bmags

I find it fascinating that the democratic nominee is always the most liberal member of congress. Especially when his policies are less liberal than his democratic adversary at the moment, and less populist than John Edwards. It's all so very convenient how every election people just happen to pick the most liberal member!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 11, 2008 -> 03:49 AM) My question is this, did they know he had done this when he was hired? That makes all the difference to me. I can understand uf they never knew. for real though, how do you NOT know, when the media picks up on it about 5 minutes after he's hired.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 8, 2008 -> 10:59 PM) the MSM was brutal towards Bush I. They even dropped a 'scandal' on him 4 days before an election to help out Clinton. Also, the economic boom had began, as there were large economic gains beginning which the MSM ignored. But yea, I guess the media has an evening factor in the pro-GOP FOX news. And, yes, the MSM totally played up him being sick in Japan. The NY Times and everyone else in the media were in a frenzy. They claimed it showed he shouldn't be president. Time magazine called him a wimp on their cover, which they now acknowledge was a poor journalistic move. So bs journalism has been around way before FOX news. Now there are right wing crappy journalists on tv, not just left wing crappy journalists. this is no way defending media against what you are saying, but more explaining as I see it. One of the reasons Reagan was so successful was the image he created, and one of the reasons that image continued was because of how controlling his administration was of the media. They were not very open to them. From my study of George H.W. Bush, he had problems with how they dealt with the media and when he became president he opened things up a lot more. Unfortunately, as opposed to when FDR opened up the presidency to the media for the first real time in history with a modern mass media, they felt obliged to cover positively, and the presidency basically punished them for bad coverage by not letting them have the same priveledges anymore. So when Bush opened up the presidency, it worked against him as they press, cynical after 8 years of being so reactionary under Reagan, attacked. As far as the economic gains, that can simply be explained as not many journalists understand the economy.

You know, I have serious questions on the validity of this claim that Hamas wants Obama considering the source it came from.

for congressman/senators, I will never have a problem upping their salaries. It's a miniscule part of the budget, microscopic, and considering the hit they will take to privacy and such, at least pay them enough so you don't need situations like that frat house Dick Durbin lives in Washington. Also, if people watched PBS more for election coverage, a lot of the unsubstantial garbage we are talking about would need not apply.

I don't mean to be shallow, but I'm sure if you put a microphone in front of McCain's wife she'd say something dumb.

I do think the democratic party can reconcile, however, historically, long fought out primary battles haven't bode too well.

yeah, I think the reason this 32 delegate milestone is in place is to take the eyes off of WV and KY as states to see who wins, but if Obama can reach that delegate count to claim the majority of the delegates.

I don't think Dean, Gore or Pelosi should publicly urge her to end. Her voters are heated and sad right now and I think it's best that she appears to do it on her own.

I'm getting kind of sick of this coverage still giving credence to Clinton staying in the race. Seeing stuff like "Obama Clinton split Tuesday Primaries" is accurate, but continues to give the impression that she is a viable candidate. As soon as NC was called Obama, and then he won by 14 pt. in a big state, that is the story. That is a death nell. And then in a state where she was up big two weeks ago to only win by 2 pts, and 16,000 votes? I wish they'd stop feeding this narrative that doesn't exist. It reinforces her delusions.

Good Lord.

A bunch of states might be in play now, who knows what's gonna happen.

we're talking like the inauguration is like a King getting crowned, it happens every four years, why wouldn't you wait to go see someone that excites you. Especially when you have to spend your vacation on it.

She canceled all her media appearances tomorrow. Thing is over.

remember that early exit polls have been heavily Obama since the beginning.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ May 6, 2008 -> 09:47 PM) Nothing to do with Carrier but I watched the first part of the 4 hour special on George H.W. Bush last night. Speaking of liberal bias the documentary not only paints H.W. as a good President but a great one. I believe the second part is on tonight. Very thorough look at Dubya's daddy. PBS rocks my socks. Well, he has a legacy in NAFTA and has major props from historians for his huge coalition in Iraq. He got crucified because he made a bargain with Congress (that was a good bargain, btw), but raised taxes when he said he wouldn't. He was a responsible president, I don't look down upon him. But then again, GREAT, I don't think he dealt with enough to be considered Great, especially for one term, he'd need a Polk like term to be considered great.

real experience I suppose.

I don't know where I stand on this. I had a good mom, and she bought me GTA for playstation 2 when it came out. I don't think she really knew what was all in that game. Nowadays, I don't really play video games and have no desire to get this game. I completely agree that this is disgustingly sexist, grossly violent, all that. Grew out of it I suppose, had parents that gave me first hand experience how to treat people. However, I worry about bringing back that the rule of censorship that the work will be based on how it would affect young or unstable minds.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ May 5, 2008 -> 12:48 AM) the Medicare drug benefit. thassa big one.

