The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Huckabee wants the wikileaks source assassinated.

 

Rep. Peter King ® wants wikileaks designated a "terrorist organization"

 

Rick Santorum calls Assagne a terrorist.

 

Meanwhile, Gates says the whole thing is overblown anyway.

Edited November 30, 2010 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

Huckabee wants the wikileaks source assassinated.

 

What a good Christian!

[StrangeSox]

That should read "executed," but vindictive justice and authoritarianism aren't are stranger to some Christians.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Huckabee wants the wikileaks source assassinated.

 

Rep. Peter King ® wants wikileaks designated a "terrorist organization"

 

Rick Santorum calls Assagne a terrorist.

 

Meanwhile, Gates says the whole thing is overblown anyway.

WikiLeaks Is a Terrorist Organization

Quick... before you click the link, guess which news organization published this opinion piece?

[BigSqwert]

We're in great company with our DADT policy (see the chart within the link).

[GoSox05]

Out crazy everyone!!

 

They must have to out crazy each other. Let's nuke the whole world!!!! That will stop him!!

[BigSqwert]

That should read "executed," but vindictive justice and authoritarianism aren't are stranger to some Christians.

For some reason I don't recall him wanting Cheney and his cronies executed for outing Valerie Plame.

[lostfan]

nvm, Q Clearance is a DoE clearance, I thought it was more universal in the Federal govenment. Equivalent to DoD Top Secret.

Oh, yeah I know what that is. No I don't have one of those. I have whatever you probably think I have, lol

[Jenksismyhero]

For some reason I don't recall him wanting Cheney and his cronies executed for outing Valerie Plame.

 

One outed agent is the same as dozens of state department secrets being revealed? Really?

 

And there really is a difference between saying someone wants another person assassinated, and a person actually saying that he believes he committed treason and should be punished by execution. Just saying.

 

 

[Balta1701]

One outed agent is the same as dozens of state department secrets being revealed? Really?

Unless there's something a lot more significant in one of the next tranches, I'd actually imagine that the exposure of the full career of an undercover operative, exposure of the fact that the company that employed her was a CIA Front, and that everyone else employed by that company was also a CIA Operative could well have been significantly more damaging than anything in the Wikileaks release. At this point, the only thing that I think really looks like a serious downside on the current leak is the whole "The U.S. can't keep its own stuff private" angle. (Note the "at this point" objections)

[lostfan]

Now, this is actually a topic that interests me and that I can legitimately respond to. Although I'm not convinced either way...the argument on the other side is that if a government realizes that its classification operation has simply become too big, if the numbers of people who have some level of security clearance that could allow them to access this number of documents is in the millions...even law enforcement penalties won't be enough to prevent large leaks of data. The 2 responses can be...classifying things further, which will potentially restrict information flow to people who actually need it, or opening up things that really don't need to be classified...like most of the documents in the Iraq and Afghanistan war files, for example.

 

This pile, I'm not sure that I'd call them classified as much as I'd call them private...at the level of personal emails and such. So, I'm not sure they really tell me that much.

Bolded - yes. I don't think diplomatic cables are necessarily classified, not something I read regularly, but they aren't meant to show to the public and it serves no practical purpose for anyone else to see. Of course Glenn Greenwald's crowd is all ecstatic thinking Manning did something heroic or whatever and they won't be convinced otherwise, but all of this is pretty pointless and its net effect on national security is neutral at best, if one is being generous. It's like if someone copied a person's PST from their Outlook at work and mailed it to the New York Times. Yeah you know all of that can be audited, but do people really expect the whole world to see it, the language they used, the exact work they were doing, etc.?

 

The government does over-classify things, the mentality (especially in the military) is like "better to overclassify than to underclassify." But at times you'll see something where it's like "why the hell is this classified? what is so secret about this?"

[mr_genius]

So, will you guys be mad if the Democrats compromise/cave in and renew the tax cuts for the highest bracket? What if it includes an unemployment extension? I guess that is assuming you support an unemployment extension.

Edited December 1, 2010 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

Yes, I will be mad, but I will also look for the outrage from the Tea Party crowd over further increasing our deficit with tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. I am sure it will be seen.

[mr_genius]

Yes, I will be mad, but I will also look for the outrage from the Tea Party crowd over further increasing our deficit with tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. I am sure it will be seen.

 

Those cuts and an unemployment extension would add to the deficit. But I think the 'tea party' rage is being occupied by the failed vote to ban earmarks for a few years. So you guys will need to fill the void.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, I will be mad, but I will also look for the outrage from the Tea Party crowd over further increasing our deficit with tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. I am sure it will be seen.

 

I will. I've never understood that faulty logic of not taxing the rich at a much higher rate.

