The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

HANNITY: See, can I add one thing? I think we won the debate.

 

DREIER: We did win the debate.

 

HANNITY: When you think about the vast majorities that they have in Congress and they had to bribe, backroom deals, corruption, that’s all because the tea party movement, the people — all these Tim McVeigh wannabes here.

 

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

 

HANNITY: Guys, thank you for being here.

 

(CROSSTALK)

[lostfan]

he isn't the first to try this. The other cases have been represented by Taitz and were working through the courts last I heard (getting admonished at every stage).

Judges are losing patience with Taitz and a couple of them threatened to sanction her. Actually I think she already has been santcioned and says she won't pay.

[lostfan]

But poll after poll shows much more Republican enthusiasm for likely voters this Fall. Big parts of the base will stay home in November with things like this on the headlines. How about riding some momentum as a strategy?

 

 

I have a feeling that more democrats/ liberals will be energized come November simply to keep Republicans from taking seats.

The Dems are going to lose seats in November if for no other reason than the fact that they won more seats than is feasible for them to hold in 2008.

[Rex Kickass]

The Dems are going to lose seats in November if for no other reason than the fact that they won more seats than is feasible for them to hold in 2008.

 

That.

 

A wave did crest, and there will be some pushback this year. I think its entirely reasonable and probably realistic to see a 55-45 Senate balance, and a 15-20 seat loss in the House. But the Republicans crested with Scott Brown IMO, and they're painted in a corner as to what they can realistically achieve in government this year since they've basically established their position on any issue is No.

[Rex Kickass]

Balta, when I first saw that, I thought it was an April Fool's joke. Turns out, I guess its not. I'm kinda speechless.

[Balta1701]

Balta, when I first saw that, I thought it was an April Fool's joke. Turns out, I guess its not. I'm kinda speechless.

Yeah. I had to check the video to make sure also.

[StrangeSox]

Radio show from Detroit Public Radio on the rise of right-wing extremism:

 

Thursday, April 1st show:

http://wdet.org/craigfahle/

[Balta1701]

John Edwards did some crazy stuff and deserves more press coverage.

[BigSqwert]

John Edwards did some crazy stuff and deserves more press coverage.

Edwards?

[Balta1701]

Edwards?

Which has gotten more coverage. The man who had an affair and lied about it while not in office, or the man who had an affair, lied about it, and then used his position to try to cover it up, who happens to still be in office?

[bmags]

IOKIYAR

 

Vitter

Ensign

Sanford

Craig

 

these guys don't have to resign when they get in trouble.

[BigSqwert]

Which has gotten more coverage. The man who had an affair and lied about it while not in office, or the man who had an affair, lied about it, and then used his position to try to cover it up, who happens to still be in office?

Never mind. I read your post the wrong way.

[BigSqwert]

Punchable face #3

 

[Controlled Chaos]

Yeah. I had to check the video to make sure also.

Umm it was sarcasm. Turn your meters on.

[lostfan]

Radio show from Detroit Public Radio on the rise of right-wing extremism:

 

Thursday, April 1st show:

http://wdet.org/craigfahle/

This dude I know posted some Michelle Malkin link where she posted the DHS paragraph about right-wing extremism from last year. I was like, really, this is still being talked about? A pet peeve I have when talking about politics is when I have to explain something over and over, and the person still pushes back against whatever I'm saying (for any number of reasons, usually because they won't concede my point or they are arguing something I'm not saying), and then later actual events happen which prove me right, and it's easy to show why I'm right. And then they STILL act completely oblivious to it all. I had to bring up the guy that shot the guard at the Holocaust museum, the guy who shot the 3 cops in Pittsburgh, the guy who shot the abortion doctor, all within the last year and just off the top of my head, and ask how those guys don't fit the definition given in the report. I could throw the guy who the plane into the IRS building into it but I won't because he was bats*** crazy just like the guy that shot those women in the Pittsburgh gym, but my point stands. I didn't get an answer of course.

[KipWellsFan]

RE: Hannity's McVeigh comment.

 

OMG! WTF!!?!?

Edited April 3, 2010 by KipWellsFan

[bmags]

This dude I know posted some Michelle Malkin link where she posted the DHS paragraph about right-wing extremism from last year. I was like, really, this is still being talked about? A pet peeve I have when talking about politics is when I have to explain something over and over, and the person still pushes back against whatever I'm saying (for any number of reasons, usually because they won't concede my point or they are arguing something I'm not saying), and then later actual events happen which prove me right, and it's easy to show why I'm right. And then they STILL act completely oblivious to it all. I had to bring up the guy that shot the guard at the Holocaust museum, the guy who shot the 3 cops in Pittsburgh, the guy who shot the abortion doctor, all within the last year and just off the top of my head, and ask how those guys don't fit the definition given in the report. I could throw the guy who the plane into the IRS building into it but I won't because he was bats*** crazy just like the guy that shot those women in the Pittsburgh gym, but my point stands. I didn't get an answer of course.

 

dude, that's a battle you will always lose.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I love Ol' John "Flip Flop Express" McCain:

September 26, 2008: "The American people know me very well, that is Independent and a maverick of the Senate."

 

September 17, 2008: "What do you expect of two mavericks?"

 

2008: McCain/Palin - Original Mavericks

 

2010: "I never considered myself a maverick, I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities."

Edited April 5, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

The Group "Wikileaks" has seemingly obtained and posted online video of what certainly appears to be the killing of 2 Reuters reporters and multiple Iraqi civilians from a U.S. helicopter in 2007.

[KipWellsFan]

The Group "Wikileaks" has seemingly obtained and posted online video of what certainly appears to be the killing of 2 Reuters reporters and multiple Iraqi civilians from a U.S. helicopter in 2007.

 

The social media has a left-wing bias!

[Balta1701]

Rolling stone profile from a few months ago of the CEO of Massey Energy, the most highly paid coal exec in the country.

[StrangeSox]

The Group "Wikileaks" has seemingly obtained and posted online video of what certainly appears to be the killing of 2 Reuters reporters and multiple Iraqi civilians from a U.S. helicopter in 2007.

 

Is there more of a background on this specific situation available ie were there troops on the ground in the area, was there previously fire coming from that area etc. ?

[Balta1701]

Is there more of a background on this specific situation available ie were there troops on the ground in the area, was there previously fire coming from that area etc. ?

There is a lot of detail because 2 of the dead were Reuters employees and Reuters has been fighting using FOIA's to try to find out what happened to their people. The military conducted 2 investigations into it and found the behavior of the soldiers to be justified. (The links won't paste properly because there are spaces in the PDF titles, you can find them through Greenwald's post here. The reports magically were approved for release yesterday, right after this video appeared online).

 

[StrangeSox]

Aside from the obvious "don't go to war unnecessarily", what can be changed in a situation like this?

 

Working on the assumption that the spotter was willfully lying about the number of armed people (6 rifles + 2 RPG's), can the officer who cleared them to engage be held at fault? His command was given in good faith. There may not be time (or properly-secured technological means) to transmit live camera feeds to the officer to review the information before giving the green light--he has to rely on his troops in the field for information.

 

If the spotter really did think those cameras were weapons, is there anything that could be changed? Did the soldiers really do anything morally wrong if they honestly believed that those people were carrying weapons? We could say "better technology and higher-resolution cameras" could make it easier to distinguish, but I think that only addresses this very specific incident and not the broader problem.

[bmags]

in addition, it seems to be that these reporters were working independent and had not alerted the military where they would be.