The Republican Thread

[EvilMonkey]

why are you posting in the GOP thread so much?

.

Yeah, what he said! Go suck your koolaide in your own thread for a while. Unless all the sweetness has gotten to you and you need a break.

[BigSqwert]

i mean for f***s sake, major media outlets are selling Obama DVD's

 

It's called capitalism. If people weren't buying it they wouldn't sell it.

 

, putting him on the cover of magazines like he's FDR,

 

So Obama is the first President-elect to be put on the front of magazine covers?

 

calling him the greatest president of our generation and he hasn't even been sworn in.

 

Which newspaper or magazine stated that?

[mr_genius]

they aren't unbiased news organizations, they sell campaign merchandise and promote a certain party. there is a big difference putting someone on the cover of a magazine and putting them in the context of a historical figure. if this was McCain on the cover, depicting him as George Washington or Lincoln you would probably understand where I am coming from.

 

i get it, you like your news biased and geared towards your political party. that is fine, buy their stuff and watch their shows. it's no big deal, thats the beauty of how our media works. if you don't like a certain news source you are free to criticize and go to different venues. people are doing just that and the media has polarized itself so much that the competition for pro-Democrat news is causing them to lose viewers/readers. i think it's fine too, these media outlets are free to report as the please.

Edited November 18, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

Guys, with the kind of day I'm having today, I'll just f***ing lock this thread for a few hours until everybody can play nice if you get out of hand. Today is not the day.

[Texsox]

Should all protests at Churches be treated nationally? Are we interested in all protests nationally? My God, to listen to some here the daily newspaper would be 10,000 pages long and cover every damn story from coast to coast.

[mr_genius]

Should all protests at Churches be treated nationally? Are we interested in all protests nationally? My God, to listen to some here the daily newspaper would be 10,000 pages long and cover every damn story from coast to coast.

 

They really can't cover everything, it's up to the news rooms to decide which stories are going to get the most press. Of course news organizations such as FOX and MSNBC will often vary to a great extent as to which news stories are considered most worthy of coverage.

[lostfan]

They really can't cover everything, it's up to the news rooms to decide which stories are going to get the most press. Of course news organizations such as FOX and MSNBC will often vary to a great extent as to which news stories are considered most worthy of coverage.

Clearly you get it, but why the conspiracy theories? Unless it's a character thing you like to slip in and out of like Kap.

[Cknolls]

So in your eyes a story that apparently involved a racial hate crime and theft was not headline worthy but a group of gays throwing pink glitter and condoms at a church should be a major breaking story?

 

 

No. its o.k to interrupt a church service to act like assh****. I wouldn't give them the time of day let alone put their faces on T.V and give them exposure.

[mr_genius]

Clearly you get it, but why the conspiracy theories? Unless it's a character thing you like to slip in and out of like Kap.

 

There's no conspiracy, it's just how the media works.

[lostfan]

There's no conspiracy, it's just how the media works.

It works around their profit margin, the other post I quoted was basically agreeing with me which means that of all the arguments we've had about media bias, we were trying to say the same thing (if that's what you meant).

[southsider2k5]

The remaking of Washington has begun... with a Clinton holdover who was instrumental in pardoning Mark Rich.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_...TPFFifL8BBh24cA

 

Will Clinton pardon of tax fugitive haunt Holder?

 

WASHINGTON – The first black man elected U.S. president is poised to name Washington lawyer Eric Holder as the nation's first black attorney general — a historic appointment but one with some potential political problems over a 2001 pardon.

 

A source close to the selection process said Wednesday that President-elect Barack Obama has "informally" offered the post to Holder, who has accepted. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because no announcement has been made and because the process of vetting the nomination is still going on.

 

Holder, 57, met Obama only four years ago, but the affable Bronx-born son of a Barbados immigrant quickly won a seat in the Democrat's inner circle. If he becomes the next chief U.S. law enforcement officer, Holder will try to win back the public's confidence in the Justice Department — an agency whose fiercely independent image was tarnished by GOP political meddling during the Bush administration.