You know, I thought people would be gullible for this gas tax holiday but talking to numerous people, it turns out many understand why gas isn't going down and know this tax holiday is garbage town.

I'd rather just enjoy the players while they are here instead of constantly looking ahead to see when they won't.

our pitching has been great this year but last year we were somehow winning games without scoring more than 3 runs.

on saturday when I was watching him I was so impressed. When he came up to the plate with two men on, i felt so confident, and he hits a double to deep left center. Man, he has some power. .435 OBP, gosh darn.

per the uber-awesome magazine mother jones in their torture issue in march: Editors' Note By Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery February 22, 2008 what is america? It is a chunk of land; it is a racial and cultural kaleidoscope; it is a market. But more important and essential than any of these definitions, and the basis for them all, America is a legal and moral framework. It is the expression of those self-evident rights of man that Jefferson wrote about in 1776, and the fitful strides toward real equality we've been making ever since. And central to our rather arrogant notion of American exceptionalism has always been that our journey toward justice for all is not just America's journey, but a path for the rest of the world to follow. So what example are we setting for the world, and for Americans coming of age in this time of terror and torture? In many respects we have devolved to a pre-Enlightenment state. Take waterboarding, a practice recognized as torture since the time of Torquemada and, as such, banned in most European countries by the early 1800s. An American officer, Major Edwin Glenn, was court-martialed and punished for using the method on a Filipino "insurgent" during the SpanishAmerican War. The practice was officially banned by the U.S. Army after World War II, because of pow protections spelled out in the Geneva Conventions, but also because Allied soldiers had been subjected to waterboarding by German and Japanese soldiers—several of whom were sentenced to decades of hard labor, and even life, by war-crimes tribunals. This prohibition did not mean that Americans never used waterboarding: In 1968, the Washington Post published a front-page photo showing a GI holding down a North Vietnamese prisoner as South Vietnamese soldiers waterboarded him. But the soldier was immediately drummed out of the Army. And when Texas sheriff James "Humpy" Parker and three of his deputies repeatedly used the technique on accused thieves—some of whom gave false confessions to escape further abuse—the federal government investigated, a jury of a dozen Texans voted to convict, and in 1983 the men were sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. The point is that while torture still happened, when incidents became public, they were condemned, not condoned. But not only has the Bush administration stridently defended the use of "harsh interrogation techniques," the American public has signed off on such euphemisms. When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, pundits predicted it might mean an end to the war, or, at the very least, a national conversation on just how far America was willing to depart from its core values to fight terrorism. Yet, four years after the photos of naked, debased detainees first emerged, the debate over torture has dissipated. The highest-ranking officer charged in the scandal got off with a slap on the wrist in August, but you could be forgiven for not knowing—we were the only publication to send a reporter to cover the full court-martial ("The Final Act of Abu Ghraib"). There are three federal investigations into the cia's destruction of videotapes of agents waterboarding Al Qaeda travel agent Abu Zubaydah—but none into waterboarding itself. When it was revealed that administration officials and congressional leaders of both parties knew all along that waterboarding was being used on prisoners, the nation let out a collective yawn. The only criminal investigation into the cia's extraordinary rendition program has come courtesy of an Italian prosecutor ("The Body Snatchers"). Each week, Fox's 24 codifies the ticking-time-bomb justification for torture, while its reality TV show Solitary ("Voluntary Confinement") pits isolated contestants against each other to see who can withstand the most torment. And then there are the other assaults being perpetrated against the Constitution. These days American citizens are being entrapped into participating in fake plots and locked up for simply thinking anti-American thoughts ("Department of Pre-Crime"). What does our ambivalence toward our founding legal values mean in the long term? Social scientists note that most people—not just "a few bad apples"—are capable of committing torture. That they do so when encouraged by authority figures and joined by their peers, when the victims are dehumanized and the group's inhibitions fall away. Once such cruelty is deemed acceptable under exceptional circumstances, its use often becomes institutionalized: The exception becomes the norm. The only remedy is true accountability, a real reckoning with what was allowed to happen and how we can get our moral compass back. We owe that much to soldiers like Ben Allbright, who's caught between a community that hails him like a hero and the torment he feels over the abuse he doled out in Iraq ("Am I a Torturer?" ). If we allow fear itself to rule, if we justify methods used by Spanish Inquisitors and roll back legal protections enshrined as far back as the 13th century, we lose everything we claim to be fighting so hard to protect. That's why we must be vigilant against the creep of torture. Not just because it produces questionable results. Not just because condoning its use might increase the odds that it will be used on our own soldiers and citizens. But simply because it is un-American.

I have a hard time believing the federal gov't couldn't convict someone of plotting terrorism unless their claims we're pretty weak. And when they are paintballing ninjas.