their employers, changed the tone of foreign relations in the Middle East.

Everyone can obviously debate whether they think those are good and/or significant, but they are differences.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:08 (sixteen years ago)

me neither, but i expect to hear i have for the duration

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:10 (sixteen years ago)

just like we have to hear that we all think Bam is the Messiah, right?

;)

Mr. Que, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:10 (sixteen years ago)

hahaha

resistance is feudal (WmC), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:15 (sixteen years ago)

You may all not think that highly of him, Que, but the Messiah certainly wouldn't draw much more groveling.

Perrin on The Nation's mealymouthed whimpering on this issue:

Even with something as cut and dry as Obama's reversal on releasing torture photos from Afghanistan and Iraq, The Nation pulled back, advocating healing over rage and rebellion. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, following Van den Heuvel's submissive cue, stated:

"Thus I find myself in an unsatisfying gray area with respect to the current torture photos. I generally support President Obama's decision not to aggressively pursue prosecution of the government officials or lawyers implicated by the torture memos. I derive that position from a belief that truth and reconciliation is the best model for the U.S. to follow on this issue. I believe that revealing information and understanding what happened is the most important task we should engage in with relation to torture. I don't want Cheney in jail, but I want him to have to tell the truth -live- on TV- repeatedly. Consistent with that commitment, I believe we should release the photos and simply cope with the political, moral, and national pain that may follow."

...Personally, I would love to see Dick Cheney in jail. Bush, too. Adding Obama to the perp walk would make my day complete. But that's not going to happen, and clearly this doesn't bother The Nation.

As for the torture pix, Harris-Lacewell's convoluted reasoning deadens what should be unconditional rage. Then again, anyone who believes that imperial states can experience "moral pain" has already digested the national myth. And it's this type of mythology and open-eyed wishful thinking that typifies The Nation more and more these days. Where have you gone, Victor Navasky?

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2009/05/death-of-nation.html

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:16 (sixteen years ago)

It's not always an explicit "Obama is just like Bush," but often an implicit one. I think my problem is with something like this:

Nonetheless, the overwhelming bulk of the objections to what the Bush administration did was to the very idea of military commission themselves. The controversy -- one of the most intense of the Bush era -- was grounded in the argument that there was absolutely no reason, other than to pervert justice and enable easy and due-process-free convictions, to create a separate tribunal rather than use our extant judicial processes.

Was this in fact "one of the most intense [controversies] of the Bush era?" I seem to remember a lot bigger controversies. And, when this was the controversy, wasn't it because of what it was covering up, and not because of what it could cover up? Ie: Weren't we upset because having a tribunal was a way of keeping torture, extraordinary extradition, etc out of the public legal system? Not because it *could* do those things but because it actually *did* those things? That seems an important distinction to me, and one that Greenwald is skirting when he says, "There is simply no way to reconcile Barack Obama's embrace of military commissions with the core criticisms made about Bush's system." Even the title of the piece, "Obama's kinder, gentler military commissions" suggests the same thing. It's the same, it's just kinder and gentler. Well, if we're talking about torture here, kinder/gentler is pretty damn good.

As far as Morbz, I'm not going through your posts sifting for evidence. If you claim you never intended/expressed that, I'll apologize for including you in that group. It often seems to me, tho, that you could use some perspective in your critiques. (Especially as your critiques are often: OMGZ I TOLD YOU SO OBAMA SUCKAGE, which doesn't leave a lot of room for parsing subtleties and specifics.)

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:17 (sixteen years ago)

at least Obama is just like W in handing out a couple grand to the survivors of the civilians he burns up. The milk of imperial kindness.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:18 (sixteen years ago)

look, anything I say - and I'm guessing this goes for Morbs, too - should be understood in the context of "of course it's not as awful as Bush." but that's cold comfort, isn't it? Bush was a complete nightmare, almost surely the most disastrous presidency in the history of the country. that kinda oughta make the idea of continuing any of his policies a no-brainer, not a "the political realities on the ground are" etc. deal. you know? Bush sucked the most. Obama came out of the gate awesome. lately he completely sucks. he'll never suck as bad as Bush; I got a hundred bucks says he's never that bad. (wager limited to one taker whose screen name rhymes with "Lorbius.") he won't enact policies as frightful as Bush's. but continuing them, or modifying them to be less horrific? what massive disappointment; what a drag; I really, really yearn for a decent third party. I mean...doesn't everybody, in the context of this kinda stuff?

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:18 (sixteen years ago)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2240/2374543214_8d5dc1234a.jpg?v=0

"the whale saw her" (gabbneb), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:18 (sixteen years ago)

Also, that Nation critique is bizarre. I don't see how the quote is evidence that the Nation is being submissive. I think it's okay to not necessarily need Cheney to go to jail, but want his crimes repeated and admitted publicly. It may not be my position, but it's no Obama-worship.

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:20 (sixteen years ago)

I really, really yearn for a decent party.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:21 (sixteen years ago)

XP to gabbneb: As someone who lived in Crown Heights, and grew up in a Chabad Lubavitch family/community, I gotta tell you guys: I know what Messiah worship is, and this isn't it.

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:21 (sixteen years ago)

yes, predictably from gabbneb, asking for anything at all that isn't a huge disappointment = waiting for the Christ to come

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:22 (sixteen years ago)

"habeus corpus? what you think he is, GOD?"

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:22 (sixteen years ago)

i'm. . . waitin for my Bam. . .

Mr. Que, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:24 (sixteen years ago)

And yeah, J0hn, I agree with you 100%. I'm not ready to say Obama's administration is a failure yet, but maybe I've been so conditioned from growing up with Bush as president that anything that isn't explicit fascism doesn't seem so bad to me. If this is the worst that Obama comes to (continuing in a lesser, heavily modified form some of Bush's policies) than I don't think I'll ever work up enough outrage. If he were running again tomorrow, I'd vote for him again.

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:24 (sixteen years ago)

hahaha que xpost

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:25 (sixteen years ago)

morbs to the left of me
gabbs to the right ...

Pull Slinky and Make Me Fart (Eisbaer), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:26 (sixteen years ago)

J0hn, even tho your election-year expecs of Obama were higher than mine, how can you be disappointed? This is who the guy is, and always seemed to be.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:28 (sixteen years ago)

Disappointed doesn't have to stem from logical engagement. It can stem from hoping beyond reason for something better, and things falling predictably short.

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:29 (sixteen years ago)

I'm disappointed whenever there's a bombing in Gaza, or a rocket shot in Sderot. Doesn't mean it was predictable. (Well, used to be disappointed. I'm pretty numb to it now.)

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:30 (sixteen years ago)

Quick question, tho... hasn't the United States always historically had military tribunals? Or is the difference that formerly they were just used for soldiers/internal military stuff, and now they were also being used for enemy combatants.

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:33 (sixteen years ago)

Morbs, didn't you vote for the guy?

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:34 (sixteen years ago)

me neither, but i expect to hear i have for the duration

No, you didn't say he was just like Bush, you said he was just like Nixon.

...Personally, I would love to see Dick Cheney in jail. Bush, too. Adding Obama to the perp walk would make my day complete. But that's not going to happen, and clearly this doesn't bother The Nation.

Obama having travelled backwards in time to help out W and Cheney, I guess?

naturally unfunny, though mechanically sound (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:35 (sixteen years ago)

J0hn, even tho your election-year expecs of Obama were higher than mine, how can you be disappointed? This is who the guy is, and always seemed to be.

I got too high on those first couple weeks of the admin and started thinking "I was wrong, he's actually really different from other Democrats"

my bad

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:35 (sixteen years ago)

this is the most popular story on cnn.com right now -

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/index.html

Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:50 (sixteen years ago)

Pancakes: Perrin, w/ the ramp-up and civ deaths in Afghanistan, considers Bam newly minted war criminal.

you said he was just like Nixon.

no. some similarities in approach though.

I voted for Bam in the primary out of Rodham hate.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 14:55 (sixteen years ago)

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry, not "just like" Nixon:

is, by any reasonable standard, a huge fucking liar.

is just another Imperial Manager, most reminiscent of Clinton and Nixon so far.

(welcome to the 101st day)

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:46 AM (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

naturally unfunny, though mechanically sound (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:01 (sixteen years ago)

By any reasonable standard.

Daniel, Esq., Friday, 15 May 2009 15:09 (sixteen years ago)

can't you guys have a politics thread that doesn't repeatedly devolve into this vertiginous argument about whether obama is as bad as bush / a huge disappointment / a guy in a tough job doing the best he can / savior of american politics / yammer blabber yadda blah

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:10 (sixteen years ago)

no.

thx Pancakes, for illustrating you were wrong.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 15:12 (sixteen years ago)

elmo what would you like the politics thread to be about

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:16 (sixteen years ago)

Oh, you're welcome, Morbs.

naturally unfunny, though mechanically sound (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:17 (sixteen years ago)

i dunno i just wonder if inheriting a slate of in-progress sui generis legal proceedings requires more complex and less gut-level satisfying attention from a president than "fuck this shit"

Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 15:20 (sixteen years ago)

Besides, elmo, it's Friday!

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:20 (sixteen years ago)

"complex" is always the watchword for "whatever it is you want, you're not going to get it"

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:22 (sixteen years ago)

j0hn, maybe we could talk about the president's goofy sidekick and how he insulted Obama's dog

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:26 (sixteen years ago)

perhaps that subject might not allow you a lofty rhetorical couch from which to dribble your opinions but it would definitely hold my interest more

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:27 (sixteen years ago)

you don't have to talk about stuff

congratulations (n/a), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:28 (sixteen years ago)

btw

congratulations (n/a), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:28 (sixteen years ago)

sometimes it's nice just to sit quietly for a while

congratulations (n/a), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:28 (sixteen years ago)

obama's dog cuter than the constitution, gotcha

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:30 (sixteen years ago)

sorry for the k-lofty rhetoric btw I know this is some very high-level rhetorical action I got workin here

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:31 (sixteen years ago)

how's that couch

Mr. Que, Friday, 15 May 2009 15:32 (sixteen years ago)

;)

Mr. Que, Friday, 15 May 2009 15:32 (sixteen years ago)

i need to stop winking--i am too old to wink on the internet

Mr. Que, Friday, 15 May 2009 15:32 (sixteen years ago)

anyway this thread, i like it

Mr. Que, Friday, 15 May 2009 15:33 (sixteen years ago)

everyone's valuable

Mr. Que, Friday, 15 May 2009 15:33 (sixteen years ago)

admittedly it's hard for one such as me who doesn't aspire to defend our constitution on the internet to keep up with you

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:34 (sixteen years ago)

i don't mind john and morbs expressing their opinions, even if i don't agree with them sometimes. and frankly, obama's stance on military tribunals is disappointing -- what's the problem with discussing the issue, whether one thinks it's a disappointment in light of his administration's past rhetoric and actions (my position, and john's too i think) or if it confirms one's prior low expectations (which is morbs's opinion)? i understand the point about pulling one's punches seeing how early it is for the Obama administration, but we aren't commissars either!

i mean, most obama supporters here aren't the pathetic fanboys that morbs thinks that they are -- so what better way to flesh that out than discussing issues like this?!?

Pull Slinky and Make Me Fart (Eisbaer), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:35 (sixteen years ago)

we're here for you elmo--what are your thread needs. we will fulfill them

Mr. Que, Friday, 15 May 2009 15:35 (sixteen years ago)

I'd like to hear some semi-reasonable legal alternatives to what Obama is doing here

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:35 (sixteen years ago)

civilian trials for everybody seems plausible, but how do you try a foreign national with (presumably, possibly) tainted evidence? and we can't just turn some of these guys over to their native countries, where they will be summarily tortured and executed (or simply escape and/or be let go, as has already happened in several cases).

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:37 (sixteen years ago)

Look, I love you, guys; this is the only smart political thread I update. Everyone here reads the papers and knows a bit of history, so I find the assumption that this thread is full of Bambots deeply insulting.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:38 (sixteen years ago)

yeah, i mean, sorry for being so pissy but it seems like several key posters to this thread are locked in a never-ending discussion of what metric we should use to measure obama's success / failure. i know there's legitimate discussion of issues here but every time i check in it seems like you're still on the same topic

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:40 (sixteen years ago)

yeah but elmo that general rubric is gonna have to necessarily underlie much of the discussion n'est-pas

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:41 (sixteen years ago)

answer my fucking question

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:42 (sixteen years ago)

"why can't we just turn these guys over to their native countries?" I don't know, I agree with you

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:43 (sixteen years ago)

oh wait "trying foreign nationals w/tainted evidence" - that's for the court, to which they should be brought with all due speed, to decide, not for everybody to go "I'll just keep you in jail til I'm sure that the way I got you there won't cost me a victory." I mean: that's gonna suck, but that's the cost of failing to abide by int'l norms & laws in the first place, isn't it? I know, ivory tower/lofty seat/whatever.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:46 (sixteen years ago)

but you have to play this out to the end, because the end result is critical here. I'm under the impression a civilian judge is going to throw a lot of these cases out of court because of jurisdictional issues, because of lack of evidence/evidence that was obtained illegally, because due process wasn't followed - in general just because there's no legal framework for them to operate under. Judges are going to throw up their hands and say they have no rubric to follow and thus the cases have to be dismissed. Which would mean just releasing people. Some of whom are, I'm sure, actually guilty of terrorist conspiracy or whatever. Others are presumably innocent, and have perhaps been radicalized by their unjust incarceration. Where do these people go? Releasing them in the US would be a disaster (and in the case of those that aren't US citizens, they don't belong here anyway). Releasing them to their native countries (for example, Egypt, or Yemen, or Afghanistan) would effectively mean they either go free or they are going to be tortured and executed (exporting a prisoner to a country that tortures people is, by the way, against the law). So, what is the viable option here? Obama has to create a legal framework out of whole cloth.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:55 (sixteen years ago)

I think we're overestimating the degree to which civilian courts can be effective here - these people weren't even arrested or charged with anything, how is a judge supposed to interpret that in the context of civilian law.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:56 (sixteen years ago)

This may be controversial on this thread, but as someone very concerned with prisoner rights, I'm still equally concerned over sending killers back out into the world just because the previous administration fucked up the evidence. In the end we may need to bite the bullet and do just that. The consequence of letting the Bush administration run rampant is that we legitimately may not be able to bring justice to a number of people who deserve it. But that isn't a good thing, it's an unfortunate thing. (Every time Israel trades prisoners for dead soldier bodies, I feel equally concerned. There do exist people who should probably be jailed. I just wish it were easier for us to figure out who those people are, and that we could easily do it within the frame of our legal system.) I imagine Obama is troubled by something similar. How do we stay true to our own legal ideals and still make sure we're not sending morally culpable people back out into the fray?

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:01 (sixteen years ago)

(Actually, just read Shakey's XP, and maybe this isn't so controversial.)

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:01 (sixteen years ago)

Releasing them in the US would be a disaster

Who said anything about releasing them? They'd be in custody. Even Jonah Goldberg acknowledges that the chances are fucking slim that these purported terrorists would break out Dirty Dozen style, steal some remotes, and set off IED in Manhattan.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:02 (sixteen years ago)

like I said, a civilian judge is going to be compelled to throw a fair amount of these cases out of court because there was no legitimate arrest, no charges filed, and no legitimate evidence. You bring a US citizen to trial with that shit and the case will get thrown out of court, guaranteed.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:04 (sixteen years ago)

which brings us back to the question of - if these people can't be effectively tried, where do they go?

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:04 (sixteen years ago)

like, soldiers grabbing people off the battlefield in a foreign country /= "arrested"

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:05 (sixteen years ago)

This may be controversial on this thread, but as someone very concerned with prisoner rights, I'm still equally concerned over sending killers back out into the world just because the previous administration fucked up the evidence. In the end we may need to bite the bullet and do just that. The consequence of letting the Bush administration run rampant is that we legitimately may not be able to bring justice to a number of people who deserve it. But that isn't a good thing, it's an unfortunate thing.

I agree with this. "Where do they go?" --wherever we got them, I guess - I mean, there isn't going to be a happy answer to that, because everything's messed up from the moment you capture a prisoner of war whom you refuse to designate a prisoner of war.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:12 (sixteen years ago)

I mean assuming the chain would go charge them -> bring them to trial -> presiding judge says "fruit of the poisoned tree, no go, charged dropped

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:13 (sixteen years ago)

I am having a hard time finding an account of the Yemeni we released from Guantanomo to Saudi Arabia or Yemen who subsequently escaped (with the cooperation of the authorities) and immediately resurfaced as an active terrorist involved in bombings, etc. I distinctly remember seeing this like a year or so ago but am blanking on the dude's name... argh.

anyway that's one potential outcome of the process J0hn outlines. Is that a good outcome? More innocent people dead because of a US legal principle? Can a President really own/sell that to the American people?

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:18 (sixteen years ago)

ah, found it

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:19 (sixteen years ago)

I misremembered some details but the point stands

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:20 (sixteen years ago)

the point being what? detention without legal grounds is a better option than what people might do? the legal repercussions of that argument are terrifying to consider & give the state really hideous powers.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:23 (sixteen years ago)

I mean of course that's not "a good outcome." Can you not imagine many equally horrendous outcomes of allowing a country to say "we'll to imprison this guy and not charge him with anything, trust us"?

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:25 (sixteen years ago)

need to imprison

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:25 (sixteen years ago)

an you not imagine many equally horrendous outcomes of allowing a country to say "we'll to imprison this guy and not charge him with anything, trust us"?

Except Obama isn't arguing for either of these paths - he's endeavoring to pave a third path, one in which a legal framework is developed whereby these people can be tried while adhering to US legal principles and trying to clean up the mess left behind by his predecessor. Imprisoning people and holding them indefinitely without charges was the DubyaCo MO - because they had no interest in actually developing an alternative legal framework to deal with these people - but Obama's made it clear that that will not stand as his policy, and thus he has committed to closing Guantanamo and developing (under a remarkably short timeframe, mind you) a method to get these prisoners dealt with in a logical, humane, legitimate way as possible.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:28 (sixteen years ago)

(some messy grammar/sentence structure there - sorry)

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:30 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah, I just have to go back to the article that inspired this morning's dustup:

"The military commissions are built on unconstitutional premises and designed to ensure convictions, not provide fair trials," Romero said in a prepared statement released earlier this week after speculation about the restart of military commissions surfaced. "Reducing some but not all of the flaws of the tribunals so that they are 'less offensive' is not acceptable; there is no such thing as 'due process light.' "

I'm a lifelong member of the ACLU; I agree with them here. That I personally can't come up with a satisfactory solution is one of many reasons why I'm not running for president. Do we not already know what the prisoners are being held for? Can you tell me why they can't be charged? If the answer is "because then they'd demand their right to a speedy trial" - well, yes, right?

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:34 (sixteen years ago)

Do we not already know what the prisoners are being held for?

Being in the wrong place at the wrong time...? Guilt by association? Actually committing terrorist acts targeting US troops and/or civilians? Its probably some combination of all three.

Can you tell me why they can't be charged?

Confessions elicited under torture, lack of evidence (these people were seized in foreign countries, for ex. do you really think the Afghan legal system has detailed records/evidence files on foreigners who came to their country to fight an army from another country?), lack of witnesses, etc.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:40 (sixteen years ago)

I am not engaged by "What should be done" questions; it's the USA -- what should be done is generally forbidden by the system.

Does any evidence whatsoever exist re most of these prisoners? A lot of them seem to have been ensnared in willynilly roundups; I know many have been released (eventually)for just that reason, but that doesn't lead me to conclude they have the goods on who they've kept.

xp

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:41 (sixteen years ago)

I mean this is a total colossal mess - I am likewise a lifelong supporter of the ACLU and I admire their strict adherence to principle - but the end-result of strict adherence to principle in this case means that none of these people be brought to trial, because they weren't apprehended according to any US legal precedent.

x-post

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:42 (sixteen years ago)

classic "I don't have to have an answer!" response there Morbz

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:42 (sixteen years ago)

well we are solving so many crises here by discussing options that will never be entertained.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:46 (sixteen years ago)

I'm discussing the option that Obama is actually entertaining. You're not discussing any options.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:47 (sixteen years ago)

Isn't it kind of disingenuous to participate in a conversation, but claim that you won't offer any of your own ideas substantively because you don't think the conversation itself is valid? Like, if you're here, you might as well participate. And if you think it's silly to talk about these things, why show up at all?

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:51 (sixteen years ago)

Confessions elicited under torture, lack of evidence (these people were seized in foreign countries, for ex. do you really think the Afghan legal system has detailed records/evidence files on foreigners who came to their country to fight an army from another country?), lack of witnesses, etc.

this is why they can't be tried, not why they can't be charged, imo, and "the stakes are higher because they're terrorists" - I just don't see how that can wash with a sense of the importance of justice, something I know we both share

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:51 (sixteen years ago)

(and in re: precedent - there is one - they should have been afforded POW status the second they were arrested)

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:52 (sixteen years ago)

so I guess "send them to the Hague" is a possible solution, the Dutch will smoke them out & they'll all be stoked, everybody wins

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:53 (sixteen years ago)

Presumably the problem with POW status was that there wasn't a country they were representing.

Mordy, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:54 (sixteen years ago)

yeah but since the war in question is "on terror," not on any particular country, then it seems like under those terms describing al qaeda as a nation might be legally workable

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:55 (sixteen years ago)

but... al qaeda has no territory, no legal framework, no administration, no representatives... it doesn't even really exist in terms of conventional organizational structure.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:59 (sixteen years ago)

like, you can't negotiate with them.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 17:00 (sixteen years ago)

right, but if there's a war declared on them, you treat them according to laws of war. only there isn't a war declared on them, so their designation should be "international criminals." as it stands, these guys are being held under the "I know you suck" law, which is not a good law.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 17:06 (sixteen years ago)

Isn't it kind of disingenuous to participate in a conversation, but claim that you won't offer any of your own ideas substantively because you don't think the conversation itself is valid? Like, if you're here, you might as well participate. And if you think it's silly to talk about these things, why show up at all?

― Mordy, Friday, May 15, 2009 11:51 AM (20 minutes ago)

Thank you, Mordy, I've been feeling this for at least a year and you summed it up perfectly.

resistance is feudal (WmC), Friday, 15 May 2009 17:14 (sixteen years ago)

Posts that summarize Dr. Morbius in a nutshell.

naturally unfunny, though mechanically sound (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 15 May 2009 17:29 (sixteen years ago)

the end-result of strict adherence to principle in this case means that none of these people be brought to trial, because they weren't apprehended according to any US legal precedent.

right. so set 'em free. yes, some of them will go back to being taliban or terrorists or whatever, ok. deal with them then.

our legal system often sets probably-guilty people free because of prosecutorial abuses or lack of convincing evidence or whatever, because the principle of rule of law is more important than whether any one criminal goes free. same thing here. i understand why this is politically impossible, but morally i don't think it's a hard call.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Friday, 15 May 2009 17:30 (sixteen years ago)

i understand why this is politically impossible, but morally i don't think it's a hard call.

yeah I agree with you on this point. An overwhelmingly large majority of the country does not, however. Which is why I'm interested to see whether Obama can develop a politically viable out for himself here, and what it may consist of.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 17:35 (sixteen years ago)

Actually, a poll Greenwald and The Corner (!) posted said that a majority of Americans think torture is wrong.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 May 2009 17:37 (sixteen years ago)

torture not really what I was referring to. I was referring to releasing people who we know are terrorists, who are committed to further terrorist actions, whose release will in all likelihood will result in further deaths of diplomats, soldiers, civilians, etc.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 17:42 (sixteen years ago)

like, the vast majority of Americans would not be down for releasing those people on what could be construed as a legal technicality (no matter how important the principle behind that technicality is)

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 17:42 (sixteen years ago)

I would be down with releasing them. It sure as fuck beats what we are doing now. But then, I always an idealist when it comes to torturing confessions.

Aimless, Friday, 15 May 2009 18:17 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22565.html

some more details here, some good:

Under the new rules, statements obtained through “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment will not be admissible, Obama said.

The Bush commissions had permitted the use of such evidence, if it was obtained before Congress tightened the legal standards in 2005 and if a judge found the evidence to be reliable.

In addition, Obama announced that detainees will have greater latitude in picking their own lawyers, and that those who refuse to testify will be protected.

and some definitely very bad:

The new rules would continue to allow the admission of hearsay evidence, or statements made by witnesses or defendants outside of court. However, where such evidence was previously presumed reliable, the party wanting to bring in out-of-court statements would now have to prove their reliability.

The hearsay issue is critical because conviction of some defendants could depend on statements that other detainees made during interrogations.

Attorney General Eric Holder has also indicated that some detainees probably cannot be tried in either the commissions, courts-martial or civilian courts. The administration may ask Congress to set up a preventive detention court to detain those individuals — another move certain to be fervently opposed in some quarters.

"preventive detention"? no way is that fucking legal

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 18:39 (sixteen years ago)

legal, schmegal, they're bad guys

which I say actually 1/2 flip asshole JD and the other 1/2 understanding that it's a real bind with no easy outs

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 15 May 2009 19:16 (sixteen years ago)

well if congress makes it legal it is. unless it runs into constitutional issues, which it could.

Swat Valley High (goole), Friday, 15 May 2009 19:17 (sixteen years ago)

The administration may ask Congress...

this is kind of the key line to me. 'whatever shitty things we want to do we will ask for in accordance with constitutional norms, kind of'

which is something that has always amazed me about the torture and detention policies to begin with. none of it had to be done sub-rosa! doesn't everyone remember how the country felt in 02 and 03, it was utterly bonkers. bush could have asked the congress to approve all kinds of shit, withdraw from geneva, whatever, we would have done it.

Swat Valley High (goole), Friday, 15 May 2009 19:33 (sixteen years ago)

"may"

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 May 2009 19:38 (sixteen years ago)

ha good catch

Swat Valley High (goole), Friday, 15 May 2009 19:41 (sixteen years ago)

Posts that summarize Dr. Morbius in a nutshell.

No, this one does.

"War on terror" is bullshit.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 20:46 (sixteen years ago)

^^^^interestingly (not that it really matters, its just rhetoric) you will note that Obama never uses this phrase himself

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 20:47 (sixteen years ago)

yes, I will give you that he has enough shame not to. Most of the other code words are intact.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 15 May 2009 20:48 (sixteen years ago)

The US court system should handle all of these cases; one mark of a decent society is probably applying the law equally to citizens and non-citizens. it's not as if the people acquitted aren't going to be tailed for life once repatriated, particularly if the case is fouled on a technicality.

From all I've read it seems that we are discussing commissions for about 20 individuals, with the rest going through the normal US court system.

I'm not clear on whether separate commissions will end after these 20 cases are prosecuted there. If it is for this finite number of people, does that change things?

suggest bánh mi (suzy), Friday, 15 May 2009 21:30 (sixteen years ago)

from what I can tell this stuff is just being put in place for the existing Guantanamo detainees.... I imagine this is such a horrible headache for him that Obama just wants to get these cases going, shut down the place, and moving forward just apply existing criminal jurisprudence against any other potential captured terrorists. But I don't think he's commented publicly on that.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 May 2009 21:32 (sixteen years ago)


"War on terror" is bullshit.

I agree with that. Nonetheless, we are where we are, and we can't extricate ourselves by wishing real hard.

naturally unfunny, though mechanically sound (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 15 May 2009 22:37 (sixteen years ago)

http://feeds.salon.com/~r/salon/greenwald/~3/vGRu6Y9-EtQ/index.html

Essentially says explicitly what I suggested he's been saying implicitly. That (at least in certain areas) Obama is exactly like Bush.

Mordy, Saturday, 16 May 2009 15:53 (sixteen years ago)

that's reality.

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 16 May 2009 16:17 (sixteen years ago)

"War on terror" is bullshit.

using "war on terror" to attack a noncombatant state is bullshit. "war on terror" is not.

"the whale saw her" (gabbneb), Saturday, 16 May 2009 16:20 (sixteen years ago)

we should fucking bomb ourselves first, then.

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 16 May 2009 16:30 (sixteen years ago)

we should fucking bomb ourselves first

maaaan

"the whale saw her" (gabbneb), Saturday, 16 May 2009 16:34 (sixteen years ago)

did you ever look at your hands? like, really look at them?

"the whale saw her" (gabbneb), Saturday, 16 May 2009 16:35 (sixteen years ago)

"war on terror" is not (bullshit)

Yes it is, just as much as the wars on cancer, drugs and poverty. It's a wrongheaded way of tackling a serious problem, one more likely to make the problem worse rather than better. Remember the DOD report (or was it State?) several years into the War on Terror that concluded that we were actually less safe and that the problems were actually worse? Don't answer that, because you obviously don't.

I mean, give me your over/under here on when we can wake up in a World Without Terror, and I might not think you're full of crap.

naturally unfunny, though mechanically sound (Pancakes Hackman), Saturday, 16 May 2009 17:55 (sixteen years ago)

Right. "Terror" is a tactic, not an adversary. The problem behind the whole notion is that it removes all limits on the war effort, but eliminating any legitimate means of evaluating success. It's a prescription for endless war waged at the whim of political and military leaders, and it was cynically used for the GOP's political gain by the Bush Administration.

Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 16 May 2009 18:00 (sixteen years ago)

lol morbz channeling a 21 yr old crustpunk kid

Brolotov Cocktail (n/h) (M@tt He1ges0n), Saturday, 16 May 2009 19:15 (sixteen years ago)

we've been the leading terror state for a couple generations (esp since the USSR left the field), but it's certainly easier to live w/ ourselves by laffin' it off.

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 16 May 2009 21:19 (sixteen years ago)

Ever wonder why the USA was able to ship its "extraordianry rendition" captives to a wide variety of states where torture was commonly practised? It is because these states were oftentimes our clients, or they were seeking closer ties and their friendly advances were gladly reciprocated.

This should tell you something.

Aimless, Saturday, 16 May 2009 21:27 (sixteen years ago)

we've been the leading terror state for a couple generations

This is bullshit b/c "terror" ≠ "bombing the fuck out of whoever we want". We do the latter shamelessly, but that doesn't make us terrorists as I understand that term.

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Sunday, 17 May 2009 02:56 (sixteen years ago)

Also it sounds like there was fun at my alma mater today! It was probably the most excitement there since the University of Nebraska came for a game.

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Sunday, 17 May 2009 02:57 (sixteen years ago)

"terror" ≠ "bombing the fuck out of whoever we want". We do the latter shamelessly, but that doesn't make us terrorists as I understand that term.

so these are the cudly flower filled bombs? Whether you are a dead israeli, american, iraqi, afghan, serbian somali or british person the effect is very much the same.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Sunday, 17 May 2009 03:10 (sixteen years ago)

no, I just mean that terror is a tactic of the few against the many, or a many-er (if I may). Whereas what we do is just plain war. They are all shit.

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Sunday, 17 May 2009 03:12 (sixteen years ago)

Ted Rall and Dennis Perrin on the State of the Propaganda State on Roseanne's radio show:

http://kcaaradio.celestrion.net/kcaa-podcasts/roseanne/20090517.html

Her first question to DP: "Shouldn't we have impeached Obama by now?"

Dr Morbius, Monday, 18 May 2009 16:52 (sixteen years ago)

haha i love your optimism in offering up a link to ilx and actually saying that ted rall, dennis perrin and roseanne are on the other side of it. hope springs eternal!

Swat Valley High (goole), Monday, 18 May 2009 17:00 (sixteen years ago)

yeah, I know the Amen Chorus would much rather cluck soothingly over The Corner, NRO etc. Leftists are who you really loathe.

Dr Morbius, Monday, 18 May 2009 17:02 (sixteen years ago)

Amen!

Mr. Que, Monday, 18 May 2009 17:03 (sixteen years ago)

(that is, you surely know I don't have a shred of optimism where committed Democratic voters are concerned)

Dr Morbius, Monday, 18 May 2009 17:03 (sixteen years ago)

I bet the Amen Chorus of Roseanne, Rall, and Perrin sings a louder version of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 18 May 2009 17:04 (sixteen years ago)

you guys are fronting, none of you actually care one way or another about dennis perrin & ted rall on the rosanne radio show outta loma linda ca

c'mon now

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 18 May 2009 17:06 (sixteen years ago)

the Pledge has music now?
does it sound like Watch on the Rhine?

Dr Morbius, Monday, 18 May 2009 17:08 (sixteen years ago)

I think it's to the tune of "I Like to Move It, Move It"

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 18 May 2009 17:11 (sixteen years ago)

Whereas what we do is just plain war.

I wish this were true, but it is not.

The USA, as the leading military power in the world by a large margin, doesn't need to use terror tactics against other governments, since substituting terror for open warfare is the strategy of choice by the least powerful against the most powerful. So, using the strict political definition of terror, the USA is not a terrorist state.

But the USA uses threats, fear and arbitrary force in almost all its dealings with other nations and populations. It implements these through its many police state clients, through proxy armies, and through corporate "security forces" operating in third world nations under the umbrella of US military and economic power. It is willing, even eager, to break the balls of any government that lacks nuclear weapons. And it does so wherever it can.

So, no, plain war is only one part of the USA's use of naked power. However, the fact that we resort to it so freely adds credibility to our other threats, making wars quite integral to the whole apparatus.

Aimless, Monday, 18 May 2009 17:16 (sixteen years ago)

A+

Dr Morbius, Monday, 18 May 2009 17:17 (sixteen years ago)

When my idealistic and now 84 year old mother finally saw the truth of this, it broke her WWII-generation heart. But she is an apt learner, not a jingoist, bless her.

Aimless, Monday, 18 May 2009 17:34 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/17/oops-biden-reveals-location-secret-vp-bunker/?test=latestnews

Whoops!

