The Republican Thread

[Balta1701]

I wonder what restaurant she owns.

[southsider2k5]

This is what is on her facebook page now

 

False information is being put out there and I expected more from you guys than to be sucker punched. Study up on political election law. More signatures are being put in tomorrow. I have told many of you not to quit. That is what they want you to do. Do not give them what they want.

[Balta1701]

This is what is on her facebook page now

Checked for the link on her facebook page. Havne't heard of the restaurant, it's near the hospital between 3rd and 4th, I think it's probably new since I was last there. If the next time I go through there it isn't gumbo night, I might visit.

[StrangeSox]

Keith Olbermann is a retard. Just watch how many things he butchers in tonight's episode (a "desert eagle" is a "Semi-automatic rifle; his whole segment on nuclear power).

[southsideirish71]

Keith Olbermann is a retard. Just watch how many things he butchers in tonight's episode (a "desert eagle" is a "Semi-automatic rifle; his whole segment on nuclear power).

 

Having Olbermann and Maddow back to back is like having the Glenn Beck in duplicate, aka the double crazy.

Edited February 17, 2010 by southsideirish71

[lostfan]

Maddow is opinionated but not crazy. Olbermann is definitely pretty off.

[KipWellsFan]

Maddow is opinionated but not crazy. Olbermann is definitely pretty off.

 

Olbermann is entertaining in the same way I assume O'Reilly is entertaining to some on the right. With Maddow, at least I sometimes feel like I learned something.

[Jenksismyhero]

Olbermann is entertaining in the same way I assume O'Reilly is entertaining to some on the right. With Maddow, at least I sometimes feel like I learned something.

 

Except that Olbermann doesn't even pretend to be a journalist, and he's downright libelous/slanderous in his comments. The Scott Brown rant was pathetic.

[Balta1701]

Except that Olbermann doesn't even pretend to be a journalist, and he's downright libelous/slanderous in his comments. The Scott Brown rant was pathetic.

In other words, he's exactly like O'Reilly.

[southsideirish71]

Maddow is opinionated but not crazy. Olbermann is definitely pretty off.

 

Opinionated is one thing. When everything is some sort of evil Republican plot to overthrow the earth then I would put her in the crazy format.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

In other words, he's exactly like O'Reilly.

 

I don't watch him, but I've never heard O'Reilly call someone "an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

[Balta1701]

I don't watch him, but I've never heard O'Reilly call someone "an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

You know what? There's some reasonable quibbles with the methodology, but there was a legitimate study a couple years ago that found that O'Reilly typically uses negative name-calling against a his political opponents on average once every 10 seconds or so.

[Jenksismyhero]

You know what? There's some reasonable quibbles with the methodology, but there was a legitimate study a couple years ago that found that O'Reilly typically uses negative name-calling against a his political opponents on average once every 10 seconds or so.

 

Right, like the fact that the study focused on his Talking Points segment, which is the soap box portion of the show. Shocker he wouldn't stick to the professional standards of journalism there.

 

I mean i don't want to argue that O'Reilly is better than Olbermann, that he's more of a journalist. I'm just saying that besides from the "that guys stupid" or "that's insane," I've never heard him attack someone with such unsubstantiated vitriol, which had little to do with whatever he was reporting on, and everything to do with his hatred for a certain segment of society. I'm still shocked that no one went after Olbermann for it. He was basically saying "look who these f***tards just elected," and then proceeded to bash him. If someone on Fox News had done that the uproar would have been deafening.

 

[KipWellsFan]

Right, like the fact that the study focused on his Talking Points segment, which is the soap box portion of the show. Shocker he wouldn't stick to the professional standards of journalism there.

 

I mean i don't want to argue that O'Reilly is better than Olbermann, that he's more of a journalist. I'm just saying that besides from the "that guys stupid" or "that's insane," I've never heard him attack someone with such unsubstantiated vitriol, which had little to do with whatever he was reporting on, and everything to do with his hatred for a certain segment of society. I'm still shocked that no one went after Olbermann for it. He was basically saying "look who these f***tards just elected," and then proceeded to bash him. If someone on Fox News had done that the uproar would have been deafening.

 

 

Jon Stewart went after Keith for that rant, and so did I in this thread.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jon Stewart went after Keith for that rant, and so did I in this thread.

 

Pssh. Jon Stewart did not. He basically said, you're a really smart guy and a great journalist, you went a little far here don't you think? He commented on what he said. That's far from calling him out for it.

 

(in reality, Jon Stewart decapitated Olbermann, and also obliterated Maddow)

[lostfan]

Except that Olbermann doesn't even pretend to be a journalist, and he's downright libelous/slanderous in his comments. The Scott Brown rant was pathetic.

