The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

You don't know, and I don't know. But you want to side on the hate Bush crowd.

But I'm listening to the people who repeatedly have said so, one of whom you keep trying to cite for 1/3 of the things his memo said. To me, that's an important distinction.

[kapkomet]

But I'm listening to the people who repeatedly have said so, one of whom you keep trying to cite for 1/3 of the things his memo said. To me, that's an important distinction.

And they keep not talking about the whole story... isn't that important to know?

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Apparently, in a hearing on Climate Change today, the GOP representative is... Newt Gringrich?

 

When asked about the polar ice caps: people don't really understand what's happening

Edited April 24, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

 

BillO Rewrites History: Nixon Never Met Mao... um, actually he did... and SHOOK HIS HAND!

 

And there's this:

 

D'OH!

[lostfan]

Huh? Who would say that? Had his administration not gone down in a blaze of self-lit flames, meeting Mao would probably be his legacy.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Huh? Who would say that? Had his administration not gone down in a blaze of self-lit flames, meeting Mao would probably be his legacy.

Because BillO is a moron, and past presidents meeting with Dictators goes against his argument that Obama is an ignorant newbie who doesnt understand politics.

[HuskyCaucasian]

and Al Franken doesnt deserve to serve? He's at least sane. She's gone off the wall again:

 

Bachmann: TSA is going to start picking pro-life, pro-gun conservatives out of the security line at the airport for extra scrutiny.

The recent Department of Homeland Security report, which attracted so much criticism on the right for its warnings about domestic right-wing extremists, has another big-time detractor: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

 

Bachmann took to the House floor on Wednesday night, delivering an impassioned speech about the government tagging decent Americans as extremists for being pro-life, pro-gun rights and anti-illegal immigration -- and asking whether Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has gone "absolutely stark raving mad"

 

[lostfan]

a. Someone obviously didn't tell her that DHS and other national agencies not only put these reports out all the time, but PUT THEM OUT FOR LEFT-WING EXTREMISTS TOO (it was in my e-mail inbox at work a good month before the right-wing one was).

 

b. She doesn't have a clue about analysis or the point of putting those reports out, and she and any other Republicans making an issue out of this would do well to just stop speaking.

[HuskyCaucasian]

b. She doesn't have a clue about analysis or the point of putting those reports out, and she and any other Republicans making an issue out of this would do well to just stop speaking.

I'd be curious where the outrage was when the Bush DHS put out the report last time.

[lostfan]

I'd be curious where the outrage was when the Bush DHS put out the report last time.

There was none, and there shouldn't have been. It probably said mostly the same thing.

[HuskyCaucasian]

There was none, and there shouldn't have been. It probably said mostly the same thing.

exactly my point.

[Balta1701]

There was none, and there shouldn't have been. It probably said mostly the same thing.

Like I said a few pages ago...when a report on violence by left wing extremists (animal rights groups, anti-globalization groups, environmental groups) was made by the DHS, no one batted an eyelash. When a report about right wing extremists came out from the DHS, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, Bachmann, etc. all suddenly thought "This could be aimed at me!" I wonder why...

[kapkomet]

Like I said a few pages ago...when a report on violence by left wing extremists (animal rights groups, anti-globalization groups, environmental groups) was made by the DHS, no one batted an eyelash. When a report about right wing extremists came out from the DHS, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, Bachmann, etc. all suddenly thought "This could be aimed at me!" I wonder why...

Because when GWB issued it, they identified clearly defined groups. This report had a lot of the same things but were blanket statements with little identification of specific groups. But I'm sure I'm a liar or misinformed because 100 liberal blogs told you so.

[lostfan]

Because when GWB issued it, they identified clearly defined groups. This report had a lot of the same things but were blanket statements with little identification of specific groups. But I'm sure I'm a liar or misinformed because 100 liberal blogs told you so.

I didn't read that full report because I already know mostly everything that it would say, but the only thing done wrong in this report vs. any other one was a poor QC. What it said was accurate, but poorly worded.

 

At work, whenever I write something I always stop to think "what if this somehow got leaked to the media?" Whoever was responsible for that report didn't do that carefully enough.

[kapkomet]

I didn't read that full report because I already know mostly everything that it would say, but the only thing done wrong in this report vs. any other one was a poor QC. What it said was accurate, but poorly worded.

 

At work, whenever I write something I always stop to think "what if this somehow got leaked to the media?" Whoever was responsible for that report didn't do that carefully enough.

Which is the point. Take a little more time and get it right. They wanted this out to counter the "tea party movement".

 

Anyway, I'm done.

 

[lostfan]

Which is the point. Take a little more time and get it right. They wanted this out to counter the "tea party movement".

 

Anyway, I'm done.

I don't know if they did or didn't do it for that reason, but things like this all get treated the same. If there was a big cross-country anti-WTO movement by leftist groups, the government would have eyes on that too. Last year the DHS was worried about bats*** crazy protesters at the RNC. It didn't have anything to do with the Bush administration being in charge, it's just that the gov't has a job to do.

[lostfan]

[BigSqwert]

Why did Ronald Reagan want to drink a cup of coffee with people who wanted to kill Americans?

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

 

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution." —President Ronald Reagan, 1984

 

 

And don't tell me it was a different time -- before the evildoers. In 1984 there were more than 37,000 Soviet nuclear missiles aimed at the United States and our allies. This was a year after the Marine Corp barracks in Beirut was bombed by two suicide bombers, killing 241 American soldiers, 58 French soldiers and 6 civilians. An additional 75 people were injured.

 

Link

[Balta1701]

A tentative budget deal has been struck. The kicker...health care. There is a process in the Senate to get around the Filibuster...the budget reconciliation process, which can be used for anything involving the budget, which by senate rules is not subject to the filibuster. The Republicans used this repeatedly in the last 8 years, and I'm sure the Democrats complained a lot when they did it.

 

If no Health Care measure is passed in line with the budget by October 15th of this year, then the Senate will have the right to deal with Health care by the reconciliation process. Which means no filibuster. Which means the minority needs to negotiate or the minority doesn't have to be listened to at all, unlike most of the other bills coming through.

 

Hardball? Absolutely. Harder ball than giving the stimulus package zero votes? In the eye of the beholder.

 

This may mean that a climate change plan waits until 2010 though.

[BearSox]

Could we have gotten that information without torturing, er, sorry, "enhanced interrogating" them? Was the "harsh treatment" really necessary to get the information?

Oh yeah, I'm sure they'd reveal all their plans over a nice cup of tea.

[BigSqwert]

Oh yeah, I'm sure they'd reveal all their plans over a nice cup of tea.

Reagan was anti-torture. Was he a bad president?

[BearSox]

Waterboarding + sleep deprevation + walling = torture in any book

Fine, if you want it that way. But the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to Al Qaeda.

[BearSox]

Apparently, in a hearing on Climate Change today, the GOP representative is... Newt Gringrich?

 

When asked about the polar ice caps: people don't really understand what's happening

Well, the GOP had a brilliant scientist from England flown in, but the dirty Dems blocked him from speaking because he'd make Al Gore look like the big fat lying fraud he is.

[BigSqwert]

Fine, if you want it that way. But the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to Al Qaeda.

I'll just continue to side with the other 43 presidents on this one. You can keep using your asterisk based rationalizations for immorality.

[BearSox]

Reagan was anti-torture. Was he a bad president?

He was a great president. But then again, what was Reagan's view of torture? If it is similar to yours, I strongly disagree with him.