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Monday, 18 May 2009 17:55 (sixteen years ago)

Click to see a full list of Biden's political blunders

Swat Valley High (goole), Monday, 18 May 2009 18:23 (sixteen years ago)

do you have a nickname for the shards of US leftism, Que? "the Hate America First crowd"? i'm sure some of yr secret allies at Fox News could help.

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 14:42 (sixteen years ago)

??? not sure why you're asking me

Mr. Que, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 14:47 (sixteen years ago)

my nickname for the shards of US leftism, for the record, is "Wilco"

Mr. Que, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 14:48 (sixteen years ago)

this is some fucking bullshit

and THIS dude is so OTM:
Ken Gude of the Center for American Progress said it was “offensive” to suggest that military and corrections personnel in the United States would not be able to protect citizens from detainees brought into the country.

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 19 May 2009 16:09 (sixteen years ago)

bcz Que, you admitted above you hate principled lefties more than Bushcoes.

no Shakey, that is Democrat SOP. how many decades of this before you catch on?

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 16:13 (sixteen years ago)

bcz Que, you admitted above you hate principled lefties more than Bushcoes

i don't recall saying such a thing

Mr. Que, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 16:13 (sixteen years ago)

yeah, I know the Amen Chorus would much rather cluck soothingly over The Corner, NRO etc. Leftists are who you really loathe.

― Dr Morbius, Monday, May 18, 2009 5:02 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Amen!

― Mr. Que, Monday, May 18, 2009 5:03 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

if you're talking about this, it was a joke

Mr. Que, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 16:14 (sixteen years ago)

how many decades of this before you catch on?

FYI Gitmo hasn't even been in operation for a decade

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 19 May 2009 16:18 (sixteen years ago)

well, isnt everything? xp

Shakey .... (that shrug thing)

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 16:19 (sixteen years ago)

(talkin bout Dem capitulation)

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 16:20 (sixteen years ago)

is that a Phil Ochs song

High in Openness (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 19 May 2009 16:22 (sixteen years ago)

lol

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 17:12 (sixteen years ago)

wait hang on:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20090519story_19-5-2009_pg7_4

Swat Valley High (goole), Tuesday, 19 May 2009 19:24 (sixteen years ago)

that... doesn't really make any sense.

Tennis Bum (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 19 May 2009 19:28 (sixteen years ago)

neither does copying links off thomas ricks's blog w/o reading the whole post, which is what i just did

but yeah, pretty wild, huh? one or the other of those stories must be completely made up.

Swat Valley High (goole), Tuesday, 19 May 2009 19:32 (sixteen years ago)

I was going for the Who, Shakes (Dem'pitulation baybehhhhh)

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 20:49 (sixteen years ago)

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/18/hersh-did-not-say-cheney-ordered-bhutto-assassination/

"the whale saw her" (gabbneb), Tuesday, 19 May 2009 21:15 (sixteen years ago)

Obama said pretty much everything I wanted to hear in this nat'l security speech - namely that closing Gitmo will go forward, that its ridiculous to complain about the US prison system not being able to house convicted terrorists (seriously do not get this position - wtf congress), torture is wrong and will not be condoned, etc.

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 16:07 (sixteen years ago)

Ehhh I don't know. That line about detaining suspects who "cannot be prosecuted" raised a red flag.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 21 May 2009 16:29 (sixteen years ago)

what should we do with them, then?

Mr. Que, Thursday, 21 May 2009 16:34 (sixteen years ago)

"Obama said pretty much everything I wanted to hear in this nat'l security speech"

Yeah see I'm more concerned about what he's actually DOING, not saying. And what he's doing is not markedly different enough from Bush for me.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 21 May 2009 16:36 (sixteen years ago)

what should we do with them, then?

Prosecute them or let'em go. Wasn't SCOTUS pretty clear about this?

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 21 May 2009 16:37 (sixteen years ago)

good question--seems like there have been lotsa decisions on this stuff, i can't keep up

Mr. Que, Thursday, 21 May 2009 16:40 (sixteen years ago)

No question who wins the image war:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp5-21-09j.jpg

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 21 May 2009 16:53 (sixteen years ago)

Cheney's wearing more lipstick. Does it mean he read Maureen Dowd yesterday?

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 21 May 2009 16:54 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah see I'm more concerned about what he's actually DOING, not saying. And what he's doing is not markedly different enough from Bush for me.

oh come on, this is demonstrably untrue. Bush fully intended to keep Guantanamo open forever and to never bring anyone to trial. Obama is closing it and trying to bring all the detainees to trial, a process which is so fundamentally tangled legally because Bush essentially set into action a chain of events for which that was not the intended resolution.

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:08 (sixteen years ago)

its hard to make up a legal process AFTER everyone's already been arrested and imprisoned.

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:09 (sixteen years ago)

I'm not talking just about on Guantanamo (where yeah when he's arguing that some people might need to be held without trial is a straight Bushism, fuck that.) His rhetoric on the "War On Terror" may be different, but the actual legal actions he and the Justice Department are taking are too frighteningly similar to what Bush did for my tastes.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:12 (sixteen years ago)

when he's arguing that some people might need to be held without trial is a straight Bushism, fuck that.

yeah totally. although it isn't clear what kind of detainees he's referring to and the reasons why they couldn't be tried (I can guess but that's about it)

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:13 (sixteen years ago)

My underlying problem with the speech, despite its lucidity, is that it assumes we're in a perpetual war, and now that Obama has agreed that we're waging one, the Great Unifier will carve a consensus, now joined by Democrats, that will probably last the rest of our lives.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:16 (sixteen years ago)

I feel like it's 1947 again, and Truman, Acheson, et al are forging a foreign policy consensus with Arthur Vandenberg and other GOP stalwarts.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:18 (sixteen years ago)

Basically

1) Holding some people without trial
2) Concealing evidence of torture for the lamest of fucking reasons
3) Opposing investigating war crimes even though we are obligated to do so by international treaties
4) Retaining military commissions

suck. Releasing some torture memos, doesn't balance that shit at all.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:18 (sixteen years ago)

s that it assumes we're in a perpetual war, and now that Obama has agreed that we're waging one

um, aren't we? In the sense that we need to develop a legal framework that addresses terrorist threats, which are going to be with us for the foreseeable future?

x-post

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:21 (sixteen years ago)

I'm not going to get all Morbius "you people got played" cuz I think most people's expectations were just "please be fucking better than what preceded you" but IMO Obama is veering too close to Bill Clinton cleave to the middle with all my might bullshit.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:21 (sixteen years ago)

"um, aren't we? In the sense that we need to develop a legal framework that addresses terrorist threats, which are going to be with us for the foreseeable future?"

If we keep fighting fucking wars we are going to be.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:22 (sixteen years ago)

okay well we're getting out of Iraq, which is good - but do you really think the US military shouldn't be on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:23 (sixteen years ago)

also these islamist dudes have long memories - they'd be after us for generations even if we withdrew all troops from everywhere

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:24 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah so lets just kill more of them. That'll solve the problem.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:26 (sixteen years ago)

"these islamist dudes"

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:27 (sixteen years ago)

As opposed to those.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:28 (sixteen years ago)

so what terminology should I be using (Al Qaeda is a similarly invented umbrella term)

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:32 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah so lets just kill more of them. That'll solve the problem.

see but I don't think this is exactly Obama's strategy - he seems pretty cognizant that the way you defeat this kind of enemy is by robbing them of a fertile recruiting ground and making their ideology less appealling. Hence all the stuff about stabilizing Pakistan and Afghanistan via aid for civil engineering projects, infrastructure, education, economic development, etc.

otoh I don't really have any qualms with the argument that Bin Laden and Al Zwahiri should be killed and/or captured and tried in court and the only way to get guys operating at their level is through military operations.

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:35 (sixteen years ago)

okay well we're getting out of Iraq, which is good - but do you really think the US military shouldn't be on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan

It's not a question of "should" – it's just the way it is.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:37 (sixteen years ago)

"see but I don't think this is exactly Obama's strategy"

Really? So when we are dumping tons and tons of ordinance on villages you think this is robbing them of a fertile recruiting ground and making their ideology less appealing? Interesting.

Alex in SF, Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:40 (sixteen years ago)

nah I think bombing villages is pretty counterproductive and mostly the result of the US military (and the US public) being unwilling to accomodate the potential troop losses that would ensue from more direct engagement. what works best is covert ops sorta stuff - but that takes a lot of time and planning and is also something that (usually) gets no press (for a variety of reasons).

but to imply that current strategy consists solely of bombing villages is misleading

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:43 (sixteen years ago)

bombing is mostly the result of a very cynical political calculus that concludes that dead innocent civilians are not as politically costly as dead US troops

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:44 (sixteen years ago)

Amanpour pretty much spells it all out here

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 17:46 (sixteen years ago)

Until people in this country decide that they'd rather be materially poorer than have citizens of other countries suffer, we'll have war. This country has thrived for centuries on blood money.

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Thursday, 21 May 2009 18:09 (sixteen years ago)

that too

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 18:11 (sixteen years ago)

wtf preventive detention this is severely fucked?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Friday, 22 May 2009 18:50 (sixteen years ago)

what are you talking about? the issue is complex, therefore indefinite preventive detention is awesome as long as it's somebody on our side doing it.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:17 (sixteen years ago)

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:21 (sixteen years ago)

oh it's totally not. if it were Bush doing this, it would suck. it's not, so the issue's really complex.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:28 (sixteen years ago)

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

the implication here is that there is x number of detainees who, on the merits of the evidence, could have been found guilty in court, but now can't be, because they were tortured. another stinging indictment of the cheney regime rah rah, thanks a lot for fucking this up, but it's not much of a justification on legal grounds.

but he also says "in some cases," implying that there is another x number of detainees where the evidence against them is less clear, torture notwithstanding, and we "have to" lock them up anyway. it's necessarily arbitrary and dependent on the executive ie tyrannical.

honestly i have no idea what I'd do with these people either: you know enough to know who they are and what they have done, but not enough to pass the thresholds of evidence in court. for a reg'lar ol' murderer that means you let him go, but of course the dread official consensus is that terrorism is not the same as crime.

Swat Valley High (goole), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:29 (sixteen years ago)

anyway, check this out: sometimes journalists do their jobs

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090521/pl_mcclatchy/3237981

Swat Valley High (goole), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:30 (sixteen years ago)

the main freaky thing about this is that Obama outlined different categories (federal courts, military tribunals, preventive detainment) which defined detainees not by their crimes but by the different means used to bring all of them to the same end point. Due process is hardly being served when the process is different in order to consistently obtain the same outcome.

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:39 (sixteen years ago)

Who on the so-called left is rooting for Obama's indefinite detention policy? I only see cable when I'm traveling, as I was earlier this week when it was all Pelosi all the time. But I expect those "journalists" to be pro-Cheney/torture/police state regardless of who's doing it.

It's one of those issues where I gather doing what's politically advantageous overrides what's right, because most Americans (wrongly) think such a policy can't affect them, and they (mostly) only care about themselves. But perhaps Obama really does think this is right, not just politically advantageous. In either case the policy is fucked.

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:40 (sixteen years ago)

Also, this is pretty unprecedented as no other country in the world allows such powers and is pretty slippery slope imo

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:41 (sixteen years ago)

also this is not a POW situation because there is no foreseeable end to current "war"* and because detainees are not arrested on a battlefield wearing a uniform as part of an army

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:42 (sixteen years ago)

oh it's totally not. if it were Bush doing this, it would suck. it's not, so the issue's really complex.

I know you're just playing the Devil's Asshole here but tbh the issue was really complex when Bush was doing it too, just that he chose not to treat it as such or acknowledge it in any way

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:43 (sixteen years ago)

as far as American's concern about policy affecting them, people seem more worried about an a-rab breaking out of a federal prison lex luthor style than having themselves disappeared by the executive branch

Swat Valley High (goole), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:44 (sixteen years ago)

I don't think many people are really worried about the federal prison thing, but I do think the Republicans are playing this very well right now, taking advantage of the usual Democratic legislative timidity on defense issues.

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:47 (sixteen years ago)

Also, this is pretty unprecedented as no other country in the world allows such powers and is pretty slippery slope imo

? what kind of statement is this? There are plenty of countries where its "legal" for people to be imprisoned without charges/due process by order of an all powerful executive: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, any number of tinpot dictatorships, etc.

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:48 (sixteen years ago)

sorry, meant the kind of western democratic countries that the US is supposed to be part of, but if you want in on what North Korea's having, it isn't really a great day for freedom

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:51 (sixteen years ago)

it isn't really a great day for freedom

agreed

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:52 (sixteen years ago)

"people seem more worried about an a-rab breaking out of a federal prison lex luthor style than having themselves disappeared by the executive branch"

= people are ridiculous

like there aren't a zillion other potential terr'ist recruits who are free/not being followed by the CIA or whatever

Beatrix Kiddo, Friday, 22 May 2009 19:54 (sixteen years ago)

John Major, when the UK were trying to increase preventive detainment to 90 days (not indefinite, maybe forever like the US it should be noted):

After terrorist attacks on London, Parliament doubled the time that suspects could be held without charge from 14 days to 28 days. Probably, that was justified. But soon Parliament will be asked to increase detention without charge to 42 days. To appease opposition, the Government is cobbling together face-saving compromises. If the measure is passed, it will be a pyrrhic victory that owes more to political survival than principle. Even so, it is hard to justify: pre-charge detention in Canada is 24 hours; South Africa, Germany, New Zealand and America 48 hours; Russia 5 days; and Turkey 7½ days.

There is no proof that an extended period of 42 days would have prevented past atrocities. There is no evidence it will prevent future atrocities. No example has yet been given of why the police need more than 28 days to frame a charge. This is a slippery slope. Assertions that it “might be useful” simply will not do. If we are to curtail the liberty of the individual, we must have more certainty than that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4075503.ece

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:56 (sixteen years ago)

Like, this shit was bad enough when it was that ol' renegade maverick president, but now we're supposed to be in the Obama age. Did not realise that CHANGE meant unprecedentedly oppressive measures against whoever the fuck the government decides is probably a terrorist

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Friday, 22 May 2009 19:59 (sixteen years ago)

unprecedentedly oppressive measures against whoever the fuck the government decides is probably a terrorist

slow your roll there pardner, Obama is not talking about this applying to anyone and everyone - he's talking about applying it to a specific subset of people already apprehended (probably illegally in at least some cases) and in the government's hands

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 22 May 2009 20:02 (sixteen years ago)

allow me the temerity to say that the problem here is that it is very much "precedented" inasmuch as it was handed down from the preceding administration

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Friday, 22 May 2009 20:04 (sixteen years ago)

yeah, but the new broader context for how a POW is defined and apprehended make this pretty dodgy and grey

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Friday, 22 May 2009 20:05 (sixteen years ago)

xp but isn't this a pretty big reason why we were counting down the Bush days on our fingers?

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Friday, 22 May 2009 20:05 (sixteen years ago)

it wasn't totally unprecedented when Bush did it either (see: FDR interns Japanese)

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 22 May 2009 20:06 (sixteen years ago)

that's depressing

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Friday, 22 May 2009 20:08 (sixteen years ago)

welcome to history

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 22 May 2009 20:08 (sixteen years ago)

it took 45 years to overturn the Supreme Court rulings that upheld FDR's internment orders

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 22 May 2009 20:09 (sixteen years ago)

"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears and true to our founding documents." Indeed:

http://z.hubpages.com/u/96793_f520.jpg

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Friday, 22 May 2009 20:12 (sixteen years ago)

cobble together something approximating a legal process for what was at the outset wholly illegal, get official washington to sign off instead of doing it all in secret... far less than what we deserve but worlds better than what it could be.

Swat Valley High (goole), Friday, 22 May 2009 20:15 (sixteen years ago)

cobble together something approximating a legal process for what was at the outset wholly illegal, get official washington to sign off instead of doing it all in secret... far less than what we deserve but worlds better than what it could be.

goole otm, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say all these guys will still be sitting in prison not charged with anything come 2012. and that by then there'll be a whole host of well-rehearsed excuses for why it's not Obama's fault that he, a pretty sharp legal mind, didn't come up with a good legal solution. it's a thorny problem set in place by a dude with no mind for thorny problems, no doubt. but that's neither here nor there: fixing it should be a priority, and where there's a will, there's a way. "justice" and "fairness" are abstract notions worth focusing on.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 22 May 2009 21:36 (sixteen years ago)

Ambinder: the Obama White Houses reads Glenn Greenwald:

When Obama met Wednesday with leading human rights activists, he was pressed about this very issue as regards to the precedents that his actions would set and what they would say about American justice. (Participants were armed with good questions and some of them, knowing Obama personally, knew that he always pays attention to the larger narrative his decisions will create.)

According to participants and to administration officials, the President acknowledged the gravity of the question but chose not to answer it directly. (That's probably because, with the swirl of court cases, he doesn't know just yet what Article II powers will be available to him.) Obama then asked those assembled to help his administration draft guidelines for military commissions -- lasting guidelines, guidelines that would outlive his administration.

He was blunt; the MCs are a fait accompli, so the civil libertarians can either help Congress and the White House figure out the best way to protect the rights of the accused within the framework of that decision, or they can remain on the outside, as agitators. That's not meant to be pejorative; whereas the White House does not give a scintilla of attention to its right-wing critics, it does read, and will read, everything Glenn Greenwald writes. Obama, according to an administration official, finds this outside pressure healthy and useful.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 22 May 2009 21:42 (sixteen years ago)

Also: yay Russ Feingold.

Sen. Russ Feingold plans a hearing in June about President Obama's plan to seek "prolonged detention" without trial for some of the Guantanamo detainees. In a letter to Obama, Feingold writes that while he appreciates Obama's "good faith desire to at least enact a statutory basis for such a regime, any system that permits the government to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or without a meaningful opportunity to have accusations against them adjudicated by an impartial arbiter violates basic American values and is likely unconstitutional."

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 22 May 2009 21:43 (sixteen years ago)

whereas the White House does not give a scintilla of attention to its right-wing critics

No wonder Krauthammer's always so cheesed. "But he had dinner with me!"

Ned Raggett, Friday, 22 May 2009 21:46 (sixteen years ago)

promising developments, I guess

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 22 May 2009 21:46 (sixteen years ago)

I would be delighted if Congresspeople were motivated by Obama's policy decisions to legislate, something they have not been much inclined to do over the last nine years (at least). Cases in point: the cowering Democrats on torture and detainees, and the supine and then obstructive Republicans---in all cases, lazy and cowardly in the face of the executive. Unfortunately, Feingold is exceptional.

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Friday, 22 May 2009 21:49 (sixteen years ago)

the WSJ:

"Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that civilians courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney."

Cockburn on Dubya Lite:

ow long does it take a mild-mannered, antiwar, black professor of constitutional law, trained as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, to become an enthusiastic sponsor of targeted assassinations, “decapitation” strategies and remote-control bombing of mud houses the far end of the globe?

There’s nothing surprising here. As far back as President Woodrow Wilson in the early twentieth century, American liberalism has been swift to flex imperial muscle, to whistle up the Marines. High explosives have always been in the hormone shot.

The nearest parallel to Obama in eager deference to the bloodthirsty counsels of his counter-insurgency advisors is John F. Kennedy. It is not surprising that bright young presidents relish quick-fix, “outside the box” scenarios for victory....

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05222009.html

Dr Morbius, Sunday, 24 May 2009 00:23 (sixteen years ago)

Morbs, do you really think any of us who know American history is blind to Obama's neo-imperialism? I didn't even vote for the guy! It's a reciprocal relationship. I want some shit out of him, period. He knows we're using each other.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 24 May 2009 01:00 (sixteen years ago)

Quick: Name one modern U.S. President who wasn't neo-imperialist!

Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 24 May 2009 01:07 (sixteen years ago)

I love Morbius, but if he thinks I'm going to wring my hands and say, "I've been betrayed!" then he underestimates me and the number of people here who're quite aware of Obama's "pivots" and compromises.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 24 May 2009 01:19 (sixteen years ago)

I know you weren't an Obama acolyte, Alfred. But are you getting any shit out of him?

Name one modern U.S. President who wasn't neo-imperialist!

But Daniel, CHANGE

Dr Morbius, Sunday, 24 May 2009 01:54 (sixteen years ago)

Really like this Frank Rich piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24rich.html

first you get the monkey, then you get the power, then you get the women (hmmmm), Sunday, 24 May 2009 19:44 (sixteen years ago)

But Daniel, CHANGE

― Dr Morbius, Saturday, May 23, 2009 8:54 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

its raining strawmen

autogucci cru (deej), Sunday, 24 May 2009 22:34 (sixteen years ago)

Morbs, do you really think any of us who know American history is blind to Obama's neo-imperialism?

Albert in fairness if anybody during the pre-nomination run-up had lobbed the term "neo-imperialist" at Obama here in ILE, that person would quickly have been treated to any number of links demonstrating how Obama was truly, really different, not just "the democratic candidate who can actually win"

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Sunday, 24 May 2009 22:40 (sixteen years ago)

also, no deej, you don't get to call the "change" argument a strawman when you rode that shit all through the election season

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Sunday, 24 May 2009 22:41 (sixteen years ago)

I'm not sure how valuable it is to call Obama himself a neo-imperialist. It suggests there's an alternative. The United States is an imperial power with force projected all over the world in the form of actual armies and in the form of the rules that govern economic activity. Obama is its new steward. There's only so anti-imperial he's gonna be.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 25 May 2009 00:06 (sixteen years ago)

FWIW within that framework I think he's doing an awesome job. And I don't think those suspects in the clink at Guantanamo will still be there in 2012 unless they've been convicted of something in a venue with Congressional oversight. Call me crazy!

Tracer Hand, Monday, 25 May 2009 00:08 (sixteen years ago)

Albert in fairness if anybody during the pre-nomination run-up had lobbed the term "neo-imperialist" at Obama here in ILE, that person would quickly have been treated to any number of links demonstrating how Obama was truly, really different, not just "the democratic candidate who can actually win"

Ha -- I was drunk last night.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 25 May 2009 00:10 (sixteen years ago)

love these threads!!!!

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Monday, 25 May 2009 00:20 (sixteen years ago)

By the way if anyone wants to have a competition about who can read Obama's mind better, I am so up for it.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 25 May 2009 00:33 (sixteen years ago)

I think Tracer's basically right that any American president right now, being presented with an empire, is going to rule that empire. Will he dismantle it? I don't know.

I know I keep saying this but I figure I'm no worse than Morbius as a broken record so fuck it: the way I see Obama's "change" is an opportunity for us to take the organizing we learned (again) in electing him, and use this to become a democracy again, rather than a bunch of lazy fucks who wait for the government to take care of shit. That's OUR task should we be up to it (I fear we aren't but HOPE springs eternal).

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Monday, 25 May 2009 00:45 (sixteen years ago)

also, no deej, you don't get to call the "change" argument a strawman when you rode that shit all through the election season

― worm? lol (J0hn D.), Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:41 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah j0hn u know me, always talking about how obama was going to ... dismantle american imperial power??? link to one example of when i suggested that was what 'change' meant (actually the reason i even said 'strawmen' was cuz i certainly fukkin wasnt going on % on about how obama was all about CHANGE -- i just said he was by far the best candidate, more likely to push the country more ambitiously leftward. do u think hrc would be doing a better job right now? would she be dismantling the imperialist power? come the fuck on. so u and morbs can stop fucking 'i told you so!!!' about shit we werent even arguing with in the first place)

autogucci cru (deej), Monday, 25 May 2009 02:29 (sixteen years ago)

just fyi--i was the guy on the primary threads saying that obama would immediately dismantle US imperial power and personally ensure that no one ever died again

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Monday, 25 May 2009 02:38 (sixteen years ago)

lol u got punkd

resistance is feudal (WmC), Monday, 25 May 2009 02:45 (sixteen years ago)

max, enabling imperialism yet again

velko, Monday, 25 May 2009 02:48 (sixteen years ago)

I figure I'm no worse than Morbius

Aw cheer up

Tracer Hand, Monday, 25 May 2009 09:52 (sixteen years ago)

do u think hrc would be doing a better job right now?

no, I think she'd be doing exactly the same thing, which is kind of the point

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 25 May 2009 10:11 (sixteen years ago)

Hey look he's getting his secret Muslim award, how fun!

http://www.latimes.com/media/alternatethumbnails/photo/2009-06/47286013-03071348.jpg

(Why do I have the feeling that's about to be seriously claimed by Malkin...)

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 14:49 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31062270/

Thanks for considering putting affordable health care out of reach for me, President Obama.

Hatfail of Hollow (Nicole), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 14:53 (sixteen years ago)

I can see an argument for treating private health care insurance provided by your employer as income, but ONLY if there's already a high-quality and universally accessible public option.

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 15:41 (sixteen years ago)

I doubt that will be the case.

Hatfail of Hollow (Nicole), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 15:42 (sixteen years ago)

^yup xpost

This seems like some kind of submarine tactic by the healthcare lobby to put some electoral poison in the bill. They should just come out and make healthcare funding part of the payroll tax and make it aggressively redistributive. if ever there were a time to put in a tax like that it would be now.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 15:44 (sixteen years ago)

a quick back of the envelope based on current US employed pop and the $250bn needed you need an average payroll tax take of $1,750. I guess reducing this by taxing health benefits above a (high) threshold would not be a bad option.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 15:49 (sixteen years ago)

J0hn otm re MiracleBam turning out to be HRC.

more likely to push the country more ambitiously leftward.

huge LOL regarding any Democratic president, esp post-LBJ.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:36 (sixteen years ago)

HRC would not have been politically skilled enough to accomplish/pull off any of the things Obama has so far. She has few friends in the Senate, and is such a divisive figure politically that she wouldn't have been able to pass half the legislation Obama already has.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:39 (sixteen years ago)

photoshop plz

http://recoveringperfectionist.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/miracle20gro20logo.jpeg

let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:39 (sixteen years ago)

I doubt Hillary would've made ANY moves to close Guantanamo, for ex. But this is all conjecture.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:40 (sixteen years ago)

yes, and MOVES (that haven't actually changed things) are mostly what Bam has got.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:44 (sixteen years ago)

ezra klein thinks a public health plan option is likely:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/why_health_reform_is_likely_to.html

senate liberals and the WH start to lean on the centrists, the centrists start changing their minds!

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:45 (sixteen years ago)

"actually changed things" lolz

why do you botehr

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:45 (sixteen years ago)

bother

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:45 (sixteen years ago)

Morbs are you saying that Obama is a good dancer?

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:45 (sixteen years ago)

the point is that some of the stuff Obama is doing is the stuff that ppl who supported Clinton were told she would do, and that it was bad that she would do it. now that O's on the job, the spectre of the horrible shit HRC was gonna pull if we didn't avert the disaster of an HRC presidency is, y'know, Much More Complex.

wait don't tell me SOUR GRAPES LOL etc. lol whatever, the point is that when Democrats start making claims for the huge difference of one primary candidate over another, and how one has nobler goals etc., it's either stars-in-eyes naivete or something more cynical - they all seem to end up playing the same sorta game, even when their opening moves are as rad as Obama's were

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:45 (sixteen years ago)

You ppl just REFUSE to be disappointed in the rock star. The one who is still running secret prisons, having tribunals instead of trials, ramping up Afghanistan British Empire- and Soviet-style, ETC.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:48 (sixteen years ago)

and letting the Geithners and GMs run the economy.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:49 (sixteen years ago)

Gitmo is no secret

Geithner is a life long public servant

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:50 (sixteen years ago)

Joe Torre is not running the economy--he runs the Dodgers

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:50 (sixteen years ago)

i was all set to announce my crushing disappointment in this administration but on the nbc special last night they showed obama buying the whole west wing five guys! what a dude!!

let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:50 (sixteen years ago)

lol at morbz criticizing people for being inflexible in their views

congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:50 (sixteen years ago)

You ppl just REFUSE to be disappointed in the rock star.

can you read

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:51 (sixteen years ago)

You ppl just REFUSE to be disappointed in the rock star. The one who is still running secret prisons, having tribunals instead of trials, ramping up Afghanistan British Empire- and Soviet-style, ETC.

lolz what do you mean "YOU PPL". You just don't listen to anyone here, so stop pretending like you do. Secret prisons have been closed by executive order. The tribunals system is being revised and is not being implemented across the board, its been made clear that different detainees are going to be handled in different legal contexts. I am totally okay with going after the Taliban/Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which is way different than invading a country to secure an oil pipeline and seaport (which is why Russia invaded Afghanistan to begin with). I'm not even gonna begin to get into the British allusion, which is completely ahistorical ignorance, way to go there.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:53 (sixteen years ago)

Gitmo is no secret

you don't really have to have a tinfoil hat on to suspect there are other sites like it where people are enjoying extraordinary rendition, a policy praticed under Bush and about which I haven't heard much from Obama - are we to conclude he quietly and without fanfare ended the practice?

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:53 (sixteen years ago)

Secret prisons have been closed by executive order.

wait is this true? go O if so, credit where due

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:53 (sixteen years ago)

lolz GM is running the economy? they just declared bankruptcy, how is that "running the economy"?

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:54 (sixteen years ago)

fucking pay attention, this was the day after the inauguration

I am not gonna deny that HRC and Obama promised a lot of the same things, the issue was often that Obama WOULD GET THEM DONE better.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:55 (sixteen years ago)

LOL I guess so

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23GITMOCND.html

this is where haters like me should be required by honesty to say "good look there mr. president" - except then you note on the same day came the order to close guantanamo, and you wonder: did any secret prisons get shuttered for real?

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:55 (sixteen years ago)

how's that hat?

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:56 (sixteen years ago)

I am not gonna deny that HRC and Obama promised a lot of the same things, the issue was often that Obama WOULD GET THEM DONE better.

this is a lie by the way. the two were presented as if the differences in their policies were going to be HUGELY different, and anybody who said "they're essentially the same" was really, really dumb, totally not clued in to the huge difference. which, there really weren't any, except that HRC might have zoome in quicker on health care.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:57 (sixteen years ago)

GM did not have to declare bankruptcy. This is likely the costliest way to go.

"Oh, Bam closed -- or says he want to close -- the FAMOUS prison! There mustn't be any more in da whole wide world! and certainly no renditions to medieval police states!"

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:57 (sixteen years ago)

lolz even when you guys read you can't really READ. He ordered the secret prisons closed immediately, and Gitmo closed within a year.

x-posts

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:57 (sixteen years ago)

how's that hat?

so, you really think our prez is so bitchin' that there's no foul shit goin' on abroad on your tax dollar? how's that pacifier?

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:58 (sixteen years ago)

we still do rendition, and i agree it sucks

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:58 (sixteen years ago)

so, you really think our prez is so bitchin' that there's no foul shit goin' on abroad on your tax dollar?

i'm sure there's plenty of foul shit going on with my tax dollar!

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:59 (sixteen years ago)

so, you really think our prez is so bitchin' that there's no foul shit goin' on abroad on your tax dollar? how's that pacifier?

okay wait so now you've changed your complaint to being about things you SUSPECT happen but have no knowledge or proof of?? WTF solid legal reasoning there

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:59 (sixteen years ago)

With Obama we're going to get lots of "moves" that send mixed signals, designed to please this or that base: the indefinite detention of prisoners and the belief in an endless War on Terror is reason, and a bullshit LGBT month complements, say, the supposed verbal beatdown he gave Netanyahu behind closed doors over his settlement policy and the abolishment of torture.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:59 (sixteen years ago)

He ordered the secret prisons closed immediately, and Gitmo closed within a year.

oh, right, I see the problem is totally solved. chalk up another win for the most awesome totally-different Democrat everz!

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:59 (sixteen years ago)

if it was in the NY Times ($2 weekday newsstand price btw!!), it certainly is always true, as Judy Miller settled once and for all

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:00 (sixteen years ago)

forgot how awesome this thread is

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:00 (sixteen years ago)

just like Star Trek 90210

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:01 (sixteen years ago)

and yes I'm pretty sure there's plenty of foul shit going on with my tax dollar, the point is that with Obama there's LESS of it going on then there was before.

x-posts

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:01 (sixteen years ago)

if it was in the NY Times ($2 weekday newsstand price btw!!), it certainly is always true, as Judy Miller settled once and for all

wtf are you on about? Anyone with reading comprehension skills could see past the Senior Administration Official palaver on which her stories relied.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:01 (sixteen years ago)

if it was in the NY Times ($2 weekday newsstand price btw!!), it certainly is always true, as Judy Miller settled once and for all

LET"S BITCH ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!! WEEEEEE

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:02 (sixteen years ago)

that's the secret name of this board

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:02 (sixteen years ago)

I don't see what your problem with that CBS link is J0hn. How else would you like the CIA to operate. Should they not detain anybody? Is it not better to have them operating in a legally transparent process instead of kidnapping people and torturing them in secret?

x-post

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:03 (sixteen years ago)

GM did not have to declare bankruptcy.

hilarious.

incidentally, apparently there's some law that only 1 US auto firm can be in bankruptcy at a time? how in the f did that come about? so Chrysler had to be declared Not Bankrupt Anymore to push GM into it. This fucken country, i swear...

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:03 (sixteen years ago)

Anyone with reading comprehension skills

I think this answers your question right here Alfred

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:03 (sixteen years ago)

lol @ ppl on the internet complaining abt how much the print ny times costs

Lamp, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:04 (sixteen years ago)

"incidentally, apparently there's some law that only 1 US auto firm can be in bankruptcy at a time?"

wait what

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:04 (sixteen years ago)

With Obama we're going to get lots of "moves" that send mixed signals, designed to please this or that base: the indefinite detention of prisoners and the belief in an endless War on Terror is reason, and a bullshit LGBT month complements, say, the supposed verbal beatdown he gave Netanyahu behind closed doors over his settlement policy and the abolishment of torture.

as usual Alfred more cogent than Morbz

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:05 (sixteen years ago)

except omit "is reason"

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:05 (sixteen years ago)

How else would you like the CIA to operate.

this is always my favorite dodge. "you can't do better, therefore this rules!"