 

"Internally, there is a morale problem the likes of which I have never seen before," Holder said in an interview late last year. "Externally, there is a crisis of confidence that the nation has with regard to the department."

 

Holder's nomination is expected to be formally announced as soon as this week. He has made no public comment on the nomination, though an Obama official and two Democrats in touch with Obama's transition team on Tuesday confirmed that Holder is the top choice for attorney general.

 

Holder helped lead the team that selected Sen. Joe Biden as Obama's running mate. Throughout his career as a judge, a prosecutor and a defense attorney for the prestigious law firm Covington & Burling, Holder's independence rarely has been questioned. But one of his final acts as President Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general in 2001 could come back to haunt him as he seeks Senate confirmation for the Justice Department's top job.

 

On the last day of Clinton's term, Holder told the White House he was "neutral, leaning toward favorable" for a presidential pardon for Marc Rich, a wealthy commodities dealer who had spent years running from tax charges. Rich's ex-wife, Denise, was a prominent Democratic Party donor.

 

It turned out to be a bad call. The pardon provoked howls of protests and a congressional investigation over whether it was politically motivated. Holder later publicly apologized for what he called a snap decision and said he would have advised against it had he paid more attention to the case.

 

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will vote on Holder's nomination, said the pardon "would be a factor to consider."

 

"I wouldn't want to articulate it among the top items but it's worthwhile to look at," he told reporters Tuesday, adding that it is "too soon for me to say" whether Holder would be a satisfactory attorney general.

 

Added Sen. Jeff Sessions, a conservative Republican from Alabama: "I like him and I would hope that nothing comes up that would jeopardize his nomination if he were nominated. But he'll have to answer questions and his record will speak for itself."

 

With Democrats in control of the Senate, however, Holder's confirmation would be virtually assured.

 

Holder "would make an outstanding nominee, and should have the support of senators from both sides of the aisle if President-elect Obama were to choose him for this critical position," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

 

Since Obama's election, Holder has privately told colleagues he is concerned the Rich pardon would bloody his nomination hearings and further strain the department's credibility. Still, he is widely respected in legal circles and among Justice Department career lawyers.

 

In 1988, GOP President Ronald Reagan appointed Holder to the bench in Washington's Superior Court. Six years later, as U.S. attorney in Washington, Holder's office indicted then-Democratic House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, who ended up pleading guilty in 1996 to mail fraud. And the Senate unanimously confirmed Holder in 1997 for the Justice Department's No. 2 post.

 

In private practice, Holder represented the NFL in the Justice Department's dogfighting prosecution against Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. He brokered a settlement for Merck & Co. Inc. for Medicaid fraud charges brought by five states.

 

Some of his cases remain in front of the Justice Department. Holder is handling civil case negotiations for the Chiquita International Brands, which claims it was forced to agree to a plea deal and $25 million fine to avoid indictment over security payments the company made to a right-wing Colombian paramilitary group that the U.S. government designated as a terrorist group.

 

___

 

Associated Press writer Ben Evans contributed to this report.

[kapkomet]

The remaking of Washington has begun... with a Clinton holdover who was instrumental in pardoning Mark Rich.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_...TPFFifL8BBh24cA

CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE!

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

There may have been less Clinton retreads around if Hillary herself were elected!

[Cknolls]

This is interesting:

 

Fascinating ramification of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano leaving her state to become Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security: "Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer would serve the remaining two years of Napolitano's term, as next-in-line to the governorship. Brewer, a former state legislator, would appoint a replacement for secretary of state."

 

A source in the state GOP tells me his reaction:

 

Since Arizona is experiencing a budget crisis, how much of this was a desire to "get out of town" before a meltdown ruins her reputation? ... We will now have a Republican governor because the Secretary of State is Jan Brewer. Since we control both of the houses of the legislature, a lot of bills that were vetoed by Napolitino will probably pass. Personally I can't imagine the Dems giving up a governor's mansion.

