traderdave wrote:

dajafi wrote:As I hope we all know, no political party or faction or ideological grouping, has a monopoly on obnoxious stupidity and ignorance.

That said, I think we've found the HAMELS embodiment of the Age of Bush. This is an absolute jaw-dropper.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs[/youtube]

How this individual manages to dress and feed himself, let alone host a radio show, is way, way beyond my comprehension. Matthews is an equal-opportunity hardass as questioner, as that unfortunate Obama surrogate found out a couple months back. But he actually fulfills a journalistic function here; I'm almost kinda sorta proud that he's a Phillies fan.

Yeah, the important thing for me is that he busts on ANYBODY he thinks isn't pulling his weight, as the Obama surrogate learned. I think Matthews can be annoying (much like pretty much every other host on TV and/or radio) but he is also one of the people I enjoy watching the most.

Woody wrote:That was amazing.

"Kevin, when you're in a hole, stop digging"

jerseyhoya wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:What was he thinking? Was he thinking?

That Iran getting nuclear weapons is a real threat to the very existence of Israel. And that millions of Jews are in danger if Iran gets nukes. I think that's what he was going for. The passage went over well with those at the speech.

Woody wrote:They're really not aliens?

BuddyGroom wrote:

traderdave wrote:

dajafi wrote:As I hope we all know, no political party or faction or ideological grouping, has a monopoly on obnoxious stupidity and ignorance.

That said, I think we've found the HAMELS embodiment of the Age of Bush. This is an absolute jaw-dropper.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs[/youtube]

How this individual manages to dress and feed himself, let alone host a radio show, is way, way beyond my comprehension. Matthews is an equal-opportunity hardass as questioner, as that unfortunate Obama surrogate found out a couple months back. But he actually fulfills a journalistic function here; I'm almost kinda sorta proud that he's a Phillies fan.

Yeah, the important thing for me is that he busts on ANYBODY he thinks isn't pulling his weight, as the Obama surrogate learned. I think Matthews can be annoying (much like pretty much every other host on TV and/or radio) but he is also one of the people I enjoy watching the most.

The thing that kills me is that Kevin James still would not shut up. He actually thought he had a point to make. Is it that these people do not learn, or cannot learn?

BuddyGroom wrote:The thing that kills me is that Kevin James still would not shut up. He actually thought he had a point to make. Is it that these people do not learn, or cannot learn?

Did you know that a half a million African Americans Georgia are eligible to vote but haven't registered? The Obama campaign knows this. And they plan to register these voters by November, campaign folks say.

The New York Times reports today on how his campaign has already increased turnout in the South among African Americans. As astounding as some of the numbers cited by the Times are, what the Obama campaign plans for the summer and fall are incredible, as in, barely credible, until you arrive at the conclusion that they've met most of their incredible goals (1.5 million donors) before.

The bill is an inglorious piece of work tailored to the needs of big agriculture and championed by not only the usual bipartisan farm state legislators but also the Democratic leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Every five years we get a new farm bill, and each time we are reminded that even reformers like Ms. Pelosi cannot resist the blandishments and power of the farmers.

The bill includes the usual favors like the tax break for racehorse breeders pushed by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader. But the greater and more embarrassing defect is that the bill perpetuates the old subsidies for agriculture at a time when the prices that farmers are getting for big row crops like corn, soybeans and wheat have never been better. Net farm income is up 50 percent.

The legislation preserves an indefensible program of direct payments amounting to about $5 billion a year that flow in good times and bad. It raises support levels for wheat and soybeans, while adding several new crops to the list in a way that will make it easier for farmers to raid the federal Treasury even when prices go up.

The bill has some virtues. It increases spending for food stamps. It encourages farmers to preserve land that would otherwise be lost to suburban development and provides modest help to organic farmers. It trims (but not nearly enough) the unnecessary tax subsidy for corn ethanol. It provides $400 million to reduce polluted runoff into Chesapeake Bay.

But none of that justifies the legislation’s enormous defects. Indeed, even the increases in conservation spending are not nearly as generous as advertised. President Bush asked for $4 billion more than Congress provided. He also complained, rightly, that House and Senate conferees had killed a program to conserve rare prairie grasslands while narrowing two programs that paid farmers to protect wetlands and wildlife habitat.

While none of the presidential candidates left the campaign trail to vote on the bill, one -- Republican Sen. John McCain -- unequivocally opposed it. It may not be terribly surprising that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) hailed the bill's passage during a campaign swing through South Dakota. It's a bit more disappointing to hear Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), running on a promise to oppose politics as usual, say he applauded the bill. In Iowa last August, Mr. Obama said, "When the farm bill comes up in the Senate, I will be fighting to tell all those agribusiness lobbyists that they won't be able to count on the multimillion-dollar subsidies they always get because we're going to put family farmers first." Yesterday, he said, "With so much at stake, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good." On this issue, Mr. McCain, not his likely Democratic opponent, was the apostle of change.

The Red Tornado wrote:In the next 50 years the "majority" (aka white folks) will no longer be a majority.

I wonder if...

a-we will become a one party system, all democrats?
b-the republicans find a way to be appealing to other races aside from caucasions and hispanics?
c-minorities becoming the majority (and getting more power and $$) will start finding the republicans appealing without them changing?

pacino wrote:2/3 of the bill was towards food stamps, food banks, and nutrition programs. Kind of hard to vote against that.

jeff2sf wrote:

pacino wrote:2/3 of the bill was towards food stamps, food banks, and nutrition programs. Kind of hard to vote against that.

Come on, don't make excuses for it. It was a bad bill to approve. If 99% of the funds of a bill goes to cancer research and the other 1% goes to killing kids with cancer, do you vote for the bill? Of course you don't. Food stamps wasn't going to go away, so just come up with a better bill.

traderdave wrote:

dajafi wrote:As I hope we all know, no political party or faction or ideological grouping, has a monopoly on obnoxious stupidity and ignorance.

That said, I think we've found the HAMELS embodiment of the Age of Bush. This is an absolute jaw-dropper.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs[/youtube]

How this individual manages to dress and feed himself, let alone host a radio show, is way, way beyond my comprehension. Matthews is an equal-opportunity hardass as questioner, as that unfortunate Obama surrogate found out a couple months back. But he actually fulfills a journalistic function here; I'm almost kinda sorta proud that he's a Phillies fan.

Yeah, the important thing for me is that he busts on ANYBODY he thinks isn't pulling his weight, as the Obama surrogate learned. I think Matthews can be annoying (much like pretty much every other host on TV and/or radio) but he is also one of the people I enjoy watching the most.