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:06 (sixteen years ago)

GM did not have to declare bankruptcy. This is likely the costliest way to go.

It could have been declared insolvent last year and gone straight into chapter 7. To be sure this is the costliest way to go but is there a better way to not have a major sector of US manufacturing implode?

Prince of Persia (Ed), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:06 (sixteen years ago)

altho as I've pointed out before Obama has never embraced the lexicon of the "War on Terror", and certainly doesn't frame the existing radical Muslim terrorist threat in the eternal, existential terms that Bush did

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:07 (sixteen years ago)

anyway, i said this all thru the primaries but it bears repeating: i didn't vote for obama because i thought he would do everything i wanted (or that needs) doing, but because i thought he presented the greatest chance, against other available options, of doing those things. so far, true enough. it doesn't preclude disappointment. disappointment doesn't preclude further support, either.

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:07 (sixteen years ago)

this is always my favorite dodge. "you can't do better, therefore this rules!"

that isn't what I said. I said he's doing better, and that's, you know, BETTER. The CIA does not "rule", they're by and large an exceptionally corrupt and disturbing global political tool, but to act like they serve no purpose and provide zero benefit to the American public is equally delusional.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:08 (sixteen years ago)

that isn't what I said. I said he's doing better, and that's, you know, BETTER.

better than Bush obviously & goes without saying, non-different from anything Edwards or Clinton or LOL Bill Richardson would have done. the thing that sticks in my craw is how the true believers spent all the primaries making the case (you can exempt yourself, I'm not going to comb through old threads to prove that you said any of this) that Obama wasn't going be more effective or more capable, but actually different; that the differences between him & the others running against him was ideological, and that Obama's ideology was to be greatly preferred. people like Morbius take a lot of flak for saying "they're all basically the same." but they are; we're seeing that in the last month or two, after a very nice opening salvo by the President. obviously I'll vote for him again, I'm not stupid, but the next time the primaries roll around, I'll remember that much of the acclaimed differences between candidates didn't actually pan out to much.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:14 (sixteen years ago)

LOL Bill Richardson

For reals. He's sometimes funny, tho.

Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:16 (sixteen years ago)

The difference is that Morbs said Obama was the same as Bush, not as Clinton (which actually I think pretty much everyone except possibly Deej and/or Max said from the beginning).

Obama seems to have the views of a 21-year-old Hispanic girl (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:16 (sixteen years ago)

fair enough. I think what you're overlooking is that most of the people on this thread (myself included) were not concerned as much with ideology as with prospective effectiveness. Hillary is a shitty politician. She would not be able to accomplish as much as Obama, because she wouldn't have had the political capital or public support that he does.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:17 (sixteen years ago)

(z-posts)

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:17 (sixteen years ago)

I mean, Obama himself in the first primary debate said "lol we're all pretty much the same when compared to the Republicans, I just have the added benefit of being awesome" so I kind of don't get where this phantom "Obama is a godly being not cut from mortal cloth" bullshit comes from aside from Chris Matthews, who does not post here.

Obama seems to have the views of a 21-year-old Hispanic girl (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:18 (sixteen years ago)

The difference is that Morbs said Obama was the same as Bush, not as Clinton (which actually I think pretty much everyone except possibly Deej and/or Max said from the beginning).

this is otm actually, deej & max & maybe ethan were the can't-you-see-the-difference crew

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:18 (sixteen years ago)

Dan OTM - the "Miracle ObamaMan" baloney comes from a fawning media that gets periodically awed by a previously moribund party producing a media-savvy candidate who knows how to manipulate them. They did the same thing with Dubya, Clinton, etc. They are idiots.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:20 (sixteen years ago)

glad ive been lumped in as part of the cant-you-see-the-difference crew

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:21 (sixteen years ago)

It's unverifiable to say that things would have come out the same had Edwards or Clinton won. Let's keep talking about what Obama is doing and whether it's right, rather than talk about unverifiable matters that simply confirm our various prejudices.

dulce est desipere in loco (Euler), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:21 (sixteen years ago)

lol @ ppl on the internet complaining abt how much the print ny times costs

yeah, some of us like flipping through print, and also prefer old-fashioned job hunting before the internet made it a ritual of emailing resumes and never hearing shit from anybody. anything else you wanna fucking know?

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:21 (sixteen years ago)

glad ive been lumped in as part of the cant-you-see-the-difference crew

sorry max u know I love u but the shoe fits

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:22 (sixteen years ago)

It's unverifiable to say that things would have come out the same had Edwards or Clinton won. Let's keep talking about what Obama is doing and whether it's right, rather than talk about unverifiable matters that simply confirm our various prejudices.

^^^this

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:22 (sixteen years ago)

i know this is like the dumbest thing to ask on a thread as retarded as this but maybe when were all tossing around our strawmen we could i dunno find some posts to back up what were claiming other people said

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:22 (sixteen years ago)

anything else you wanna fucking know?

do you also need someone to come over and help figure out how to program your VCR?

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:22 (sixteen years ago)

for the VERY LAST TIME, I never said Obama was the same as Bush. Because he's not, that's all you want and expect from him.

I will not be voting for him again, and possibly not for anyone else.

Too bad no more mudwrestling @ the Eagle, Shakeypants.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:24 (sixteen years ago)

In fairness max, I was hedging as hard as I could because I remembered someone doing it but I couldn't remember if it was you or deej and I'm lazy.

Morbius, no one here actually gives a shit about your political views because, by opting out of the system and taking on this snarky robot parrot persona, you have made yourself irrelevant.

Obama seems to have the views of a 21-year-old Hispanic girl (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:26 (sixteen years ago)

basically so far everyone seems to be assuming that dr morbius thinks obama is the same as bush and that deej thinks obama is the same as jesus--both morbs and deej actually have way more nuanced positions than that--i mean i wish that morbs would be less grouchy about all of it but thats half ppl baiting him anyway

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:27 (sixteen years ago)

just to be clear the reason i voted for obama is cuz he went to my college

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:27 (sixteen years ago)

do you also need someone to come over and help figure out how to program your VCR?

LOL that was an evil joke and I lol'd.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:27 (sixteen years ago)

yeah, some of us like flipping through print, and also prefer old-fashioned job hunting before the internet made it a ritual of emailing resumes and never hearing shit from anybody. anything else you wanna fucking know?

y r u so hostile?

i cant really tell what anyone is arguing at all but i tht ppl might be talking abt health care stuff? or is that back in the one million posts that are hidden upthread???

Lamp, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:29 (sixteen years ago)

I don't give a shit if you give a shit, HI DERE. "Stay relevant" by voting for pieces of shit like Joe Biden. Voting is the entire political system, as we can see by all the marching you sated cheerleaders are doing.

Since TV now consists mostly of bad talk shows and comedy sketches about other TV shows, there's no need for me to remember how to program it.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:30 (sixteen years ago)

morbs in full bullhorn-&-banner-in-union-square-park mode, classic stuff

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:30 (sixteen years ago)

Obamaites in bending-over-in-prison mode

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:31 (sixteen years ago)

basically so far everyone seems to be assuming that dr morbius thinks obama is the same as bush and that deej thinks obama is the same as jesus--both morbs and deej actually have way more nuanced positions than that--i mean i wish that morbs would be less grouchy about all of it but thats half ppl baiting him anyway

Perform this search and tell me, precisely, what business "nuanced position" has being in the same sentence as Dr Morbius based off of what he has deigned to write on these threads:

displayName:"Dr Morbius" bush obama

xp: Do you even understand English, Morbs?

Obama seems to have the views of a 21-year-old Hispanic girl (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:31 (sixteen years ago)

am i sated cheerleader or am i a prisoner

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:31 (sixteen years ago)

the healthcare thing is interesting - I am in general not down with taxing healthcare benefits but if they set the income level for that high enough then I might be down with it. Tax the rich people's benefits and tax shelters and redistribute that shit, I'm all for it.

many x-posts

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:32 (sixteen years ago)

I don't give a shit if you give a shit, HI DERE. "Stay relevant" by voting for pieces of shit like Joe Biden. Voting is the entire political system, as we can see by all the marching you sated cheerleaders are doing.

this is a surefire way to recruit ppl to yr position

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:32 (sixteen years ago)

am i sated cheerleader or am i a prisoner

I dunno what this means but it sounds HOTTTT

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:32 (sixteen years ago)

well i was trying to be charitable

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:33 (sixteen years ago)

i could be both i guess--depends on the situation, etc

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:33 (sixteen years ago)

google search for "sated cheerleader" delivered!

L. Ron Huppert (velko), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:34 (sixteen years ago)

i know this is like the dumbest thing to ask on a thread as retarded as this but maybe when were all tossing around our strawmen we could i dunno find some posts to back up what were claiming other people said

max, the 3rd primaries thread is 5,822 posts long

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:34 (sixteen years ago)

gonna have to go with my memory, patchy as it may occasionally be

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:35 (sixteen years ago)

morbs mixes metaphors like a fuckin' mcflurry machine, love this guy

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:35 (sixteen years ago)

why wd i be trying to recruit people to my position? I've known we were doomed since 1984. Just trying to stall the Mad Max world til after my death at this point.

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:35 (sixteen years ago)

didn't realize we had so little time left :-/

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:36 (sixteen years ago)

wait am i fighting a prisoner in the thunderdome while dressed as a cheerleader??

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:36 (sixteen years ago)

Mudwrestling, actually.

Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:37 (sixteen years ago)

no, que, that's tina turner pegging you with a pom-pom handle

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:37 (sixteen years ago)

"legend has it there was once an old man on the internet who warned us of the apocalypse to come..."

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:37 (sixteen years ago)

dr morbius why dont u want to live in my world

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:38 (sixteen years ago)

Morbius Muad`Dib, PhD.

Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:38 (sixteen years ago)

you are not mad, Max

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:39 (sixteen years ago)

SB

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:39 (sixteen years ago)

ilx: political debates, sexy results

so i guess its a no to discussing taxing employer health benefits then?

Lamp, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:40 (sixteen years ago)

don't let Morbz distract you

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:41 (sixteen years ago)

2009 American Politics Thread II - My Indie Rock Singer Has a Goofy Sidekick

let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:41 (sixteen years ago)

Like I said, I'm waiting to see at what income level they propose to levy that tax, cuz if its under Obama's $250,000/yr target, I think that's grounds to be fairly pissed off. There would have to be some serious quid pro quo to justify that - ie, at least a public system that people can opt into.

x-post

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:42 (sixteen years ago)

i think taxing employer health benefits is a great idea. let 'er rip. it's a big penny that has to drop if the current insurance regime is going to be broken (revolutionary language! how's that) so we might as well drop it whenever, says i.

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:42 (sixteen years ago)

Dr. "SB" Morbius strikes again!

Mordy, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:43 (sixteen years ago)

well on a personal level if they apply that to ALL hc benefits regardless of income, that will be a huge hit to my paycheck and provide no identifiable direct benefit, so fuck that. If they give me a choice between taxing those benefits and opting into a public system then that's a different matter, cuz I totally would rather deal with a non-profit gov't system than fucking Kaiser.

x-post

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:44 (sixteen years ago)

xp

...of course, "government's" psychic role is to take the blame for anything that happens, so if everyone starts having to cover the actual bills for their managers' cadillac plans, no doubt the anger is going to fall on government "tampering," or on a public plan, however constructed.

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:48 (sixteen years ago)

2009 American Politics Thread II - My Indie Rock Singer Has a Goofy Sidekick

D+, J0rdan I expect better material from you than this

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:50 (sixteen years ago)

cuz I totally would rather deal with a non-profit gov't system than fucking Kaiser

apparently kaiser has been really successful in among other things controlling costs - was indifferent to dealing w/them when i lived there but considering how much ppl bitch abt them its interesting - oversight/admin stuff is really the crux here for me

also fwiw:

http://media.economist.com/images/20090530/CUS515.gif

Lamp, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:51 (sixteen years ago)

whats so crazy abt me saying i think obama is doing a better job now than hrc would in his position, exactly?

autogucci cru (deej), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:51 (sixteen years ago)

2009 American Politics Thread III - Dennis Perrin Has Better Material Than This

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:51 (sixteen years ago)

i mean i know its debatable since its basically unproveable either way, but im not sure why thats considered the equivalent of a morbs style fringe position here

autogucci cru (deej), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:52 (sixteen years ago)

not crazy deej just really not supportable by much - the things Obama's doing (leaving GITMO open, suppressing FOIA, etc) are things you would have run any other candidate the fuck up for even suggesting

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:52 (sixteen years ago)

im obv very disappointed by those things but i dont much care for the implication that its all been bad news from his end -- he released the torture memos ... hes taken significant steps in closing those prisons ... his stance on the settlements in israel .. etc

autogucci cru (deej), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:54 (sixteen years ago)

nobody's saying it's all bad news, I'm saying it's about what I would have expected from any Dem president & that he doesn't really seem especially awesome. he's adequate, and better than a Republican. not the Clear Alternative a lotta ppl were jocking back when. I know, post-election, it was very naive to think that clear alternative talk was real or anything other than strategy.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:55 (sixteen years ago)

?! how is he "leaving GITMO open"? blame harry reid for that shit

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:56 (sixteen years ago)

also he's a very likable dude and I like to hear him speak because he is really smart and makes me feel like I don't live in a nation of morons. I am happy he's president. I am disappointed by his centrism. there were a lot of people, you among them, who had great claims about just how far left he really was.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:57 (sixteen years ago)

deej, there was conflation of me saying that you said Obama was markedly different from Clinton with me saying that there's a bunch of bullshit projection going on where people who want to criticize Obama feel like they have to cast people who are, on balance, happy with his decisions as uncritical fools; it was not my intent to say you were an uncritical fool.

Obama seems to have the views of a 21-year-old Hispanic girl (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:57 (sixteen years ago)

I wouldn't hold up any progress with Israel as a shining example just yet deej, but I am cautiously optimistic... its pretty hard to get Israel to do anything without threatening to cut them off financially, and unfortunately I bet Obama won't go there. If he's actually handing out verbal beatdowns to Netanyahu that's all well and good, but I want to see some actual results - not meaningless commitments on paper (which Israel has happily gone along with and then routinely ignored) but actual settlements dismantled, walls torn down, troops withdrawn, etc.

A lot to ask, I know.

x-post

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 17:57 (sixteen years ago)

?! how is he "leaving GITMO open"? blame harry reid for that shit

yep - blame congress for this nonsensical lack of faith in the US prison system to house detainees

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:00 (sixteen years ago)

like, really we've got the blind sheikh and I dunno how many other mass murderers and domestic terrorists on permanent lockdown, and they're afraid of holding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? GTFO

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:00 (sixteen years ago)

nobody thinks if the President said to Democratic leaders "make this happen, it is a priority for me" they'd find a way? everybody really thinks if the president actually had it as a priority, the Democratic congress would take it to a standoff with him and tell him "no"? I don't.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:04 (sixteen years ago)

you think the Dems in Congress would pick Obama over the public?

Reggiano Jackson (gabbneb), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:06 (sixteen years ago)

seemed pretty clear to me that a large portion of congress people thought (perhaps mistakenly? but I doubt it) that their constituencies would hold it against them if Gitmo detainees got transferred to their districts... I think there must have been some effective Repub noisemachine going ahead of this to stir up fear a la "terrorists on US soil OH NOES!" cuz otherwise I dunno why this argument got any traction at all, it is so blatantly stupid and ignorant on its face.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:08 (sixteen years ago)

I don't think they'd gird up their shields against him, no - I think they'd go into spin mode to save their public rep, but I sure don't think they'd say "we're not gonna play ball" - they're not as popular as he is.

in all this, more huge O disappointment here: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/02-4 though I don't remember anybody claiming Obama was gonna be particularly great on environment so w/e

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:08 (sixteen years ago)

wait lemme guess the source is lefty so the answer is "lol lefties" instead of "fuck mountaintop removal"

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:09 (sixteen years ago)

nimby sentiment affects congress much more than potus, no?

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:10 (sixteen years ago)

that coal mining thing is some bullshit and the EPA oughta know that, hopefully they'll block it

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:10 (sixteen years ago)

along the same lines, the cap and trade bill is bullshit

let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:10 (sixteen years ago)

re: Obama and the environment - if he gets that climate change bill of Waxman's passed, that is going to be MAJOR and I will forgive an awful lot if that happens

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:11 (sixteen years ago)

the cap and trade bill is bullshit

?? what makes you say this

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:11 (sixteen years ago)

Appalachia didn't vote for O, payback imo

L. Ron Huppert (velko), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:12 (sixteen years ago)

re: Obama and the environment - if he gets that climate change bill of Waxman's passed, that is going to be MAJOR and I will forgive an awful lot if that happens

nice goalpost - if the bill gets passed, it's to his credit, if congress won't close gitmo, not his fault

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:12 (sixteen years ago)

eh not exactly - a lot of this is on Waxman (respeck knucklez to that dude for realz) and Obama's (or maybe more specifically Biden's) role will ostensibly be negotiating whatever Waxman passes with the Senate.

Also there's a difference between congress blocking a request of the president, and the president helping to facilitate the passage of a bill that did not originate in his office.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:15 (sixteen years ago)

I'm waiting to see at what income level they propose to levy that tax, cuz if its under Obama's $250,000/yr target, I think that's grounds to be fairly pissed off.

Everybody seems to think that the sitting president in in control of the political system, but he isn't even close to that kind of power. The Republicans do a better job of submerging this fact in their lockstep party discipline.

Democratic presidents always have to deal with a Congress that doesn't obey orders.

Obama is fully in control of the executive branch, though, and should be held fully accountable for foreign policy, law enforcement, administrative policies, rules and procedures, and any executive orders he signs. Also, for any vetos he fails to make.

Aimless, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:16 (sixteen years ago)

ie, in the first case the congress is explicitly denying the president something he asked for. in the latter case he's assisting his congressional allies with meeting a mutual goal. There's a big legislative, procedural difference there

x-posts

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:17 (sixteen years ago)

he cap and trade bill is bullshit

?? what makes you say this

― Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, June 3, 2009 1:11 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

it's super diluted

On May 15th Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, the Democratic point-men on climate change in the House of Representatives, unveiled a bill that would give away 85% of carbon permits for nothing, with only 15% being auctioned. The bill’s supporters say this colossal compromise was necessary to win the support of firms that generate dirty energy or use a lot of it, and to satisfy congressmen from states that mine coal or roll steel.

Giving away permits creates several problems. First, it generates no money, thereby royally messing up Mr Obama’s budget. Second, it means that the permits go not to those who value them most (as in an auction) but to those whom the government favours. Under Waxman-Markey, electricity-distributors would get the largest share, with the rest divided between energy-intensive manufacturers, carmakers, natural-gas distributors, states with renewable-energy programmes and so on. Oil firms, with only 2% of the permits, feel hard done by. But most polluters, having just been promised hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of permits for nothing, are elated. So it is not just the owners of ski resorts and businesses with negligible carbon footprints that are queuing up to praise the bill. Duke Energy, a power generator with lots of coal-fired plants, is also enthusiastic.

The grand handout to shareholders is meant to last until around 2030, by which time all permits will be auctioned.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13702826&CFID=62253241&CFTOKEN=58600699

let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:18 (sixteen years ago)

it's a step in the right direction but 2030 is a long ass way away

let free dom ring (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:19 (sixteen years ago)

Mountaintop removal sucks. I think this is pretty much a given.

What are we going to do about the jobs tied up in it? If we stop those projects, do we invent some other work that involves the skill set of these people or do we mark them off as unemployed?

Obama seems to have the views of a 21-year-old Hispanic girl (HI DERE), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:19 (sixteen years ago)

I for one am willing to respect the prez for his observance of separation of powers

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:20 (sixteen years ago)

in the first case the congress is explicitly denying the president something he asked for.

but Congress is a co-equal branch of government! Aimless OTM about the insubordination of Congress whenever a Dem holds the Oval Office, but I'm tired of a supine Congress.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:20 (sixteen years ago)

but Congress is a co-equal branch of government!

agreed but this denial was for a stupid fucking reason!

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:24 (sixteen years ago)

it's a step in the right direction but 2030 is a long ass way away

build the framework first, adjust the details as you go

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:25 (sixteen years ago)

Waxman is like Snidely Whiplash.

Hatfail of Hollow (Nicole), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:31 (sixteen years ago)

electricity-distributors would get the largest share, with the rest divided between energy-intensive manufacturers, carmakers, natural-gas distributors, states with renewable-energy programmes and so on. Oil firms, with only 2% of the permits, feel hard done by.

fwiw I'm not sure I entirely grasp the details here (I should check with some coworkers, we had a person in DC when this was being negotiated) but it seems to me that the intention of this is to give the permits to entities that will be fundamentally involved in a larger transition to a "greener" economy (ie, the exclusion of oil companies is a telling point. We want to transition away from being dependent on them to a system that will place a much bigger burden on the existing energy distribution infrastructure). In the case of California, since we have really intensive, progressive renewable energy programs in place as well as a well-regulated energy industry that is required to meet a wide variety of aggressive GHG emissions goals, I'm okay with the utilities' getting these permits. They are going to be investing in green infrastructure - its mandated by state law - and it will be good in the long-run if they have some leeway and extra economic incentives to make those investments. I agree that the percentages is skewed and that fucking up Obama's budget like that is bad, but it gets a system in place and the goals are good ones.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:33 (sixteen years ago)

I mean the electrical distribution system in this country is completely old and decrepit - in most states, there isn't even a way to easily tie-in renewable generators to the existing grid. these companies are gonna have huge goals and mandates handed down to them - giving them the permits will allow them to absorb the blow somewhat... at least I think that's the rationale behind this...?

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:35 (sixteen years ago)

Oil firms, with only 2% of the permits, feel hard done by.

Let them run to Dick Cheney and complain of this.

Aimless, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 18:35 (sixteen years ago)

Obama to fight to include public plan in healthcare overhaul

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 21:32 (sixteen years ago)

“I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”

If we get this in exchange for the benefits tax, I am all for it.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 21:33 (sixteen years ago)

A bit of good news:

New Secretary of Army committed to changing DADT

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 June 2009 00:48 (sixteen years ago)

To put this very generally, Obama-related stuckism is kind of annoying to those of us who live in a world where pragmatism has to rule the day. Frustrating as it is to want stuff for all the right reasons, acting all entitled to have it *yesterday* in exchange for a vote seems ludicrous and willfully ignorant. Most of our wants will be addressed successfully at some point in the term; what's suggested by O's behaviour so far is that he tries to get things improved in a baseline way, incrementally - anything more, people, you get out what you put in. 'Compromise' is not a synonym for 'I didn't get my way'.

502 Bad Gateway (suzy), Thursday, 4 June 2009 03:11 (sixteen years ago)

Most of our wants will be addressed successfully at some point in the term

Wow. How much would you like to bet?

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 4 June 2009 12:06 (sixteen years ago)

Well, maybe I'm talking about what I want from the guy. I think I'll get it, and I think no politician could give you what you want because they're poiticians, a class of people you're hardwired to hate. O just got done calling Iraq a 'war of choice' in Cairo; that's how most of us feel about it. Guantanamo/rendition is a tough cleanup after 43, and the 20 people they can't toss and can't try properly are Bush's fault. So is 50 per cent of the electorate thinking torture isn't so bad. YOU do not have to deal with that, O does. FWIW I think that LGBTs will be able to get marriage licenses from the state in most if not all states by the next election cycle. On healthcare, I do not know yet, but it would be fun TV if I could go beat up on some lobbyists as a poster child for cancer survival.

I think my analysis of the matter is a lot closer to what will happen than your 'Bam this, Bam that' complaining.

502 Bad Gateway (suzy), Thursday, 4 June 2009 12:43 (sixteen years ago)

I think Obama suppressing Democratic primary candidates in the NY Senate race is substantive, and indicative of his "values."

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:01 (sixteen years ago)

OH FUCK THE CAIRO SPEECH IS SO FUCKING AWESOME IT'S ALL GOOD O SORRY I GAVE YOU SHIT ABOUT THE TORTURE THING AND THE ECOLOGY THING, MORE CAIRO SPEECH PLZ

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:46 (sixteen years ago)

anyone got a video link?

caek, Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:47 (sixteen years ago)

lol the front page of the new york times does, sorry.

caek, Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:47 (sixteen years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlqLwCKkeY

caek, Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:48 (sixteen years ago)

I HAVEN'T WATCHED IT I JUST READ IT IT KICKS THE ASS ALL DAY


Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity, men and women, to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.

That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim- majority country to support expanded literacy for girls and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

GO GO GO I AM GLAD I VOTED FOR YOU PUT AS MANY PEOPLE IN GITMO AS YOU WANT WHATEVER JUST KEEP SAYIN THIS KINDA THING, LUV U O

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:51 (sixteen years ago)

"as-salaam aleikum" at the top of the speech is such an awesome "say what you like winger dudes, it's called statesmanship & I got it" move

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:53 (sixteen years ago)

^O's moms spent at least a decade working on microcredit programmes in Indonesia and Pakistan for the Ford Foundation. He really, really knows what he's talking about here.

Heard bits and pieces of speech on BBC and they're...creaming themselves.

502 Bad Gateway (suzy), Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:57 (sixteen years ago)

any President who talks about making microloans for women a priority is totally my bff

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:59 (sixteen years ago)

^cosign times 10000 when the women are in 'developing' areas.

502 Bad Gateway (suzy), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:02 (sixteen years ago)

J0hn D.'s new BFF should be a reality show.

Hatfail of Hollow (Nicole), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:03 (sixteen years ago)

I don't know if anyone can live up to Paris though.

Hatfail of Hollow (Nicole), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:03 (sixteen years ago)

I will beat Paris at the eating-Cheetos-slathered-in-Tamazula-and-lemon-juice contest

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:06 (sixteen years ago)

Hm.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:08 (sixteen years ago)

DYING OF CUET

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAUB7-i3oyo&hl=en

502 Bad Gateway (suzy), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:09 (sixteen years ago)

But can you do this?

http://fourfour.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b8c369e201156fc69cde970c-800wi

xxp

Hatfail of Hollow (Nicole), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:09 (sixteen years ago)

not only that, if I keep eating these Cheetos I will also have bigger boobs

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:12 (sixteen years ago)

Hm.

Regarding?

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:12 (sixteen years ago)

Cheeto slathering.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:15 (sixteen years ago)

And here I thought you meant the speech.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:15 (sixteen years ago)

I should clarify my position on Cheeto slathering. There are those who would slather Tamazula or Valentina on crunchy Cheetos. To them, I say: America rejects your heretical fried-Cheeto slathering. The slathering of Valentina and, especially, of Tamazula, which to our national disgradce is still only available in small bottles, must only take place in bags of puffed Cheetos, be they brand-name or domestic. And lest there be any doubt, I say to all who tarry: the addition of the lemon juice is not option. It is our birthright. It is our responsibility. It is our duty.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:19 (sixteen years ago)

http://home.forbin.com/muzzy/Webelos%20art%20GIF/Salute.gif

Obama seems to have the views of a 21-year-old Hispanic girl (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:23 (sixteen years ago)

Although Waxman Markey is important, its more important as a lever when copenhagen comes around than as a piece of domestic energy or climate change legislation. Like Shakey Mo says, the utilities are on the case with electricity, in part directed by state level RPS but also because the nature of supply and demand for electricity is changing. Consumption is getting more variable, increased residential consumption, less industrial consumption leads to a much more variable load and this does not suit the creaking baseload and grid infrastructure in the US. Already you are seeing coal plant operators pay people to take electricity rather than spin down a plant (spinning up a coal plant costs a small fortune). Spikier demand is causing circuit failures on the grid and the addition of wind and solar is making it worse with spikey supply. Add Plug in electric vehicles and this only gets worse.

I hesitate to say this but the market may actually fix this one. Already, in some areas, it is cheaper to put batteries in to smooth demand than to upgrade the infrastructure. In some places you have to because you can't get a new transformer delivered in less than 2 years. In some market large scale arbitrage between night and day or even over months is now becoming viable with current gen compressed air storage technology and next gen storage technology will be cheaper and better. Look at A123 selling 60ft containers full of LiIon batteries like hot cakes. Why, because, you can switch a battery on instantly and the difference in market price between a near instant ramp and the typical 15 minute ramp of of a Gas turbine spinning reserve or black start plant.

in short Smart grid is going to happen because it is cheaper than increasing the capacity of the grid and the smart grid turns renewable energy into renewable power which makes it a much better value proposition. Sure the industry still needs a nudge and the coal states need someone with a big stick but I worry less about free permits for the electricity industry than I do for Oil, cement, transport or residential.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:30 (sixteen years ago)

many thx Ed (was hoping you would chime in)

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 June 2009 15:29 (sixteen years ago)

also like J0hn I gotta give it up to O's speech

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 June 2009 16:10 (sixteen years ago)

Shakey, I was at the electricity storage association conference a couple of weeks back and there is some cool stuff happening. Somehow i have ended up in storage which was a little unexpected but fine by me.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 16:22 (sixteen years ago)

very interesting about all the battery storage stuff taking pressure off the grid, working better with renewables, etc. I work more on the efficiency end of things with the utilities, so this is all news to me.

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 June 2009 16:30 (sixteen years ago)

It's not just batteries its CAES, pumped hydro, hot salt and a bunch of other stuff. (One guy wanted to pit a plug hole to lake erie but I can't see that one flying)

Some of the coolest stuff (no pun intended) is on the demand side. Take a look at Ice Energy who make ice at night (when electricity is cheap and wind is strongest) and then use that to cool buildings in place of A/C during the day. They were behind a lobbying effort to get a bill proposed so that energy storage will get similar tax incentives to solar.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 17:01 (sixteen years ago)

Heard bits and pieces of speech on BBC and they're...creaming themselves.

I looooove this! Right-wingers are apopleptic about the media's "fawning" over Obama's speech, and, um, hello, maybe that's because the previous occupant couldn't string words together beyond "Axis of evil," "Mission accomplished" and "Heck of a job, Brownie." And also maybe because education in the Middle East actually is a more intelligent long-term goal than blowing shit up.

Such A Hilbily (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 4 June 2009 17:05 (sixteen years ago)

RE: Waxman-Markey

Inevitably, it's been watered down, and understandably everyone's pissed off about the giveaways of permits, especially since the original proposal aimed to auction away ALL of them. Some respectable people, like Joe Romm, Fox-Penner and Chupka, are making the case that the giveaway of permits may not be as big as a deal as everyone is making it out to be.

Ultimately supporting the bill comes down to an awful balancing act between the realities of climate change and politics. True, it should be much stronger. But weakening it has made it much more politically palatable. If this thing doesn't pass, it's going to delay meaningful action on climate change AGAIN for another few years, maybe longer. And as Ed mentioned, significant progress in passing the bill would be a great lead-in to Copenhagen later this year.

Waxman-Markey isn't strong enough, but another 2-3 years of doing absolutely nothing could push us over the tipping point once and for all. Ideally, we'll pass something and then make it even stronger a few years later. But yeah, it's still controversial and has kind of split a lot of the environmental community, with Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Al Gore, Sierra Club on one side and Greenpeace, TheClean.org and James Hansenon on the other.

RE: Ed

I agree with your grafs about the increasing variability of electricity consumption, but don't discount the importance and potential of energy efficiency. Smart grid is great, I can't push for it enough, it'll help smooth out demand, but efficiency measures are by far the cheapest way to limit demand growth, or even reduce it altogether (California's kept per capita electricity consumption flat for the past 30 years using progressive efficiency policies, and is now aiming to actually reduce it).

Renewable Energy Standards and Energy Efficiency Resource Standards are wonderful, but imo the most effective first steps to reform the utility sector would be to decouple profits from generation, implement performance incentives and establish the following hierarchy for meeting anticipated demand growth: make use of efficiency measures first, THEN renewable energy, THEN if absolutely necessary, conventional resources. Since the cost of generating "negawatts" (historically, about 3 cents per kWh) is so much lower than any other alternative, utilities that are focused on cost-effectively meeting demand rather than producing as much as possible would rely heavily on efficiency.

I know you weren't arguing against any of that, I just want to make sure that efficiency measures get a fair mention, since utility/electricity policy only comes up about once every 6 months on ILX.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 17:42 (sixteen years ago)

efficiency measures are by far the cheapest way to limit demand growth, or even reduce it altogether (California's kept per capita electricity consumption flat for the past 30 years using progressive efficiency policies, and is now aiming to actually reduce it).

that's my shit right there reprazent

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 June 2009 17:51 (sixteen years ago)

My shit too in a few years if all goes well

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:06 (sixteen years ago)

I dunno where you live but my company is always on the lookout to hire more energy engineers and program managers...

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:15 (sixteen years ago)

That reads like a AOL chatroom pickup line.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:16 (sixteen years ago)

I just got hired at the EPA (as a program analyst). The reason I say "in a few years" is because right now I'm in the TRI division, and my goal is to work my way into an electricity/energy policy position as soon as I can, whether that's in EPA, DOE or anywhere else.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:18 (sixteen years ago)

Agreed; what I would like to see though is a scheme along the lines of what San Diego and a few other municipalities are doing for Solar. The borrow the money for the domestic energy efficiency upgrades, (furnaces, insulation, A/C etc.) on the muni bond market and add the repayments onto the property taxes for that house so the payments stay with the property that is getting the benefit. Some of these things have really long payback times and consumers generally think with a discount rate of 40%.

somebody has to do something about commercial architecture, particularly big box stores, the energy waste in these things as appalling especially given how easy an inexpensive it is to design better. I saw some great stuff at the Engineering Sustainability Conference here in Pittsburgh a while back relating to the kind of one design and prefab architecture that these kind of buildings use but doing so efficiently and sustainable. (Bayer Materials Science have this fantastic sustainable research centre that they developed for India but they designed it so that it could be built anywhere and with very few localisations to the design achieve a similarly low impact).

Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:19 (sixteen years ago)

...but in a few years I'll be sure to keep that in mind shakey!

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:20 (sixteen years ago)

I just got hired at the EPA (as a program analyst). The reason I say "in a few years" is because right now I'm in the TRI division, and my goal is to work my way into an electricity/energy policy position as soon as I can, whether that's in EPA, DOE or anywhere else.

― ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:18 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I reckon that should be easy they are hiring like billy-o at the moment. Earlier in the year an email went round the department from the office of cost analysis at the DoE, essentially asking for us to send as many graduate students as we could spare to assess projects for ARPA-E funding.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:21 (sixteen years ago)

and add the repayments onto the property taxes for that house so the payments stay with the property that is getting the benefit

never heard of this - how does that get around Prop 13?

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:23 (sixteen years ago)

That's interesting Ed, the San Diego example. I was doing a little bit of research on the Principal-Agent problem for a paper earlier this year, but I didn't find many proposals for how to overcome it. Can I ask where you got the 40% discount rate figure?

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:24 (sixteen years ago)

Damn, I wish I could switch over to the DoE now. I was hired as part of the career intern program, so I have to complete my 2 year assignment before I can move anywhere.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:26 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2696/83/

is what I read.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:29 (sixteen years ago)

I was hoping you weren't going to ask me about the 40% discount rate as I can't remember where I read it, however I will try and remember or at least work out who I can ask. Sometimes I am a fool for not wiriting down something I could cite in about half the things I write.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:31 (sixteen years ago)

Ah, I see. That's great for long-term homeowners, but it still doesn't address the principal-agent/landlord-tenant problem: landlords are reluctant to install energy efficient appliances, lighting and insulation because the burden of paying energy bills usually falls on the tenant, while the the tenant is reluctant to improve efficiency because the payback period for the investment, although usually relatively short at a few years, is still longer than the amount of time they'll be renting.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:35 (sixteen years ago)

I've often proposed that landlords should be responsible for paying for energy costs, even if that means adding X amount to the monthly rent, as a method of encouraging efficiency in rental units, but there must be a fatal flaw in my reasoning because every time I mention it I get zero response.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:38 (sixteen years ago)

^^^this. its a huge problem in SF, where massive amounts of the residential markets are rented and not owned, so no one landlords want to pursue costly projects that don't give them any immediate economic benefit. (I guess there's a counterargument that it improves the overall value of the property, but I dunno how far you can go with that)

x-post

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:38 (sixteen years ago)

Interesting because I pay a flat rate charge for energy in my building, which presumable is responsible for the pretty decent windows we have.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:41 (sixteen years ago)

I've often proposed that landlords should be responsible for paying for energy costs, even if that means adding X amount to the monthly rent, as a method of encouraging efficiency in rental units, but there must be a fatal flaw in my reasoning because every time I mention it I get zero response.

The fatal flaw is that tenants with a fixed energy cost use, on average, much more electricity, water, etc. than tenants that have to pay their own utility bills. It provides an incentive for the landlord to install more efficient systems, but no incentive for the tenant to minimize energy use.

sussing out the Slick Hustler (I DIED), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:55 (sixteen years ago)

http://blogs.citypages.com/gimmenoise/images/mk2_fatality.png

Yeah, true of course. Maybe split the energy costs 50/50 between landlord and tenant? Eh, who knows. I never have heard an effective solution.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:57 (sixteen years ago)

require the landlords to improve energy efficiency by law on penalty of death

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:59 (sixteen years ago)

Baraka for energy efficiency penalty enforcer

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:01 (sixteen years ago)

Bom:

Wilson and Dowlatabadi. Models of decision making and residential energy use. Annual Reviews (2007)

An important finding
is that individuals use different discount rates
for different types of goods in different con-
texts (22). In the case of domestic energy tech-
nologies, revealed discount rates were found
to be clustered in the 5% to 40% range, but
higher rates were applied to refrigerators and
water heaters than to heating equipment and
weatherization measures (21). Other studies
have found short-term discount rates as high
as 300% for air-conditioning technologies(23).

I should ask E about this because there is a bunch of social science stuff concerning Hedonics which I don't fully ken. The seems to be all about economists discovering that Homo sapiens is not homo economicus and then trying to fit different shaped curves to observed behaviour. (Discount rate of heroin for addicts is high, i wonder how long that took to work out).

Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:03 (sixteen years ago)

I feel we should have an energy thread.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:04 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/04/thernstrom.identity.politics/index.html

Surely I can't be the only person who is really fucking sick and tired of white people complaining about "identity politics"...?

Obama seems to have the views of a 21-year-old Hispanic girl (HI DERE), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:06 (sixteen years ago)

Incidentally I'm sure we could hit some of those payback rates if we exposed end users to the price of electricity. Unfortunately he's not here this week but normally I could shout across the room at someone who could tell me what the ERCOT electricity price was at 3pm on a hot august afternoon in Austin, but I'm sure it is several times what was billed for it.

Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:07 (sixteen years ago)

Surely I can't be the only person who is really fucking sick and tired of white people complaining about "identity politics"...?

I remembered this essay and printed it, hoping to give it to my mom next time she gets shrill.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:08 (sixteen years ago)

Ah, thank you for digging that up.

Hedonics does seem to be the buzz topic among environmental economists lately, and yeah, it does seem obvious. Even the economist teaching the class was like "so this demonstrates that people do NOT like to live by superfund sites!", before slapping his forehead in mock shock.

Agreed on the energy thread, because we've probably derailed this one for long enough.

ya'll are the ones who don't know things (Z S), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:09 (sixteen years ago)

The Energy Thread

Prince of Persia (Ed), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:11 (sixteen years ago)

During a visit to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Biden, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon described President Obama's speech in Egypt as a meaningful landmark event.
Asked if he saw Obama's speech, Ban said, "from the beginning to the end."

"It was a historic speech," he said. "It will have far-reaching impact to the region."

Asked what he planned to discuss with the secretary general, Biden said, "the world," then invited Ban to have a seat.

Biden's a doofus but he does bring the lolz

Kool G Lapp (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 4 June 2009 20:06 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/gallery/2009/06/president-obama-speaks-in-egypt.php?img=2

Damn, Hils!

Subtlest Fart Joke (Oilyrags), Thursday, 4 June 2009 21:35 (sixteen years ago)

The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

:D

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 4 June 2009 23:09 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/magazine/07congress-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all

fascinating stuff

reo teabaggin (goole), Monday, 8 June 2009 19:22 (sixteen years ago)

yeah i dug that article

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Monday, 8 June 2009 19:27 (sixteen years ago)

i'm halfway thru it but i liked ezra klein's summary:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/the_congressionalist_white_hou.html

I quite liked Matt Bai's exploration of Barack Obama's relationship with Congress, in part because it read a bit like a sequel to "It's His Party," an article Dana Goldstein and I wrote on the same subject in the waning months of the campaign.

Bai's piece gets at something I think is fairly important: Obama's administration is defined not by an ideological theory but a political theory. The "fight" of the Clinton administration, for instance, was the fight to modernize the Democratic Party. It was the collision between New Democrats and old-line liberals who loathed them. Obama's administration isn't preoccupied with any of those battles. If it has an enemy, it's the gridlock that afflicts the government. It's the Congress, and the filibuster.

And if it has a weapon, it's institutional relationships. Jim Messina, the deputy chief of staff, is Senator Max Baucus's former chief of staff. Phil Schiliro, the legislative director, served the same purpose for Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman. Schiliro's deputy, Lisa Konwinski, worked for Senator Kent Conrad. Vice President Joe Biden has relationships in the Senate that stretch decades into the past. Rahm Emanuel, the former chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, commands the loyalty of a whole lot of new congressmen he helped elect and the respect of a whole lot of old congressmen he helped reclaim the majority. Pete Rouse was Tom Daschle's former chief of staff. And so it goes.

Bai gets one important admission that I've not seen before: Stocking the administration with the proteges of congressional power players was premeditated. “That was a strategy,” Emanuel says. “We didn’t kind of parallel-park into it. We had a deep bench of people with a lot of relationships that run into both the House and Senate extensively. And so we wanted to use that to our maximum advantage.” This has had effects on the sort of policies the administration chooses. Arguments over whether the Obama administration is liberal or conservative, neoclassical or behavioralist, have always struck me as misguided. The evidence suggests that they're Congressionalist. They choose policies based on their sense -- incorporating all their information and relationships -- of what the Congress can understand, defend, and pass. As Emanuel says towards the top of the piece, “the only nonnegotiable principle here is success. Everything else is negotiable.”

reo teabaggin (goole), Monday, 8 June 2009 19:31 (sixteen years ago)

That's kind of cold-blooded and academically awesome (and fits in pretty well with my assumptions about Obama).

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, 8 June 2009 19:33 (sixteen years ago)

so if klein (and bai, i guess) are right, it's not "clintonian" triangulation that's responsible for the failures so far (from a lefty standpoint) but pure alinsky-ism: find out who is sitting on the real veto points and then lean on them, don't bother with anything non-doable

reo teabaggin (goole), Monday, 8 June 2009 19:34 (sixteen years ago)

It reminds me of what I know about LBJ and the passing of the civil rights bills in the mid 60s; but others here know more about this than I do.

Euler, Monday, 8 June 2009 19:40 (sixteen years ago)

That's kind of cold-blooded and academically awesome (and fits in pretty well with my assumptions about Obama).

― 1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, June 8, 2009 12:33 PM

this

I got the Obama I voted for

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Monday, 8 June 2009 19:46 (sixteen years ago)

honestly tho this is maybe the kind of thing you don't want prospective guests knowing?

The second tenet of Emanuel’s theory is that the White House itself comes with strategic assets you can put to good use, if you allocate them properly. There’s the White House theater, where guests can watch movies and sporting events; formal state dinners; smaller gatherings in the first family’s residence, which spouses can join; tickets to the Easter-egg roll for kids; tickets to the White House tours that members like to give out to their constituents. These prizes are not handed out randomly or, as in the Bush White House, doled out mostly as rewards to allies who’ve demonstrated the requisite loyalty. Rather, in Obama’s nascent administration, they are considered carefully and accounted for obsessively. Emanuel holds a daily legislative meeting at which aides discuss the status of pending legislation, and often they go over the distribution of White House assets during those sessions. “We have a tracking system,” Emanuel told me. “Who came to watch the football game? Who came to watch the basketball game?”

unless everybody already knows what's up, i guess...

reo teabaggin (goole), Monday, 8 June 2009 19:54 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/01/photos/index.html

It was one thing when President Obama reversed himself last month by announcing that he would appeal the Second Circuit's ruling that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) compelled disclosure of various photographs of detainee abuse sought by the ACLU. Agree or disagree with Obama's decision, at least the basic legal framework of transparency was being respected, since Obama's actions amounted to nothing more than a request that the Supreme Court review whether the mandates of FOIA actually required disclosure in this case. But now -- obviously anticipating that the Government is likely to lose in court again (.pdf) -- Obama wants Congress to change FOIA by retroactively narrowing its disclosure requirements, prevent a legal ruling by the courts, and vest himself with brand new secrecy powers under the law which, just as a factual matter, not even George Bush sought for himself.
The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman -- called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 -- that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States." As long as the Defense Secretary certifies -- with no review possible -- that disclosure would "endanger" American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure. The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely. The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week.
Just imagine if any other country did this. Imagine if a foreign government were accused of systematically torturing and otherwise brutally abusing detainees in its custody for years, and there was ample photographic evidence proving the extent and brutality of the abuse. Further imagine that the country's judiciary -- applying decades-old transparency laws -- ruled that the government was legally required to make that evidence public. But in response, that country's President demanded that those transparency laws be retroactively changed for no reason other than to explicitly empower him to keep the photographic evidence suppressed, and a compliant Congress then immediately passed a new law empowering the President to suppress that evidence. What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people? Read the language of the bill; it doesn't even hide the fact that its only objective is to empower the President to conceal evidence of war crimes.
That this exact scenario is now happening in the U.S. is all the more remarkable given that the President who is demanding these new suppression powers is the same one who repeatedly vowed "to make his administration the most open and transparent in history." After noting the tentative steps Obama has taken to increase transparency, the generally pro-Obama Washington Post Editorial Page today observed: "what makes the administration's support for the photographic records act so regrettable" is that "Mr. Obama runs the risk of taking two steps back in his quest for more open government."
What makes all of this even worse is that it is part of a broader trend whereby the Government simply retroactively changes the law whenever it decides it does not want to abide by it. For decades, we had laws in place authorizing citizens to sue their telecommunication carriers if the telecoms allowed government spying on their communications in violation of the law, but when it was revealed that the telecoms did exactly this, the Congress simply changed the law retroactively so that it no longer applied. For decades, we had laws imposing civil and criminal liability on government officials who engaged in or authorized torture, but when it was revealed that our government did that, the Congress just retroactively changed the law to protect the torturers. And now that courts have ruled that our decades-old transparency law compels disclosure of this torture evidence, the Congress is just going to retroactively change the law -- again -- this time to empower the President to suppress that evidence anyway.
Other than creating an illusion of transparency and accountability, what's the point of having laws that purport to restrict what the Government can do if political officials just retroactively waive those laws whenever they want? What's the point of having a FOIA law if the Government will simply pass a new law exempting itself from FOIA's mandates any time it loses in court and wants to conceal evidence anyway? And what conceivable rationale is there for limiting the President's new secrecy powers to post-9/11 photographs? Given that anything which reflects poorly on our Government can be said to endanger our troops and American citizens, why stop here? Why not just have a general power of suppression whereby the President can keep any evidence secret as long as his Defense Secretary decrees that its disclosure will "endanger" the troops?
The debate over whether there is value in disclosing these specific photographs is entirely misplaced. That isn't how open government works. The burden isn't on citizens to prove that there is value in disclosure. Everything that government does is supposed to be transparent to the public unless there is a compelling reason for secrecy -- and the whole point of FOIA always has been that mere embarrassment, the mere fact that information reflects poorly on our government, isn't a legitimate ground for concealment. That's a critical principle for open government. This new law explicitly guts that principle. It institutionalizes the pernicious notion that secrecy is justified where disclosure would reflect badly on the Government and thus "endanger" American citizens and/or our troops.
Combine all of this with the increasingly disturbing spectacle taking place in a California federal court in the Al-Haramain case -- where the Obama DOJ is on the verge of being sanctioned by a federal judge for defying the court's order to make available documents relating to Bush's illegal eavesdropping activities -- and the infatuation with excessive presidential secrecy, the linchpin of government abuse, appears alive and well in the new administration. Is there really anyone who wants to argue that defiance of a federal court's order and enacting a new law authorizing suppression of torture evidence -- the disclosure of which is compelled both by courts and FOIA -- are remotely consistent with anything Obama said he would do, or remotely consistent with what a healthy democratic government would do?

the table is the table, Monday, 8 June 2009 19:56 (sixteen years ago)

every day, Obama makes me throw up a little in my mouth. what a fuck.

the table is the table, Monday, 8 June 2009 19:58 (sixteen years ago)

Pretty sure that's acid reflux

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, 8 June 2009 19:59 (sixteen years ago)

god you're boring x-post

I've never heard of a single one of those blogs. (Matt P), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:01 (sixteen years ago)

shit nm, i know not what i say

I've never heard of a single one of those blogs. (Matt P), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:04 (sixteen years ago)

On a more serious note, that sucks a lot and I sincerely hope the judicial wing of the Federal government is able to stop that from happening (since it appears the legislative wing is complicit in creating it).

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:04 (sixteen years ago)

The debate over whether there is value in disclosing these specific photographs is entirely misplaced. That isn't how open government works. The burden isn't on citizens to prove that there is value in disclosure. Everything that government does is supposed to be transparent to the public unless there is a compelling reason for secrecy

such a misdirected argument

Lamp, Monday, 8 June 2009 20:08 (sixteen years ago)

I wonder if this is a gigantic bluff, honestly.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 8 June 2009 20:08 (sixteen years ago)

yup, the whole photo secrecy issue is disgusting.

reo teabaggin (goole), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:08 (sixteen years ago)

I mean seriously, if the argument is "releasing these pictures will create more terrorists", then don't release them to the general public; and anyway, even if they do get out into the general public, turn it into a public relations opportunity to destroy neoconservatives and rebuild the US as a welcoming, open society willing to apologize for past mistakes. There are some people who will never forgive us but NEWS FLASH, they weren't going to forgive us anyway so who fucking cares about them?

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:12 (sixteen years ago)

Although in a complete reversal of my last post, I don't really agree with this:

Everything that government does is supposed to be transparent to the public unless there is a compelling reason for secrecy

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:13 (sixteen years ago)

Having served under seven commanders in chief during his time in the Senate, Biden understands as well as anyone the pervasive fear in Congress that presidents are out only for themselves. “I’ve had presidents who say to me, ‘Hey, Joe, get out on that limb for me,’ ” Biden told me. At this, he rose from his chair and began acting out the metaphor, half-crouching as he glanced at the limb behind him. “And I’m out there. I’m out on that limb. And then you hear this shew shew shew” — he nicely approximated the noise of a saw rasping back and forth — “and you look back, and the limb’s being sawed off.

Wish I could have seen this pantomime.

Pleasant Plains, Monday, 8 June 2009 20:18 (sixteen years ago)

The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman -- called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 -- that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States." As long as the Defense Secretary certifies -- with no review possible -- that disclosure would "endanger" American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure. The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely. The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week.

I assume every other lefty on the planet will go apoplectic for me on this, but really, it calls for it; if this bill had been introduced by Obama's predecessor (which it could have been! 'cause it's that kinda bill!), everybody woulda instantly gone "Jesus can this guy be even more of a horrible Orwellian dickhead?"

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:19 (sixteen years ago)

xp the other lol biden detail is that apparently a phrase he uses very often is "i give you my word as a biden"

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:20 (sixteen years ago)

so many biden lols

As I listened to Biden talk about his Senate career, nearly uninterrupted, for half an hour, I was reminded that leaving any job after 36 years presents, psychologically, a difficult adjustment...

reo teabaggin (goole), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:22 (sixteen years ago)

I assume every other lefty on the planet will go apoplectic for me on this, but really, it calls for it; if this bill had been introduced by Obama's predecessor (which it could have been! 'cause it's that kinda bill!), everybody woulda instantly gone "Jesus can this guy be even more of a horrible Orwellian dickhead?"

1. No one believes Bush II was smart enough to be Orwellian.
2. hi dere plz read like ANY of the posts between the one you quoted and the one you wrote

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:25 (sixteen years ago)

J0hn i agree with you, but, in a sense, i don't. at least the new gang is asking for a law... cheney wasn't waiting on joe fucking lieberman to grant his acts legitimacy. the difference between augustus and nero isn't much to be happy about tho, it's true

reo teabaggin (goole), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:30 (sixteen years ago)

Well, this is a bit more hopeful (though yes it's total fucking bullshit on Obama's part):

But liberal Democrats are threatening to withhold their support for the supplemental if it includes a provision in the Senate-passed bill that would allow Defense Secretary Robert Gates to withhold any "photograph relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States" if he certifies that the release of the photos could endanger citizens or the armed forces.

The provision, which is supported by President Obama, was offered as an amendment by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. -- who initially opposed the package and is now trying to help Democratic leaders raise support for it -- said he recently told Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that liberal Democrats would not likely support the package if it includes the Lieberman amendment.

"I made it clear to the administration that I believe that we can get liberals like myself who are against the war [to] vote for it because the IMF is so important, but not if the [Freedom of Information Act] exception is in it," Frank said.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., previously supported the supplemental but said she would not vote for the bill if it includes the amendment.

"There is no reason in the world for us to vote to suspend" FOIA, Slaughter said.

clotpoll, Monday, 8 June 2009 20:34 (sixteen years ago)

yeah like Dubya would've asked congress for anything lolz

x-post

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:37 (sixteen years ago)

J0hn i agree with you, but, in a sense, i don't. at least the new gang is asking for a law... cheney wasn't waiting on joe fucking lieberman to grant his acts legitimacy. the difference between augustus and nero isn't much to be happy about tho, it's true

I should just shut up and quietly not vote next time. It is just too depressing, this kinda shit.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:41 (sixteen years ago)

here, I'll get in first: "Yes you should shut up" thank u, drive thru

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:41 (sixteen years ago)

i agree with you that it is shitty in the extreme but i don't agree that it is bush-like, or orwellian. (maybe trying to make some of the terrible things you'd like to do legal IS orwellian? i don't know orwell that well tbf.) bush was much more nakedly monarchial but this is a different species of bad behavior

reo teabaggin (goole), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:44 (sixteen years ago)

The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009

they're not being "protected," they're being suppressed. That's the Orwellian part, which was a favorite move of the Bush government - call something "No Child Left Behind" which was specifically designed to leave a whole bunch of children behind, etc

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:48 (sixteen years ago)

I'm sure he didn't title it himself though, as I'll probably be reminded shortly

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:49 (sixteen years ago)

Did you even read the shitty thing that you quoted

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:49 (sixteen years ago)

Which, you'll notice, everyone agrees is shitty

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:50 (sixteen years ago)

sorry I said it was shitty if it had already been said, it's important to be temperate about total fucking garbage

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:55 (sixteen years ago)

oh man obama wants us to fuck garbage

Mr. Que, Monday, 8 June 2009 20:56 (sixteen years ago)

well that horse has kinda left the barn already

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:56 (sixteen years ago)

I, for one, draw the line at the Mandatory Refuse Copulation Act of 2009

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:57 (sixteen years ago)

mr que always lightens my mood when I am bummed out about how even the best prez of my lifetime still totally sucks about a third of the time, I appreciate that q

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:57 (sixteen years ago)

yr welcome dude

now bend over and bone that pile of chicken bones and soggy paper towels

Mr. Que, Monday, 8 June 2009 20:58 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090530_is_larry_summers_taking_kickbacks_from_the_banks_hes_bailing_out/

Not a surprise at all, but it just goes to show that I was right in being outraged when Summers was appointed to his current position.

the table is the table, Monday, 8 June 2009 20:58 (sixteen years ago)

I, for one, draw the line at the Mandatory Refuse Copulation Act of 2009

the thing is though if you read this one it actually prohibits us from fucking garbage - another case of the man trying to keep us down

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:58 (sixteen years ago)

xpost done & done

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:58 (sixteen years ago)

Is Larry Summers taking kickbacks from the banks he’s bailing out?

there's a key word here, what is it?

Mr. Que, Monday, 8 June 2009 20:59 (sixteen years ago)

in the small print it says he can also suppress photos from spring break in Padre and PC if that makes you feel any better

Euler, Monday, 8 June 2009 20:59 (sixteen years ago)

Larry Summers is a fucking douchebag

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, 8 June 2009 20:59 (sixteen years ago)

Also, I thought Que was saying that Obama wants 90s RnB girl group Total to fuck garbage.

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, 8 June 2009 21:00 (sixteen years ago)

er, not Que, J0hn

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, 8 June 2009 21:02 (sixteen years ago)

table is the table i admire the strength of yr convictions but you might want to consider being a little less self-righteous--check out some of john d's posts for some classic is-he-faking-it self-deprecation--right now you sound like morbs w/out the funny nicknames

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Monday, 8 June 2009 21:03 (sixteen years ago)

yes, true.

the table is the table, Monday, 8 June 2009 21:07 (sixteen years ago)

I, for one, draw the line at the Mandatory Refuse Copulation Act of 2009

I can't wait for the Obama signing statement.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 June 2009 21:08 (sixteen years ago)

and i apologize, but you see, my middle name is fox mulder.

the table is the table, Monday, 8 June 2009 21:08 (sixteen years ago)

I haven't posted the last couple of Greenwald posts (thanks, tabes!) because I get too...sad.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 June 2009 21:09 (sixteen years ago)

i don't really like glenn greenwald, as a writer. what are his books like?

reo teabaggin (goole), Monday, 8 June 2009 21:16 (sixteen years ago)

He's a constitutional lawyer and pumps out 1000-wd posts four times a week on average; I don't expect Holmes or Cardozo.

I thumbed through a secondhand copy of his last book; it's an attenuated, stitched-together version of his posts.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 June 2009 21:18 (sixteen years ago)

It reminds me of what I know about LBJ and the passing of the civil rights bills in the mid 60s; but others here know more about this than I do.

A bit, but Obama knows less about Congress than LBJ (who spent hours and hours cajoling and threatening legislators on the phone). I see Obama as a kind of congressional CEO, giving orders to Emmanuel and the others while he goes to the gym and plays with the kids.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 8 June 2009 21:21 (sixteen years ago)

guys maybe it means that refusing copulation is mandatory

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Monday, 8 June 2009 22:41 (sixteen years ago)

which is some bs imo

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Monday, 8 June 2009 22:41 (sixteen years ago)

I know I'll be in trouble but I'm just gonna say it: if Bush had passed the Mandatory Refuse Copulation Act of 2009, you guys would all be freaking out right about now

insincere ilsas of the SS (hmmmm), Monday, 8 June 2009 23:37 (sixteen years ago)

did you miss the part of the thread where we did actually freak out

because it is there

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 00:47 (sixteen years ago)

and yes, I will be fucking tiresome and say this exact same thing to every fucking smugbot who pops onto the thread and says stupid shit

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 00:47 (sixteen years ago)

Obama needs to sign the Smugbot Registration Act, which will require every smugbot to register with a local regulatory body.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 01:06 (sixteen years ago)

an idea whose time has come

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 01:26 (sixteen years ago)

lol, smugbot

unicorn poop evaluator (WmC), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 01:28 (sixteen years ago)

I know I'll be in trouble but I'm just gonna say it: if Bush had passed the Mandatory Refuse Copulation Act of 2009, you guys would all be freaking out right about now

― insincere ilsas of the SS (hmmmm), Monday, June 8, 2009 4:37 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

did you miss the part of the thread where we did actually freak out

because it is there

― 1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Monday, June 8, 2009 5:47 PM (58 minutes ago) Bookmark

copying and pasting this basic template will help everyone save a lot of time over the next eight years

insincere ilsas of the SS (hmmmm), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 01:50 (sixteen years ago)

whoa fuck rumor has it somebody blinked

http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/08/breaking-lieberman-graham-dropped-from-supplemental/

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 02:11 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.yorku.ca/yorkisu/new_web/en/yorkis_nuz/archive/YorkIsNuz-Feb24-06_files/rumour%2520has%2520it.jpg

Costner = Lieberman
Graham = Aniston

Hatfail of Hollow (Nicole), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 02:22 (sixteen years ago)

rumor has it jennifer aniston was born male

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 02:31 (sixteen years ago)

isnt this where j0hn tells us if obama really wanted this amendment he could have pushed it thru with leadership

autogucci cru (deej), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 10:37 (sixteen years ago)

:D jk doggs im just happy they kicked that dumb shit out of the bill

autogucci cru (deej), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 10:38 (sixteen years ago)

yay the system works (sometimes)

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 12:51 (sixteen years ago)

the feeling I have with stuff like this is what I imagine it's like if your partner says, like, "hey, why don't we try [something massively unappealing to you]" and so you work real hard to keep that from happening and then when you get your point it's less victory than "well, at least the horrible thing he/she wanted didn't happen. kinda wish he/she hadn't thought it was a cool idea in the first place, though, since we're gonna be together for a while"

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 13:08 (sixteen years ago)

I agree with that. On a fundamental level, though, I am more happy about results than anything else, particularly wrt politicians; Obama would basically have to start doing some Klan-esque shit before I start taking his stances personally.

1899 Horsey Horseless (HI DERE), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 13:11 (sixteen years ago)

Some more giggles: CIA urges judge to keep Bush-era documents sealed.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 13:21 (sixteen years ago)

at some point we'll get to hear somebody actually say "the truth? you can't handle the truth!" so there'll be that at least

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 13:43 (sixteen years ago)

great that that dumbass Lieberman amendment got cut out (who should we thank for that - Barney Frank, I assume?)... altho it still leaves the fundamental issue unresolved and in the hands of the Supreme Court

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 June 2009 15:16 (sixteen years ago)

'Them Jews' keeping Wright away from Obama

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 19:40 (sixteen years ago)

that guy sounds like such a heel

Oh baby if only you knew I'm down to a hundred-and-two (stevie), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 20:13 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.hashomerministries.com/sitebuilder/images/Jewish_Dancers-454x231.jpg
^^^^^preventing wright from seeing obama

velko, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 20:17 (sixteen years ago)

glad he cleared that up

Kitchen Paper Towel (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 11 June 2009 22:31 (sixteen years ago)

I am going to so celebrate the day Joe Lieberman becomes utterly superfluous to the Dem Senate caucus. That day may be as near as Franken being seated for Minnesota. They can woo Maine's two senators just as easily as they can let Joe-L continue to ass-f**k them -- so which option will look better to them do you think?

Aimless, Friday, 12 June 2009 00:25 (sixteen years ago)

This is the sort of competence it's good to see back in the White House.

four and twenty blackbirds too weak to work (G00blar), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 10:49 (sixteen years ago)

hahaha wow

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 11:10 (sixteen years ago)

that is very close to out-GWBing GWB, lol

HIS VAGINA IS MAKING HIM CRAVE SALAD. (HI DERE), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 13:14 (sixteen years ago)

he thought it was the Dem Progressive Caucus

Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 13:19 (sixteen years ago)

Definite lols there. Would've been better if he'd, like, flicked out a giant lizard tongue and swallowed it, but I'll take what I can get.

Chubby Checker Psycho (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 17 June 2009 13:22 (sixteen years ago)

I'd post Frank Rich excerpts about the biz-as-usual bailout -- AIG HAS 4 PR FIRMS!!! -- but I'd never stop throwing up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/opinion/21rich.html?em

Concluding whistlin' in the graveyard there. "Hope"....

Dr Morbius, Monday, 22 June 2009 14:26 (sixteen years ago)

rich is great at identifying things when they've become safe to write an article about, ca. 10 months after they've happened

Tracer Hand, Monday, 22 June 2009 14:35 (sixteen years ago)

I didn't realize Obama had been a timid president for 10 months.

also ... "We have a center-right party and a crazy party."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/21/bill-maher-democrats-have_n_218593.html

Obv he's delusional about the Dems having formerly been "left," but that's the only major flaw)

Dr Morbius, Monday, 22 June 2009 14:42 (sixteen years ago)

rich says "Most Americans were desperate for action and wondered why it was taking so long."

maybe because when the glass-steagall act was being gutted people like frank rich were writing about blowjobs

Tracer Hand, Monday, 22 June 2009 14:51 (sixteen years ago)

where is 2009 Politics III - My President is Something of a Tool?

Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

After months of internal debate over how to close the military facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the prison by the president's January deadline.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that there is no executive order and that the administration has not decided whether to issue one. But one administration official suggested that the White House is already trying to build support for an order.

"Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released.

The Justice Department has declined to comment on the prospects for a long-term detention system while internal reviews of Guantanamo detainees' cases are underway. One task force, which is assessing detainee policy, is expected to complete its work by July 21.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062603361.html?hpid=topnews

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 27 June 2009 18:42 (sixteen years ago)

His speech defending it was pretty creepy.

My name is Kenny! (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 27 June 2009 18:45 (sixteen years ago)

i dont get the purpose of all this

zzz (deej), Saturday, 27 June 2009 21:36 (sixteen years ago)

just a thought...what about the Guantanamo detainees who'll need mental health care of some sort for the rest of their lives (I'm putting this slightly euphemistically)?

bad hijab (suzy), Saturday, 27 June 2009 21:46 (sixteen years ago)

Sounds about right:

Reporters from roughly 30 television networks, newspapers, magazines, and web sites celebrated the Fourth of July with Barack Obama at the White House last weekend. Why didn't you know that? Because they were sworn to secrecy.

We reported yesterday that Politico's Mike Allen was spotted milling about as a guest at the White House's "backyard bash" by the pool reporter, who was allowed into the event for 40 minutes and kept in a pen before being ushered out. When Allen quoted from the pool report in his Playbook column the next day, he deleted a reference to his own name and didn't bother to tell his readers that he was actually at the party.

Well, he wasn't alone. Gawker has learned that the White House gave tickets to virtually every major news organization that covers the president—the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, ABC News, NBC News, CNN, CBS News, and so on, about 30 in all. The reporters were invited to attend on the following condition:

"You are being invited to attend this event as a guest. Blogging, Twittering or otherwise reporting on this event is not permitted. If you feel that you cannot agree to abide by these ground rules, please don't claim a ticket."

That's right: Much of the White House press corps spent the Fourth schmoozing with White House staffers, catching performances by the Foo Fighters and Jimmy Fallon, and watching the fireworks from the most exclusive vantage point in the D.C. metro area, all off the record—not to mention off-the-Facebook and off-the-Twitter. These are the same people who just a week ago were whining in the press briefing about Obama's malicious and dastardly attempts to "control the press."

I assume Jimmy Fallon was part of the torture technique.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 9 July 2009 20:42 (sixteen years ago)

WH is too paranoid and overprotective of its brand management

goole, Thursday, 9 July 2009 21:16 (sixteen years ago)

That sounds familiar.

My name is Kenny! (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 July 2009 21:42 (sixteen years ago)

I was about to say, merely noting what had already worked before.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 9 July 2009 21:43 (sixteen years ago)

RIP Reagan.