[bmags]

whatever, as long as it's not permanent. I'm more concerned with QE2 at the moment.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, will you guys be mad if the Democrats compromise/cave in and renew the tax cuts for the highest bracket? What if it includes an unemployment extension? I guess that is assuming you support an unemployment extension.

I think Obama is right to draw the line around 250k, but I also think it would be good in this environment for him to sit down with the GOP and compromise on a higher number, maybe 500k. Ideally, Congress puts forth two seperate bills - one for under 250k extension, the other a debate about the area above that.

 

What will probably happen is a temporary extension for all.

 

[Balta1701]

I think Obama is right to draw the line around 250k, but I also think it would be good in this environment for him to sit down with the GOP and compromise on a higher number, maybe 500k. Ideally, Congress puts forth two seperate bills - one for under 250k extension, the other a debate about the area above that.

 

What will probably happen is a temporary extension for all.

There is talk that the Democrats are likely to put forwards a bill to vote on in the House splitting off the $1 million earners and above as the old tax bracket. The bill will then fail, and the Democrats will cave on the whole thing.

 

 

Worth noting...the 10 year cost of keeping the tax breaks on everything earned below $250k is about $3.2 trillion. The $1 million plan = $3.6 trillion. The whole box = $4 trillion.

[Balta1701]

Those cuts and an unemployment extension would add to the deficit. But I think the 'tea party' rage is being occupied by the failed vote to ban earmarks for a few years. So you guys will need to fill the void.

A 6 month unemployment extension would add, IIRC, something like $20 billion to the deficit, if you neglect the multiplier factors. That is approximately 1/200th the cost of a full 10 year extension of the Bush tax cuts.

[StrangeSox]

"i don't know why this wikileaks stuff is a problem, if the government hasn't done anything wrong it should have nothing to hide"

 

 

lol

[Rex Kickass]

So, will you guys be mad if the Democrats compromise/cave in and renew the tax cuts for the highest bracket? What if it includes an unemployment extension? I guess that is assuming you support an unemployment extension.

 

The compromise on the table is temporary extension in exchange for ratification of START and unemployment extension. For what its worth, I think its really sad that the only way the GOP will accept a nuclear deterrence treaty is in exchange huge tax breaks for millionaires.

[Balta1701]

One other thing bothering me about the whole Wikileaks matter...this prosecution for Rape in Sweden for Assange. It's just such an odd story, if it's not a politically motivated prosecution, they did just about everything they could to make it seem like one. They brought up the issue right at the time of the first big Iraq war document dump, interviewed him, publicly cleared him and allowed him to leave the country, said they were closing the case, then re-opened the case, and every time there's a document dump it seems like they push harder on it. Interpol declares him a wanted man the day after the diplomatic document dump.

 

That said...I certainly have no opinions or knowledge on the merits of the case, so it's entirely plausible he could have raped a person in sweden. If he did though, whoever's doing the investigating/prosecuting has certainly made it seem to outside observers like the case is nothing other than a political move. To the point that I probably couldn't have served on the jury pool because I'd call any evidence presented "Suspect

 

Edit: Here's salon talking about how unusual Interpol's behavior is here, they usually use the sort of warning that they put out for Assange for people accused of war crimes or genocide.

[StrangeSox]

What the Founders Wanted!

 

Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips said denying the right to vote to those who do not own property "makes a lot of sense" during a weekly radio program.

 

"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote," Phillips said. "It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote."

 

"Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today," he continued. "But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community."

 

"If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."

 

"Of course, when people talk, three Amendments that really are the only ones that seriously get talked about getting repealed: the 16th Amendment, for the income tax, and we can only hope that happens; the 17th Amendment for having the appointment of Senators got back to state legislatures; and the 26th Amendment, I believe it is," Phillips said. "Do you know which one that is, David?"

 

"No, but I know which one I want repealed," responded DeGerolamo. "I want the 14th Amendment repealed."

 

...

 

Ending citizenship rights granted to children of illegal immigrants born in the US will be one of the first objectives of the Republican-led House of Representatives, according to a published report.

 

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who has represented Iowa's 5th congressional district since 2003, said he will push a bill to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.

 

"Because the 14th Amendment has been misconstrued, current law inappropriately gives American citizenship to the children of illegal aliens solely because their parents were able to cross our borders illegally and give birth here," King said in October.

 

:facepalm:

[NorthSideSox72]

What the Founders Wanted!

 

 

 

 

 

:facepalm:

I actually agree with the last bit about 14a, though I disagree with his methodology - the amendment has been interpereted just fine. It just needs to be changed.

 

[StrangeSox]

I actually agree with the last bit about 14a, though I disagree with his methodology - the amendment has been interpereted just fine. It just needs to be changed.

 

The driving point was the 'property rights' bulls***.