drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Maybe, but I'm pretty sure it's Arlen Specter's fault somehow that we're getting these politically viable mismashes that don't make sense.

what you're doing is identifying a poster child for inapt process

the "child's" politics are barely relevant

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today that Democrat Al Franken won the U.S. Senate election and said he was entitled to an election certificate that would lead to him being seated in the Senate.

FTN wrote:

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today that Democrat Al Franken won the U.S. Senate election and said he was entitled to an election certificate that would lead to him being seated in the Senate.

Unanimous

Link

CalvinBall wrote:A friend just sent me this email. Should I even respond?

I am just trying to put feelers out there on the people that I respect and know well that voted for Pres.Obama

Don't feel like you have to respond to this, but I actually respected Bush a ton respected his stance on his non-wavering in times of trial, but for me it just goes to show how biased the media is and how they can sway the public. Guys, I know some of you don't like this stuff, but this makes me curious, because "if" I voted for him I would sense entitlement to him. Are we still in full favor of him as you were when you voted or are you still saying that he needs more time? We have an Iranian possible president who is not in favor of him and a North Korea that would not anything else at this point than to eradicate us from the planet because of the stance we take in the U.N.
the world partied it up when he was elected, i am just wondering if that "change" is happening that everyone wanted and everyone is still partying it up for Obama and "change"?
I don't ever want to sound like a jerk or pessimistic person, but this is the country that I live, love and would die for if it ever came to that, I just want to be the best steward possible of it.

Here are some simple things so far though
Obama so far -

1.) If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

2.) If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as “proof” of what a dunce he is?

3.) If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

4.) If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?

5.) If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

6.) If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

7.) If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

8.) If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

9.) If George W.. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

10.) If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

11.) If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?



So, tell me again what makes Obama so much like a "god" and Bush so much like a dunce and its only been 5 months.

pacino wrote:NOW ITS OUR TURN BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!


COMMENCE MARXISM

pacino wrote:NOW ITS OUR TURN BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!


COMMENCE MARXISM

allentown wrote:

pacino wrote:NOW ITS OUR TURN BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!


COMMENCE MARXISM

Don't be so sure of that. The raw caucus count in the Senate, and even in House, doesn't tell the whole story. President Bush got some pretty outrageous stuff passed in Congress and never had majorities approaching these. In fact, Dems controlled at least one house of Congress when the more eggregious stuff passed. The Dems in Senate especially have a lot of guys, including old bull committee chairs, who are selfish, very jealous of their own power, and excruciatingly cowardly. Bush consistently spooked and rolled them. After the party came out four square for closing Guantanamo, they even got frightened by Republican charges that it was a severe hazard to put Guantanamo prisoners in federal supermax prison. Unfortunately, in the Congress, our side has proven to be the one with the bitches and precious little party unity.

Scheuer: The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grass-roots, bottom-up pressure. Because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It's an absurd situation again. Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

Beck: Which is why, I was thinking this weekend, if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now.

In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.

Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.

Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.

kruker wrote:Bolton-"Time for an Israeli Strike?".

drsmooth wrote:

kruker wrote:Bolton-"Time for an Israeli Strike?".

Shave Bolton's head & from the right distance he's the spitting image of Gordon Liddy

Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people.

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — was a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.

kruker wrote:So the Washington Post was trying to sell seats (25K a pop) to lobbyists to meet with Post reporters and Congressmen to discuss health care. How scumbbagish of them.

Link

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — was a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.

Nice to see Ezra call out his employers in his blog.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans support creation of a government-run health plan to compete with private insurance companies, a new poll found.

pacino wrote:

Sixty-nine percent of Americans support creation of a government-run health plan to compete with private insurance companies, a new poll found.