My name is Kenny! (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 July 2009 21:47 (sixteen years ago)

Dave Grohl, from Dischord to the White House lawn.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 9 July 2009 21:49 (sixteen years ago)

i dont get the purpose of all this

deej the purpose, as w/the preceding admin, is so that detainees can be held without charge or hope of a trial

it's the kind of thing presidents really dig

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Thursday, 9 July 2009 22:22 (sixteen years ago)

with bush the purpose was that anyone the executive decides is an enemy doesn't have any rights.

with obama i think the purpose that giving terrorists (or even "terrorists") their inevitable acquittal will be too much of a political problem to want to stand for on constitutional principle. still running in fear of the right wing (or, just the american populace...)

goole, Thursday, 9 July 2009 22:29 (sixteen years ago)

jThe national security news this week from the Obama White House has been just awful.

My name is Kenny! (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 July 2009 22:46 (sixteen years ago)

i guess bush/cheney created such an utter clusterfuck once they 'took the gloves off' post-9/11.. CIA disappearing people, the black sites, gitmo.. torturing people (thus information that can never be used in a trial).. jane mayer's book 'the dark side' is pretty good on this, i've only read the first few chapters yet.

so I see what's happening and I don't know precisely how one sorts it out, but detaining people indefinitely (not to mention holding NO ONE accountable for torture).. seems unamerican. taking apart the very foundation of the judicial system.

CAR CHASE!!!!! (daria-g), Thursday, 9 July 2009 22:49 (sixteen years ago)

It gets worse.

My name is Kenny! (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 July 2009 23:01 (sixteen years ago)

Honestly I suspect Goldfarb is just jealous.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 9 July 2009 23:07 (sixteen years ago)

Serious business:

CIA Director Leon Panetta has terminated a "very serious" covert program the spy agency kept secret from Congress for eight years, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a House Intelligence subcommittee chairwoman, said Friday. Schakowsky is pressing for an immediate committee investigation of the classified program, which has not been described publicly. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has said he is considering an investigation. "The program is a very, very serious program and certainly deserved a serious debate at the time and through the years," Schakowsky told The Associated Press in an interview. "But now it's over."

Well, glad that's that, then!

smarmasaurus, Friday, 10 July 2009 21:52 (sixteen years ago)

haha yeah really

"nothing to see here, move along folks..."

Sleep Causes Cancer (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 July 2009 22:00 (sixteen years ago)

the more of this crap comes out, the less that "let's move forward/not look backward" stuff is gonna fly. at some point the law has to be re-asserted.

Sleep Causes Cancer (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 July 2009 22:04 (sixteen years ago)

This is true, and for it to really be something that sticks and does not become some kind of bullshit committee or arse-covering exercise, enough critical mass has to develop to make any proper, proportional action not 'political'.

going vogue (suzy), Friday, 10 July 2009 23:05 (sixteen years ago)

People like Senator Lugar of Indiana and Senator McCain need to get off their duffs and decide that lawlessness and depravity aren't good enough standards to pass along to the future.

Aimless, Saturday, 11 July 2009 03:10 (sixteen years ago)

whatever the opposite of a lame duck is, Obama's that - Bush set the table in such a way that no matter how shitty a Democratic president's actions are, the spectre of "remember what happened in 2000 when some of you people said it didn't make a difference which guy got elected" will be too high, so he feels secure that he'll get enough votes to beat whatever crazy-ass oddball the Republicans put up. The number of Democrats/lefties/progressives who'll actually say, "no, fuck this, I've got my limits on what a guy can do before I deny him my vote" is relatively low I think. (this is a crying shame in my opinion.) so I don't think he or the party feel particularly concerned with whether the people who voted him in get a little cheesed. the GOP gets crazier daily, there won't be anything like the equivalent of a Reagan Democrat voter in '12, everybody feels pretty secure in their jobs.

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Saturday, 11 July 2009 04:37 (sixteen years ago)

I wish we actually did live in a world where progressives were this huge and important voter base.

iatee, Saturday, 11 July 2009 06:13 (sixteen years ago)

Obama's adoption of Bush tactics is the equivalent of Eisenhower accepting the New Deal: now that the opposite party has embraced a predecessor's innovations, it'll be impossible to dismantle.

My name is Kenny! (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 July 2009 11:17 (sixteen years ago)

2009 American Politics Thread II - My President Right or Wrong

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Saturday, 11 July 2009 14:03 (sixteen years ago)

III, dammit

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Saturday, 11 July 2009 14:03 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/16/granderson.obama.gays/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

The comments section to this plays out pretty much exactly how you imagine it would (lol random internet people and their wacky conforming to stereotypes/expectations aside from 2 or 3 sane ppl)

suddenly, everything was dark and smelly (HI DERE), Thursday, 16 July 2009 21:26 (sixteen years ago)

And to quote:

“They might think they’ve got a pretty jump shot or a pretty good flow....but our kids can’t all aspire to be LeBron or Lil Wayne. I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers. I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court Justice. I want them aspiring to be President of the United States of America.’’

Ned Raggett, Friday, 17 July 2009 01:33 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.tribune.ie/magazine/features/article/2009/jul/19/an-alternative-history-of-obamas-first-six-months/

❊❁❄❆❇❃✴❈plaxico❈✴❃❇❆❄❁❊ (I know, right?), Monday, 20 July 2009 11:32 (sixteen years ago)

30 may: Having repeatedly condemned corporate excess and high living, Obama flies wife Michelle to New York for dinner and a Broadway show, a date night that costs the taxpayer a mere $81,000.

In Obama's defense is must be said that the dinner was probably totally delicious

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 20 July 2009 12:20 (sixteen years ago)

it

worm? lol (J0hn D.), Monday, 20 July 2009 12:21 (sixteen years ago)

i'll gladly donate $0.00132786885 for whenever the obamas would like to fly to new york to eat dinner

Traumatic Brain Injury. Just saying. (J0rdan S.), Monday, 20 July 2009 12:26 (sixteen years ago)

they killed the f-22 funding! well done US senate.

goole, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 19:20 (sixteen years ago)

fuck yeah

kingfish, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 19:23 (sixteen years ago)

so an incredibly popular president, a huge congressional majority for democrats, and a universally regarded gop defense secretary going for absolute broke can manage to barely trim the most egregious war-toy overspending. hope lives!

goole, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 19:28 (sixteen years ago)

grade for Morbs imitation = B-

Heric E. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 19:30 (sixteen years ago)

Morbs, please let goole out of the bathroom and step away from his computer.

haha xpost

Beanbag the Gardener (WmC), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 19:30 (sixteen years ago)

Meantime in the alternate universe.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 19:31 (sixteen years ago)

That would make such a great horror movie. xp

Detroit Metal City (Nicole), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 19:32 (sixteen years ago)

ha if morbs called bob gates 'universally regarded' i don't know what i'd do

xp oh nicole no

goole, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 19:32 (sixteen years ago)

Anyone care to explain the health care situation? I see that the poll numbers in support of it are turning south, but since I have no fucking clue what the legislation is supposed to actually be doing maybe Im not surprised by it.

mayor jingleberries, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:05 (sixteen years ago)

I see that the poll numbers in support of it are turning south

this is not really true - Obama's support numbers are dipping and part of that is related to healthcare, but that is not necessarily reflective of support for healthcare reform in general dissipating.

Sarah Palin's Word Put Together Instructor (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:08 (sixteen years ago)

my eyes glaze over at all that stuff even tho i know how important it is. read ezra klein, is all i'd say. and fuck ben nelson, and fuck max baucus, i'd say those things too.

goole, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:09 (sixteen years ago)

the legislation is still in process. it's not clear exactly what it is yet.

from what i hear on the hill.. it is a tough slog. all those millions of uninsured mostly don't vote, or don't vote on this issue, most people are covered through employers and think they like their coverage. it's really hard to sell this from dems POV, versus republicans who only need scare tactics about government-run health care and raising taxes.

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:18 (sixteen years ago)

doesn't help that the GOP is viewing this in entirely political terms, "this will break him" etc. it's not exactly a contest of ideas going on

goole, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:20 (sixteen years ago)

whatever that CBO report was on friday was not good news, either. my sense is there is a good case to be made that reform will save money over the long run b/c we spend twice as much as other countries now and get worse care.. but nobody is too good at making the case. leadership on cap hill is wanting, here.

oh yeah GOP could give a rat's ass other than trying to take down obama & other dems as well.

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:21 (sixteen years ago)

the anti-healthcare reform ads I've seen on TV are alternately laughable and disgusting

Sarah Palin's Word Put Together Instructor (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:21 (sixteen years ago)

like, ads discussing how HORRIBLE healthcare is in Canada, for ex. Don't even know where to start with the insane distortions and misinformation (all paid for by "Concerned Citizens" lolz yeah right)

Sarah Palin's Word Put Together Instructor (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:22 (sixteen years ago)

if only dems could write out a few clear bullet points that people could actually understand, in favor of reform. why do we suck at this so much?!

oh, yeah i been watching fox and they have on random people from canada talking about how horrible and awful their system is, nobody wants that, i'm like ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! i do! good lord!

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:25 (sixteen years ago)

fox is seriously on a full-court press against this plan. watching the shep today & even from his show you'd have a tough time coming away with much positive to say about it. also ppl on the hill don't know how the hell they'd ever manage to get this through before august recess, and after that, it's quickly coming up on election season, and maybe all the opponents have to do is stall tactics. it's so fucked up.

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:29 (sixteen years ago)

if only dems could write out a few clear bullet points that people could actually understand, in favor of reform. why do we suck at this so much?!

I like Lakoff's answer to this; ascribing this to something along the lines of "well, we think this stuff is obvious, and we shouldn't have to convince anybody. All we have to do is state some facts and everybody will automatically come over to our side, since every single American thinks in exactly the same way and will come to exactly the same conclusion. Why be persuasive at all?"

kingfish, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:29 (sixteen years ago)

no comment re: lakoff

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:30 (sixteen years ago)

a number of commentators have made this point, but, basically, nothing succeeds like success. it doesn't matter really what the bill does as long as it does something and gets passed. failure makes the ruling party look weak, more than passing legislation red america might not like, but that's not a good option either for democrats representing red districts, even tho those likely to suffer from that weakness are those dems in precarious electoral position. so the politics of the moment have these perverse incentives where blue dog dems would like the bill to pass but want to be able to vote no.

hopefully the delay and complain theater will be enough for the blue dog crowd and we'll get something in the end. you'd think returning home as the conquering hero who pissed and moaned AND 'fixed' health care in the end would be enough to secure another term for anybody, but what do i know i live in the twin cities.

goole, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:31 (sixteen years ago)

and it really doesn't help that the blue dogs say they hate the bill cos it's too expensive, but any of their specific complaints are the cost saving measures IN the various proposals.

goole, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:33 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah all the DFL caucus seems to be well left of mainline Dems generally, but MN healthcare is best in US...

take a sad song and make it HARDCORE (suzy), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:35 (sixteen years ago)

ha well if u put the mayo in alabama it'd improve their batting avg too

goole, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:36 (sixteen years ago)

meanwhile the CNN is doing a report on obama responding to people saying he wears "mom jeans"

interesting article in the wash post about those conservative dems taking $$$$$$$$ from healthy industry lobbyists..

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:40 (sixteen years ago)

the healthcare situation is unbelievably depressing to me

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:42 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072003363.html

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:43 (sixteen years ago)

Chicken cordon bleu is disgusting.

Heric E. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:46 (sixteen years ago)

oh no doubt, and at a fundraising dinner it was probably extra gross.

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:47 (sixteen years ago)

the healthcare situation is unbelievably depressing to me

Yeah I was able to ignore how horrible my insurance is ($2K deductible, no doctors' visits covered) until my daughter had to have her tonsils out yesterday.

Beanbag the Gardener (WmC), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:49 (sixteen years ago)

The thing that strikes me about those goddamn ads on cable is that either side doesnt touch the fact that theres a SHITLOAD of people out there who dont have ANY insurance whatsoever. If some people have to wait a bit longer to get free(ish) medical care, fuck it. Most people with zero to awful insurance would be totally happy to wait.

mayor jingleberries, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:58 (sixteen years ago)

holyyyyy shit there is some whack job colorado congressman on hardball right now who WILL NOT ANSWER when asked by matthews, repeatedly, if he believes obama is a native born US citizen

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:24 (sixteen years ago)

Hahaha a Michael Goldfarb moment if ever there was one.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:24 (sixteen years ago)

seriously what is wrong with these crazy motherfuckers

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:25 (sixteen years ago)

i mean over and over he keeps telling matthews that this bill he's cosponsoring, that a candidate must show a birth certificate, has nothing to do with barack obama. this is INSANE.

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:26 (sixteen years ago)

t-minus about 15 minutes til this thing hits the youtubes.

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:26 (sixteen years ago)

They're caught between 'I must tell the truth!' and 'Remember the lesson of George Allen.' (Which, as you've just noted, he's about forgotten.)

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:27 (sixteen years ago)

these people should be rounded up and put on an island and forced into a "battle royale" type situation imo

igloo-fifty-four-quart-sports-ice-chest.jpg (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:27 (sixteen years ago)

oops, california congressman. no wonder california GOP is so messed up. GOOD GRIEF.

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:27 (sixteen years ago)

Oh yeah? What's the name of this one?

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:29 (sixteen years ago)

i mean, i get what this is about. they don't trust obama and can't stand that obama won the election. if it wasn't this thing to try and delegitimize him, it'd be another thing.

PEOPLE ARE CRAZY

i dunno who that dude was but have no doubt that clip will be posted on the youtubes by some blogger very, very soon, so we'll see

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:31 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.campbell.house.gov/

because i hate us and want us to fail (daria-g), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:34 (sixteen years ago)

the most maddening thing about healthcare reform for me is that the impending collapse of medicare/medicaid isn't really discussed. THAT'S the biggest reason that we need reform. Just maintaining the status quo requires serious reform. And if medicare collapses, people will die. I don't get how that isn't an effective political message.

Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:38 (sixteen years ago)

Hahaha that guy. Thankfully NOT my rep (Rohrabacher's not much better obv.) but I am currently working in it right now.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:45 (sixteen years ago)

(it = his district.)

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:45 (sixteen years ago)

sexing housewives for votes

Lisa Simpson = a fictional bitch (HI DERE), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 21:47 (sixteen years ago)

if medicare collapses, people will die

But if the obscene flow of profits from for-profit healthcare ceases, some insurance companies may die! Or shrink. Or reduce their dividends. Or something.

Aimless, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 22:00 (sixteen years ago)

Is it that rare for people to know someone who relies on medicare?

Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 22:11 (sixteen years ago)

No.

I am waiting for Obama to get busy. It appears he may be letting Congress develop a sense of its voting blocs and the possible compromises, so then he can step in and assemble the package he wants out of the best available pieces. Once he knows what "his" bill looks like, he can wheel out the big megaphone and go to work marshalling public support.

If he just stands back and lets Congress make its own hash of the system, it will be a big mistake. I am glad to hear he is drawing a bright line over having some sort of government-backed-and-run option.

We'll know a hell of a lot more about this by the end of September than we do today.

Aimless, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 22:20 (sixteen years ago)

Which won't keep us speculatin' and criticizing.

Heric E. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 22:24 (sixteen years ago)

and whittlin'

Sarah Palin's Word Put Together Instructor (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 22:28 (sixteen years ago)

lolz John Campbell - did he take over B1 Bob's seat?

Sarah Palin's Word Put Together Instructor (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 22:28 (sixteen years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2AcNp8e1h0

Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 22:30 (sixteen years ago)

two bozos out-bozoing each other via yelling

Sarah Palin's Word Put Together Instructor (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 21 July 2009 22:37 (sixteen years ago)

Invite 'em here.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 22:52 (sixteen years ago)

three weeks pass...

today in townhalls:

Questioner: What about this Guantanamo closure? I don't want these criminals to come over here into our area and escape, and we find that a bunch of innocent people are murdered. And that's what's gonna happen. Didn't you ever read the Koran, Senator?

Specter: The Koran? No.

Questioner: I have read the Koran. And the Koran says that all unbelievers will be executed. Killed. That's why I cannot support Islam. I believe in the Jewish and Hebrew Christian philosophy, so I support that. I don't support any other direction because -- if somebody wants to read the Koran, you can find it. I can tell you where it is.

Specter: Well, the gentleman raises a question about what the Koran says about destroying the Christian Judaic world. And there's no doubt that there's a big problem of terrorism, and the threat which we saw carried out on 9/11. Well, on the issue of Guantanamo, the Congress has spoken to insist that Guantanamo be kept open until there is a plan.

Arms and the SBan (goole), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:07 (sixteen years ago)

hahaha waht

it's like i have a couple worked up vadges under my arms (HI DERE), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:08 (sixteen years ago)

It's much better to read that as an exchange of comic book dialogue between the Specter and the Questioner.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:10 (sixteen years ago)

vid here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/town-hall-attendee-on-guantanamo-closure-innocent-people-will-be-murdered.php

Arms and the SBan (goole), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:10 (sixteen years ago)

Specter: Well, the gentleman raises a question about what the Koran says about destroying the Christian Judaic world. And there's no doubt that there's a big problem of terrorism, and the threat which we saw carried out on 9/11. Well, on the issue of Guantanamo, the Congress has spoken to insist that Guantanamo be kept open until there is a plan.

what the f does this mean

max, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:11 (sixteen years ago)

i am really at my wits end re: the health care 'debate.'

Arms and the SBan (goole), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:12 (sixteen years ago)

That scene sounds like it comes straight from "The Thick of It".

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:20 (sixteen years ago)

max it means "Yes - Muslims do want to destroy all Christians but don't worry, we will not allow terrorist suspects to be transferred to prisons on American soil unless they are encased in krypton tombs and fed via an intricate system of interlocking soda straws"

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:23 (sixteen years ago)

And the Koran says that all unbelievers will be executed. Killed. That's why I cannot support Islam. I believe in the Jewish and Hebrew Christian philosophy, so I support that. I

dude hasn't read the bible very closely. There's some serious unbeliever-smiting in there. Get a brain morans

Obama Death Panel (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:23 (sixteen years ago)

wait, you mean, this guy, at a town hall, didnt know what he was talking about

max, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:26 (sixteen years ago)

its true! also there is no Santa Claus

Obama Death Panel (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:35 (sixteen years ago)

i thought that a lot of the fundies were the way that they are because they LIKE the Old Testament unbeliever-smiting God.

Smells like meat. Rotten meat. (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:45 (sixteen years ago)

Well yeah. I like Dustin Pedroia when he plays second base for the Red Sox but otherwise I'd say he's a dick.

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:49 (sixteen years ago)

That's basically my conception of God - a dickish baseball player famous for his scrappy play and ability to nettle his opponents.

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:51 (sixteen years ago)

so God is Billy Martin, then?!?

Smells like meat. Rotten meat. (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 16:54 (sixteen years ago)

Guys, he wasn't saying he likes the Bible because it doesn't have heathen-smiting. He was actually being very honest. He likes the Bible because he already believes in that shit, so those heathens being smited are actually heathens. The Koran tho, is BS, so that's frightening.

Mordy, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 18:50 (sixteen years ago)

Questioner: I have read the Koran. And the Koran says that all unbelievers will be executed. Killed. That's why I cannot support Islam. I believe in the Jewish and Hebrew Christian philosophy, so I support that [killing of all unbelievers]. I don't support any other direction [of killing of unbelievers] because [the Koran is false and I believe in the Bible] -- if somebody wants to read the Koran, you can find it. I can tell you where it is.

Mordy, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 18:50 (sixteen years ago)

Thank goodness! I've been looking for the Koran for ages!! Please tell me where it is!! I'll be sure to pass on the word to the muslims, btw. I'm sure they'd love to know where it is.

Fetchboy, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 18:59 (sixteen years ago)

Dude keeps spelling the Necronomicon wrong.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 19:02 (sixteen years ago)

XP He means he knows where in the Koran the damning passages are!!!!!!

Mordy, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 19:05 (sixteen years ago)

That's not gonna stop me from mocking his inability to articulate a point clearly.

Fetchboy, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 19:07 (sixteen years ago)

maybe they were better off just screaming incoherently.

Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 19:08 (sixteen years ago)

I'll bet a side of bacon that jerkass has never met a practicing muslim

Obama Death Panel (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 19:09 (sixteen years ago)

altho would lolz if he was confronted by a Muslim complaining about how Xtians are commanded to stone people to death, cuz IT'S IN THE BIBLE and he can show him where

Obama Death Panel (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 11 August 2009 19:12 (sixteen years ago)

Digable Planets' line "the fascists are some heavy dudes/ they don't really give a damn about life" turns up whenever I try and distill what the hell people are SO ANGRY about at these town hall meetings. It seems the Christianity these people subscribe to reflects this line. I get the feeling this subset sees SIN all over the place and believes they're trying to make sure God hears them yelling.

shaane, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 01:27 (sixteen years ago)

WTF is the "Hebrew Christian philosophy?" Jews for Jesus?

Id rather dig ditches than pull another dudes string (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 12 August 2009 01:54 (sixteen years ago)

total morbz bait here, with the fix being in on health care and all:

Still, industry lobbyists say they are not worried. “We trust the White House,” Mr. Kahn said. “We are confident that the Senate Finance Committee will produce a bill we fully can endorse.”

all of which makes the white house seem much more in control of the whole process than i think they've wanted to seem, publicly. they determined the compromises they needed to make on the front end, and i think a lot of the politics has been about positioning themselves to be able to sell the flawed bill they knew they were going to get. in that sense all the town hall screaming and yelling is just a sideshow that won't have much effect on what's actually in the bill -- and to some degree provides political cover for obama, because he's out there fighting against the crazies for a health care bill, even if it's a bill that is going to ultimately disappoint liberals.

which is no doubt all very loathsome if you think they could and should be pushing for more to start with. and i do think that. otoh the craziness of the last week or so has helped remind me what country i live in, so i do appreciate the political wires being walked.

flying squid attack (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 13 August 2009 05:17 (sixteen years ago)

Dr. Tim Johnson, ABC News' medical consultant, gave the best fact-checking segment I've seen on TV yet. Answering the charges that "Obamacare" will lead to "socialized medicine," he compared the changes to what's already in place in the airline industry: Everything around you – from the pilot's training to the coffeemaker – has been inspected and presumably approved by the federal government, whereas 100,000 people die yearly of medical malpractice, in part because the federal gov't isn't involved enough.

(I should know about that coffeemaker – my dad makes them, among other airplane parts, for a living; the FAA is a continuing pain in his ass).

Anatomy of a Morbius (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 13 August 2009 12:16 (sixteen years ago)

LOL Barney.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8

Fetchboy, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 13:36 (sixteen years ago)

"Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table," Frank said to the woman. "I have no interest in doing it."

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

nate dogg is a feeling (HI DERE), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 13:40 (sixteen years ago)

Dan, he's not your Rep, is he?

gossip and complaints (suzy), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 13:44 (sixteen years ago)

No, my rep is Capuano.

nate dogg is a feeling (HI DERE), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 13:49 (sixteen years ago)

we need to clone barney frank.

also possibly give him a vh1 show.

strongohulkingtonsghost, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 13:53 (sixteen years ago)

He needs a "Crossfire" type show with O'Reilly.

post-contrarian meta-challop 2009 (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 13:57 (sixteen years ago)

chance at loud, sarcastic love with barney frank.

strongohulkingtonsghost, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 14:02 (sixteen years ago)

Frank can afford to be, um, frank because he's guaranteed re-election, right? Too many of the other pols are on perpetual thin ice, which is why they can't afford to speak truth to stupid.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 14:07 (sixteen years ago)

was that woman trying to question why frank would support a 'nazi policy' since he is ~jewish~? lol crazy lady, poorly played

there is no there there (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 14:10 (sixteen years ago)

Haven't you heard, elmo? It's officially a trend!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVS4Zgjm8HE

Id rather dig ditches than pull another dudes string (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 14:23 (sixteen years ago)

omg @ end

(ƨnɘhqɘϯƧ ƨ1ϯɿuƆ) | HI!!!!! | (Curt1s Stephens), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 14:38 (sixteen years ago)

just... ugh. *shakes head sadly*

there is no there there (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 15:17 (sixteen years ago)

http://media.bigoo.ws/content/gif/smiles/smiles_407.gif

ovum if you got 'em (gbx), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 15:28 (sixteen years ago)

these fucking people

Man Is Nairf! (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 15:33 (sixteen years ago)

"if you have any complaints about our system, you are a whiner! and now we will whine ad infinitum about the changes you have proposed."

Man Is Nairf! (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 15:33 (sixteen years ago)

watering the tree of liberty with the tears of whiny babies

ovum if you got 'em (gbx), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 15:35 (sixteen years ago)

Barney rocking shit so awesome

go Nick go! Scrub that paint! Scrub it!! Yeah!! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 15:36 (sixteen years ago)

Thank goodness for Barney Frank.

Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 19 August 2009 15:48 (sixteen years ago)

any validity to the idea that backing away from the public option over the weekend was a headfake designed to light a fire under the ass of the left? fuck it, i'm giving obama credit

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 17:11 (sixteen years ago)

that's an interesting interpretation but I dunno...

go Nick go! Scrub that paint! Scrub it!! Yeah!! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 17:13 (sixteen years ago)

certainly looks like the next week or so will be about "public option," not "death panel"

goole, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 17:15 (sixteen years ago)

yea tracer, howard dean said something to that effect -- GOP making noise about the public option, so take the public option off the table for a second. will they support it now? no. pretty deft reveal imo.

there is no there there (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 17:22 (sixteen years ago)

how much real electoral blowback can we expect if Obama gets a healthcare reform bill through with zero Republican support...? Is this really something the Republicans will be able to successfully exploit in the mid-terms...? Obviously that's the calculated gamble the Repubs are eager to take, but I wonder how much people are really gonna be pissed about OH NOES UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE come 2010... or will it just be another log on the fire, along with the stimulus, the climate change bill, etc.

go Nick go! Scrub that paint! Scrub it!! Yeah!! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 17:36 (sixteen years ago)

does partisan healthcare bill = public option? i can't keep up

italo disco calvino (schlump), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 17:52 (sixteen years ago)

Basically. "Liberal" wing of the Dems won't vote for a bill without it, I don't think they're bluffing about that (and good for them).

go Nick go! Scrub that paint! Scrub it!! Yeah!! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 17:57 (sixteen years ago)

wow look at this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401669.html

a good article summarizing what is going on with health care

goole, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 18:55 (sixteen years ago)

in "real life" all the healthcare bills are partisan since good ol chuck grassley has said that he wont even vote on the bill that he, himself, is, like, working on, in his bipartisan effort

max, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 19:00 (sixteen years ago)

oh god, I wouldn't often say this, but I really want to punch that women in the video with the Israeli guy

im p diddy and this is my hetero life partner jamie foxx (The Reverend), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 21:44 (sixteen years ago)

what are you some kind of nazi

go Nick go! Scrub that paint! Scrub it!! Yeah!! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 21:51 (sixteen years ago)

Glenn Greenwald:

The New York Times today has a discussion from several contributors, including me, of the politics of the health care debate. My contribution, which focuses on the role the White House has played and the ample evidence that they have been quite active in shaping the course of events, can be read here. I want to elaborate on a couple of points I referenced in passing.

Over the past decade, the Democratic Party has specialized in offering up one excuse after the next for its collective failures. During the early Bush years, the excuse was that they endorsed Bush policies because his popularity and post-9/11 hysteria made it politically unwise to oppose him. In later Bush years when his popularity plummeted, the excuse was that Democrats were in the minority and could do nothing. After 2006 when they won a Congressional majority, the excuse was that Bush still controlled the White House and had veto power. After 2008 when a Democrat won the White House, the excuse was that Republicans could filibuster.

Now that they have a filibuster-proof majority, a huge margin in the House and the White House, the excuses continue unabated, as Democrats are now on the verge of jettisoning one of the most significant attractions for progressives to the Obama campaign -- active government involvement in the health insurance market. The excuses for "compromising" are cascading more rapidly than ever: We need Republican support to ensure it's bipartisan. The Blue Dogs won't go along with what we want. Centrist Senators will filibuster. There are similar excuses being made to defend Obama from accusations that he deserves some of the blame for the failure of the "public option."

post-contrarian meta-challop 2009 (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 22:01 (sixteen years ago)

oh man, that obama/hitler mashup

I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 23:05 (sixteen years ago)

goole that's such an awesome article! alec mcgillis, i kiss you!!

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 23:07 (sixteen years ago)

the larouchies have been at my school w/ obama/hitler posters basically since he took office :(

im p diddy and this is my hetero life partner jamie foxx (The Reverend), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 23:12 (sixteen years ago)

It's a school, can't ADL get offended at them or something?

gossip and complaints (suzy), Wednesday, 19 August 2009 23:16 (sixteen years ago)

Yglesias OTM about Barney Frank's Town Hall. Compare Frank's fire and conviction to, say, Arlen Spector's performance, where Spector looked like he was impersonating the "Slinker" side of Gollum's split-personality (that fawning, eager-to-please demeanour).

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 20 August 2009 02:17 (sixteen years ago)

Now that they have a filibuster-proof majority, a huge margin in the House and the White House, the excuses continue unabated, as Democrats are now on the verge of jettisoning one of the most significant attractions for progressives to the Obama campaign -- active government involvement in the health insurance market. The excuses for "compromising" are cascading more rapidly than ever: We need Republican support to ensure it's bipartisan. The Blue Dogs won't go along with what we want. Centrist Senators will filibuster. There are similar excuses being made to defend Obama from accusations that he deserves some of the blame for the failure of the "public option."

there seems to be a fine line between 'excuses' and 'how congress works'

iatee, Thursday, 20 August 2009 02:25 (sixteen years ago)

we have a 'filibuster-proof majority' when and only when ben nelson decides we do

iatee, Thursday, 20 August 2009 02:26 (sixteen years ago)

oh god, I wouldn't often say this, but I really want to punch that women in the video with the Israeli guy

I imagine you picking up the Israeli guy and using him like a battering ram on that mouthbreather.

Leee, Thursday, 20 August 2009 02:27 (sixteen years ago)

So far the President ignores this fine line and opts for the latter, iatee.

post-contrarian meta-challop 2009 (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 20 August 2009 02:27 (sixteen years ago)

I agree - I think there are a *lot* of things the WH can be doing better and there's been way too many unnecssary compromises etc.

but at the same time, these are more than tossed off excuses - one of the reasons we have 60 senators to begin with is that the democratic party is the 'big tent' party now and in order to get shit passed we have to pistol whip and/or appease about a dozen people who are basically republicans, despite the D next to their name.

iatee, Thursday, 20 August 2009 02:39 (sixteen years ago)

I am obv for more pistol whipping, but it's ridiculous to act like this isn't actually a huge obstacle

iatee, Thursday, 20 August 2009 02:42 (sixteen years ago)

There's an article in The American Progressive about how the WH knows the public-option is, and has always been, an unrealistic goal, so they're using it to give Democratic lawmakers political cover. Once the Admin. drops the public-option proposal, it will allow conservative Democrats to vote for the bill (since they eliminated its most radical element). And the author (who won a Pulitzer for his health-care coverage) says the public-option really isn't the centerpiece of the reform effort. I'll try and locate the article again.

(Mentioned b/c I assume the unsavory compromises you're alluding to is the WH flirting with the idea of abandoning the public option. I'm not advocating one-way-or-the-other, btw; just sayin').

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 20 August 2009 02:43 (sixteen years ago)

I am also for more pistol whipping.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 20 August 2009 02:44 (sixteen years ago)

Found it: Paul Starr, in The American Progressive.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 20 August 2009 02:45 (sixteen years ago)

The public option better be in there or we are all screwed. Universal coverage is a great idea and all but if it is handed over solely to the insurance industry which got us in this mess to begin with, things will only get worse. Much worse.

Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 20 August 2009 03:03 (sixteen years ago)

I second the move for additional pistol whipping

go Nick go! Scrub that paint! Scrub it!! Yeah!! (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 20 August 2009 18:11 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/24/us.terror.interrogations/index.html

This is kind of blackly funny, because they appear to be investigating this most recent round of torturing in order to make sure they can more effectively and legally torture people in the future. (intentional overstatement on my part btw)

Also kind of agog at the "we didn't know what we were doing so we decided to wing it" angle coming from the CIA quotes.

nate dogg is a feeling (HI DERE), Monday, 24 August 2009 19:56 (sixteen years ago)

I saw this article and had the same idea. Uh if youre not going to torture the shit out of them why ship them off to countries that allow torture...?

Rendition of Terror Suspects Will Continue Under Obama

The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terror suspects abroad for interrogation but will monitor to insure they are not tortured, officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html?hp

mayor jingleberries, Monday, 24 August 2009 20:02 (sixteen years ago)

David Brooks worries about Obama's approval ratings – Obama is being too LIBERAL.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01brooks.html?ref=opinion

post-contrarian meta-challop 2009 (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 September 2009 16:30 (sixteen years ago)

President's on the teevee

live feed: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32737423/

kingfish, Thursday, 10 September 2009 00:29 (sixteen years ago)

I can't remember ever hearing legislators yell stuff out during a presidential speech before.

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Thursday, 10 September 2009 00:47 (sixteen years ago)

It is a bit strange/disturbing that the heckler was an elected representative.

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 10 September 2009 00:50 (sixteen years ago)

Who was the heckler?

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:07 (sixteen years ago)

A heckler?!?

Someone heckled the President? Please tell me you're kidding.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:07 (sixteen years ago)

Nope!

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:08 (sixteen years ago)

Someone yelled something when Obama refuted the rumour about "illegals" getting coverage. Did not hear content of yell, but it earned a pretty impressive O stinkeye.