 

The Democrats have lost their best candidate in Arizona. Napolitano was a canny politician who knew how to outflank the GOP. I think going to Washington and taking up Homeland security will not be a boon to her future political career. Several Republicans were lining up to run for governor in 2010. With Jan Brewer as an incumbent, they may modify their plans.

 

The top of the Arizona GOP ticket in 2010 (Brewer and McCain) should help down ticket.

 

In the meantime, I just glad we are getting her out of the state. Who said that the Obama Presidency would be all bad?

 

[Cknolls]

pcHarmony.com [Mark Steyn]

 

 

This doesn't seem an encouraging development:

 

The Pasadena-based dating website, heavily promoted by Christian evangelical leaders when it was founded, has agreed in a civil rights settlement to give up its heterosexuals-only policy and offer same-sex matches.

 

EHarmony was started by psychologist Neil Clark Warren, who is known for his mild-mannered television and radio advertisements. It must not only implement the new policy by March 31 but also give the first 10,000 same-sex registrants a free six-month subscription.

 

“That was one of the things I asked for,” said Eric McKinley, 46, who complained to New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights after being turned down for a subscription in 2005.

 

I don't know Mr. McKinley's taste in men, but this would have been a less predictable case had he attempted to acquire a Muslim boyfriend at, say, singlemuslim.com. Indeed, Mr. Warren and his colleagues at eHarmony might have been better advised to convert to Islam and claim the right to have the case settled by one of the west's fast multiplying Sharia courts, which are (to put it mildly) less antipathetic to "heterosexism". As the Belmont Club comments:

 

Sharia law is at heart a desire to live outside the system and while its spread is probably a bad thing for the West, one wonders how much the paralyzing and expensive effect of excessive litigation and over regulation in Western society has driven the rise of parallel private institutions.

 

There'll be more of that in the years ahead. As Michelle Malkin says, the eHarmony settlement is like a meat-eater going to a vegetarian restaurant and demanding a ribeye. The "tolerance" enforcers are jeopardizing the very possibility of any shared societal space. Good luck with that.

 

 

[kapkomet]

pcHarmony.com [Mark Steyn]

 

 

This doesn't seem an encouraging development:

 

The Pasadena-based dating website, heavily promoted by Christian evangelical leaders when it was founded, has agreed in a civil rights settlement to give up its heterosexuals-only policy and offer same-sex matches.

 

EHarmony was started by psychologist Neil Clark Warren, who is known for his mild-mannered television and radio advertisements. It must not only implement the new policy by March 31 but also give the first 10,000 same-sex registrants a free six-month subscription.

 

“That was one of the things I asked for,” said Eric McKinley, 46, who complained to New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights after being turned down for a subscription in 2005.

 

I don't know Mr. McKinley's taste in men, but this would have been a less predictable case had he attempted to acquire a Muslim boyfriend at, say, singlemuslim.com. Indeed, Mr. Warren and his colleagues at eHarmony might have been better advised to convert to Islam and claim the right to have the case settled by one of the west's fast multiplying Sharia courts, which are (to put it mildly) less antipathetic to "heterosexism". As the Belmont Club comments:

 

Sharia law is at heart a desire to live outside the system and while its spread is probably a bad thing for the West, one wonders how much the paralyzing and expensive effect of excessive litigation and over regulation in Western society has driven the rise of parallel private institutions.

 

There'll be more of that in the years ahead. As Michelle Malkin says, the eHarmony settlement is like a meat-eater going to a vegetarian restaurant and demanding a ribeye. The "tolerance" enforcers are jeopardizing the very possibility of any shared societal space. Good luck with that.

You know what kills me about this? There's 100's of sites out there for people like this to meet, if they chose to, but some asshole goes out there and "sues" for equal rights. What a f***ing society we live in.

