Politics: Homo abortionists vs the born again gun nuts

by **dajafi** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 21:29:15

VoxOrion wrote:Yeah. Corzine more than a lot of other pols bugs me because I feel like he bought his way up the food chain in the Jersey party (which, lets face it, is your game to lose once you get the nomination) and bought his senate seat and governorship. Probably the same way folks feel about Arnold.

I don't see how anybody could feel otherwise about Corzine (though it's not like that's a phenomenon limited to the Democrats). Not sure about Arnold--I think the unique thing about him is that he never could have made it through a Republican primary, but the recall gave him his opening and he turned out to be a fairly nimble politician... who was also profoundly blessed by the lameness of his opponents.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 22:37:03

Christie, 55% :-D

by **Werthless** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:53:17

I'll refrain from quoting the entire piece, but I really like reading Greenwald.

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.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:08:46

VoxOrion wrote:Yeah. Corzine more than a lot of other pols bugs me because I feel like he bought his way up the food chain in the Jersey party (which, lets face it, is your game to lose once you get the nomination) and bought his senate seat and governorship. Probably the same way folks feel about Arnold.

New Jersey by all rights should be, and used to be a very competitive state for Republicans. Like Arkansas, the fact that the Democrats have gained such a strong automatic advantage is a sign that the Republican party is at both the state and the national level poorly run.

Christie seems to be running on a good government/anti-corruption platform. I don't know how popular Whitman still is in the state, but Corzine will have to try to persuade voters that many of the problems the state is facing are holdovers from her administration, and also point out that Republican county machines in places like Monmouth haven't exactly been Boyscouts might be enough.

Moreover, while the Republican playbook in NJ has been to run against state workers, I'm not sure that's really going to work, especially since much of the problem are not the civil service people, but the patronage and county people.

by **kruker** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:28:02

Werthless wrote:I'll refrain from quoting the entire piece, but I really like reading Greenwald.

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.

It's a new day in Washington.

by **Werthless** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 16:23:05

Possible new bowing scandal?

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

by **Harpua** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 16:27:23

SOCIALIST HEAD NOD

by **Werthless** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 17:32:54

It's funny, because Obama didn't really know how to react to such a reverential goodbye. So he politely replicated the nod/bow. It's just so awkward.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 19:14:27

Werthless wrote:I'll refrain from quoting the entire piece, but I really like reading Greenwald.

Just imagine if any other country did this.

You may have some kind of a point - it's not really clear - but judging from the glabrous 1st sentence of the passage, the typist you quote here certainly does.

by **kruker** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 00:23:52

The Economist with another shot at Barack:

For some reason it's not allowing me to link, but the title is:

Canada's relations with the United States
Stop, border ahead

Like many others, Canadians had unrealistic expectations of how much things would change when Barack Obama replaced George Bush. Ms Napolitano’s words both before and during her visit to Canada have put an end to such optimism. For the new occupant of the White House, as for his predecessor, the noisy demands of Capitol Hill will always drown out any whimpers from across the border.

by **Werthless** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 09:31:06

drsmooth wrote:
Werthless wrote:I'll refrain from quoting the entire piece, but I really like reading Greenwald.

Just imagine if any other country did this.

You may have some kind of a point - it's not really clear - but judging from the glabrous 1st sentence of the passage, the typist you quote here certainly does.

What is the point of this post? And why on earth did you use glabrous, which is basically a medical term meaning "smooth and hairless?"

by **drsmooth** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:03:11

Werthless wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
Werthless wrote:I'll refrain from quoting the entire piece, but I really like reading Greenwald.

Just imagine if any other country did this.

You may have some kind of a point - it's not really clear - but judging from the glabrous 1st sentence of the passage, the typist you quote here certainly does.

What is the point of this post? And why on earth did you use glabrous, which is basically a medical term meaning "smooth and hairless?"

the point is merely to point out that the salon fellow you quoted has a quite naked & rather juvenile (prepubescent; hairless) point to make, having little if anything to do with the policy matters the salon fellow purports to comment on.

That naked, hairless point is "look at me!!"

And what was your point in sharing that piece? That you found Greenwald's observations particularly incisive? Or only that that glabrous first sentence pushed your buttons?

But "imagine if any other country did this"? One imagines Greenwald muttering to himself "oh, right, all else up to this, a country might well hold its nose, fine...but THIS!!"

the point, not to put too fine a point on it, is that Greenwald, here, has little to nothing revelatory to say - and you find what he has to say, or maybe merely how he's said it, compelling.

by **Werthless** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:51:34

Thanks for your contribution, as always.

by **traderdave** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:45:43

This is kinda like a mock debate between Corzine and Christie. I'll root for whichever one of you is playing Christie. :wink:

by **kruker** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:47:21

A New Beginning with Muslims

The President's speech in Cairo. It's long and the first bit is the butter them up part. Here's where he lays down the law:

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths - more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

by **kruker** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 13:37:32

I imagine Gordon Brown is biding his time like Costanza at Play Now Industries.

Huge shakeup to his cabinet over the last week. Just brought his most likely successor, Alan Johnson, even closer to him with a promotion from Health Minister to Home Secretary.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 14:35:08

“If baseball is America’s pastime, then why isn’t it in every state of America? I’ll tell you why: Because professional sports teams want big money and want to be in big population centers. ... I think we should move the Minnesota Twins and the Minnesota Vikings to Bismarck and Fargo, but I’m not holding my breath.” - Senator Byron Dorgan

by gr » Fri Jun 05, 2009 14:47:33

Make no mistake

I want to kill somebody.

by **Werthless** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 15:05:48

jerseyhoya wrote:“If baseball is America’s pastime, then why isn’t it in every state of America? I’ll tell you why: Because professional sports teams want big money and want to be in big population centers. ... I think we should move the Minnesota Twins and the Minnesota Vikings to Bismarck and Fargo, but I’m not holding my breath.” - Senator Byron Dorgan

He can start his own barnstorming team with his own money.

by **kruker** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 15:09:56

North Dakota has enough cash to fund a state team that plays to an empty stadium every night, so go ahead, get ND into the baseball business. The Phillies will donate Chris Coste to the cause.

Archived

Politics: Homo abortionists vs the born again gun nuts