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:09 (sixteen years ago)

That's . . . sort of shocking. Someone should tell the GOP contingency to stop embarrassing itself.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:10 (sixteen years ago)

Someone on Twitter said it was Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC). If so, he should be officially censured by the House.

Mario Brosephs (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:11 (sixteen years ago)

(Rep. Joe Wilson, BTW).

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:13 (sixteen years ago)

ezra klein on the twitter said the republican response looks like an SNL skit, again

daria, actually (daria-g), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:13 (sixteen years ago)

Speech is over, yes?

CNN says the GOP response is being delivered now.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:15 (sixteen years ago)

I liked that O mentioned single-payer in the spectrum of options that have been under discussion, because rhetorically at least that drives the 'public option' to the center.

MSNBC cut off the online feed right in the middle of the response, so can't see.

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:16 (sixteen years ago)

sen. sherrod brown (on msnbc right now) sounds like columbo

daria, actually (daria-g), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:25 (sixteen years ago)

Sadly, I'm worried Wilson's heckles ("YOU LIE!! YOU LIE!!!!!!") will play out like most of the other recent wingnut spectacles: Everyone on the left will shake their head, baffled/outraged. The right will either not say anything about it or give hints that they sorta might support it. And the 20% of the country that is demonstrably insane (birther, deather, earth is 6000 years old, evolution is satan's lie, etc) will be like "JOE WILSON IS AN AMERICAN PATRIOT".

God I hope I'm wrong, and this time EVERYONE calls out a motherfucker for a motherfucker

Internet! (Z S), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:27 (sixteen years ago)

I'm so anxious to see it. If it's what I expect, I think it will make the GOP look absurd. There's a big difference between anonymous citizens heckling at some local Town Hall meeting and a Congressman heckling the President.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:30 (sixteen years ago)

what were those newsletters the repubs were waving around?

::googles Brett Favre:: (brownie), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:31 (sixteen years ago)

Just saw the heckling video over at TPM.

All I can say is: o_0. I do not think that will play well. But we'll see.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:32 (sixteen years ago)

@ezraklein: Apparently, GOPers holding up copies of various Republican bills to show they exist.

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:33 (sixteen years ago)

lol the NBC guy described the commotion as a meeting of the British during question time or whatever communists do

::googles Brett Favre:: (brownie), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:33 (sixteen years ago)

wow badly worded on my part

::googles Brett Favre:: (brownie), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:34 (sixteen years ago)

Josh Marshall is right: You have to focus on Pelosi's reaction to the "You Lie!" line. Total shock.

(Not that she's a good barometer, but in this case, she probably is . . .)

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:34 (sixteen years ago)

@ezraklein: Apparently, GOPers holding up copies of various Republican bills to show they exist.

no wonder they were only one page

::googles Brett Favre:: (brownie), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:35 (sixteen years ago)

Daniel, you are a centrist with his head screwed on straight and thus not in the headspace of today's GOP, but hope you are right.

Sheaves of papers: future lining for personal litter boxes?

LOL at Question Time comparison; so ridiculously overstated. Take it from me, PMQs are shouty every damn week no matter who is in charge, because being PM is more like being Pelosi than Obama, domestically at least.

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:38 (sixteen years ago)

this speech was fucking awesome btw guys

Clay, Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:38 (sixteen years ago)

Was not in the least bit disappointed, unless you count the cracker-ass heckler.

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:42 (sixteen years ago)

I'm actually searching for editorial articles about Wilson's line. I'm curious to see the coverage.

I'm actually pretty left-of-center, Suzy, but yeah, on some things I'm fairly centerist.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:43 (sixteen years ago)

Let RedState lead the charge!

JOE WILSON GREAT AMERICAN HERO

Internet! (Z S), Thursday, 10 September 2009 01:45 (sixteen years ago)

woah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

::googles Brett Favre:: (brownie), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:01 (sixteen years ago)

oh geez it said "the man who embarrased himself and the nation" two seconds ago

::googles Brett Favre:: (brownie), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:01 (sixteen years ago)

That was a link to the diplomat, not the "YOU LIE" guy.

that page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Wilson_(U.S._politician), has been temporarily disabled due to "vandalism"

Internet! (Z S), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:03 (sixteen years ago)

wrong link and everything I give up my internet reporting cred

::googles Brett Favre:: (brownie), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:04 (sixteen years ago)

TPM: "CNN says support for Obama's plans jumped 14% among those who watched the speech."

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:05 (sixteen years ago)

will return to my sworn duties as internet drinking guy

::googles Brett Favre:: (brownie), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:05 (sixteen years ago)

The internet responds!

OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN. TONIGHT PROVES HE BELONGS ON THE TRASH PILE OF HISTORY WITH SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

It's a lie until I see some very, very explicit legislative language. Good on Rep. Wilson.

Obama did lie. (posted 8 times in a row)

Where in the bill does it exclude illegal/undocumented workers from coverage. Page & Section number, please. READ THE BILL YOU MORONS, THE DEMOCRATS ARE LYING, OBAMA IS LYING!

Good for you, Joe Wilson! He dares to confront the lied Obama right to his face, not behind Obama's back. The look on the b** Pelosi's face so ugly. She was so surprise that someone dares to talk back to her Obama Godfather.

Thank God for Joe Wilson!

Obama is a liar period.wilson ought to be promoted. democrats are so Loooow. barney frand for prez

and when the Presiddent said "that is a lie" was he too being disrespectful??????????????

Internet! (Z S), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:11 (sixteen years ago)

http://13.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpqect2SC41qzx48zo1_500.jpg

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:12 (sixteen years ago)

I know, breaking news, selected portion of America is insane. I'm just trying to compete for internet drinking guy.

Internet! (Z S), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:13 (sixteen years ago)

a lot of tanner in that picture

Batsman (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:15 (sixteen years ago)

IAmdiddy: Breaking news!!! : There is an outbreak of bitchassness in congress!!!

clotpoll, Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:21 (sixteen years ago)

BAHAHA http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/gop-picks-birther-to-rebu_n_279952.html

Repub response dude was a birther, then rejected that position.

Also dude is a death panel advocate.

kingfish, Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:24 (sixteen years ago)

lol the NBC guy described the commotion as a meeting of the British during question time

except that this would be unparliamentary language, and would have to be withdrawn or the member would be suspended. Actually, the list on this page might make a good poll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language though I would admit that the Canadian ones are much funnier.

dowd, Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:26 (sixteen years ago)

AAAAANNND to delight our visiting Anglo crowd, apparently dude got conned into trying to buy the title of "Lord" for some crazy amount of cash

kingfish, Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:30 (sixteen years ago)

If they're smart, the Democrats will jump all over Wilson's outburst, notwithstanding his convenient ''apology'' a few moments ago:

politically, it may be too late to undo the impression that the GOP is handling the health care fight uncivilly.

(TPM)

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:39 (sixteen years ago)

John McCain on CNN saying it was appalling behaviour and totally uncalled for. Here we go!

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:41 (sixteen years ago)

Later on CNN television interviews, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, called for Mr. Wilson to apologize, saying it would be disrespectul in any forum.

Jackie Calmes points to the biography of Mr. Wilson in CQ’s “Politics in America,” which includes this line: “Wilson’s sharp and careless remarks sometimes land him in hot water.” One example listed was Mr. Wilson’s constant criticisms of Senator John Kerry during the Democrat’s presidential campaign, and even includes a reference to Mr. Wilson’s characterization of the news that Strom Thurmond had fathered a daughter with a black woman. Even after the longtime Republican senator’s family acknowledged the paternity, Mr. Wilson called the notion a “smear on the image” of Mr. Thurmond.

velko, Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:41 (sixteen years ago)

Story picking up steam:

Among others . . .

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:46 (sixteen years ago)

No joke, it could be a turning point. Depends on how it plays out. We'll see.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:47 (sixteen years ago)

When this turns bad, get ready for FreeRepublic to call Wilson a Democratic plant to make the Republicans look bad.

Mordy, Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:47 (sixteen years ago)


And the 20% of the country that is demonstrably insane (birther, deather, earth is 6000 years old, evolution is satan's lie, etc) will be like "JOE WILSON IS AN AMERICAN PATRIOT".

MSNBC Poll -- so far, 80% respondents say Wilson ''totally out-of-line''

Hmmmm...

Internet! (Z S), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:47 (sixteen years ago)

Biden thinking about killing a man.

Mordy, Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:50 (sixteen years ago)

That's a hat-trick of stink-eye.

Statement from Wilson below. Daaaamn that was quick:

"This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:51 (sixteen years ago)

My man had the fire tonight. I love how cool Obama usually is, but there were some very welcome cracks in his demeanor this evening. I'm glad that he finally used the word "lie". He should have been saying that last year when McCain and Palin were on the trail distorting his record, and every single time the holy trinity of douchebags: Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity, open their filthy mouths. I wish he'd acknowledged President Clinton at some point though, because if you watch tape of his State of the Union address from '94, the worst case scenario he described pretty much came true.

King of Snake (j-rock), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:51 (sixteen years ago)

Obama's got that "excellent, just as I forsaw it" look goin' on.

xp

Clay, Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:51 (sixteen years ago)

I'm surprised at Wilson's "apology". I honestly expected him to double-down and try to position himself as a courageous movement.

Internet! (Z S), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:52 (sixteen years ago)

Well, he definitely got a name for himself tonight that I can associate with the word 'movement'...

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:54 (sixteen years ago)

Over at the Corner, I think they're letting the smell of Joe Wilson's fart dissipate before they resume posting.

xpost!

Hugh Manatee (WmC), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:56 (sixteen years ago)

I forget about this dude from earlier:

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/7131/whatve.jpg

What does his sign say? "What _____"?

Internet! (Z S), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:57 (sixteen years ago)

''What Bill,'' I think.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:58 (sixteen years ago)

And our guy with the sign is...?

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:59 (sixteen years ago)

Keith O. vs. Cantor [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Keith Olbermann snidely pointed out that Eric Cantor was "texting during the speech." According to his office, that's how the congressman takes notes. We do do that in 2009.

........

youcangoyourownway, Thursday, 10 September 2009 02:59 (sixteen years ago)

What Bill? Uh, the health care bill that you're supposed to be actively involved in shaping, dude. Seriously, what's his point?

Internet! (Z S), Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:00 (sixteen years ago)

This is classic Obama. During the primary, the general election, and now, he waited and waited to counterpunch. While he waited, his opponent attacked relentlessly, leading to hand-wringing among Obama supporters (''He's too nice!,'' ''Where's his fire?,'' ''He's not able to attack!''). At some point, Obama steps up to the plate and crushes the ball out of the park. I think his approach can totally demoralize the opposition. Same tonight, I imagine. Again, we'll see.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:10 (sixteen years ago)

I wish I shared your enthusiasm Daniel but "no federal funding for abortion!" isn't exactly a rallying point for a bunch of us on the left

Man Is Nairf! (J0hn D.), Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:13 (sixteen years ago)

OK, now that it's over (sorry, I was at a Pet Shop Boys concert), what did I miss?

vulva eyes (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:17 (sixteen years ago)

The Congressional GOP has their own angry ranty guy now for the permanent town hall.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:18 (sixteen years ago)

Dude on BBC World Service (southern GOP who pronounces it INsurance, fuck off goober) says all the people who don't have, don't want, and 56 million uninsured 'not very much'. 61 million fully covered Britishers might argue at the characterization of that as a small amount. Sighing BBC guy: 'I KNEW you were going to whip out the term 'socialized medicine'.

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:20 (sixteen years ago)

what did I miss?

obama: dems and republicans agree on 80% of this bill, let's try to find agreement on the rest
republicans: *laughter*
obama: without reform, rising costs will cripple our economy. the status quo is unacceptable
republicans: we're not standing, no sir
obama: let me rebuke a few of the batshit insane things that republicans tacitly endorse. death panels. that's a lie.
republicans: I'm not gonna stand, nope.
obama: ...illegal immigrants. this bill will NOT cover them.
Joe Wilson R-SC: YOU LIE!!! LIAR!!!
obama: fuck you dude.
biden: i'm gonna find you and eat you
pelosi: pass the salt
obama: ted kennedy wrote me a letter before he died stressing that health care was a moral issue more than a financial or political issue. let's listen to him

republican response: i'm a doctor. i'm gonna ignore the content of the speech. if obama was a good president he would make us all start over, create a new bill that stresses the free market. i'm a doctor.

Internet! (Z S), Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:28 (sixteen years ago)

Roomie just tried to argue that cutting other programs to pay for health care reform is "exactly how Enron got run into the ground"

both HOOSlarious and truthful (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:39 (sixteen years ago)

Get new roomie tomorrow.

Johnny Fever, Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:44 (sixteen years ago)

Damn, get new roomie.

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:48 (sixteen years ago)

That's exactly why you shouldn't live with people.

King of Snake (j-rock), Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:48 (sixteen years ago)

AP Story: "In an extraordinary breach of congressional decorum, a Republican lawmaker shouted "You lie" at President Barack Obama during his speech to Congress Wednesday." No point in linking to many more, unless they make an extraordinary editorial-type point. Wilson's outburst is a major embarrassment for the GOP. And it will resonate, I think. The details of a health-care plan are hard to explain; being rude to your President isn't.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:49 (sixteen years ago)

http://i28.tinypic.com/sbkl54.gif

Internet! (Z S), Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:53 (sixteen years ago)

What's Wilson doing with his non-pointing hand? Not sure if it's . . . moving.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:56 (sixteen years ago)

We should start a rumor that in addition to shouting "YOU LIE!", Wilson was also jerkin' it in public

Internet! (Z S), Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:57 (sixteen years ago)

haaaa

http://www.joewilson.house.gov/

Joomla! Logo
Joe Wilson
This site is down for maintenance.
Please check back again soon.

kingfish, Thursday, 10 September 2009 03:59 (sixteen years ago)

...Joomla!?

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 September 2009 04:02 (sixteen years ago)

ZS: nice work, fella.

Having LOLworthy 'debate' on FB with nephew of surgeon who founded U of M hospitals who is one of those self-sufficient Republicans who thinks people who want mandatory coverage are overentitled freeloaders. I'm sure he doesn't know his great-uncle got his ass handed to him in a defamation lawsuit, and was well-known as a total butcher amongst the surgeons he worked with. I won't be the one to say so there. Stuff like that doesn't get handed down as a cozy family story.

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 04:11 (sixteen years ago)

Via Twitter:

Trending Topics

* #thickchicks
* Joe Wilson
* #slimchicks
* Glee
* iTunes 9

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 September 2009 04:19 (sixteen years ago)

Nice to see Wilson sandwiched between thick and slim chicks.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 04:21 (sixteen years ago)

He would be a resultant paste, wouldn't he.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 September 2009 04:27 (sixteen years ago)

Okay, just one more. Dana Milbank, of WaPo, has an interesting rundown of all the GOP's embarrassing chortles, guffaws and outbursts.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 05:08 (sixteen years ago)

A D. Senator's Reality -- By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
from The Corner on National Review Online

clairecmc: Strong speech. Big olive branch to Republicans. Hope they realize the cost of doing nothing is much higher than resonable measured reform.

^^ KLO BRINGING THE ZING

goole, Thursday, 10 September 2009 05:11 (sixteen years ago)

You can always count on Dana Milbank for in-depth body language divination, especially when the stakes are high.

southern GOP who pronounces it INsurance, fuck off goober

That's how I pronounce it too, sorry for being born in a particular place

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 10 September 2009 09:23 (sixteen years ago)

^^^I have honestly never heard you say it like that! Sorry.

Problem: what people buy now is so often 'aren't-surance'. Aren't sure if you'll be covered for an illness or just milked for premiums etc.

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 09:39 (sixteen years ago)

OUTsurance!

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 10 September 2009 09:40 (sixteen years ago)

I also say "UMbrella"

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 10 September 2009 09:41 (sixteen years ago)

But now that I'm in London I'm trying to get better at saying things like "hot SAUCE" and "singaPORE"

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 10 September 2009 09:42 (sixteen years ago)

See, in an articulate person, these things are charming. In a reactionary GOP nutsack, not so much. Like everything.

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 09:45 (sixteen years ago)

See now I'm imagining a nutsack that can contain everything.

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 10 September 2009 10:11 (sixteen years ago)

...and I'm trying not to.

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Thursday, 10 September 2009 10:13 (sixteen years ago)

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), sitting on the Republican side, insisted on making a victory sign with his hand and waving it at Obama. Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.), also on the GOP side of the aisle, felt the need to pound his fist in the air and make what looked, awkwardly, like a fascist salute.

Where is Stephen Gobie? (Dandy Don Weiner), Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:01 (sixteen years ago)

That Dana Milbank - focused like a laser on what really matters!

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:02 (sixteen years ago)

Most of that article is pretty harsh on the GOP's behavior last night, for what that's worth.

Houston (Euler), Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:07 (sixteen years ago)

Not much. Honestly, who gives a flying shit about any of that stuff? Thank God Obama didn't pause to pick a speck of fluff off his jacket, we'd be hearing about it for months.

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:23 (sixteen years ago)

Milbank has always been a snide observer; it's kind of a wonder he even has a job.

But like Tracer says, who really gives a shit? Wake me up when Obama's detailed plan--you know, the bill itself--is actually ready to debate.

Where is Stephen Gobie? (Dandy Don Weiner), Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:33 (sixteen years ago)

I'm setting my alarm, Don!

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:35 (sixteen years ago)

I'd be more interested if he reported that a GOP pol had shown up with Mike Duvall's mistress.

Houston (Euler), Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:49 (sixteen years ago)

Not much. Honestly, who gives a flying shit about any of that stuff?

A lot of people not deeply focused on policy specifics. I think Wilson's outburst -- and any coverage of GOP offensive behavior last night -- will be very helpful for reform advocates.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying the coverage, which in many papers/website is billed above stories about the contents of the speech itself.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 12:03 (sixteen years ago)

Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.), also on the GOP side of the aisle, felt the need to pound his fist in the air and make what looked, awkwardly, like a fascist salute.

yawn. Someone alert Jonah Goldberg.

vulva eyes (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 September 2009 12:50 (sixteen years ago)

In the meantime, I'm enjoying the coverage, which in many papers/website is billed above stories about the contents of the speech itself.

Uh, Daniel, isn't this precisely the problem? I want to read more about "the contents of the speech itself."

vulva eyes (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 September 2009 12:50 (sixteen years ago)

In fact, I want to speak directly to America's seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. So instead of bills, our death panels will simply kill you off with a mechanized fleet of soul harvesting machines. That is how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan. We need that money to pay for the mechanized harvesters.

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies – subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead. That means seniors - who do nothing but put a drain on our resources.

These steps will ensure that you – America's seniors – get the benefits you've been promised. You will be killed by death panels. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings we make by not having to keep you in a semi-daze for the last 10 years of your lives to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pocket for prescription drugs. You won't even need it in the first place. You'll be dead. That's what this plan will do for you.

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 10 September 2009 13:11 (sixteen years ago)

Shouldn't we keep Limbaugh quotes on the GOP thread?

Houston (Euler), Thursday, 10 September 2009 13:15 (sixteen years ago)

the content of the speech itself is kind of irrelevant until the President produces a bill. He can say all he wants in front of the cameras, but it doesn't really matter until a bill gets in front of Congress.

There's an interesting interview with Bill Clinton in Esquire this month where he once again cries about his role in history talks about working with Rostenkowski on healthcare.

Where is Stephen Gobie? (Dandy Don Weiner), Thursday, 10 September 2009 13:31 (sixteen years ago)

the president isn't going to "produce a bill." congress is going to produce a bill that will go to the president.

http://warrensburg.k12.mo.us/IADVENTURE/Fall03/ShowersE/bill3.jpeg

flying squid attack (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 10 September 2009 13:43 (sixteen years ago)

Uh, Daniel, isn't this precisely the problem? I want to read more about "the contents of the speech itself."

Those stories are there, too. But the nuances of health care reform proposals will be lost on many, many people. Who was it, beyond already committed conservatives, whose support for health care reform wavered during August? I think it was largely people looking at the atmospherics of the debate, e.g., the passion of the protesters versus the sheepishness of the Democratic officials. But Wilson's outburst last night constitutes an overreach in tactics that I think will offend many of those "persuadables," who will never wade into the policy details beyond "so-and-so is a socialist!" or "such-and-such person's outburst was disrespectful and rude!" And for that reason, I think Wilson's outburst helps reform advocates, maybe significantly.

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 10 September 2009 14:32 (sixteen years ago)

I loved seeing the Republicans furiously holding up their "plan" during the parts of the speech that made them most uncomfortable, as if it were a cross that could ward off evil

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 10 September 2009 15:08 (sixteen years ago)

I feel like, after yesterday's nonsense, high school students across the country are realizing with a cold, sinking feeling that things don't actually change after graduation.

"So messy!" (HI DERE), Thursday, 10 September 2009 15:13 (sixteen years ago)

is there an mp3 up anywhere of this speech, yet?

I'M IN MIAMI, TRICK-OR-TREAT (Beatrix Kiddo), Thursday, 10 September 2009 15:16 (sixteen years ago)

...while other high school students, making the same realization, are high fiving each other and saying "Bro, awesome."

xpost

Three Word Username, Thursday, 10 September 2009 15:18 (sixteen years ago)

hahaha true

"So messy!" (HI DERE), Thursday, 10 September 2009 15:19 (sixteen years ago)

too soon for an mp3, i guess, i've been googling like mad, coming up with nuthin'

YOUR MOMS SPOT HERON WITH NO HANDS I'M SMACKIN HER (Beatrix Kiddo), Thursday, 10 September 2009 20:00 (sixteen years ago)

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pelosi5.gif

am0n, Thursday, 10 September 2009 21:59 (sixteen years ago)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/w1nt3rmut3/ExcusemeAdultsaretalking.jpg

Dan I., Thursday, 10 September 2009 22:35 (sixteen years ago)

whaaaaaaaaaaaaat

both HOOSlarious and truthful (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 10 September 2009 23:24 (sixteen years ago)

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/103680/thumbs/s-LIE-large.jpg

"are u done?"

am0n, Friday, 11 September 2009 00:45 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.thorninpaw.com/u/htdocs/thorni/image/PulpVincentJules1.jpg

"OH WERE YOU FINISHED? WELL PLEASE ALLOW ME TO RETORT!"

King of Snake (j-rock), Friday, 11 September 2009 01:02 (sixteen years ago)

<a href="http://public.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/news/2009/09/20090909_news_obamaspeech.mp3?dl=1&_kip_ipx=2097109263-1252641181";>MP3.</a> NPR usually has one of the major speeches up a day or so afterwards.

shaane, Friday, 11 September 2009 03:54 (sixteen years ago)

MP3.

bitches aint shit

shaane, Friday, 11 September 2009 03:54 (sixteen years ago)

http://imgur.com/YmUTU.gif

am0n, Friday, 11 September 2009 04:48 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002129/

am0n, Friday, 11 September 2009 04:49 (sixteen years ago)

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/58257-wilson-regularly-took-caffeine-pills-in-2007

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who shouted "you lie!" at President Obama during his Wednesday night address to Congress, admitted to regularly consuming caffeine pills in 2007.

It is unclear if Wilson still takes NoDoz, a brand of pill that contains 200 milligrams of caffeine a pop. By comparison, a seven ounce cup of drip coffee contains 115 to 175 milligrams of caffeine.

A source told The Hill in 2007 that the congressman ingested the tablets “like candy," but Wilson insisted he was not addicted despite the fact that he had been taking them since high school.

"I love coffee, but I don’t have time to drink it and I don’t have access to it," Wilson said at the time.

The fifth-term Republican said he shared his NoDoz use with his doctor, who Wilson said assured him that the over-the-counter pills are not dangerous unless you get addicted.

doesn't have access to it?!!

daria, actually (daria-g), Friday, 11 September 2009 04:58 (sixteen years ago)

yeah, maybe dude was just stimmed out last night and couldn't come down

kingfish, Friday, 11 September 2009 05:27 (sixteen years ago)

whytf does this guy still have his job

am0n, Friday, 11 September 2009 05:39 (sixteen years ago)

joe cries (when obama lies)

tacos at midnight (jeff), Friday, 11 September 2009 05:41 (sixteen years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztnFV13zEao

am0n, Friday, 11 September 2009 05:49 (sixteen years ago)

that is a very weird video. i keep waiting for yul brynner to turn up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAy8YnKvHQ4

flying squid attack (tipsy mothra), Friday, 11 September 2009 06:26 (sixteen years ago)

hahaha are we seriously grilling this guy about his no doz addiction

both HOOSlarious and truthful (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 11 September 2009 14:27 (sixteen years ago)

Obama in Minneapolis on Saturday morning. Meanwhile, T-Paw is a TWAT

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Friday, 11 September 2009 15:25 (sixteen years ago)

playing around with "tenther"/nullification ish is claaasssyyyy

goole, Friday, 11 September 2009 15:27 (sixteen years ago)

If that man really does run for President, I would like whoever does opposition research to come and talk to me. Lots of fun stories from when he lived next door to my dad.

lacoste intolerant (suzy), Friday, 11 September 2009 15:35 (sixteen years ago)

sigh

am0n, Friday, 11 September 2009 16:48 (sixteen years ago)

http://krystalballforcongress.com/

This is the best political name I have ever seen.

"So messy!" (HI DERE), Friday, 11 September 2009 19:12 (sixteen years ago)

As my husband, Jonathan, and I cared for my baby girl, searching out the freshest vegetables for her to eat and trying to protect her, I realized that I couldn’t protect her from the most important threats to her future: environmental degradation, terrorism, failing schools. I needed to step up to the plate and make a difference, for Ella and for all the families in the 1st District

"I need to step up to the plate for fresh vegetables."

vulva eyes (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 September 2009 19:15 (sixteen years ago)

Thank you Governor Pawlenty for relieving us Texans of the shame of having the only nutjob governor in the country spouting Civil War-era rhetoric. A burden shared is a burden halved.

the girl from spirea x (f. hazel), Friday, 11 September 2009 19:17 (sixteen years ago)

White House to Scrap Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18shield.html?_r=2&hp

I was worried this was going to be just another Bush program Obama was going to roll with, but man, proud of him. Even apart from it being the sanest option on the Eastern European front, killing this 'Missile Shield' which can't even pass artificial test conditions saves $238 billion

seriously encouraging news that he made this call, it's the right one

Milton Parker, Thursday, 17 September 2009 21:25 (sixteen years ago)

yeah good on him. weird timing, but whatever.

Hat Trick Swayze (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 September 2009 21:33 (sixteen years ago)

timing is interesting. maybe inadvertent, this has been developing forever. but this is a lot more than 'good on him', this was him standing up tall, the right wing is going to have a knee-jerk field day with their propaganda on this one, they've already started.

ny times article does not mention the cost savings, and only obliquely mentions that every internal govt testing agency has failed the prototypes, and bush ok'd the system anyway -- it is very sane to save the government from having to pay a quarter-trillion to defense contractors for a missile defense system which wasn't going to work. but fox news will take a break from this week's journalism on the government's out of control wasteful spending on ACORN tonight in favor of this new proof of Obama being weak on defense

I hope they fire back hard reporting on the reasons why this is the only sane thing to do, this was a very strong move for him to make, watch them yell

Milton Parker, Thursday, 17 September 2009 22:11 (sixteen years ago)

but fox news will take a break from this week's journalism on the government's out of control wasteful spending on ACORN tonight in favor of this new proof of Obama being weak on defense

hahah hmm maybe there's some skillful media manipulation going on here

Hat Trick Swayze (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 September 2009 22:19 (sixteen years ago)

@glenngreenwald: In Dem. Congress, MoveOn condemned, ACORN defunded, telecoms immunized, Bush eavesdropping approved, Wall St. bailed out

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Thursday, 17 September 2009 22:22 (sixteen years ago)

some glaring omissions there

Hat Trick Swayze (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 September 2009 22:28 (sixteen years ago)

140 characters or less strikes again.

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Thursday, 17 September 2009 22:28 (sixteen years ago)

three weeks pass...

so, a nobel then

goole, Friday, 9 October 2009 13:59 (sixteen years ago)

can't wait for the conservative conspiracy fits....

Maria, Friday, 9 October 2009 14:00 (sixteen years ago)

kinda hoping he'll decline it à la Sartre or Le Doc Tho

Euler, Friday, 9 October 2009 14:01 (sixteen years ago)

yeah me too.

goole, Friday, 9 October 2009 14:04 (sixteen years ago)

yeah...too early.

Maria, Friday, 9 October 2009 14:06 (sixteen years ago)

oh my God laughing so hard at Nobel judges trolling the wingnuts, my hat is off to you you magnificent Swedish people, all time move here

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:10 (sixteen years ago)

conservatives are having fits all right. haters gonna hate

daria, actually (daria-g), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:11 (sixteen years ago)

they should give Al Gore another one for good measure and then another to Nancy Pelosi

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:12 (sixteen years ago)

Burying the Lede [Jonah Goldberg]

From a reader:

The real news isn't that Obama won the Peace Prize, it's that he was actually humbled by it. That should be the big story.

Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:12 (sixteen years ago)

maybe a posthumous one to FDR just to twist the knife

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:12 (sixteen years ago)

J0hn it's NORWEGIANS. BTW nice one on C0lbert!

edward everett horton hears a who (suzy), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:15 (sixteen years ago)

also: Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon

as strikingly artificial and perfect as a wizard's cap (HI DERE), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:16 (sixteen years ago)

Sean Penn should get one as well.

The ever dapper nicolars (Nicole), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:17 (sixteen years ago)

Harvey Milk, Angela Davis and Che Guevera

as strikingly artificial and perfect as a wizard's cap (HI DERE), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:17 (sixteen years ago)

also, in a surprise move, Ted Nugent and The Ultimate Warrior

as strikingly artificial and perfect as a wizard's cap (HI DERE), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:18 (sixteen years ago)

also, in a surprise move, Ted Nugent and The Ultimate Warrior

in a world where lols are routinely brought by HI DERE, one lol...stands out from the rest...

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:20 (sixteen years ago)

J0hn it's NORWEGIANS

in my neighborhood we call them all Swedes except for Hamlet

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:21 (sixteen years ago)

who's English I think

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:21 (sixteen years ago)

i still can't believe this

pariah carey (Mr. Que), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:21 (sixteen years ago)

hamlet is danish

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UIXOn06Pz70/SGavQ7iYjbI/AAAAAAAADs8/7XPd-HCmHlA/s800/Cheese+Danish+500.jpg

pariah carey (Mr. Que), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:21 (sixteen years ago)

whether tis nobler in the nom to nom nom
the noms and arrows of outrageous danish

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:23 (sixteen years ago)

do you guys remember when Beano Cook said that Ron Powlus (rip) would win three Heismans? O is batting for three Nobels. You heard it here first.

Euler, Friday, 9 October 2009 14:29 (sixteen years ago)

Scandinavians + deep fry/corn syrup = Minnesotans

edward everett horton hears a who (suzy), Friday, 9 October 2009 14:38 (sixteen years ago)

+ family farm = icelanders

Maria, Friday, 9 October 2009 14:43 (sixteen years ago)

@BarackObama congrats on the Nobel peace prize, with that being said can I please borrow Air Force 1 for Monday night football please.
OGOchoCinco about 2 hours ago from Echofon

daria, actually (daria-g), Friday, 9 October 2009 15:01 (sixteen years ago)

http://16.media.tumblr.com/U93ivddvBj49ce5tNXyZWNfEo1_500.gif

the taint of Macca is strong (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 October 2009 15:36 (sixteen years ago)

waiting for a big "PSYCH" from norway

fleetwood (max), Friday, 9 October 2009 15:41 (sixteen years ago)

"FØØLED YA"

fleetwood (max), Friday, 9 October 2009 15:42 (sixteen years ago)

still can't believe this

butt sound insanity (gbx), Friday, 9 October 2009 15:44 (sixteen years ago)

i really did think it was a joke when i woke up

steamed hams (harbl), Friday, 9 October 2009 15:46 (sixteen years ago)

I think the euros are just happy Obama didnt blow up Iran when they revealed their enriched uranium secrets a month or so ago

mayor jingleberries, Friday, 9 October 2009 15:47 (sixteen years ago)

This is just dumb.

& other try hard shitfests (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 9 October 2009 15:48 (sixteen years ago)

it's a little dumb. still going to be really fun watching the Right's heads asplode

feed them to the (Linden Ave) lions (will), Friday, 9 October 2009 15:49 (sixteen years ago)

"revealed"

(readers of A Cockburn know this is all PR bullshit on both sides)

xxp

Your Favorite Saturday Night Thing (Dr Morbius), Friday, 9 October 2009 15:49 (sixteen years ago)

Thats why its dumb though, as if the right needed more ammo of this caliber.

(xxpost)

& other try hard shitfests (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 9 October 2009 15:50 (sixteen years ago)

HELP someone what is the new regular politics thread that followed the GOP ball-busting one? I don't know the name & the old one is locked.

I would feel confident if I dated her because I am older than (Laurel), Friday, 9 October 2009 15:51 (sixteen years ago)

US politics: Can someone continue summarising what's going on with the GOP?

Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 9 October 2009 15:52 (sixteen years ago)

Weird, I never noticed when that one turned over! Search fxn found the 1st but not the 2nd.

Thanks, Alfred.

I would feel confident if I dated her because I am older than (Laurel), Friday, 9 October 2009 16:07 (sixteen years ago)

There's gonna be an acceptance speech, right? Obama should thank Dubya.

hope this helps (Granny Dainger), Friday, 9 October 2009 19:21 (sixteen years ago)

Guys, the Nobel committee chairman is named Thorbjorn! I really love Thor compound names. That's so great.

Maria, Friday, 9 October 2009 20:15 (sixteen years ago)

Yo Obama, I'm real happy for you and Imma let you finish, but......

youcangoyourownway, Friday, 9 October 2009 22:11 (sixteen years ago)

waiting for a big "PSYCH" from norway

er keep waiting. We all love ur Obama, but this was mostly a "wtf" from pretty much everyone here. I smell a Thorbjørn here yes. A guy given to grandiose plans and grandiose (in our small Norwegian way) gaffes[1][2][citations on request]. :D

anatol_merklich, Saturday, 10 October 2009 00:24 (sixteen years ago)

This was all a scheme to repromote a-ha to the American audience. (Don't ask me how.)

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 10 October 2009 00:30 (sixteen years ago)

Greenwald: British High Court rejects U.S./British cover-up of torture evidence. Apparently the Bush administration, abetted later by the Obama White House, threatened to withhold intelligence if the UK released details of Mohamed's torture.

Disgusting:

All of this highlights two vital points: (1) the extent to which the Obama administration has been willing to go to cover up evidence of the Bush administration's torture regime; when I interviewed Mohamed's lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, in April, he made clear that these threats were part of a joint cover-up between the U.S. and Britain; and (2) the way in which American citizens are forced to rely on the institutions in foreign countries -- British courts and Spanish prosecutors -- to learn about what our own government has done. War crimes can never stay hidden for long. It's only a matter of time before all of this evidence comes out one way or the other, and when it does, those who worked so vigorously to keep it concealed will be rightly judged to have been complicit in its cover-up.

Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 18 October 2009 14:35 (sixteen years ago)

the way it's playing in the papers over here it's more like: the british and us officials agreed to invent the intelligence-withholding story, because various british parties feel complicit in the torture case

thomp, Sunday, 18 October 2009 14:44 (sixteen years ago)

but you know, lol inflated british self-opinion and all that

thomp, Sunday, 18 October 2009 14:45 (sixteen years ago)

Alfred stop demanding perfection

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Sunday, 18 October 2009 14:48 (sixteen years ago)

Hm yeah. I'm going to wait until January 2017 to demand accountability.

Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 18 October 2009 14:58 (sixteen years ago)

and risk electing a Republican in 2020? way to think of the big picture there, Mr. Torture's-More-Important-Than-the-Party

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Sunday, 18 October 2009 15:05 (sixteen years ago)

obama legalizes it: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/19/us/AP-US-Medical-Marijuana.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1255971611-wct3UA7H8PMmIqxJ3plGaw

suggest friend (hmmmm), Monday, 19 October 2009 17:03 (sixteen years ago)

or will at least stop federal prosecution of medical marijuana users

suggest friend (hmmmm), Monday, 19 October 2009 17:04 (sixteen years ago)

That's more accurate.

Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 19 October 2009 17:07 (sixteen years ago)

awesome

Jesus, the Czar of Czars (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 19 October 2009 17:08 (sixteen years ago)

Nice smokescreen

*instant rimshot*

Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 19 October 2009 17:11 (sixteen years ago)

really earning his peace prize here imo

suggest friend (hmmmm), Monday, 19 October 2009 17:35 (sixteen years ago)

smoke em peace prize

i got nothin (deej), Tuesday, 20 October 2009 08:22 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123728/U.S.-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana-Reaches-New-High.aspx

Where is Stephen Gobie? (Dandy Don Weiner), Tuesday, 20 October 2009 11:01 (sixteen years ago)

Fantastic URLOL.

http://image.blingee.com/images17/content/output/000/000/000/603/530943273_1216264.gif?4

Yo! GOP Raps (suzy), Tuesday, 20 October 2009 11:07 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/10/19/elizabeth-anderson/what-should-egalitarians-want/

good stuff about inequality from someone at cato i've never heard of. it looks to me like a compelling argt for a more populist anti-poverty party (if not uh a democratic one) since it's not as if the anti-gov't types are shutting down the state for the benefit of all. instead of arguing about how much the gov't ought to "give" to the poor, we could start getting it to quit giving so much to the rich.

apropos of nothing really but i thought it was intersting

cialis morissette (goole), Tuesday, 20 October 2009 20:10 (sixteen years ago)

Since I usually post grim news, here's some good (for which Dubya deserves some credit too):

White House announces end to HIV travel ban

lihaperäpukamat (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 30 October 2009 16:46 (sixteen years ago)

Will Sullivan's Halloween costume be a smiley face?

Ned Raggett, Friday, 30 October 2009 16:47 (sixteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

BOWGATE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kyD_e0Y7FQ

Dreadmore (7 minutes ago) 0 Reply
obamao the unAmerican. this guy will never know what it means to be American, he does not have an American conscience. he has proven over and over he is a subserviant to kings, but refuses to bow to the American people who are his true masters!

nearly one-third of a man (Z S), Sunday, 15 November 2009 21:19 (sixteen years ago)

please tell me this isn't actually a thing

When she is finished, Reader, the vagina has won, hands down. (stevie), Sunday, 15 November 2009 21:20 (sixteen years ago)

Only to Chris Wallace

nearly one-third of a man (Z S), Sunday, 15 November 2009 21:23 (sixteen years ago)

please tell me this isn't actually a thing

― When she is finished, Reader, the vagina has won, hands down. (stevie), Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:20 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

srsly. honestly, i have way more patience for pro-lifers and hawks and w/e than i do for morons who get riled about the weird rituals of international politics. i mean, i have at least a wary "respect" for ppl with strongly held moral convictions, even if i disagree with them vehemently, you know? like, at least they've considered an issue just long enough to reach a conclusion that can be weakly justified by SOME kind of moral or ethical framework, however shaky or irrational or plain rong that framework may be.

but devoting any kind of energy to being ~upset~ by an elected official showing deference to someone of similar station for the purposes of diplomacy is just deeply, deeply weird. just profoundly stupid, to an extent that i actually have to adjust my whole fucking view of the world to take into account that real, live ~idiots~ exist and are making decisions! about, like, all kinds of stuff! the people that are upset by this HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES and RAISE ACTUAL CHILDREN

itdn put butt in the display name (gbx), Sunday, 15 November 2009 21:46 (sixteen years ago)

LOL but one guess which form of ID these people don't EVER have.

Dude's a very tall guest of the Emperor! This is The protocol is (I'm fairly sure) that even a distinguished guest/head of state dips below the emperor's height and I kind of trust the son of an anthropologist to know this. A bunch of asswipey neo-andrethals who don't even know their way to the passport office are maybe not the people to raise concerns on what's appropriate culturally in Japan.

viagra falls (suzy), Sunday, 15 November 2009 21:48 (sixteen years ago)

also, i've never been to Japan, but i HAVE seen Rising Sun and was sort of under the impression that bowing is just, you know, being polite.

like can you imagine what would happen to the iNtErNeT bLoGs if an otherwise friendly head of state visited the US (while Bush was in office) and declined to shake the president's hand because he didn't want the folks at home to think he was a pussy?

itdn put butt in the display name (gbx), Sunday, 15 November 2009 21:54 (sixteen years ago)

Seriously. I've never been to Japan either, but when my late neighbour (who considered himself superior to everyone, basically) won the Japan Prize for Science he had a very grand ceremony and dinner with the same emperor- and was only too happy to bow. He was only 5'7" and therefore didn't have to shift altitude or attitude to comply with tradition.

viagra falls (suzy), Sunday, 15 November 2009 22:01 (sixteen years ago)

http://nixonisinhell.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/bushsaudiprinceabdullah430x268.jpg

velko, Sunday, 15 November 2009 22:03 (sixteen years ago)

Lawyers, Guns and Money brings us pictures of Ike Eisenhower bowing to, well, everyone.

While Sadly, No! brings us George W. Bush kneeling to the Pope, and planting a big smoocheroo on Prince Bandar.

I mean, honest to christ, these fucking people. I can't imagine being that angry at everything all the time.

xpost

Bears Are Alive! (Pancakes Hackman), Sunday, 15 November 2009 22:04 (sixteen years ago)

please tell me this isn't actually a thing

― When she is finished, Reader, the vagina has won, hands down. (stevie), Sunday, November 15, 2009

I thought you meant the possibility of Dick Cheney running for President in 2012.

Actually, Cheney would be much more formidable competition than any other "nat'l leader" the GOP can currently field, including Pawlenty or Romney or Huckabee.

Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 15 November 2009 22:05 (sixteen years ago)

Dick Cheney will be dead before 2012

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Sunday, 15 November 2009 22:10 (sixteen years ago)

o_0 ??

Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 15 November 2009 22:10 (sixteen years ago)

Cheney won't run unless he's hoping his heart gives out, assuming he's got one.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 15 November 2009 22:13 (sixteen years ago)

Exactly. His poor health due to a live of evil will exact its toll, hopefully sooner than later.

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Sunday, 15 November 2009 22:58 (sixteen years ago)

In Japan, you bow to cars that stop for you at crosswalks. There really is no straw the wingnuts will not grasp at.

adamj, Sunday, 15 November 2009 23:27 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2009/11/obama-taekwondo-seoul-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 19 November 2009 15:33 (sixteen years ago)

rush hour 4: barack in business

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 19 November 2009 15:34 (sixteen years ago)

we gonna git it on coz we don't git along

Meatcat (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Thursday, 19 November 2009 15:42 (sixteen years ago)

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/departments/senator-maps

max, Thursday, 19 November 2009 19:57 (sixteen years ago)

lol @ georgia

max, Thursday, 19 November 2009 19:58 (sixteen years ago)

also lol @ wyoming for just using a square-shape tool in paint

max, Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:00 (sixteen years ago)

lol @ this whole enterprise, senators are such goofy squares

max, Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:00 (sixteen years ago)

byron dorgan appears to be showing off how well he knows where cities in his state are

max, Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:01 (sixteen years ago)

al franken unsurprisingly wrote essays for each of his places

max, Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:01 (sixteen years ago)

claire mccaskill still one of my favorite senators

max, Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:01 (sixteen years ago)

and once again, LOL @ GEORGIA

max, Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:02 (sixteen years ago)

impressed by mark begich's drawing of alaska

chillwave dudes get washed out, totally (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:03 (sixteen years ago)

missouri is one of the easiest ones to do - she's cool tho yeah

chillwave dudes get washed out, totally (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:03 (sixteen years ago)

i just love her based on her twitter feed i literally know nothing about her

max, Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:04 (sixteen years ago)

also holee shit: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/04/al-franken-draws-a-map-of-the-us/

max, Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:04 (sixteen years ago)

lol @ maine

Freeport

Home to L.L. Bean

chillwave dudes get washed out, totally (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:05 (sixteen years ago)

yeah dude that is sick

xp

chillwave dudes get washed out, totally (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:05 (sixteen years ago)

haha i cant believe al franken can draw every single state in the union better than saxby chambliss can draw his own state where he is from and actually represents in the senate

max, Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:06 (sixteen years ago)

LOL of course Al can do that, here's the part where I stan for our HS social studies teachers.

viagra falls (suzy), Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:09 (sixteen years ago)

My man Dick Durbin's is best read north to south.

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, 19 November 2009 23:07 (sixteen years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXsoDx9s0j0

Ooooobaaaaammaaaaaa maaaaaakes aaaa slooooooooow mooooooootion caaaaaaaaaaaaatch aaaaaaaaaaaaand theeeeeeeen imeeeeeeeeediately fuuuuuuuuuumbles toooo liiiiiitle giiiiiiiiirl

big darn deal (Z S), Friday, 20 November 2009 16:26 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/08/28/drudge-siren.gifObama shows lack of ball control and discipline, unfit to be leader[http://www.boingboing.net/2009/08/28/drudge-siren.gif

big darn deal (Z S), Friday, 20 November 2009 16:29 (sixteen years ago)

my news ingestion has no cable in it, and my read on the right-wing hothouse is thru the lens of liberal blogs that obsess over that. and occasionally loling at the corner.

so i have been surprised to find out that obama's asia trip has been a humiliating disaster? except, everybody knows it wasn't, but everyone it talking about how it looks like it was? and now that's a story? fuckin hate 'the press' tbh

goole, Monday, 30 November 2009 19:54 (sixteen years ago)

The fight between James Fallows ("It was a success, what the hell is wrong with you clowns?") and Chuck Todd ("LEAVE US ALONE WE MAKE SNAP JUDGMENTS DON'T JUDGE ME.") over this has been amusing.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 30 November 2009 19:56 (sixteen years ago)

Online (of course!) -- I think they were firing off short complaints at each other via Twitter or similar newsfeed stuff.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 30 November 2009 19:58 (sixteen years ago)

there was also this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-22/think-before-you-travel/

max, Monday, 30 November 2009 20:05 (sixteen years ago)

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/the_white_house_v_politico.php

^^ so much material and that was the funniest memo they could come up with??

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 13:35 (sixteen years ago)

I'm actually sort of glad that the White House isn't spending more time crafting funny memos. The misspellings bespeak a kind of appropriately hasty contempt.

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 13:57 (sixteen years ago)

Are we glad that Obama's sending more troops to Afghanistan?

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 13:57 (sixteen years ago)

i think it really, really sucks and im desperately hoping that im wrong that its going to be a colossal problem

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 13:59 (sixteen years ago)

Greenwald's post this morning comparing Obama's pretty words with Bush's in 2007 is pretty devastating.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:07 (sixteen years ago)

i thought this from sullivan was pretty pertinent too:

If he does the full metal neocon as he is being urged to, he should not be deluded in believing the GOP will in any way support him. They will oppose him every step of every initiative. They will call him incompetent if Afghanistan deteriorates, they will call him a terrorist-lover if he withdraws, they will call him a traitor if he does not do everything they want, and they will eventually turn on him and demand withdrawal, just as they did in the Balkans with Clinton. Obama’s middle way, I fear, is deeper and deeper into a trap, and the abandonment of a historic opportunity to get out.

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:12 (sixteen years ago)

i think it really, really sucks and im desperately hoping that im wrong that its going to be a colossal problem

problem for Afghanistan you mean or for the US or for the President?

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:13 (sixteen years ago)

well it obviously already is a colossal problem for a lot of afghans

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:14 (sixteen years ago)

Sullivan/max OTM.

The BFD (suzy), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:14 (sixteen years ago)

but i dont see any reason why it cant end up being a colossal problem for the entire world

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:15 (sixteen years ago)

f he does the full metal neocon as he is being urged to, he should not be deluded in believing the GOP will in any way support him. They will oppose him every step of every initiative. They will call him incompetent if Afghanistan deteriorates, they will call him a terrorist-lover if he withdraws, they will call him a traitor if he does not do everything they want, and they will eventually turn on him and demand withdrawal, just as they did in the Balkans with Clinton

Karl Rove was on "The Today Show" starting this line of attack already.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:22 (sixteen years ago)

Why are these moran vulcan cunts still being listened to by anyone, let alone your president (who has always struck me as quite a bright guy btw)?

Why is he so afraid to be called a pussy by this discredited and utterly irrelevant group?

DRUNK SWEDISH CHINTZ (Upt0eleven), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:33 (sixteen years ago)

How many of you were in favor of beginning the war in Afghanistan in 2001?

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:35 (sixteen years ago)

I was. I still think if we're going to be fighting anywhere, it should be in Afghanistan.

The thing I'm struggling with right now is whether we should be fighting at all.

lift this towel, its just a nipple (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:36 (sixteen years ago)

I didn't feel anything one way or the other – I assumed we were going to invade Afghanistan no matter what.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:36 (sixteen years ago)

I was against it at the time, though yeah, I would have been shocked had we not invaded. I expect that had Obama been president in 2001, he'd have ordered an invasion as well.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:40 (sixteen years ago)

i was 16

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:44 (sixteen years ago)

i have a better memory of the yankees losing to the diamondbacks than the first couple years of the war in afghanistan

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:44 (sixteen years ago)

I think Obama would have pushed a lot harder on the Taleban to give up Bin Laden first.

Bush had no interest, as with Saddam Hussein, of cutting a deal.

DRUNK SWEDISH CHINTZ (Upt0eleven), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:45 (sixteen years ago)

Instead of enabling Karzai and his thugs, we should have assisted in the creation of a NATO-anchored, UN-approved commission with the jurisdiction to try captured al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders who planned the 9-11 attacks. We could have asked a US attorney or SCOTUS justice (a la Robert Jackson during the Nuremberg trials) with some experience dealing with the subtleties of international law to officiate. But it's easier to knock out a ragtag army, especially when you have midterm elections the following year during which you can attack skeptics as appeasers.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:51 (sixteen years ago)

Yes. And those same political dynamics (re. "appeasement") are still in play here.

I hate the political angle on this not least because I know a lot of active Army soldiers and their families, and each time we "escalate" I see what this means for their lives. A few of them get excited, but for most of them it'll just mean another miserable nine+ months away from home, not to mention the discomfort and risks of being in those awful places.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:57 (sixteen years ago)

i don't like this afghan policy and i think there's a big difference between saying we have no open-ended commitment and actually having no open-ended commitment, because it still looks pretty open-ended to me (and i assume to the afghans too).

the one thing i'll say in obama's defense is that i can't actually think of a good afghan policy. the options all seem shitty. but this is just basically, "more troops, hope things get better." not a good formula.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:59 (sixteen years ago)

I have this sort of horrible feeling that Obama and Gordon Brown (who has just declared a new, reinvigorated priority of "taking down" OBL) feel that OBL is a worthy target of military action and that if they can indeed finally get him they will be gifted with the happy consequence of bulletproofing their parties against "weak on defense" issues for a generation and boost their chances going into the next election.

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:01 (sixteen years ago)

Beyond that, i.e. having "force projection" right on Pakistan's border for the indefinite future as a bulwark against terr'rists getting out of hand, I don't even want to fucking contemplate

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:03 (sixteen years ago)

I have this sort of horrible feeling that Obama and Gordon Brown (who has just declared a new, reinvigorated priority of "taking down" OBL) feel that OBL is a worthy target of military action

Do you seriously think OBL is *not* a worthy target of military action? Like if a group of Marines just happened to run into OBL in the hills of Afghanistan somewhere, should they just ignore him? Not fire a shot?

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:09 (sixteen years ago)

Well read the rest of the sentence Que.

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:10 (sixteen years ago)

In 2001 I believed he was a worthy target of POLICE action, given that AFAIK no one has ever proved that he masterminded 9/11. Although I can see where reasonable people might differ. My "horrible feeling" is that Brown and Obama feel that their politically unassailable goal of "taking him down" would just happen to redound with awesome electoral consequences and that prize is actually what's driving this push. Of course as I said that doesn't even touch on the even more ominous feeling I have that they want to establish a permanent presence in Afghanistan so they can keep an eye on Pakistan (much like the presence in Iraq currently allows them to keep an eye on Iran).

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:15 (sixteen years ago)

Nor on the question of whether taking down OBL should be a top military priority in 2010.

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:19 (sixteen years ago)

^^^^ seems like more of a 2002-2003 goal to me, which is why I am now conflicted over it

lift this towel, its just a nipple (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:20 (sixteen years ago)

i feel sick to my stomach about it too, but i have yet to see or hear any proof that Obama would do such a risky thing, when there is very little support for it, just for votes.

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:22 (sixteen years ago)

I thought the stated goal now was to prevent a Taliban resurgence...as well as collaboration with civilian authorities (such as they are).

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:23 (sixteen years ago)

yeah. if the whole idea of 30,000 more troops is just to get OBL, than yes, i think that's a dumb goal. at the same time if we "get" OBL than it can't hurt at this point

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:24 (sixteen years ago)

I hope the president clarifies what the present goal is b/c I surely don't know what it is.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:28 (sixteen years ago)

two interesting michelle goldberg pieces based on afghan support and opposition to continuing us involvement.

one of the things i struggle with thinking about this is trying to use ordinary principles in such a different context; ie, in any other situation, to go, fuck things up and then split seems abhorrent; that the sketchier course of action would be saving lives is conflicting. continuing blowing afghanistan up in the quest to make what we've done into something honourable and worthwhile is a pretty reckless move. i don't think we should be fighting at all, but i don't know if having ravaged the country and then leaving in the face of rising US casualties is defensible - literally, something obama could make a case for - even if continuing is headstrong and murderous.

The thing I'm struggling with right now is whether we should be fighting at all.

rap band (schlump), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:43 (sixteen years ago)

when we invaded in 01 a non-know-it-all friend asked me what i thought about it, and i told her "this had better work." i feel the same way now, but the fact that it's a decade later is not a cause for optimism.

goole, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:31 (sixteen years ago)

i was against the initial afghanistan invasion, in that i suspected that it would not be a panama-style grab but instead a protracted occupation. which it has been.

and to those that are struggling: why SHOULD we be fighting right now? precisely what is it accomplishing?

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:32 (sixteen years ago)

keep pakistan from falling apart. somehow.

goole, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:34 (sixteen years ago)

I am looking forward to this speech

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:37 (sixteen years ago)

I am down with military goal of capturing Bin Laden. Less so with goal of nation building in Afghanistan, which is pretty much hopeless.

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:38 (sixteen years ago)

precisely what is it accomplishing?

well... us being there has pretty indisputably kept the taliban out of national power. whether they would have reclaimed it in our absence is totally unknown, of course. it's really just impossible to assess what would have happened post-2001 if we'd totally withdrawn, only provided economic aid, etc. it's possible the country would be in about the same position it is now, weak and fragmented and the taliban gaining strength again.

and i know this is an obvious well-duh thing to say, but the bad-faith and bad-acts of american foreign policy aside, the taliban really are horrible and there is something to be said for them not running a country.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:40 (sixteen years ago)

There's something to be said for scores of governments in the world not running their respective countries. That's insufficient as an argument for US action in removing those governments from power.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:42 (sixteen years ago)

wtf when those governments enable attacks on the US then there's your argument

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:43 (sixteen years ago)

DO YOU GUYS REMEMBER 9/11 lolz

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:43 (sixteen years ago)

given that AFAIK no one has ever proved that he masterminded 9/11

I mean come on this is a joke, right?

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:44 (sixteen years ago)

Maybe we should invade Germany, then, right?

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:46 (sixteen years ago)

There's something to be said for scores of governments in the world not running their respective countries. That's insufficient as an argument for US action in removing those governments from power.

true, and obviously we weren't about to remove the taliban from power when all they were doing was terrorizing women and blowing up statues. but having done so for reasons of our own, is or isn't there any moral imperative to try to keep them contained? that's not a rhetorical question, i don't have a real clear answer to it myself. i don't have clear ideas on anything about afghanistan, it's much more difficult to think about in all sorts of ways than iraq (or vietnam, or whatever).

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:52 (sixteen years ago)

Maybe we should invade Germany, then, right?

I don't get what this is referring to

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:52 (sixteen years ago)

given that AFAIK no one has ever proved that he masterminded 9/11

I mean come on this is a joke, right?

Uh, no?

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:52 (sixteen years ago)

The Hamburg cell (German: Hamburger Terrorzelle) was, according to U.S. and German intelligence agencies, a group of radical Islamists that included students who eventually came to be key operatives in the 9/11 attacks. Important members included Mohamed Atta, who led the four hijacking teams in 2001 and piloted American Airlines Flight 11; Ramzi Binalshibh, who conspired with the other three members but was unable to enter the United States; and Marwan al-Shehhi, who piloted United Airlines Flight 175. Less important members included Said Bahaji, Zakariya Essabar, Mounir el Motassadeq, and Abdelghani Mzoudi. Ziad Jarrah, who piloted United Airlines Flight 93, and failed to hit the United States Capitol is also sometimes listed in the Hamburg cell.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:54 (sixteen years ago)

do you have any real understanding of what went down between the Taliban and Bin Laden cuz it isn't even remotely comparable to Al Qaeda's presence in Germany

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:54 (sixteen years ago)

i.e., Atta and his crew were not WANTED MEN who had been expelled from multiple countries.

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:55 (sixteen years ago)

Bin Laden's explicitly taken credit for it Tracer. Robert Fisk will tell you as much

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:56 (sixteen years ago)

I dunno, tipsy, we all have lots of moral imperatives, and we only have the resources to meet a few of them. It's the same for countries. Why should this moral imperative, if indeed is one, be one that's worth the expenditure of resources?

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:57 (sixteen years ago)

Shakey, my point is that it doesn't take a "safe haven" like Afghanistan to plan attacks like we experienced on 9/11.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:58 (sixteen years ago)

well right, but one of the reasons floating around is to deny AQ any "safe havens" but it's not like they needed afghanistan as a physical location from which to plan 9/11.

this isn't to say that denial of safe havens is "really" the reason decision-makers think we ought to be doing anything in afghanistan, or that Obama will argue as such. i'll be depressed if he does.

heh xps

goole, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:59 (sixteen years ago)

I know, "LOL WIKIPEDIA" and all, but this seems to be a good summation of the evidence presented for making the case that Osama bin Laden was involved, although "masterminded" may be too strong a statement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Assigning_responsibility

(also going after bin Laden as the "mastermind" may be a fundamental misunderstanding of the way in which a distributed cell organization works)

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:00 (sixteen years ago)

(for one thing Bin Laden went to Afghanistan because he secured a deal with Mullah Omar that the Taliban would specifically NOT allow his extradition or cooperate with any foreign governments that came after him. Bin Laden had burned his bridges in Sudan and couldn't go back to Saudi Arabia or any other middle eastern country because they all would have turned him over and/or killed/imprisoned him themselves)

x-post

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:00 (sixteen years ago)

but it's not like they needed afghanistan as a physical location from which to plan 9/11

ARGH yes they did

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:01 (sixteen years ago)

no they didn't! they needed a few apartments in hamburg and some flight schools in the US. it doesn't take a nation...

goole, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:02 (sixteen years ago)

I agree about the semantics of "mastermind" being too strong a term - it wasn't Bin Laden's supervillain-style master plan, but he facilitated and funded and coordinated things, and it wouldn't have happened without him and Al Zwahiri marshalling their collective resources

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:02 (sixteen years ago)

(also going after bin Laden as the "mastermind" may be a fundamental misunderstanding of the way in which a distributed cell organization works)

hi, yes, dan otm, this is sort of the big unspoken thing about why the whole situation is fucked

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:02 (sixteen years ago)

Why should this moral imperative, if indeed is one, be one that's worth the expenditure of resources?

i don't know. i really honestly don't. i never had any trouble forming an opinion about iraq, but i've been trying for a few years to come up with a coherent, defensible opinion on afghanistan and i've failed. there are so many pieces to it and conflicting motives and agendas, and possible consequences of action and inaction. and it's hard to think of any scenario that's really going to improve the lives of your average afghans.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:02 (sixteen years ago)

fight the real enemy
http://www.junkyardclubhouse.com/images/mastermind.jpg

velko, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:02 (sixteen years ago)

no they didn't! they needed a few apartments in hamburg and some flight schools in the US

yeah and who paid for their plane tickets and got them into those countries I wonder

x-posts

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:02 (sixteen years ago)

i am srsly not being faux naif today but: extradition aside, what about being in afghanistan made it a necessary condition for planning something like 9/11?

so many xps

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:04 (sixteen years ago)

yes the wealthy financier princes of afghanistan, i see your point shakey

goole, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:04 (sixteen years ago)

you can't plan shit if you don't have somewhere from which you can safely route coordinate communications and money without being interrupted by people trying to kill/arrest you all the time. I would think this is self-evident.

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:06 (sixteen years ago)

and to those that are struggling: why SHOULD we be fighting right now? precisely what is it accomplishing?

My struggle is largely in the opposite direction of what you're asking; I don't think we should be fighting right now, largely because it seems the window of opportunity has closed. I believe you can make an argument for a military presence in Afghanistan given some of the things Shakey is bringing up and, given Obama's campaign, I'm not surprised that a troop increase is occurring, but I much more ambivalent than for or against it.

xp: I don't think you can handwave the extradition portion of this, gbx!

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:07 (sixteen years ago)

i had always operated under the (not well-informed) impression that afghanistan/the taliban's complicity in 9/11 wasn't so much in what they ~did~ but in what they ~didn't~ do. that is, they gave safe haven to terrorists, but were otherwise uninvolved DIRECTLY. they may have high-fived each other when the planes crashed and they may have even furnished plane tickets/boxcutters/whatever, but that kind of gov't endorsement is just a whole different animal when you compare it to, like, actual wars

xps again

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:08 (sixteen years ago)

What does Bin Laden's wealth have to do with AQ's needing a safe haven in Afghanistan?

Your point seems to be that Bin Laden needed a safe haven somewhere. But surely the US military's mission in Afghanistan was never solely about getting Bin Laden out of Afghanistan.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:08 (sixteen years ago)

iirc as much of the planning happened in the US and spain as in afghanistan shakes

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:08 (sixteen years ago)

I think the point is less about where the planning happened and more about where the post-attack boltholes were.

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:09 (sixteen years ago)

yeah i think shakey is trying to make a point that a base in afghanistan was necessary for the planning and execution of 9/11--goole does not think that i was, really, and i tend to believe him

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:10 (sixteen years ago)

no, you're right, i'm not really giving enough weight to the extradition thing, probably.

but still, it's small beer when you compare it to ARMING terrorists and FINANCING them. this is probably way off and kinda offensive, but i really see AQ hanging out in afghanistan the way that i see drug dealers or w/e crashing at the their poor relations' houses. yeah sure they are complicit and even enthusiastic about what their horrible cousin is doing, but it's just not in the same ballpark as what several other equally horrible govts are doing

mixin metaphors, yow, too much coffee

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:11 (sixteen years ago)

that is a good point re: boltholes, dan, but 8 years of occupation just doesn't equal a smash and grab police action

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:13 (sixteen years ago)

Who's the Stringer Bell of AQ?

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:13 (sixteen years ago)

lol, gbx wants to attack Saudi Arabia

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:13 (sixteen years ago)

i'm in

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:14 (sixteen years ago)

allowing Bin Laden to raise money and keeping him from getting extradited - which is what the Taliban explicitly agreed to do for Bin Laden when they allowed him into the country (they didn't freeze his funds or seize his property like the Saudis did, for example) - was critical to Bin Laden being able to accomplish anything. Now, Mullah Omar and Bin Laden didn't like each other, but they were willing to use each other for their own ends. The Taliban didn't pay Mohammad Attah's way to Germany, but they were more than willing to let KSM and Bin Laden et al do whatever they wanted. Even when they had made it explicitly clear that what they wanted to do, that their sole reason for living, was violent, innocent-civilian-murdering, jihad. This is enabling behavior on the part of a sovereign government. Its like if France sheltered and refused to extradite a wanted terrorist group, with a history of successful attacks to their credit, and that was loudly and publicly proclaiming their intention to continue carrying out violent attacks against the UK or some other neighbor.

many x-posts

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:14 (sixteen years ago)

As evidence that it wasn't necessary to have a safe haven in Afghanistan to plan 9/11, consider the Bali and London and Madrid bombings: were those planned in Afghanistan? None of those are on the scale of 9/11, but I don't think it's clear that it was being able to train in Afghanistan that enabled the scale of 9/11.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:14 (sixteen years ago)

no i don't! but any arguments made for attacking Saudi Arabia would be 100% equally valid as any we made for Iraq or Afghanistan

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:15 (sixteen years ago)

if were going to attack anyone maybe we should attack the bros funding the fundamentalist schools that are radicalizing generations of disaffected muslims (also our president)--while were at it maybe we could i dunno put some money into foreign aid and bring a couple american apparels to kabul and show em all space jam, nothing makes people like the west more than michael jordan, bugs bunny and hipster softcore porn

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:15 (sixteen years ago)

But surely the US military's mission in Afghanistan was never solely about getting Bin Laden out of Afghanistan.

I think it should've been (but it wasn't) and that's one of Dubya's innumerable major fuckups

x-post

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:15 (sixteen years ago)

lol max wants to attack our President

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:16 (sixteen years ago)

As evidence that it wasn't necessary to have a safe haven in Afghanistan to plan 9/11, consider the Bali and London and Madrid bombings: were those planned in Afghanistan?

I don't think these are comparable - Al Qaeda's structure and role changed significantly after 9/11, for obvious reasons.

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:17 (sixteen years ago)

while were at it maybe we could i dunno put some money into foreign aid and bring a couple american apparels to kabul and show em all space jam, nothing makes people like the west more than michael jordan, bugs bunny and hipster softcore porn

Surely you don't want to expose Muslim hatchlings to Seal's version of "Fly Like an Eagle."

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:18 (sixteen years ago)

Why not? Seal is great.

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:18 (sixteen years ago)

I think it should've been (but it wasn't) and that's one of Dubya's innumerable major fuckups

x-post

― Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, December 1, 2009 11:15 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i don't think this was a "fuckup" though, like whoops i occupied a country instead of grabbing a criminal, my b

it seems more and more like we just sorta wanted to be in the area, and that going after bin laden was as good an excuse as any

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:18 (sixteen years ago)

It's not clear to me that AQ really had a structure or role prior to 9/11 either. And I've read The Looming Tower: I get the story of AQ, such as we understand it presently. But it wasn't a formal organization in the way that even the Taliban is/was.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:19 (sixteen years ago)

sorry let me be clear--i dont want to attack our president--i was just saying that our president, who is from kenya, was educated at a madrassa

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:19 (sixteen years ago)

well yeah there were multiple agendas going into Afghanistan. Frankly I don't think Dubya, on a personal level, had it very well thought out at all because he is a moron, prone to letting other people use him.

x-post

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:21 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah, I'm not getting into my own (cynical) views on why we went into Afghanistan in the first place, and why we're still there. I'm more interested in understanding other people's views, because like Iraq it always seems to boil down to incoherency. Like there were too many reasons to do it, so of course we should have done it...but if none of the reasons are substantial, a preponderance of such reasons amounts to nothing. I'm hoping the president provides something more substantial. I have low expectations.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:22 (sixteen years ago)

it seems more and more like we just sorta wanted to be in the area, and that going after bin laden was as good an excuse as any

I think that type of argument works much better for Iraq (largely because there's a mountain of evidence behind it starting with "THEY WERE CONNECTED TO 9/11 oh lol whoops they weren't, but don't tell anyone since we're here now")

I think we went into Afghanistan in a rage-fueled frenzy as opposed to with an actual goal or plan; I hope that Obama explains unambiguously what the plan behind this troop increase is but, given the generalities that suffuse his rhetoric, I'm mostly hoping for a link to a website that expounds on what he's hoping to achieve.