 

[Rex Kickass]

This was a bulls*** case.

[mr_genius]

pcHarmony.com [Mark Steyn]

 

 

This doesn't seem an encouraging development:

 

The Pasadena-based dating website, heavily promoted by Christian evangelical leaders when it was founded, has agreed in a civil rights settlement to give up its heterosexuals-only policy and offer same-sex matches.

 

EHarmony was started by psychologist Neil Clark Warren, who is known for his mild-mannered television and radio advertisements. It must not only implement the new policy by March 31 but also give the first 10,000 same-sex registrants a free six-month subscription.

 

“That was one of the things I asked for,” said Eric McKinley, 46, who complained to New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights after being turned down for a subscription in 2005.

 

I don't know Mr. McKinley's taste in men, but this would have been a less predictable case had he attempted to acquire a Muslim boyfriend at, say, singlemuslim.com. Indeed, Mr. Warren and his colleagues at eHarmony might have been better advised to convert to Islam and claim the right to have the case settled by one of the west's fast multiplying Sharia courts, which are (to put it mildly) less antipathetic to "heterosexism". As the Belmont Club comments:

 

Sharia law is at heart a desire to live outside the system and while its spread is probably a bad thing for the West, one wonders how much the paralyzing and expensive effect of excessive litigation and over regulation in Western society has driven the rise of parallel private institutions.

 

There'll be more of that in the years ahead. As Michelle Malkin says, the eHarmony settlement is like a meat-eater going to a vegetarian restaurant and demanding a ribeye. The "tolerance" enforcers are jeopardizing the very possibility of any shared societal space. Good luck with that.

 

 

of course

[StrangeSox]

I would like to hear the legal reasoning on this one. The courts have ruled that private organizations (like the Boy Scouts) can discriminate against gays and atheists in the past.

 

I don't get the second half of that article launching into a rant about Muslims and Sharia law.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would like to hear the legal reasoning on this one. The courts have ruled that private organizations (like the Boy Scouts) can discriminate against gays and atheists in the past.

 

I don't get the second half of that article launching into a rant about Muslims and Sharia law.

The article is laced with laughable bias and hate. That said, I agree with the principle that this was a terrible civil court decision. EHarmony is private, and should be able to cater to whatever customers it chooses.

 

[StrangeSox]

The article is laced with laughable bias and hate. That said, I agree with the principle that this was a terrible civil court decision. EHarmony is private, and should be able to cater to whatever customers it chooses.

Anything that uses Malkin as a source of wisdom is highly questionable, but I agree that, on the surface, this seems like a bad precedent. It was a settlement, not a court ruling, though.

[NorthSideSox72]

Anything that uses Malkin as a source of wisdom is highly questionable, but I agree that, on the surface, this seems like a bad precedent. It was a settlement, not a court ruling, though.

You are correct - my mistake.

 

[juddling]

To me, there are so many things wrong with this story it's not funny......

 

No insurance....no OU football tickets

[clyons]

I would like to hear the legal reasoning on this one. The courts have ruled that private organizations (like the Boy Scouts) can discriminate against gays and atheists in the past.

I assume its because eharmony is an internet site that makes money for its hosts. This places it in "interstate commerce" and distinguishes it from a true private, non-profit like the Scouts. There also may be isses under the various telecommunications laws.

 

As to the argument that they have "their own" dating sites, "separate but equal" was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago.

 

Not defending, just responding.

[EvilMonkey]

I assume its because eharmony is an internet site that makes money for its hosts. This places it in "interstate commerce" and distinguishes it from a true private, non-profit like the Scouts. There also may be isses under the various telecommunications laws.

 

As to the argument that they have "their own" dating sites, "separate but equal" was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago.

 

Not defending, just responding.

So a straight guy could go sue a gay hookup site if they refused to hook him up with a woman?