Why would he? He's not. None of these talking heads on the opinion shows are journalists and none of them pretend to be. I could get a show on Fox if I could hold good ratings. People see them that way though for some reason.

 

Right, like the fact that the study focused on his Talking Points segment, which is the soap box portion of the show. Shocker he wouldn't stick to the professional standards of journalism there.

 

I mean i don't want to argue that O'Reilly is better than Olbermann, that he's more of a journalist. I'm just saying that besides from the "that guys stupid" or "that's insane," I've never heard him attack someone with such unsubstantiated vitriol, which had little to do with whatever he was reporting on, and everything to do with his hatred for a certain segment of society. I'm still shocked that no one went after Olbermann for it. He was basically saying "look who these f***tards just elected," and then proceeded to bash him. If someone on Fox News had done that the uproar would have been deafening.

Meh that's a daily occurrence on Fox, it would border on being a non-event. That's pretty much Glenn Beck's MO.

Edited February 18, 2010 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

Why would he? He's not. None of these talking heads on the opinion shows are journalists and none of them pretend to be. I could get a show on Fox if I could hold good ratings. People see them that way though for some reason.

 

 

Meh that's a daily occurrence on Fox, it would border on being a non-event. That's pretty much Glenn Beck's MO.

 

Yeah, I am sure there is no reason why the Dem thread is a couple of thousand posts longer than the Rep thread...

[Texsox]

And until about 2001, I voted for far more Republicans for office than Democrats. It wasn't until the GOP decided to abandon financial restraint and the protection of individual freedoms - once the cornerstones of that party - that I was forced to vote more often for Dems. Its not because I liek the Dems, its because they are currently the lesser evil.

 

I'll also add in trying to remove any checks and balances from their power by attacking the courts and the press.

[Texsox]

Yeah, I am sure there is no reason why the Dem thread is a couple of thousand posts longer than the Rep thread...

 

Outside of yourself, most of the top posters are the same in both threads. Hell, I have more posts in the GOP thread than the Dem. Kap has more in the Dem than the GOP. Its a mixed up muddled up shook up world

[southsider2k5]

There's a big surprise. Iran probably never quit working on a nuclear bomb...

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61H4...33:b30795154:z0

 

VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog fears Iran may be working now to develop a nuclear-armed missile, the agency said on Thursday, throwing independent weight behind Western suspicions of an active Iranian weapons program.

 

World

 

In unusually blunt language surfacing under new chief Yukiya Amano, an International Atomic Energy Agency report for the first time suggested Iran was actively chasing nuclear weapons capability rather than merely having done so in the past.

 

The IAEA seemed to be cautiously going public with suspicions arising from a classified agency analysis leaked in part last year which concluded that Iran has already honed explosives expertise relevant to a workable nuclear weapon.

 

The report also confirmed Iran had produced its first, small batch of uranium enriched to a higher purity -- 20 percent.

 

Both developments will intensify pressure on Iran to prove it is not covertly bent on "weaponising" enrichment by allowing unfettered access for IAEA inspectors and investigators, something it rejects in protest at U.N. sanctions.

 

The United States is already leading a push for the U.N. Security Council to impose a fourth round of sanctions on Iran because of suspicions that it may be developing nuclear weapons, and has received declarations of support from Russia, which has until now been reluctant to expand sanctions.

 

Tehran says its nuclear program is meant only to yield electricity or radio-isotopes for agriculture or medicine. It took a diametrically opposing view of the report's conclusions.

 

"The IAEA's new report confirmed Iran's peaceful nuclear activities and the country's non-deviation toward military purposes," Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told the state news agency IRNA.

 

U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the United States did not understand why Iran had refused to "come to the table and engage constructively" over its nuclear program, adding: "You have to draw some conclusions from that."

 

INTELLIGENCE REPORTS

 

The IAEA has been investigating for several years Western intelligence reports indicating Iran has coordinated efforts to process uranium, test explosives at high altitude and revamp a ballistic missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead.

In 2007 the United States issued an assessment saying Iran had halted such research in 2003 and probably not resumed it.

 

But its key Western allies believe Iran continued the program -- and the IAEA report offered independent support for that perception for the first time.

 

"The information available to the agency is extensive, ... broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved," the report said.

 

"Altogether this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

 

Amano is seen as more inclined to confront Iran than his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei, who retired on December 1.

 

"Now we see from (available intelligence) that certain activities may have continued after 2004," said a senior official close to the IAEA. "We want to find out from Iran what they've had to do with these nuclear explosive related activities."

 

The U.S. director of National Intelligence concluded last year that Iran would not be technically able to devise a nuclear weapon before 2013. But a new intelligence estimate is due soon.

 

Iran has dismissed the intelligence reports cited by the IAEA as fabrication, but failed to provide its own evidence. It has boycotted contact with the IAEA on the matter for 18 months.

 

The report, to be considered at a March 1-5 meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board, said it was vital for Iran to cooperate with IAEA investigators "without further delay."

 

HIGHER ENRICHMENT

 

Last week, Iran announced a start to higher-scale enrichment, saying it was frustrated at the collapse of an IAEA-backed plan for big powers to provide it with fuel rods for nuclear medicine made from uranium refined to 20 percent purity.

 

The IAEA report complained that Iran had begun feeding LEU into centrifuges for higher refinement before inspectors could get to the scene in the Natanz pilot enrichment facility.

 

"We have expressed our dissatisfaction (about this)," said the senior official. "It is of paramount importance to have this information in a timely way to make sure there are no undeclared activities or facilities in Iran."

 

The powers accused Iran of reneging on an agreement to ship out two-thirds of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) reserve to be turned into fuel rods for the medical reactor. This would have prevented Iran retaining enough of the material to fuel a nuclear weapon, if it were refined to about 90 percent purity.

 

Only France, one party to the U.N. draft deal, and Argentina are known to possess the technology. So analysts ask why Iran would enrich uranium well above its needs, except to lay the groundwork for producing bomb-grade uranium.

 

The report further said that Iran had increased its LEU stockpile by some 300 kg to 2.06 tons since November -- enough for one or two nuclear bombs if enriched to 90 percent purity.

 

It said over nine-tenths of the LEU stockpile had been earmarked for enrichment up to 20 percent, a significant mark as further enrichment up to 90 percent may need only a few months.

 

But the report also attested to stagnating capacity at Natanz. It said the number of operating centrifuges had dropped to 3,772 from nearly 4,000, a fall of 25 percent over a year.

 

This was well under half of all the machines installed in Natanz, the report indicated. Analysts and diplomats close to the IAEA say Iran may be having serious mechanical problems in keeping thousands of antiquated centrifuges running in unison.

 

But the senior official said Iran appeared to be shifting focus to a second enrichment site at Fordow near Qom, which Iran has said will preserve the program if foes bomb Natanz.

[southsider2k5]

This keeps getting better and better... I wonder if the platform would involve little pink houses for you and me?

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/camp...or-from-indiana

 

John Mellencamp for senator from Indiana

By Brent Budowsky - 02/17/10 12:28 PM ET

 

I first heard the idea of John Cougar Mellencamp running for the Senate in Indiana when Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation advocated this on MSNBC, and I wholeheartedly agree. This is a truly inspired idea. John Mellencamp would make an outstanding and even brilliant United States senator and represents exactly the spirit and soul the Democratic Party should stand for.

 

This is not the time or place for me to critique Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). I will say that when I first came to Washington I worked for his father, Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.), who I believe was one of the greatest senators who ever served. John Mellencamp is one of the great artists of our age. And John Mellemcamp is one of the great advocates of small-town America, of the kind of "square deal" for Americans that Teddy Roosevelt once championed. He is a voice for working people and a champion of farmers who puts his talent, his body and his money behind his words. Mellencamp has long been a great champion of the Farm Aid cause and concerts, along with the extraordinary leadership of his friend and a truly great American, Willie Nelson.

 

Indiana has many fine Democrats who would make good Senate candidates, but John Mellencamp is unique, one of a kind, a voice for the people who believes America needs a new brand of politics and new kind of leadership in the Senate.

 

I am not a Hoosier, but I have ties to the state going back to my years working with Birch Bayh. I believe John Mellencamp would electrify the campaign and electrify Democrats who want a fighter for working people, farmers, small businesses and small-town America to have a loud and clear voice in the Senate.

 

To those working to draft Mellencamp: You are fighting a good and worthy battle and I hope you succeed. America needs champions of justice and fairness and high principle in the Senate. John Mellencamp is exactly the kind of leader and voice our people need to lift the standards of our politics and the spirit of our nation.

[mr_genius]

It wasn't until the GOP decided to abandon financial restraint and the protection of individual freedoms - once the cornerstones of that party - that I was forced to vote more often for Dems. Its not because I liek the Dems, its because they are currently the lesser evil.

 

 

really? so, uh, haven't seen the deficit numbers since the Dems took over eh?

 

i mean, i can understand turning on the GOP over spending, but then voting Dem because you think they will lower spending? not a good plan.

Edited February 19, 2010 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

really? so, uh, haven't seen the deficit numbers since the Dems took over eh?

[mr_genius]

 

LOL

 

what tripled it? nice job.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_bi_ge/us_budget

 

but hey, it is a record!

Edited February 19, 2010 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

LOL

 

what tripled it? nice job.

The bursting of an $8 trillion housing bubble.