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:22 (sixteen years ago)

if anything, what i struggle with is the fact that the Taliban did truly deserve ousting and that the world is probably better off without it, and yet i still think that being in afghanistan is just a terrible idea

also, not to muddy the waters, but to what extent do you guys believe that, say, the govt of the DRC is responsible for Joseph Kony (arguably the worst person in the entire world)? he operates pretty much unchecked, and you'd think that it'd be easy enough to pinch him with a fucking SWAT team, but we don't

xps!!!

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:23 (sixteen years ago)

no dan, i agree that going into afghanistan was largely motivated by anger and a desire for retribution. however, at some point we have to remember that we are A NATION and that costly (both in $$$ and in life) endeavors like invasions can't (and probably aren't) underwritten solely by ~feelings~

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:26 (sixteen years ago)

re: Kony... forget it Jake, its Chinatown

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:27 (sixteen years ago)

which is to say: someone along the line cynically observed that going into afghanistan would give us a toehold in central asia, so sure give it the stamp of approval and sell it to less calculating people as a righteous thing

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:27 (sixteen years ago)

i haven't seen chinatown :(

but i think i know what you mean

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:28 (sixteen years ago)

going into afghanistan would give us a toehold in central asia, so sure give it the stamp of approval and sell it to less calculating people as a righteous thing

^^I'm sure this was Rumsfeld/Cheney's thinking

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:28 (sixteen years ago)

I'm sure it would have been Clinton's thinking too.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:29 (sixteen years ago)

Rumsfeld/Cheney, those guys were just following the playbook. They'd update the playbook in 2003.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:29 (sixteen years ago)

also, not to muddy the waters, but to what extent do you guys believe that, say, the govt of the DRC is responsible for Joseph Kony (arguably the worst person in the entire world)? he operates pretty much unchecked, and you'd think that it'd be easy enough to pinch him with a fucking SWAT team, but we don't

lol like that will happen unless dude suddenly starts taking over diamond mines and/or blowing up US embassies; you are operating under the mistaken impression that the US likes to acknowledge that any African countries other than Libya, Egypt and South Africa exist

xp: I think that was the Rumsfeld/Cheney line of thought, as well. I don't think that means it is the ONLY reason to be there, or that disagreeing with that line of thought automatically means you must withdraw troops, which is why I want to know what Obama is going to say about it; I'd like to know what his plan is so that I don't have to put words into his mouth in order to make an argument for or against it.

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:32 (sixteen years ago)

and that also underscores what i'm trying to say, i guess? it's an old refrain, and euler said it better anyway, but: ppl like Joseph Kony aren't even despots with tenuous claims to legitimacy. He is an out and out terrorist that has arguably ruined/ended more lives than AQ or the Taliban. But central Africa isn't really of any geopolitical importance (or, rather, constant turmoil there is actually beneficial to the US) and at least he isn't kidnapping american kids, etc.

xps ha dan you said it

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:33 (sixteen years ago)

i don't want to turn this into a 'hey guys africa' thread but fwiw most of the mines in congo (the coltan mines, at least) appear to be controlled by warlords, who mostly do business with the chinese. china being the #1 bad actor in africa, nowadays

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:35 (sixteen years ago)

wtg china

max, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:36 (sixteen years ago)

lets invade

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:37 (sixteen years ago)

srsly though, they are totally in bed w/khartoum and sell AK-47s to EVERYONE

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:37 (sixteen years ago)

Really, I'd have given a lot more credence to Bush's "we must fight terrorists" rhetoric had his axis of evil not been Iraq/Iran/North Korea.

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:38 (sixteen years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7ihe89v5b0

^^^ friend's bf

xp ha dan, totally! i was like wait those are just govts we have a history of not liking...

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:38 (sixteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil#Axis_of_the_willing

holy shit, why did I not know all of these axes existed

I really have to pay more attention

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:39 (sixteen years ago)

struggling not to make an axis of axes joek

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:40 (sixteen years ago)

^^I'm sure this was Rumsfeld/Cheney's thinking

i don't think they really wanted much of anything to do with afghanistan, tbh. rumsfeld wanted to attack iraq on sept. 11. they saw afghanistan as something to do as sort of a prelude to their grand sweep across the middle east, which was supposed to roll up iraq, iran, syria, maybe even swing over through sudan. afghanistan was the hobbit to those guys, they were thinking mount doom all the way.

hellzapoppa (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:41 (sixteen years ago)

^^^i'd buy that, too.

i mean, it seems like the two most plausible explanations for the Forgotten War are

1) we're still there because we always meant to be, being next door to Pakistan/China/India/Russia is of major strategic value
2) it is the hobbit, and we gave it short shrift and are just sort of baffled about how to end it

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:44 (sixteen years ago)

this is a run of the mill rah rah patriotic article from 1986 but it's pretty interesting in light of the last decade:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4920

substituting "coalition forces" for "the soviet union" is a kind of enlightening game

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:49 (sixteen years ago)

The Soviets Americans are at a disadvantage. They seek to impose a communist capitalist ideology that has gone bankrupt in their own country and is foreign to Afghan thinking, an ideology that most Afghans consider atheistic, evil, and decadent. Moreover, since only a small part of the country is under Soviet American control, they can hope to influence only the children living in Kabul and a few other cities. But the Soviets Americans have had long experience in subduing ethnic resistance in other countries, most pertinently in their own Central Asian American republics. They believe that they are bringing progress and enlightenment to a poor and backward nation, and they have no scruples about the methods that they use.

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:54 (sixteen years ago)

Your favorite Axis

re: that article, I don't think that's a particularly enlightening game considering the following lol wikipedia statistics:

According to a 2009 BBC poll, 69% of Afghans thought it was at least mostly good that the U.S. military came in to remove the Taliban government while 24% thought it was mostly or very bad. The poll indicated that 63% of Aghans supported a U.S. military presence in the country. By contrast, 90% opposed the presence of Taliban fighters, including 70% who were "strongly" opposed. 58% saw the Taliban as posing the greatest threat to Afghanistan compared to 8% who named the United States. By a 82%-4% margin people said they preferred the current government to Taliban rule. At the same time, just 18% supported increasing the U.S. military's presence while 44% favored reducing it. [216] However, according to Gallup about half felt that additional U.S. forces would help stabilize the security situation.

The sources are here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_02_09afghan_poll_2009.pdf
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123335/Nearly-Half-Afghans-Think-Troops-Help.aspx

It's well and fine to play armchair games like that but, at some point, you also should probably look into what the people there are actually saying.

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:00 (sixteen years ago)

fwiw i'm sure quite a few ppl in the admin, if not the president himself!, are aware how that one turned out

xp

goole, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:00 (sixteen years ago)

thanks for that, dan!

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:01 (sixteen years ago)

Dan I know you're right but I can't help wondering what Soviet news organization polls looked like in the 80s

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:03 (sixteen years ago)

Okay, really?

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:04 (sixteen years ago)

ok that's a biiiiiit of a stretch TH

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:05 (sixteen years ago)

Haha I know, just throwin that out there

Basically what those polls tell me is that 1) most Afghans fucking hate the Taliban and 2) most Afghans would like to see the United States leave now and 3) most Afghans realize this two goals may not reconcile at present

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:06 (sixteen years ago)

I kind of take it as a given that most Afghans wish there was no central gov't at all and they could just go about the business of being a tribal society, with some dudes being warlords and others being farmers and others being crazy religious extremists, but basically settling things among themselves. I could be wrong but that's the impression I get

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:12 (sixteen years ago)

Shakey never had to knock on wood, it seems

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:12 (sixteen years ago)

Why do they envy our freedom?

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:18 (sixteen years ago)

sometimes i believe that, too, shakey, but then i wonder if i'm just being cryptically racist or w/e

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:19 (sixteen years ago)

I kind of take it as a given that most Afghans NRO subscribers

There, fixed.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:20 (sixteen years ago)

i have read that what we think of as being "tribal" is not v well examined in most cases, and what it looks like in afghanistan is v different from what it looked like in (rural?) iraq. but i need to find where all this was spelled out.

goole, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:22 (sixteen years ago)

Iraq is a completely different kind of society from Afghanistan afaict

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:24 (sixteen years ago)

ie the "tribalism" (non-modernity really) of afghans is not the same extended clan/locale loyalty that exists in iraq. the point was (iirc) that afghans' non-modernity is not necessarily problematic to...whatever it is we're trying to do, but a divide-and-bribe strategy that worked (for a while now) in iraq won't work there either.

xp yes, entirely different places on the map, last i looked.

goole, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:29 (sixteen years ago)

don't worry guys Obama says the Afghan war will be over in 3 years haha

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 20:15 (sixteen years ago)

I am also lolling at the fact that Dems are threatening not to fund this, when they happily bankrolled Dubya's even stupider wars for the past 8 years

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 20:17 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opinion/01herbert.html?_r=2

this guy is otm

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 20:19 (sixteen years ago)

would someone care to explain to me the potential positive scenarios for Afghanistan following a hypothetical, immediate withdrawal?

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 20:24 (sixteen years ago)

http://matchcuts.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/madmax.jpg

that's the positive scenario

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 20:40 (sixteen years ago)

i mean, isn't the hypothetical thunderdome following a US withdrawal always the argument? i understand it, but at what point does it stop being rational and start acting as an apology for cackhanded policy?

obv the short term situation would be pretty bad, but it's ALWAYS going to be bad unless the desired end result is the total construction of a society that neatly conforms to our ideals (and over which we exert considerable influence). which sounds eerily familiar to neocolonial ambitions i don't want to be a part of

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 20:52 (sixteen years ago)

look here's the thing - I can see a conceivable positive outcome with Obama's strategy. Bin Laden gets captured, Karzai's gov't maintains some form of stability for a few years, and we get out. I cannot see any conceivable positive outcome if we just up and leave.

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:04 (sixteen years ago)

I can also see rainbows and unicorns from DC to Kabul too.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:08 (sixteen years ago)

^^^helpful!

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:13 (sixteen years ago)

Bin Laden gets captured, Karzai's gov't maintains some form of stability for a few years, and we get out.

what if he's dead, what if he's not in afghanistan anymore, what will capturing actually do at this point (other than slake our thirst for some revenge), etc.

also: are we supposed to stay there "for a few years" while Karzai figures it out? or are we gonna eventually just say 'hey let's ~always~ keep a few thousand guys around, just in case' like we do countless other places?

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:18 (sixteen years ago)

we mean we have been there for nearly a decade ffs~

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:19 (sixteen years ago)

we mean lol ok i'm outta here

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:19 (sixteen years ago)

resorting to the "royal we" doesn't strengthen your argument

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:20 (sixteen years ago)

Bin Laden definitely not dead (do you read news? wtf), he's probably in Pakistan but we can't put our military there now can we. We can, however, be in a better position to catch him a pincer movement between Afghanistan and Pakistan if we have troops there. I'm not into an open-ended troop deployment there but that's pretty much what happens when the US invades countries, we keep a few thousand around for decades... that seems like a least-bad scenario to me.

x-posts

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:20 (sixteen years ago)

we mean we have been there for nearly a decade ffs~

tbf for most of that 8 years we were doing fuck-all besides occupying Kabul. the real action was in Iraq and that's where all our attention and resources were. Don't hold the last 8 years against Obama.

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:21 (sixteen years ago)

It sucks but I don't think Thunderdome is a knockdown argument for not withdrawing.

Euler, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:21 (sixteen years ago)

I wonder if the women of Afghanistan will be pro- or anti-"dressing like Aunty Entity"

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:27 (sixteen years ago)

also I would think the upside to capturing Bin Laden (and Zwahiri) would be blatantly obvious...? Justice would be served, decapitating the organization (ie creating a power vacuum that could then engender internal power struggles that would weaken the organization and diffuse their capacity to raise funds and carry out attacks, etc.), give the US the advantage in the propaganda war (ie, "we captured him and tried him because we are a nation of laws" blah blah blah)

letting Bin Laden run loose in Afghanistan again seems to be a little worse than Thunderdome imho... but glad yr on board with just fucking up shit in Afghanistan and then taking off, Euler

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:29 (sixteen years ago)

xp http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opinion/01herbert.html?_r=2

this guy is otm

kinda, but he doesn't expend a paragraph on the situation there, only here. the biggest cost of staying or leaving isn't the human and economic debt to america, it's the effect on afghanistan.

rap band (schlump), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:30 (sixteen years ago)

I am not actually convinced that capturing bin Laden would have a huge effect on Al Qaeda, given that they are by nature a decentralized cell organization with some number of financial backers in addition to bin Laden.

Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:30 (sixteen years ago)

you don't think its reasonable to assume that internal squabbles would result...? someone always wants to be on top...

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:32 (sixteen years ago)

well i was sorta kidding about the dead thing, but it seems plausible that he COULD die and we might not know it for a while---which, in a scenario that entails long-term troop deployments with the express purpose of catching the guy, is not a favorable outcome. i mean i guess the real question is: what would catching him actually DO? it's not like someone would hit the terrorism switch and it would all be over or anything, it'd just be another guy in jail. and while i would like to see him brought to justice, i'm still having trouble rationalizing how it merits a bazillion dollar manhunt involving thousands of troops.

of course, the situation now isn't really about OBL, but about stability in the region. and i'll need convincing that it is best served by a continued US presence that, on the one hand, appears to be OK with some of the locals and really just not OK with others.

xps

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:32 (sixteen years ago)

there's not gonna be stability in the region, esp not when China and Russia basically don't give a fuck

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:33 (sixteen years ago)

i thought that the idea that OBL is somehow actually dictating the movements of terrorist cells had been debunked! but i am perpetually out of touch on this stuff, as ought to be clear by now

like the dude isn't pulling out architectural blueprints and schemin and sending detonators and bus routes to bombers, he's the VU of terrorists, hanging in a cave and making videos

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:34 (sixteen years ago)

'We Surrender' — Pretty Soon [John Hood]

Dress it up all you want — and I'm sure plenty of sharpies are just waiting to do it with all sorts of plausible-sounding rationalizations — but if President Obama is about to go on the air tonight to promise that the war in Afghanistan will end in three years, as CNN is now reporting, that is essentially a signal to our enemies in South Asia that they’re going to win. Just wait it out a little longer, and we promise to surrender the field to you, the president will be saying.

Peace in our time, more or less.

In a related item, I hear that there's a lot of interest among the big-time players in inviting Obama on the professional poker circuit. A lot of interest.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:34 (sixteen years ago)

i might tentatively suggest that regional instability (particularly the kind that may be, in part, blamed on the US's presence there) actually serves Russia and China's interests v much

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:36 (sixteen years ago)

xp that is just the most retarded thing

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:37 (sixteen years ago)

like srsly stuff like that only begs the obv "win WHAT?" q and from there pretty much all roads lead to that guy saying "i hate muslims and wish they didn't exist"

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:38 (sixteen years ago)

i thought that the idea that OBL is somehow actually dictating the movements of terrorist cells had been debunked! like the dude isn't pulling out architectural blueprints and schemin and sending detonators and bus routes to bombers

I haven't said anywhere that he DOES do any of this, cuz no I don't think he does and there isn't really any evidence that he's been involved at that level for quite some time. But he IS the figurehead and the titular leader, his followers listen to what he says, and he plays a huge symbolic role. You remove him, people will fight to assume his role. And that kind of internal dissent is exactly how you break these kinds of organizations, you get them fighting among themselves, sabotaging each other, not trusting each other, reluctant about sharing resources, etc.

Gimme That Christian Side-hug, that Christian Side-hug (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:39 (sixteen years ago)

i think that you would totally otm except that this part

you get them fighting among themselves, sabotaging each other, not trusting each other, reluctant about sharing resources, etc.

maybe ignores the realities of how cells operate? i am not a terrorist expert, but i (perhaps wrongly) assumed that the nuts and bolts operations that actually end up in things exploding are generally pretty isolated from org politics.

however: that is a narrowly american point of view, of course, in that i'm thinking only of outlandish terrorist acts on western soil. yr probably right that ~within afghanistan~ his death/capture would behead the local organization, which does much more than plant bombs

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 21:44 (sixteen years ago)

i just read this re: the situation in pakistan as of spring: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22730. that is a concern right there.

caek, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 22:04 (sixteen years ago)

The way I see it is that since 1979 the soviets, CIA, Pakistan and US/NATO have reduced afghanistan to a state approximately at the level of where it was before Alexander the Great Invaded. I'm fairly sure that part of Obama's motivation for persevering in Afghanistan is that he feels a moral imperative to try and right some of that wrong. I wonder if he will even bring this up in the speech. It's the only reason I can see for persevering. US security can be maintained with special forces, drones and funnelling vast quantities of Cash to the ISI and various warlorrds.

I'm fairly sure that the Afghan people, like most everyone in the world, want a safe comfortable life and want their children to have a better opportunity than they did. I'm not sure that the Afghans are necessarily more in favour a tribal society than any other but it is the one securely embedded institution that they have and know. There can be precious few that remember the monarchy or short lived democratic period. Unfortunately the Afghan people seem to have been ill served by NATO and he karzai government as far as creating any other alternative goes. If I were an afghan father I'd be fairly confident that a better life for my children would come in the form of a bigger poppy harvest and another AK47 and you'd be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.

American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 23:42 (sixteen years ago)

funnelling vast quantities of Cash to the ISI

i'm really really not ok with this situation, much more than anything we might do or not do in afghanistan.

goole, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 23:44 (sixteen years ago)

i would be very not OK with that either, but it is an option, which I am sure that the CIA/DoD/NSA have considered.

American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 23:50 (sixteen years ago)

i think all money given to the "pakistani gov't" essentially goes to the ISI. the recent kerry-lugar bill tried to remedy this by carefully giving (a shitload!!) of aid to various civilian gov't entities, and the whole thing was a disaster, it got spun to the public as an indian-american attempt to take over the pakistani state. whoops!

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=175974

^^ i think this is kind of representative but i haven't read up very much on the subject

goole, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 00:05 (sixteen years ago)

I suppose this will be the thread for reacting to the President's speech? I won't lie - I'm playing a private drinking game where I guzzle every time he says "let me be clear".

big darn deal (Z S), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:02 (sixteen years ago)

DRINK ALREADY, he said it. Also, tired barack is tired.

The BFD (suzy), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:03 (sixteen years ago)

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2008/12/30%20Daddy%27s%20Beer%20Bong.jpg woooooooo

big darn deal (Z S), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:05 (sixteen years ago)

Storytime Obama opening is kinda funny, but considering that it's highly likely that majority of Americans don't accurately remember the history of the conflict thus far, it's probably helpful.

big darn deal (Z S), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:07 (sixteen years ago)

LET ME BE CLEAR!

big darn deal (Z S), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:11 (sixteen years ago)

i wonder if obama has a plan to stop the new orleans offense

yeah, whatever (daria-g), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:11 (sixteen years ago)

Drink again, he is uh targeting clarity this eve imo...

The BFD (suzy), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:11 (sixteen years ago)

man look at these babies in the audience :(

horseshoe, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:12 (sixteen years ago)

The clarity of the speech's prose just angers me all the more.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:14 (sixteen years ago)

audience shots are like classical paintings

rap band (schlump), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:15 (sixteen years ago)

I hope the president clarifies what the present goal is b/c I surely don't know what it is.

― Euler

"overarching goal remains the same": disrupt/dismantle Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

big darn deal (Z S), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:17 (sixteen years ago)

"Broad-based coalition" supports us? Fuck you! I just had a flashback to Bush lecturing Kerry during one prez debate about the "coalition."

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:23 (sixteen years ago)

was that in ref. to iraq though? i don't recall..

yeah, whatever (daria-g), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:27 (sixteen years ago)

Yes. Just move the poker chips.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:27 (sixteen years ago)

LetMeBeClear! *drink*

big darn deal (Z S), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:27 (sixteen years ago)

you forgot poland

xpost

shaane, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:29 (sixteen years ago)

sure, no doubt, but it strikes me as somewhat more accurate when obama says it re: afghanistan. idk, i have no real opinion on this, other than it seems like there are no good options.

yeah, whatever (daria-g), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:31 (sixteen years ago)

Ugh. What ARE these banalities?

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:35 (sixteen years ago)

most all political speeches ever?

yeah, whatever (daria-g), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:36 (sixteen years ago)

hahaha otm

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:38 (sixteen years ago)

YES NBC BY ALL MEANS LET'S SEE WHAT THE GUY WHO LOST THE LAST ELECTION THINKS ABOUT OBAMA'S SPEECH.

I could punch John McCain right in the face, I swear.

james cameron gargameled my boner for life (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:38 (sixteen years ago)

Obama's hair got visibly grayer with each banality.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:39 (sixteen years ago)

Seriously, did the talking heads ever bring John Kerry on after Bush's speeches to see what he thought? Because I don't recall them doing so.

james cameron gargameled my boner for life (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:40 (sixteen years ago)

On the other hand, this will distract the Beltway class for a few days while the Senate debates health care.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:40 (sixteen years ago)

He looked like he'd 'dealt with' the gray somewhat. xposts

The BFD (suzy), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:40 (sixteen years ago)

i dunno I think I remember someone doing post-bush speech kerry interviews sometimes? I can't recall for sure xpost

angels we have heard while high (Curt1s Stephens), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:41 (sixteen years ago)

Commander in Sleep [Jonah Goldberg]

Maybe it's just me, but I could swear the camera keeps catching cadets dozing off.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:41 (sixteen years ago)

what a boring war! needs more explosions!

angels we have heard while high (Curt1s Stephens), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:42 (sixteen years ago)

poor cadets probably had to arrive wayyyyy before the speech and sit there doing nothing for a couple hours

yeah, whatever (daria-g), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 01:45 (sixteen years ago)

also they've been up since 4am

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 03:18 (sixteen years ago)

http://blogs.nybooks.com/post/265874686/afghanistan-the-betrayal

Thoughts?

real bears playing hockey (polyphonic), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 05:37 (sixteen years ago)

call me crazy, but did he not listen to what obama actually said, during the campaign? because based on what obama actually said, i might expect he'd do what he's doing right now. at least i wouldn't see it as a betrayal. i'm kind of baffled by the reaction of many on the left (where i am! but i was listening!), because.. i mean, obama has been saying forever that the important war was afghanistan.

this is kind of harsh but in general, who cares if he feels betrayed? i mean, war, foreign policy, terrorism, money, human life >>>>> writer feeling personally upset, not maxing out $2K to the 2012 reelection bid.

yeah, whatever (daria-g), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 06:02 (sixteen years ago)

that seems to be the general feeling among partisan democrats about this admin - you have a complaint? whatever, nobody cares what you think anyway, we'll get back to you when it's time for you to vote again, in the meantime stfu while we wage a buncha war and stuff

a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 07:05 (sixteen years ago)

ostensibly the whole point of this is "we will fight a little harder in a different way for a while so we can leave" but things tend to not work out that way

goole, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 07:12 (sixteen years ago)

1) its pretty stupid to feel "betrayed" given what obama said during the campaign

2) doesnt mean i dont feel mad and frustrated

max, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 14:05 (sixteen years ago)

that is how i'm feelin

omaha deserved 311 (call all destroyer), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 14:47 (sixteen years ago)

and morbs--being mad and frustrated w/ obama is not the same thing as feeling like i should have voted green

max, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 14:48 (sixteen years ago)

1) its pretty stupid to feel "betrayed" given what obama said during the campaign

2) doesnt mean i dont feel mad and frustrated
--max

agree

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 15:47 (sixteen years ago)

daria OTM

strange asses outside liquor stores (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 17:03 (sixteen years ago)

you have a complaint? whatever, nobody cares what you think anyway, we'll get back to you when it's time for you to vote again, in the meantime stfu while we wage a buncha war and stuff

it's not that i'm in favor of waging a bunch of war & continuing bush policies on surveillance & trying to sweep the whole torture thing under the rug and all. it's that.. i think it would prob be a more compelling case if the author in ny review wrote about why these things are bad for the country, instead of why they hurt his feelings. it just seems awfully self-centered.

yeah, whatever (daria-g), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 17:09 (sixteen years ago)

you have a complaint? whatever, nobody cares what you think anyway, we'll get back to you when it's time for you to vote again, in the meantime stfu while we wage a buncha war and stuff

this record is broken

strange asses outside liquor stores (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 17:10 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah, basically what Daria is saying because I listened too - also have confidence in Obama's being able to work with Pakistan on this. It's one of the foreign countries he does know reasonably well.

The BFD (suzy), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 17:11 (sixteen years ago)

I don't have confidence in pakistan being able to work with itself on this.

American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:15 (sixteen years ago)

Well, I'm speaking in relative terms to other Presidents here. Friend of mine and S4t1nd3r's is in Islamabad reporting for Al-Jazeera and his FB updates are kind of Bomb of the Day terrifying.

suffragette city (suzy), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:20 (sixteen years ago)

im disappointed and angry about afghanistan, but not feeling betrayed. its a shitty situation and his actions are not incompatible with his campaign. im much more angry and disappointed and even slightly betrayed feeling about public option, gitmo, civil rights, abu ghraib photos, nafta, wall st/general economic reform.

bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:36 (sixteen years ago)

yeah i get that

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:44 (sixteen years ago)

sirota was on the radio today saying that if you are willing to support or give a pass to obama on troop increases, but you wouldn't have given mccain a pass on the same, you are dishonest and probably an obama "cultist." some reductive bs.

bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:05 (sixteen years ago)

not if you trust obama's military leadership more than mccain's!

curtest hipness (Curt1s Stephens), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:06 (sixteen years ago)

TROOP INCREASES ARE NOT A STRATEGY. THINK THINK THINK YOU SHITCHEWING CHEERLEADERS. DON'T TALK IN PUBLIC TO ME AGAIN UNTIL YOU KNOW SOMETHING. COME TO ME WITH SOMETHING REAL OR BLOW YOURSELF. FUCK YOU PRESS. THANKS MUCH GOOLE OUT.

goole, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:09 (sixteen years ago)

oh my!

crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:10 (sixteen years ago)

thats all i meant, you might simply trust obama's judgment on the issue more than mccain's.

xpost

bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:11 (sixteen years ago)

i thought that said "GOOGLE OUT!" and i was, man, googlers are pissed.

bitter about emo (Hunt3r), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:12 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22this+is+excellent+news+for+john+mccain%22

goole, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:14 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.juancole.com/2009/12/top-ten-things-that-could-derail-obamas.html

goole, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:57 (sixteen years ago)

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/rumsfeld-the-presidents-assertion-does-a-disservice-to-the-truth.php

quite a url there

goole, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 23:04 (sixteen years ago)

couldn't he have phrased that in the form of a question? of course he could have.

strange asses outside liquor stores (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 23:05 (sixteen years ago)

Joe Biden just emailed me:

Matt --
Last night, President Obama laid out his plan to defend our national interest by refocusing our efforts on three clear goals: defeating al Qaeda, stabilizing Pakistan, and breaking the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan.
To achieve these goals, the President has authorized the rapid deployment of 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, with a firm commitment to begin bringing our troops home in 2011.
It's a clean break from the failed Afghanistan policy of the Bush administration, and a new, focused strategy that can succeed.
Please take a moment to watch the President's address to the nation and read more about his plan.

Our new strategy ends the era of blank checks for Afghanistan's leaders, facilitates a responsible transition to Afghan security forces, and begins bringing our troops home in 2011.
Please take a moment to listen to President Obama outline his plan -- and pass this along to anyone you know who wants to learn more:
http://my.barackobama.com/AfghanistanAddress
Thank you,
Vice President Joe Biden

Mountain Dewm (M@tt He1ges0n), Thursday, 3 December 2009 00:55 (sixteen years ago)

Misdirected emails

caek, Thursday, 3 December 2009 00:58 (sixteen years ago)

please stop helping

what u think i steen for to push a crawfish? (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Saturday, 5 December 2009 14:34 (sixteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

60-40, bitches: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/us/21vote.html?hp

things that make you go (hmmmm), Monday, 21 December 2009 10:08 (sixteen years ago)

God, reading the Republican quotes in that article makes me want to kill.

Fetchboy, Monday, 21 December 2009 10:21 (sixteen years ago)

"Republicans derided the changes as akin to bribery."
The fact that there are top level politicians who think that compromise=bribery is really just infuriating.

Fetchboy, Monday, 21 December 2009 10:23 (sixteen years ago)

well, i kind of agree, it is bribery. not that this is any difft from how business is ever conducted

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 14:58 (sixteen years ago)

lovin the lede on that article

WASHINGTON — After a long day of acid, Senate Democrats held ranks early Monday in a dead-of-night procedural vote that proved they had locked in the decisive margin needed to pass a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 15:27 (sixteen years ago)

"dead"-of-night

http://www.clevescene.com/images/blogimages/2009/04/20/1240249730-dead.jpg

Euler, Monday, 21 December 2009 15:29 (sixteen years ago)

weird picture of the floor vote. that's olympia snow on the right

http://www.debbywest.com/ourbuddybrodie.com/dead_show.jpg

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 15:31 (sixteen years ago)

"We ended the filibuster. Play 'New Potato Caboose'!"

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 15:34 (sixteen years ago)

death panels gonna steal your face

Euler, Monday, 21 December 2009 15:37 (sixteen years ago)

Dead album titles proving v. hard to work into this subject tbh

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 15:47 (sixteen years ago)

aoxomoxhealthcare

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 15:47 (sixteen years ago)

dick (durbin)'s pick #5

Euler, Monday, 21 December 2009 15:49 (sixteen years ago)

actually more like shakedown street

Euler, Monday, 21 December 2009 15:49 (sixteen years ago)

Europe '72: they had better health care back then than we do now, in 2009

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 15:50 (sixteen years ago)

Caution (Do Not Stop On The Tracks) (Because You Are Uninsured)

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 15:53 (sixteen years ago)

death panels don't have no mercy

Euler, Monday, 21 December 2009 15:57 (sixteen years ago)

r.i.p.ple

velko, Monday, 21 December 2009 16:30 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30896.html

max, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 16:13 (sixteen years ago)

POLITICO has learned that Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican.

According to a senior GOP aide familiar with the decision, the announcement will take place in this afternoon in his home district in northern Alabama.

Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.

The switch represents a coup for House Republican leadership, which had been courting Griffith since he publicly criticized Democratic leadership in the wake of raucous town halls over the summer.

Griffith, who captured the seat in a close 2008 open seat contest, will become the first Republican to hold the historically Democratic, Huntsville-based district. A radiation oncologist who founded a cancer treatment center, Griffith plans to blast the Democratic health care bill as a prime reason for his decision to switch parties—and is expected to cite his medical background as his authority on the subject.

While the timing of his announcement was unexpected, Griffith’s party switch will not come as a surprise to those familiar with his voting record, which is one of the most conservative among all Democrats.

He has bucked Democratic leadership on nearly all of its major domestic initiatives, including the stimulus package, health care legislation, the cap-and trade energy bill and financial regulatory reform.

He was one of only 11 House Democrats to vote against the stimulus.

max, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 16:14 (sixteen years ago)

lol @ politics

max, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 16:14 (sixteen years ago)

IRL trolling at an all-time political high it seems like

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 22 December 2009 16:18 (sixteen years ago)

i love the 50-state project or whatever its called but if a guy who votes against democrats on every major policy initiative is the best we can do maybe we should just let the gop have that district and put the money elsewhere

max, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 16:33 (sixteen years ago)

sufjan stevens?

deej, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 16:34 (sixteen years ago)

sb'd myself

deej, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 16:34 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-22/a-chilly-republican-welcome/

further lols

max, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 18:27 (sixteen years ago)

I for one welcome our new tea party overlords

mayor jingleberries, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 18:31 (sixteen years ago)

the solution to most of the country's problems is to put erick erickson (did i spell that right) in charge of the GOP

goole, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 18:37 (sixteen years ago)

is expected to cite his medical background as his authority on the subject.

LOL

deej--nuts, butthurt, and yelly (gbx), Tuesday, 22 December 2009 21:13 (sixteen years ago)

im hurt by yr sn btw - im butthurt & yelly but reasonably sane

deej, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 21:47 (sixteen years ago)

was just going for a peanut butter and jelly angle

deej--nuts, butthurt, and yelly (gbx), Tuesday, 22 December 2009 21:51 (sixteen years ago)

you know

deej--nuts, butthurt, and yelly (gbx), Tuesday, 22 December 2009 21:51 (sixteen years ago)

Republicans solidify their hold on the backward-looking-majority districts of the South. What a prize!

Aimless, Tuesday, 22 December 2009 22:44 (sixteen years ago)

YEEE HA!

days of wine and neuroses (suzy), Tuesday, 22 December 2009 22:44 (sixteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/tracerhand/HuffingtonPostSpoof.jpg

Tracer Hand, Saturday, 9 January 2010 16:11 (sixteen years ago)

isn't it time for 2010: My President is Just Another Fucking Pol?

Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 9 January 2010 16:13 (sixteen years ago)

six years pass...

http://i.imgur.com/6GOeZBD.jpg

Diana Fire (j.lu), Saturday, 12 November 2016 00:12 (nine years ago)

http://i.imgur.com/eYwHEfa.jpg

Diana Fire (j.lu), Saturday, 12 November 2016 00:13 (nine years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.