Rex Kickass Posted January 18, 2010 Author Share Posted January 18, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2010 -> 01:53 PM) Are you sure that's not some weird thing coming out because all of his staff are independent contractors anyway? (Reported yesterday I believe, probably so that he doesn't have to pay for his staff's health care). No thats different. The independent contractor thing is not uncommon to be honest, when I worked campaign staff in 2005, I was employed by the county party as an independent contractor. GOTV is usually volunteer (often paid volunteer, but volunteer none the less). Going to a temp agency means that the organization is pretty weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 16, 2010 -> 11:28 PM) kap, the point was that just because they created an effective and stable structure for government, doesn't mean that they were infallible and allknowing. There were a lot of stupid, short-sighted compromises made to create the constitution, including one to treat slaves as 3/5s of a person. Did they say that the gov't should be responsible for health care? No, but they also had no f***ing idea what modern gov'ts could be capable of. 3/5 ths was an improvement from being property along with the cows and plows. Don't forget the women as well. They knew there would be a need for changes, which is why there was a method for amendments. Let's all cheer Jackson the first President of the People! Major GOTV from the common man. Inspired people to vote in record numbers. Meanwhile, we'll forget the whole Trail of Tears misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 Yawn. The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions. E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats. A Justice Department inspector general's report due out this month is expected to conclude that the FBI frequently violated the law with its emergency requests, bureau officials confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 We must be safe at all costs. I will gladly let them open all of my mail too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 I've tried to remain indifferent to this race today but now I'm just disgusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2010 -> 11:32 AM) Here's the new Republican champion, Scott Brown, reacting with a smile as a constituent yells "Shove a curling iron up her butt!". Ladies and Gentlement, your modern Republican party. In October 2005, a Somerville police officer living in Melrose raped his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron. Keith Winfield, then 31, told police he was alone with the toddler that day and made additional statements that would ultimately be used to convict him. But in the aftermath of the crime, a Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Martha Coakley, then the district attorney, investigated without taking action. It was only after the toddler’s mother filed applications for criminal complaints that Coakley won grand jury indictments charging rape and assault and battery. Even then, nearly 10 months after the crime, Coakley’s office recommended that Winfield be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail. He remained free until December 2007, when Coakley’s successor as district attorney won a conviction and two life terms. Hence the reference to the curling iron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 Matt Tiabbi translates David Brooks' recent column on the Haiti disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 I believe a good counterpoint to the discussion in the Rep. thread is Bill O'Reilly last night lamenting the fact that you can't make racist jokes about Arabs any more. STEVENS: That was ‘62. [The Council on American-Islamic Relations] wasn’t around. You know, there wasn’t evil or an intent in that song except for fun. O’REILLY: Right. STEVENS: And, you know, as a kid I read “Arabian Nights.” I was a big fan of the whole culture. And so I wrote this song as a comedy song just for fun. O’REILLY: So 48 years ago — 48 years ago in this country we could make fun of Arabs. … We could make fun of people in a general way, and certainly, Ahab was the Arab was a general parody. But now, we can’t. What has changed in America? STEVENS: I think we’ve gone overboard with the political correctness just like so many other people think the same way about that. And I don’t know. We’ve got to come out of that, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:12 PM) Matt Tiabbi translates David Brooks' recent column on the Haiti disaster. Taibbi is way off base. Much of the article is nothing to care about and the part about how we give aid is a legitimate question, he just doesnt explore the aid that does work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 Switching topics. Kinda. One of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission was for Congress to work to streamline the process of handing over between administrations, because the several months it took for the Bush administration to get its people named, confirmed, and briefed on national security issues was one of many contributing factors to why the 9/11 attacks were able to happen. The Dems have even larger Senate majorities than the Republicans did, so getting that right should be easy, right? . One year into the Bush administration, there were 70 appointees awaiting confirmation. One year into the Obama administration, there are 177. And dozens of those holds are directly affecting the agencies responsible for the United States' security and foreign policy, amid two wars and an amped-up terrorism threat. The United States has no ambassador to Ethiopia, no head of the Office of Legal Counsel, no director at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, no agricultural trade representative.Sigh. Maybe if they appointed Chan Gailey to some position, that'd get approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 05:20 PM) Switching topics. Kinda. One of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission was for Congress to work to streamline the process of handing over between administrations, because the several months it took for the Bush administration to get its people named, confirmed, and briefed on national security issues was one of many contributing factors to why the 9/11 attacks were able to happen. The Dems have even larger Senate majorities than the Republicans did, so getting that right should be easy, right? Sigh. Maybe if they appointed Chan Gailey to some position, that'd get approved. Why can't they get these f***ing positions filled then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 05:42 PM) Why can't they get these f***ing positions filled then? Because it's all about health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 i've watched it a dozen times and ... i don't understand the 18 vote majority thing...an 8 vote majority, yes, actually 7 (afterwards) if you include the two independents of the caucus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 07:32 PM) i've watched it a dozen times and ... i don't understand the 18 vote majority thing...an 8 vote majority, yes, actually 7 (afterwards) if you include the two independents of the caucus. He was trying to say that they have 18 more seats then the Republicans, but Overbite obviously failed at basic math to understand the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 08:20 PM) Because it's all about health care. BS. It's because your heroes won't let them pass anything. The Dems are too scared to change the Senate Rules, and the Republicans are using them to the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:28 PM) BS. It's because your heroes won't let them pass anything. The Dems are too scared to change the Senate Rules, and the Republicans are using them to the extreme. LMAO. You had 60 votes in the senate and a huge majority in the house. Go pass some s***. Oh wait, you couldn't, because your own party couldn't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:30 PM) LMAO. You had 60 votes in the senate and a huge majority in the house. Go pass some s***. Oh wait, you couldn't, because your own party couldn't do it. How big of a stink would you make if they tried to change the rules so that 1 Senator could no longer block those nominations? They're not actually filibustered, that's a single Senator bringing a hold. The only way to stop that would be to change the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:28 PM) BS. It's because your heroes won't let them pass anything. The Dems are too scared to change the Senate Rules, and the Republicans are using them to the extreme. They are also too scared to fight the Repubs in the trenches on this. I really wonder if it is because the support for it is lukewarm at best, and they know they aren't winning the public battle either, so they don't have any political capital to take the fight to the streets anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:32 PM) How big of a stink would you make if they tried to change the rules so that 1 Senator could no longer block those nominations? They're not actually filibustered, that's a single Senator bringing a hold. The only way to stop that would be to change the rules. Ok, then I'm wrong. Post me a linky, because I don't understand that as being the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:32 PM) How big of a stink would you make if they tried to change the rules so that 1 Senator could no longer block those nominations? They're not actually filibustered, that's a single Senator bringing a hold. The only way to stop that would be to change the rules. Like I said on health care, I really wonder why they are afraid to take those battles to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:33 PM) They are also too scared to fight the Repubs in the trenches on this. I really wonder if it is because the support for it is lukewarm at best, and they know they aren't winning the public battle either, so they don't have any political capital to take the fight to the streets anyway. Support for having a head at the TSA is lukewarm at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:34 PM) Support for having a head at the TSA is lukewarm at best. I understand that one because they are wanting to unionize the TSA, and frankly, it shouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 09:34 PM) Support for having a head at the TSA is lukewarm at best. I was going for health care there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 10:36 PM) I was going for health care there. I know what you meant, but you replied on a post specifically about the lack of approval of nominees for standard positions. So you kinda set yourself up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Erroll Southers -- an abundantly qualified nominee to take over the TSA -- has withdrawn his nomination. Another ridiculous victory for Jim DeMint and the wingnuttery. See how this works? Block a nominee long enough for wingnut crazies to invent things the nominee never said. Cable news reports these things as fact without seriously noting that the accusations were false and that the Republicans were blocking a position tasked with stopping terrorism. Then the nominee, faced with potentially career-ending smears, withdraws. Republicans win. Flawless victory. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts