November 30, 2011

Top Headline Comments 11-30-11
— Gabriel Malor

Some news items to get you started:

Police have mostly cleared out Occupy L.A. The city is officially "renovating" the park for the conceivable future. As of 30 minutes ago, there had been 104 arrests and 2 minor use-of-force incidents.

In the Senate, a bipartisan vote kills the progressives' attempt to strip a measure from the defense bill that will put most Al Qaeda terrorists in military custody. Obama bitterly opposes keeping Al Qaeda detainees in exclusive military custody and has vowed to veto the bill. Cloture vote is scheduled for today, with final passage predicted for tomorrow.

It will be telling if Obama goes through with a veto. As with his desire to close Gitmo, a majority of public is against him. He flinched on Gitmo. Complicating his decision now is that he risks further alienating his progressive base just as the election winds up. And if he truly is abandoning the white, middle class in favor of a coalition of the yuppified progressive elite and minority groups, he's going to have to throw them a bone every now and then. This explains his recent anti-prosperity Keystone XL decision.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:00 AM | Comments (174)
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Gabe beat me to the ows LA stuff but...

Ongoing fight over the detainee provisions in the defense bill

I have not seen this bill so I don’t know the exact provisions however, it would appear it calls for the military to detain American citizens without trial indefinitely.  These provisions were written by McCain and Graham, not two of my favorite people.

 Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced legislation Tuesday that would prohibit any American captured by the U.S. military in its war on terrorism from being held indefinitely without trial, this in the wake of an overwhelming bipartisan defeat of a measure that would have stripped language from a massive defense spending bill that requires military custody for individuals suspected of being members of al Qaeda or its affiliates.

This is one time I agree with Feinstein (who is being supported by Rand Paul).  This bill is blatantly unconstitutional. And the real pisser is that it is so damn unnecessary. The reason the assholes are pushing it is because they refuse to to try anyone for treason. The constitution is clear, when you take up arms against the country you are guilty of treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

I suspect the “two witnesses” provision is what has them all excited, although I would think the arresting personnel could be witnesses. But if that is the case then perhaps congress can write a new law for this that provides the death penalty and call it actively supporting terrorists in attempting to murder U.S. citizens.

We do not want to give the federal government the authority to arrest and permanently detain citizens inside the U.S. without a trial. Arrest on the battlefield with the enemy is a different matter all together though. They are now prisoners of war, as well as treasonous assholes.

Oh, and quit giving citizenship to foreign nationals from terror sponsoring countries and that will go a long way to curing this problem.

BTW, the bill to give the military that authority did pass 61-37. For the life of me I can not figure out why Obama would be opposed to this provision.


Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:03 AM (YdQQY)

2 This explains his recent anti-prosperity Keystone XL decision. Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:00 AM

What am I? Chopped liver?

Posted by: SCoaMF's Marxist Ideology at November 30, 2011 02:03 AM (KI/Ch)

3

Romney - pot-kettle-black

Romney on Tuesday lodged his first attack on his surging rival, Newt Gingrich, by labeling the former House speaker “a lifelong politician” and suggesting he lacks credibility on the economy.

How about lifelong Presidential candidate who has no credibility on anything? I say a pox on both their houses.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:04 AM (YdQQY)

4

Cain supporters dropping out

Rep. William Panek called the Cain campaign Tuesday morning to say he was dropping his endorsement, telling CNN he will shift his support to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich instead.

Why Newt? Oh, this is NH.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:04 AM (YdQQY)

5

Republicans now say they will support the payroll tax holiday, but haven't said how it will be paid for

Senate Republicans will offer a new proposal to extend the payroll tax holiday as they battle with Democrats for supremacy on taxes. 

Obviously they are not going to cut spending, we know that already.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:05 AM (YdQQY)

6

Holder loses it at DC reporter, looks like his days are numbered

Embattled Attorney General Eric Holder today demanded The Daily Caller stop publishing articles about the growing calls in Congress for his resignation because of the failed Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking program.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:05 AM (YdQQY)

7

If anyone didn't know the major reason why Romney can never get much above 20% here it is

Mitt Romney refused to criticize his Massachusetts health-care program tonight, saying he would prefer to lose the primary rather than renounce it.

If we can get some of the also rans to drop out he will lose. The only way he wins is to have a repeat of 2008 and that will be a disaster.  I watched his interview and he told one lie after another.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:06 AM (YdQQY)

8

Gingrich leads in latest SC poll

According to an Insider Advantage poll of 519 registered voters, Gingrich, in fact, has a commanding lead – 38 percent to only 15 percent for onetime S.C. leader, Mitt Romney, and 13 percent for another onetime S.C. leader, Herman Cain.

Newt shouldn’t be counting his chickens yet though. The last poll that we got to see the internals on here said 75% of the polled were likely to change their vote before the primary. I can not see how anyone who calls themselves a conservative can support Newt.  He is just as much a big government liberal as Romney.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:06 AM (YdQQY)

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:06 AM (YdQQY)

10  I watched his interview and he told one lie after another.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 07:06 AM (YdQQY)

You say that as if it's a bad thing...

Posted by: mittens at November 30, 2011 02:07 AM (smit2)

11

One wonders if this article is true.

Especially this part concerning major U.S. banks

As such, they can go on borrowing money from the Federal Reserve at 0% and loaning it to the US government at 2%– a practice that has essentially become the banks’ core business.

Why would the U.S. treasury need to borrow from the banks. The fed is buying all their bonds now?  Or are they going at the borrowing route in a two-fisted manner?

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:07 AM (YdQQY)

12

And finally this from the ONT I have to dispute:

The reason McCain lost was because he lost the moderates in the middle. They went overwhelmingly for Obama.

This is BS, there is no slew of “independent” moderates in the middle who flip flop back and forth. Medved is FOS and he is the myth. While it is true that overall Republican votes went up, one can not just look at the vote totals. Total votes do not determine the outcome of the race. One must look at the key States that switched from Red to Blue between 2004 and 2008. In all those States the total republican vote went down despite overall votes going up. So what does that tell you? A bunch of the base stayed at home.

Not only does the Party leadership not want you to know they really do influence who the candidate is going to be but they want to baffle you with this BS. So how do the influence who the nominee will be? They control which States go first and the rules for the primaries.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:08 AM (YdQQY)

13 I have not seen this bill so I don’t know the exact provisions however, it would appear it calls for the military to detain American citizens without trial indefinitely.

The military already has the authority to detain indefinitely US citizens who are Al Qaeda terrorists. This was hashed out during the Bush 43 Administration.  See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The new bill doesn't change that. What it changes is that it limits Obama's ability to transfer them from military custody (where they can get military trials) to civilian custody (where they will be tried by the courts).

The compromise worked out by Sens. McCain and Levin will let Obama make such transfers, but he would have to publicly announce that he's "waiving" their military detention. This would require that he take full responsibility for the outcome (including not guilty verdicts) of moving detainees to civilian custody. So, of course, Obama hates the idea.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 02:08 AM (XVaFd)

14

And that’s the news for today. Still not much out there but more than yesterday. I will be leaving for “The City” for my next poison session in about an hour.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:08 AM (YdQQY)

15 The military already has the authority to detain indefinitely US citizens who are Al Qaeda terrorists.

I was thinking the part about detaining citizens on U.S. soil indefinitely was new. I knew they were doing it overseas when captured in battle.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:11 AM (YdQQY)

Posted by: Doctor Fish at November 30, 2011 02:13 AM (Lt/Za)

17 Just so I am clear, I am totally opposed to giving the U.S. government the authority to arrest and detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and hold them without a trial.  Who should determine that they are "terrorists".

There is a reason we have trials and a reason we have a constitution.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:15 AM (YdQQY)

18 Just read in the paper that Medal of Honor winner Dakota Meyer is suing BAE Systems, his former employer. Everyone should form their own opinion, but my personal one is that once Mr. Meyer started complaining in a way that would hurt the company if he went public, they tried their best to destroy him. It is also my opinion that this is standard practice at BAE, and is something they think is effective and works. This company needs to be seriously looked at. 

Posted by: No body at November 30, 2011 02:21 AM (nPr20)

19 Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan with Al Queda so he would fall under the "caught in the act" provisions.

Also, he held dual citizenship with Saudi Arabia so the part about giving citizenship to people from terror supporting countries falls into play as well.

But my question still remains. Why in the hell was he not tried for treason? Why are we giving up parts of the Constitution because we are too chickenshit to try these assholes for treason?

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:21 AM (YdQQY)

20 Honestly, the Newt support makes a lot more sense than the Cain nonsense, but that's only from people who aren't old enough to remember him as Speaker Gingrich. Sure, he sounds great...sometimes. But people who don't know this don't seem to understand its significance: Newt still has no money and no organization. Glib debate performances only take you so far. Wait until the non-political types start paying attention. Polls change.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 30, 2011 02:21 AM (Gc/Qi)

21 Tea Party Guy: "I don't like Obama."
Fed Cop: "So you're for the terrorists?"
Tea Party Guy: "What does that have to do with it?"
Fed Cop: "Well need to question you further. You're under arrest."
Tea Party Guy: "For what?!"

Tea Party Guy's wife: "Hello police. My husband is missing."
Cops: "When was the last time you saw him?"
Tea Party Guy's wife: "Yesterday when he left for work."
Cops: "Lots of that lately lady. We might be in touch. Just move on with your life."

Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at November 30, 2011 02:23 AM (j5CHE)

22 Did anyone see that video of Chris Christie calling out Obumbles on not being a leader with regards to the failure of the super committee?  I know some of you guys think he's a RINO, but I think the dude is awesome..

So, how far out of the realm of possibilities is this scenario:  We go through the whole primary season and not one candidate gets enough votes to clinch the nomination, and Christie becomes the consensus candidate?

Yes.. I'm dreaming..


Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 30, 2011 02:23 AM (UTq/I)

23 Just so I am clear, I am totally opposed to giving the U.S. government the authority to arrest and detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and hold them without a trial.

What difference does it make that a U.S. citizen is on U.S. soil? Shouldn't we have the same constitutional protections from our own government whether we are here or abroad?

If we can detain a U.S. citizen who is an Al Qaeda terrorist abroad, I see no reason that we cannot detain a U.S. citizen who is an Al Qaeda terrorist at home. SCOTUS says we can do the former; so should be able to do the latter.

As far as "Who should determine that they are "terrorists"." They get Combatant Status Reviews and limited habeas petitions to the courts. That's sufficient.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 02:24 AM (XVaFd)

24 Just so I am clear, I am totally opposed to giving the U.S. government the authority to arrest and detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and hold them without a trial.  Who should determine that they are "terrorists".

There is a reason we have trials and a reason we have a constitution.
Posted by: Vic
...........
Me too. 

But I am confused about this bill.  Is that what it authorizes?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 30, 2011 02:26 AM (UTq/I)

25 What difference does it make that a U.S. citizen is on U.S. soil? Shouldn't we have the same constitutional protections from our own government whether we are here or abroad?

The difference is that he was caught in a battlefield fighting against U.S. troops. At that point he becomes a combatant and subject to military trial. 

As far as "Who should determine that they are "terrorists"." They get Combatant Status Reviews and limited habeas petitions to the courts. That's sufficient.

I don't agree. This is a damn dangerous precedent.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:27 AM (YdQQY)

26

But my question still remains. Why in the hell was he not tried for treason? Why are we giving up parts of the Constitution because we are too chickenshit to try these assholes for treason?

We're also too chickenshit to execute any of them. Under the Geneva Conventions, any "illegal enemy combatant" i.e. anyone caught on the field of battle with no uniform, can be executed on the spot or at any time thereafter with no trial, no detainment and no consequences.

Why we aren't doing this befuddles me no end. Common sense would dictate that if we killed enough of them, they'd stop wanting to fight us as a famous WW II General once said.

Why are we fighting the WOT by their rules, not ours?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 30, 2011 02:29 AM (d0Tfm)

27 From the linked article:

The White House has threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act for several reasons, not the least of which is the detainee provisions. In strong language, the Administration has warned that the bill's requirements, including mandatory military custody for those detained on any battlefield, including inside the United States, would greatly hinder its ongoing operations.


Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:29 AM (YdQQY)

28 Jeez, anyone looked at Drudge this morning? He seems to be on the Newt bandwagon...or campaign staff.

Newt is unacceptable as the GOP nominee...unless the only other choice turns out to be Mutt. I'm still with Perry...me and about 3 dozen others nationwide, seems like. Apparently, the GOP electorate is hunting for a game show host this cycle instead of a president.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at November 30, 2011 02:31 AM (rLhp2)

29 And I will repeat, we created this damn problem ourselves, first with changing the law to allow dual citizenship, then with importing all these Middle Eastern people from terror countries and giving them citizenship.

There are some laws that need changing and we will not have to murder the Constitution to do it.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:32 AM (YdQQY)

30 Good luck with your poison session, Vic.

Posted by: San Antonio Rose at November 30, 2011 02:33 AM (3bJHs)

31 Why in the hell was he not tried for treason? Why are we giving up parts of the Constitution because we are too chickenshit to try these assholes for treason?

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 07:21 AM (YdQQY)

Let me suggest that no president wants to sign a Death Warrant.  The last military execution was of Private Bennett in 1961. He was convicted of rape and murder.

The reason the trial of Major Nidal Hasan has been repeatedly delayed is to give Obama cover to avoid signing the Death Warrant. 


Posted by: Doctor Fish at November 30, 2011 02:33 AM (Lt/Za)

32

Why are we fighting the WOT by their rules, not ours?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 30, 2011 07:29 AM (d0Tfm)

Because our political leadership has the spine of a jellyfish - both parties...Bush, if anything, was worse about this than the SCoaMF has been...how many times did that dipstick spout "Religion of Peace"? - and our political leaders and large swaths of the American public have lost confidence in our culture and belief system, and many/most of them have very little or no idea what is right or wrong anymore.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at November 30, 2011 02:35 AM (rLhp2)

33

Good luck with your poison session, Vic.

Same here. Off, mine, salt, some assembly required.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 30, 2011 02:36 AM (d0Tfm)

34 Vic, what do you do about people who are caught manufacturing bombs under AQ sponsorship in the US?

The reason that they want them under military custody is that in the civil justice system,  the defense attorneys end up with a whole bunch of intelligence on how we discovered them, how we tracked them and monitored them,  etc.  This info goes straight to Al Qaeda. 

If the prosecution doesn't release this information,  there isn't enough evidence and the terrorist walks.

This was why Bush had them put down in Gitmo rather than bringing them here for trial.  To my thinking, this is one of those things that is a real problem either way.

Posted by: Miss Marple at November 30, 2011 02:39 AM (GoIUi)

35 16
Evil SFO Mickey D's Skirts Happy Meal Toy Ban With Cunning Work Around

Posted by: Doctor Fish at November 30, 2011 07:13 AM (Lt/Za)

Heh...stoopid hippies hardest hit.

Posted by: billygoat at November 30, 2011 02:39 AM (smit2)

36 Hang in there, Vic. I hope it goes well today. Good morning, 'rons and 'ettes! Chilly this morning just outside the Beltway.

Posted by: MDH3 at November 30, 2011 02:40 AM (GKyUC)

37

The primaries will boil down to Mitt and the anti-Mitt, with neither side willing to back down.  Salon and Politico have already posted articles on how this year’s GOP rule changes make it far more likely that we could go through the entire primary and not have a candidate with enough votes to get the nomination.

 

This leaves us with a brokered convention.  After the first ballot that fails, all the delegates are free to vote for whoever they want.  I can’t imagine the anti-Mitt forces being convinced that they should come over to Mitt’s side, and conversely it’s improbable that the Mitt people will switch to a Newt or Perry. 

 

Who would be the compromise candidate that (most) everyone could agree on?

Posted by: jwest at November 30, 2011 02:40 AM (qeYI9)

38 This is one time I agree with Feinstein (who is being supported by Rand Paul).  This bill is blatantly unconstitutional.

This. Any bill supported by McCain and Levin is not good for America and our liberty.

Posted by: Barbarian at November 30, 2011 02:40 AM (EL+OC)

39 Chi-Town Jerry, If you're still around, this made me think of you the other day. Actually, it made me think I needed to send this to somebody I know, but I couldn't remember who until last night because I was focusing on IRL people. I've spent so many years taking things out of spreadsheets into "proper" systems that the concepts behind this are intriguing.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at November 30, 2011 02:40 AM (p7SSh)

40 You realize Gabe, they're already of the opinion that anyone who opposes any part of their agenda is a terrorist and have used that EXACT language in public discourse. This is about putting people like you into indefinite detention during a war that will never end.

Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at November 30, 2011 02:41 AM (j5CHE)

41

Why are we fighting the WOT by their rules, not ours?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 30, 2011 07:29 AM (d0Tfm)

It's what 'we' do. Repubs fight Dems with Dem rules. With all due respect to Vic, i did not agree that it was a mistake for Cain to "pull the race card". We can't win a basket ball game when the opposing team can tackle you.

Posted by: Cicerokid at November 30, 2011 02:43 AM (zmJCR)

42 Thanks all on the poison sessions.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:45 AM (YdQQY)

43 good luck Vic with the poison

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2011 02:47 AM (s7mIC)

44 How much would you have to be paid to become a liberal?

Posted by: Jon at November 30, 2011 02:49 AM (t4YF+)

45 Vic, what do you do about people who are caught manufacturing bombs under AQ sponsorship in the US?

Again we created the problem. Make all trials for terror that involve secret intelligence to be vetted by a judge and then no evidence released to a defense attorney that is classified.

BTW, manufactoring bombs, whether sponsored by Al Queda or not is already against the law. And if yu use one to kill someone they are eligable for the death penalty.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:49 AM (YdQQY)

46 Gabriel, I think the problem with your argument that Hamdi v. Rumsfeld isn't changed by this law is flimsy. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was a decision made interpreting a prior law. Stare decisis only applies when interpreting new cases under the same law. New laws care nothing for stare decisis. This is a new law, offering a new opportunity for different interpretation. It could very well come to pass that a similar case arises, and the court determines under this law that, yes, it IS ok to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial or habeus corpus. There should be no question that an amendment be added to this bill to cover the American citizen bases. I have no idea why you'd argue otherwise.

Posted by: Paul Kroenke at November 30, 2011 02:50 AM (V+9zP)

47

Three inches of global warming on the porch this morning. Just six miles east there was 8 inches and six miles west there was none!

2 hour school delay. Time for an extra pot of coffee.

Posted by: Cicerokid at November 30, 2011 02:50 AM (zmJCR)

48 Salon and Politico have already posted articles on how this year’s GOP rule changes make it far more likely that we could go through the entire primary and not have a candidate with enough votes to get the nomination.

They are FOS. Once we get past the Mar 1 date it will move rapidly into Super Tuesday. And unless we still have a hopeless 5 way split it will be over after that.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:51 AM (YdQQY)

49
From the LA Times crawl:

Occupy L.A.: Police use cherry picker to pluck protesters from trees



Certainly hope nobody gets dropped - Ooops!

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 02:51 AM (oBrVT)

50 We go through the whole primary season and not one candidate gets enough votes to clinch the nomination, and Christie becomes the consensus candidate? None of the serious current GOP candidates are on my stay home list. Christie would be. Christie is a happy warrior and he is a fiscal hero, but he is also a gun-grabber, and I think he would restrict RKBA in exchange for a deal with the left on some other priority. The strongest piece of magic in a politician's bag of tricks is selling-out his base. If a gun-grabbing democrat moves against RKBA, the gun rights people will have the aid of the reflexive resistance from the rest of the right. If a gun-grabbing GOPer moves against RKBA as part of a deal with the left, the gun rights people will effectively stand alone with so-called allies insisting we back down and be reasonable. Not gonna happen.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at November 30, 2011 02:52 AM (p7SSh)

51 Where are the kitteh headlines? Where are the puppeh headlines?

Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 02:53 AM (p8B53)

52 Well folks, time to go. Back this afternoon.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 02:54 AM (YdQQY)

53 Be safe, Vic!

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at November 30, 2011 02:54 AM (p7SSh)

54 Watching the live ustream feed by one of the occupiers as they try to remove the occutards from their treehouse. She's dumb as a box of rocks.

Posted by: Countrysquire for Perry at November 30, 2011 02:54 AM (QB3JR)

55 And if yu use one to kill someone they are eligable for the death penalty.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 07:49 AM (YdQQY)

Or to hold a fundraiser.

Posted by: Billy Ayers, ESQ. at November 30, 2011 02:55 AM (fDGF1)

56 Giving more power to the government is always a good idea, especially when it is engaged in a culture war against some of its own citizens.  As smiling Janet Napolitano said, many of those  US military returning from overseas tours are very likely to engage in suspicious activity and will need to be watched very carefully.
Throwing dissenters/terrorists in prison indefinitely without trials has worked well in every country in which it has been tried (see Union, Soviet).  Public trials and sentences of  treason, with an implemented death sentence, just leave unnecessary paper trails and might alarm the sheep populace.

Posted by: DHS Administraitor at November 30, 2011 02:55 AM (i3+c5)

57

And the real pisser is that it is so damn unnecessary. The reason the assholes are pushing it is because they refuse to to try anyone for treason. The constitution is clear, when you take up arms against the country you are guilty of treason.

 

I think the charge cuts a little too close for some in Congress.  They don't want to open up a can of whupass which could be turned on themselves.

Posted by: Truman North at November 30, 2011 02:56 AM (I2LwF)

58

Watching the live ustream feed by one of the occupiers as they try to remove the occutards from their treehouse. She's dumb as a box of rocks.

But is she hawt?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2011 02:56 AM (sbV1u)

59 45 How much would you have to be paid to become a liberal?

Posted by: Jon at November 30, 2011 07:49 AM (t4YF+)

An interesting question...and one that friends of mine have kicked around as we've aged.  If we as (nearing retirement aged) 50 yo somethings had any brains we'd all vote for D's because of all the goodies they give away to various groups...retirees being a large constituency.  However, we've all concluded (and vote) in the opposite direction...just...can't...do...it.  So my answer is there's no amount of money -- it is just too contrary to my life and the journey through same.

...and now off to the slaveship!

Posted by: billygoat at November 30, 2011 02:57 AM (smit2)

60

Some US citizens might go missing.

Posted by: Jon at November 30, 2011 02:57 AM (t4YF+)

61

Some Many US citizens might go missing.

Posted by: Jon at November 30, 2011 07:57 AM (t4YF+)

FIFY

Posted by: DHS Administraitor at November 30, 2011 02:59 AM (i3+c5)

62 Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT
......
Thanks!  I'll have a look.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 30, 2011 03:00 AM (UTq/I)

63 nothing like a little early a.m. paranoia to get the day off to a good start...

Posted by: DJ Monghee at November 30, 2011 03:00 AM (Zb6Vo)

64
Occupy LA:

Police had already begun to demobilize, and officers lined up to board buses back to their staging area at Dodger Stadium.

Before boarding the buses, many of the officers dipped their shoes into shallow decontamination pools.




Had to shoe douche to get the hippy filth off the bottom of their shoes? Good Lord, what a cesspool the City Hall lawn must be.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 03:02 AM (oBrVT)

65 Prayers for you Vic, hope all is well.

Posted by: moki at November 30, 2011 03:03 AM (dZmFh)

66 Well, I jes better get malazy ass off to work..   Have a good day all!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 30, 2011 03:03 AM (UTq/I)

67

Had to shoe douche to get the hippy filth off the bottom of their shoes?

Make your world beautiful.

Power wash a hippie today.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2011 03:04 AM (sbV1u)

68 Doug Ross has some more Fast & Furious timeline stuff, with Holder's chief of staff meeting 4 times with the SCoaMF in May 2010.
 
The net is tightening. Now if only the MBM could find the time between hunting for dirt on R candidates to do their fucking jobs.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2011 03:05 AM (ENKCw)

69

Moochelle dines on "edible chocolate statue"

In my day, they called that a big-ass candy bar

Posted by: Truman North at November 30, 2011 03:05 AM (I2LwF)

70
Occupy LA:

The Los Angeles Police Department's raid at the Occupy L.A. camp included officials in white latex hazmat suits.

Officials said the protective dress was needed out of concern some protesters might fling urine and feces at them as they began to clear out the park.



Well, my goodness....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 03:06 AM (oBrVT)

71 Second look at Trump?

Posted by: Doomsayer at November 30, 2011 03:07 AM (xIzGn)

Posted by: Truman North at November 30, 2011 03:07 AM (I2LwF)

73 Trump laid into Obama.

Posted by: Doomsayer at November 30, 2011 03:07 AM (KwX0v)

74 Mumbles Menino is gearing up to close down the Occupoopers in Boston.

Posted by: Doomsayer at November 30, 2011 03:09 AM (LPRBM)

75 Menino couldn't close his mouth if a giant dick was heading into it.  This came from higher up.  Like, the White House.

Posted by: Truman North at November 30, 2011 03:11 AM (I2LwF)

76 I can't believe occupooper girl is whining that the place is a mess. You had the chance to take it down but yu passed. The hazmat people are searching for drugs and other toxic material that can't be dumped into the trash.

Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 03:11 AM (p8B53)

77 In Philadelphia, an incompetent former school superintendent who looks like Wesley Snipes drag-character in Too Wong, Thanks for Everything, got a $905,000 payout from her $346,000 a year job, and then, in a show of pure Chutzpah, applied for unemployment benefits.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 30, 2011 03:12 AM (AQD6a)

78 Beauty killed the Beast but it was Human Feces that killed the Occupy movement.

Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 03:13 AM (p8B53)

79 I concur, ol chum. These Occupy 'cities' are showing the people what life would be like under the control of full socialism. We'd all be living in tents, shitting like dogs, and scrounging for scraps. That's some utopia.

Posted by: Doomsayer at November 30, 2011 03:16 AM (j7IJ7)

80 We'd all be living in tents, shitting like dogs, and scrounging for scraps. That's some utopia.

Occutopia!  We are the 99%!!!!!

Posted by: Occupoopers at November 30, 2011 03:17 AM (s7mIC)

81
BTW - AP is reporting 1400 cops took part in the Occupy LA raid.

God knows what last night's crime stats are going to look like for the rest of the city while The Man was busy rousting the bums.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 03:18 AM (oBrVT)

82 Occupy. This is our future. This is our future on socialism.

Posted by: Doomsayer at November 30, 2011 03:18 AM (052zE)

83 Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure kills thousands of horses with pen.

Horse slaughter plants have become legal again, after Congress quietly unbridled restrictions on processing horse meat. The Stuttering Clusterfuck signed the enabling bill on Nov. 18.
My wife is beside herself on this.  We own horses, she rescues horses, and the SCOAMF kills them.  She said, Obama is the most unAmerican president I've ever seen.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 03:22 AM (51Nv7)

84 I'm right over here guys...

Posted by: TPaw at November 30, 2011 03:24 AM (Zb6Vo)

85 Mittens doesn't lie; he shapes the truth.

Posted by: RINOs for Perfectly Coiffed Hair at November 30, 2011 03:24 AM (/ZZCn)

86 77 In Philadelphia, an incompetent former school superintendent who looks like Wesley Snipes drag-character in Too Wong, Thanks for Everything, got a $905,000 payout from her $346,000 a year job, and then, in a show of pure Chutzpah, applied for unemployment benefits. Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 30, 2011 08:12 AM (AQD6a) The article also states she gets retirement, plus pay for unused annual leave and sick days. Apparently the district ran up a 603 million dollar deficit under her tenure, and they had to lay off hundreds of teachers. Chutzpah doesn't begin to describe this woman.

Posted by: moki at November 30, 2011 03:24 AM (dZmFh)

87 Michael Moore isnt happy about the end of Occupy. He says capitalism is "evil." Moore said a better system does not exist but he and 'the people' will create one. Moore said that the people, in his new system, will have a say in how banks are run.

Posted by: Doomsayer at November 30, 2011 03:25 AM (YO+5B)

Posted by: oh my at November 30, 2011 03:25 AM (oZfic)

89

You realize Gabe, they're already of the opinion that anyone who opposes any part of their agenda is a terrorist and have used that EXACT language in public discourse. This is about putting people like you into indefinite detention during a war that will never end.

Tinfoil hat time, already? I haven't even finished my coffee yet.

The detainee bill doesn't apply to those that are simply labeled "terrorist." It applies to terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda. And they still get an administrative detainee status review and the right to make habeas petitions to the courts.

Let me repeat: they still get to petition the U.S. courts to review their detention in military custody. Your hysteria simply does not reflect the facts of this detainee measure or even of our current law. Reminder: the military already has the power to detain U.S. citizens who are Al Qaeda terrorists. This measure is only about limiting the power of the President to transfer such terrorists into civilian custody.

 

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 03:28 AM (IkTb7)

90 At the time, I didn't understand the accusations of "AstroTurf" regarding the Tea Party movement. The more we see of this "occupy" nonsense, the more it makes sense. Not only is this not a grass roots movement, the powers-that-be have more or less effectively insulated themselves against the accusations because it would look like our response would be in the "nuh uh, YOU are an astroturf movement" category. I swear, we're fighting against middle schoolers.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 30, 2011 03:29 AM (Gc/Qi)

91

One more time for the hard of hearing or conspiracy theorists among us: What this bill doesn't do:

Allow presidents to just seize any American and hold them indefinitely without review by the courts

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 03:31 AM (IkTb7)

92
About that whole "recovery" thingy...

Layoffs announced in November dropped slightly from the prior month, though cuts in 2011 have already surpassed last year's total, according to a report released Wednesday.

Outplacement consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas said job cuts announced this year are up 13% overall and now total 564,297 -- already more than 2010's full-year total of 529,973 -- and we still have to get through December.

CNNMoney

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 03:31 AM (oBrVT)

93 The bulldozers are here!

Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 03:33 AM (p8B53)

94 Eric Wang hasn't read R.J. Rummel.

Death By Government
The only way to make Socialism work is by killing people in the most atrociously public manner, populations in public slavery. "Death of one person is a great tragedy. Death of a million is a mere statistic." (Stalin)

Strip government of its propaganda to see the naked Emperor. We are paying our taxes to pay more taxes to be brainwashed, for our children's minds to be polluted for bigBigBIG government. We are losing cultural wars because the socialist goal is seen as the ideal, the war to be won at any and all costs, by any means, our nation destroyed by toxic and narcissistic leadership.

Vaccine against Socialism: the open discussion of the government crimes, especially for young people who are naturally still young idealists. Read "The Soviet Story" archives left behind in Latvia when the communists fled (Library of Congress), and read Karl Marx's own 1848 editorials from his Cologne publication, The Neue Rheinische Zeitung - Organ der Demokratie ("New Rhenish Newspaper - Organ of Democracy"). Marx was first to order  the "necessary holocaust of entire human populations" east of Central Europe (Poland, the Balkans, Ukraine, etc.) for being too backward to be worthy of toleration by a modern Socialist-democratic civilization. Compare today the death warrant that Marx issued to what's now a former Soviet country that in one fell swoop cleansed itself of communism. Estonia (ranked 4th) enjoys as much economic freedom as America (ranked 6th in a Tallahassee Florida university study). Rather than basing "wealth" strictly upon natural resources, a nation's prosperity relies upon the Liberty of its people. Socialism exterminates people in order to promote/save itself in a vain effort to hide its innate failures.

Acknowledge the potus candidate avidly speaking out against abuses of power, working for decades to sustain Constitutional Governance and your Liberty, and to comport American foreign relations according to long-term effects of policy on economic strength emphasizing respect for human rights and freedom.

"China Made Me Do It" Washington Times
As a matter of record, think again, Mr. Wang, because the US government has already adopted its own means to the same commie/Socialist ends against its own citizen/population becoming "public slavery" (Yuri N. Maltsev) at this point according to our own Senate of elitists, the same "proponents of government subsidies" (below). For instance, our federal government's CyberCzar and Intelligence agents have easy access to our online accounts and willfully manipulate records of sites visited without our knowledge or consent in order to achieve their own ends. It would be folly to assume that because you are innocent, the federal authorities that decided to prosecute you will respect your constitutional rights.

(Govt. attorney) Eric WANG: China made me do it
Will Obama endorse the one-child policy next?

Listening to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and members of Congress citing China as justification for the deeply troubled federal clean energy loan program, we are reminded of parents admonishing recalcitrant children that just because someone else jumps off a bridge, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to follow suit.   Sino-envy as justification for federal policies is unprincipled and unjustified because it fails to explain why we do not emulate China in other areas.   Why, for example, should we not attempt to boost American exports by undervaluing our currency by as much as 25 percent to 40 percent, as many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have accused China of doing? (Never mind our Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing.”)  Perform censorship of the Internet ... be far more efficient as the Chinese do and simply lock up the political opposition.  The point is, proponents of government subsidies of clean energy and high-speed rail have justified these programs using conclusory statements that China is doing the same, while failing to articulate any principles as to when we should follow China’s lead and when we should not.   In the absence of any such principled distinctions, not only are comparisons to what China is doing unpersuasive, they also cause America’s demands for Chinese reforms in these other policy areas to ring hollow. Why would the Chinese bow to our objections to their currency manipulation, computer hacking, environmental degradation, labor exploitation, human rights abuses and suppression of political and religious liberty when we cite them as exemplars in other areas?  Whether clean energy and high-speed rail are deserving of government investment, the arguments must rely on the underlying merits of these programs. Policymaking through red-colored glasses (with a constellation of yellow stars) is unprincipled, unjustified and undermines our credibility in the Sino-American relationship.

Posted by: The Pirates Your Mother Fears at November 30, 2011 03:34 AM (lpWVn)

95 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 08:28 AM (IkTb7)
Easy solution:  All persons deemed terrorists MUST have some sort of an Al Qaeda connection, US citizen or no.  We will demonstrate the connection at the trial at a to be determined date.
What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: DHS Administraitor at November 30, 2011 03:34 AM (i3+c5)

96 These Occupy 'cities' are showing the people what life would be like under the control of full socialism. We'd all be living in tents, shitting like dogs, and scrounging for scraps. That's some utopia.

Posted by: Doomsayer at November 30, 2011 08:16 AM (j7IJ7)


You forgot mindlessly repeating the slogans leaders shout at us. 

("Yes! We! Can!")

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 30, 2011 03:34 AM (AQD6a)

97 91

One more time for the hard of hearing or conspiracy theorists among us: What this bill doesn't do:

Allow presidents to just seize any American and hold them indefinitely without review by the courts

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 08:31 AM (IkTb7)



We have to pass this bill to see what is in it too.

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi & Co. at November 30, 2011 03:35 AM (oif6Y)

98 Obama Fun Fact:  The aggregate value of the victuals consumed and/or disposed of by FLOTUS in one sitting could sustain a third world country for months.

Posted by: Fritz at November 30, 2011 03:36 AM (/ZZCn)

99
Gingrich ties Romney among Calif. Republicans

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is in a statistical tie with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, according to a Field Poll released today.

The survey of registered California Republican voters found that 26 percent supported Romney and 23 percent backed Gingrich - up from 7 percent in a September Field poll.




This would be impressive -- if there were more than six Republicans left in the state.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 03:36 AM (oBrVT)

100

We'd all be living in tents, shitting like dogs, and scrounging for scraps. That's some utopia.

Do the more equal ones get cool tree forts to live in, above the mess and muck?

Posted by: Count de Monet at November 30, 2011 03:36 AM (4q5tP)

101 I made my contribution to Black Friday finally, on Sunday. I picked up a 5 quart CrockPot with SS finish for $17. The 6 quart model right next to it was $40. So this thought came to me -- yeah, sales are up but what if that is mostly based on sales of a bunch of loss leaders (ie negative margins)? How exactly does that help the bottom line for companies?
 
ZH has an article about this very issue, though it uses one case too to make the same broad point. Their case is Corning Glass, which makes most of the glass for LCD screens.
 
I guess the answer is we will have to wait until after 4Q earnings results come out to see just how much this bump in sales really affected profits.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2011 03:37 AM (ENKCw)

102 Message to Gretchen Carlson.  The purple frock is great.  Shoot the idiot that dressed you yesterday.  Keep those arms covered

Posted by: Aunt Cranky at November 30, 2011 03:37 AM (JoeF6)

103 The net is tightening. Now if only the MBM could find the time between hunting for dirt on R candidates to do their fucking jobs.
Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2011 08:05 AM (ENKCw)

We are doing our jobs, we cover for Obama and his accomplices every day.



Posted by: the MSM at November 30, 2011 03:38 AM (w7Lv+)

104 This is disgusting. Pooper girl is boo hoo-ing over every piece of cardboard, trash, etc. Maybe, she should grab a human turd and save it as a memento.

Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 03:39 AM (p8B53)

105 CAT Bulldozers? Runnnnnnnnn!!!!

Posted by: Pancakes! at November 30, 2011 03:40 AM (p8B53)

106 The Weather Channel (doing MSNBC headlines) called it the "English embassy" too.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2011 03:40 AM (73tyQ)

107 How much would you have to be paid to become a liberal?

The problem with the question is that no matter how much they pay me they'll just take it all back in taxes, inflation and DOOM. To bad these bastards currently at the trough don't get that.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 30, 2011 03:41 AM (tf9Ne)

108 review by the courts

...note well, Holder's Court system without integrity.

Andrew C. McCarthy pointed out the huge folly from Congress and specifically Republicans, relying on the Courts, on the SCOTUS, to rectify unconstitutional legislation. Try as they will and do, judges can't legally legislate bills. That judges value previous judges' decisions over the Constitution itself is no comfort, either.

Posted by: The Pirates Your Mother Fears at November 30, 2011 03:41 AM (lpWVn)

109
NY Assemblyman William Boyland Jr. arrested on new corruption counts

Just weeks after being acquitted on federal corruption charges, State Assemblyman William Boyland Jr. was arrested again by the FBI on new bribery and extortion charges -- money he allegedly solicited to help pay legal bills from his earlier case. 

The charges in this latest case allege that while on trial in federal court in Manhattan, Boyland was out soliciting additional bribes.

According to the criminal complaint, Boyland said he needed money because of costs piling up from his federal case.

"I have legal fees for this legal thing that I have .... I have a good attorney, I just can't pay him," he is accused of telling an undercover FBI agent.



You know, almost makes sense, in its own way...

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 03:42 AM (oBrVT)

110

The primaries will boil down to Mitt and the anti-Mitt, with neither side willing to back down. 

dont forget the anti-Mitt crowd is boiling down to fucking over every new top anti-Mitt guy, already folks for Perry (mr. 85) and Cain (mr. thinking about leaving the campaign) are all over Newt being not conservative enough. yet if their in-fighting leads to a road for Mitt we're not listening to them and thus deserve them sitting out the election *shakes head at the stupidity*

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 03:42 AM (yAor6)

111

oops

Perry (mr. 8%)*

FIXED

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 03:43 AM (yAor6)

112 107 How much would you have to be paid to become a liberal?

We have seeds, weapons, and friends in all the right places.  It would never happen.

Posted by: Aunt Cranky at November 30, 2011 03:43 AM (JoeF6)

113 So Newt rises in the polls because of his debate performance. Assume he is nominated.
Is there a law that says Obama must debate him? No.
Even if such a law existed, is there a chance in hell Obama comply?
No.

Posted by: real joe at November 30, 2011 03:43 AM (w7Lv+)

114 I understand that some of you guys are scared of government, but this reflexive "oh, the military will get us and the courts won't save us because Obama is bad" thing is just pathetic.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 03:44 AM (IkTb7)

115 I smell cat pee, dont click the links

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 03:44 AM (yAor6)

116

How much would you have to be paid to become a liberal?

ask Ed Schultz

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 03:45 AM (yAor6)

117 The poor dogs in occupyLA were not being vaccinated and came down with parvae virus. I wonder how many survived?

Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 03:45 AM (p8B53)

118 Is there a law that says Obama must debate him? No.

Newt's already said he'll follow Obama around the country rebutting anything he says that day,

Posted by: nickless at November 30, 2011 03:46 AM (MMC8r)

119 So Newt rises in the polls because of his debate performance. Assume he is nominated.
Is there a law that says Obama must debate him? No.
Even if such a law existed, is there a chance in hell Obama comply?
No.

Posted by: real joe at November 30, 2011 08:43 AM (w7Lv+)

if Obama doesn't debate Newt it will hurt Obama. That shit wouldn't fly today in a world where independents swing elections

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 03:46 AM (yAor6)

Posted by: oh my at November 30, 2011 03:47 AM (oZfic)

121 What this bill doesn't do:

Allow presidents to just seize any American and hold them indefinitely without review by the courts

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 08:31 AM (IkTb7)

Yes indeedy, that's what the words say.  But if the Constitution can be viewed as a living document requiring constant reinterpretation to meet the needs of our current civil masters, how much faith do you place in judicial interpretation of mere legislation? 

Posted by: Hrothgar at November 30, 2011 03:47 AM (i3+c5)

122 Newt's already said he'll follow Obama around the country rebutting anything he says that day,

Posted by: nickless at November 30, 2011 08:46 AM (MMC8r)

I like that idea, plus Newt prob knows you can register to vote at 18 not wait until your 21

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 03:48 AM (yAor6)

123 Is there a law that says Obama must debate him? No.
 
No, but repeated taunts about it might be just as effective.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2011 03:48 AM (ENKCw)

124 cat pee smells so strong, dont click links

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 03:48 AM (yAor6)

125 Excellent point, real joe - no way on earth Barry is going to debate Newton. Not. Going. To. MEANWHILE I'm all cheery b/c we finally got rid of the Occupoopers on Dilworth Plaza overnight last night. They got rousted and tried to march on over to Rittenhouse Square, but the cops were waiting for them en masse. No luck with any other of our fair city's greens, so I'm not sure what they're going to do. A bunch were arrested and others are just wandering aimlessly. They were given a permit to protest at Thomas Paine Square (I have no idea where that is, probably behind the bus station or something) but they have no interest in that particular location. But, Dilworth and City Hall are clear, the construction (long-planned) has finally started on the plaza there, and Christmas can come to the city of Philadelphia! Certainly it has come for Arlene Ackerman to the tune of $500+ a week in unemployment on top of her nearly a million dollar "go away" bonus

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 30, 2011 03:49 AM (SB0V2)

126 No, but repeated taunts about it might be just as effective. I'll say it again: Obama will probably duck any debate that would make him look bad. SCOAMF can wag the worms out of a very big dog from his seat in the Oval Office.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at November 30, 2011 03:50 AM (p7SSh)

127

I'll say it again: Obama will probably duck any debate that would make him look bad. SCOAMF can wag the worms out of a very big dog from his seat in the Oval Office.

I hope your right and he won't debate because it will only help the GOP nominee if he does that

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 03:51 AM (yAor6)

128

Yes indeedy, that's what the words say. But if the Constitution can be viewed as a living document requiring constant reinterpretation to meet the needs of our current civil masters, how much faith do you place in judicial interpretation of mere legislation? 

That? That right there that I quoted? If you truly believed that and had the courage of your convictions, you'd be holed up in a cabin in Montana. Since you are not, you clearly place plenty of "faith" in "judicial interpretation of mere legislation."

 

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 03:53 AM (IkTb7)

129 I hope your right and he won't debate because it will only help the GOP nominee if he does that No, it won't. He'll stay above the fray, and the MSM will effectively be debating the R nominee during that time, every time they attempt to make an appearance.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 30, 2011 03:53 AM (SB0V2)

130 If Zero avoids debate, we have to hope it resonates with the vast mushy middle because his supporters are mindless zombies. If his continuing destruction of the nation isn't enough to turn his base, nothing will.

Posted by: real joe at November 30, 2011 03:54 AM (w7Lv+)

131 No, it won't. He'll stay above the fray, and the MSM will effectively be debating the R nominee during that time, every time they attempt to make an appearance.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 30, 2011 08:53 AM (SB0V2)

yes it will, I pray he pulls this off because not only would it prove you dead wrong but help in a GOP victory

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 03:54 AM (yAor6)

132 So, for the sake of politics, you guys want a law to go through where you can take an American citizen on American soil and accuse them of being a terrorist and not give them a civilian trial?   Geez, maybe you guys need to re read the scarlet letter and the crucible or maybe the gulag archipelago.

But I haven't read the article yet and I'm just getting my information from this thread and it doesn't look like a good idea.

Posted by: oh my at November 30, 2011 03:55 AM (oZfic)

133 If his continuing destruction of the nation isn't enough to turn his base, nothing will.

Posted by: real joe at November 30, 2011 08:54 AM (w7Lv+)

The base of the Dems was far gone before Obama even existed, the indys will not like an unpopular incumbent not debating his challenger, the last incumbent to get away w/ not debating his challenger was Nixon in 1972 and Nixon was popular and looking good for re-election

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 03:56 AM (yAor6)

134

the cat pee...it stings!

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 03:57 AM (yAor6)

135 Why would the Smartest Man In The Worldtm be afraid of a debate?

Posted by: nickless at November 30, 2011 03:58 AM (MMC8r)

136 not only would it prove you dead wrong Would be glad to be wrong of course. But I think we have to hope that those in the media (and they are a growing but quiet group) are starting to see that Barry can't stay in office for even their OWN good, and will stop supporting him. With their support as he's had up til now, it doesn't matter if he debates or not. It won't matter to most Americans either, if they are even aware. Please don't misunderstand; I wish you were right. But we are poli-geeks here. Most people are so completely not in tune with this stuff at all, and that's on purpose. They hate it.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 30, 2011 03:58 AM (SB0V2)

137 OT - you guys do know the Doom thread is up and that the sole comment on there right now is Glenn Beck fapping?

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 03:58 AM (yAor6)

138 I'm watching a documentary. A german general was recorded saying: "Only two people didn't know Russia got cold in winter - Napoleon and Der Fuhrer." lol!

Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 04:00 AM (p8B53)

139 you clearly place plenty of "faith" in "judicial interpretation of mere legislation."
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 08:53 AM (IkTb7)
Point taken; however, I don't have plenty of faith in the judicial system, I have just enough faith that I am staying in place praying that it won't get as bad as I think it might, and that even if it does I will have had a good enough run while the America I grew up in still existed.

Posted by: Hrothgar at November 30, 2011 04:01 AM (i3+c5)

140

You forgot mindlessly repeating the slogans leaders shout at us. 

And downtwinkles.  Never forget the downtwinkles.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at November 30, 2011 04:01 AM (4df7R)

141
you guys do know the Doom thread is up and that the sole comment on there right now is Glenn Beck fapping?
Posted by: AuthorLMendez




We're waiting until he finishes before we knock and go in....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 04:03 AM (oBrVT)

142 Gabriel,
  The legislation that needed this responsive post might be a good idea to have posted and linked.

 I do remember reading in history books as a lass , internment camps  in america in the 40s.
no idea if this is relevant but maybe having both bills explained enthusiastically, and with ones that understand legalese isn't a bad thing.
it might be silly, but what's wrong with investigating ?

and Oz. Solzhenitsyn, did do a great job writing his books, yes it can happen , don't think we are there. But we do need to concern ourselves with failed economic managment. and over burdening regulations destroying our means of making a living, and the hardship it causes.

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 04:04 AM (h+qn8)

Posted by: oh my at November 30, 2011 04:04 AM (oZfic)

144 and of course cronyism.

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 04:05 AM (h+qn8)

145

Equine slaughter bill isn't a bad thing... it's a good thing.  That whole ban thing was soooo stupid and short sided.  I appreciate horse lovers being upset, but I own horses and know folks that do and there was a horrid result of not being able to put down a horse...   Folks were loading them up, inhumanely in trucks and trucking them to Mexico to be slaughtered, and/or ranchers were taking them out to a gully and shooting them to stay in compliance with the stupid law.

Once again, we can debate the intent, but the law of unintended consiquences when Congress gets involved.  I am glad to hear the SCOAMF signed this..

Posted by: Yip in Texas at November 30, 2011 04:06 AM (cQhQZ)

146 While your case is pending, you are held in prison/jail, awaiting review by the courts. How many years and months? With or without legal representation? How  long without access to the federal "evidence" compiled/fabricated against you by Alinsky disciples maliciously and erroneously targeting you as a radical "terrorist"? Distrust for the corrupt AG Holder leaves trust hollow in review by the courts.

Congress is washing their hands of constitutional responsibility. Legislators' interest follows the money, not the rule of law. An individual citizen's liberty is a legal nuisance that unnecessarily interferes with easy profits through piracy and organized crime. Members of Congress advocate against those who would expose congressional corruption. Don't expect Legislators to break the chains they put on you.

Is this Senate bill going to provide the political resurrection of Obama's savior/antichrist image to the gullible? Will the SCOAMF veto as promised, providing the propaganda supporting his re-election as the Potus who protected your rights after annihilating the ghost of bin-Laden in time to ally with al-Qaeda in order to advance terrorism through lawless warring? "Fore!"

Posted by: The Pirates Your Mother Fears at November 30, 2011 04:12 AM (lpWVn)

147 right now is Glenn Beck fapping

deja vu last night's-mare brought to mind

Posted by: The Pirates Your Mother Fears at November 30, 2011 04:16 AM (lpWVn)

148 Why should the SCOAMF take time away from taxpayer finded campaign trips to tell about how he will reward his supporters, oops, uh, I mean take time away from work- to debate??? His media minions have that covered. I would live to see Gingrich debate SCOAMF, would probably record it, but even more than that I would love to see each ballot begin with three general intelligence questions to void ballot if answered erroneously. Could begin with ,"What hemisphere do you live in?". That would eliminate several percent SCOAMF points right there!

Posted by: Justamom at November 30, 2011 04:25 AM (Sptt8)

149

 If you truly believed that and had the courage of your convictions, you'd be holed up in a cabin in Montana.

Dude, I can get internet service there too.

Posted by: Dude Holed Up In A Cabin In Montana at November 30, 2011 04:37 AM (OWjjx)

150

Dude, I can get internet service there too.

And we appreciate that. Thanks to your ever-so-cooperative ISP, I can have a CIA wet team en route right now.

/tinfoil

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 04:46 AM (IkTb7)

151 Are we really going to try to unseat Barrack Obama with the Pillsbury Doughboy?

Posted by: Marie at November 30, 2011 04:46 AM (P9OJs)

152 The Levick Group, was the outfit, that put the white hats on the terrorists like Hamdi, and the blackhats on our guys, they were funded by money from Arabia,
and the Emirates.

Posted by: clayton endicott at November 30, 2011 04:46 AM (AH8RI)

153 That link in the sidebar about where to get the stickers is juicy.  Not for the damn sticker, but for the actual article. 

NERC is telling the EPA that they're AFU.  We all knew that Green is the new Red.  Now, we have one government agency telling another government agency they're fucking us over.

Posted by: 2549 at November 30, 2011 04:56 AM (kvxPn)

154 Freaking took forever to get around to the courthouse, with all the streets blocked off and trash everywhere. These hippies need to get out of the way, so I can make to the 1% before I die.

Posted by: Wooga at November 30, 2011 04:56 AM (tCKJA)

155 You're probably gone now, Vic, but all the best to you today on your treatment. 

Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 04:59 AM (5H6zj)

156 #113  You are exactly right!  That has been my point all along with this concentration on debates.  Obama isn't going to debate anyone unless he is convinced he can win the debate.  He doesn't care about precedent at all.

So,  if we put all our eggs in the debate basket,  what will happen if he doesn't debate?  Why,  we will have a candidate defined by the MSM.  To overcome this the  GOP candidate will have to have deep pockets for ads and a first-rate organization to get ground troops mobilized.

Only 2 candidates could do that:  Perry and Romney.

Posted by: Miss Marple at November 30, 2011 05:10 AM (GoIUi)

157 They could always hold a debate where the GOP candidate faces off against TOTUS (the Teleprompter in case you forgot). I'm just worried that Perry might lose.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at November 30, 2011 05:21 AM (YmPwQ)

158 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 07:24 AM (XVaFd)

You can't think of a reason executive power is more substantial where he is prosecuting a war against foreign citizens or US citizens engaged in hostilities abroad than it is where he is detaining US citizens domestically?

Back to Con Law I you go.    

Posted by: Vermin at November 30, 2011 05:27 AM (2csLb)

159 @156
I'm really worried about where we're headed. 

Personally, Newt is acceptable to me operating under the popular assumption that a (more) conservative Congress would help keep the really liberal tendencies in check and because Newt, unlike Romney, actually has shown the ability (and willingness) to nail the Dems to the wall on occasion.  His ability to be combative and knowledge of DC - and his ego, frankly - would probably mean that we would win one or two major battles against the Dems.  The rest of his governance would probably be bad, but no worse than Romney.  But, he does have a lot of skeletons.  Many more than Perry.  (I don't think we really know Romney's yet because he has not faced the same sort of scrutiny as the other two.)

I find Romney's decision to run essentially as a cypher whose only consistent tendencies are to lean left kind of scary.  But more importantly, I'm just not that impressed by his resume and accomplishments.  So he fails for me on both rhetoric and record.  And now I also doubt his character, something that I didn't worry about prior to this primary season. 

Perry has much that I wanted to see in terms of rhetoric and certainly record, but he's suffered from having a target on his back from day one and some unforced errors that have been magnified by a 'conservative' media that clearly wants Romney.  So I don't know.  The fact that he's still campaigning in New Hampshire and that the GWU/Battleground Poll showed him ahead of Romney in key states (FL, TX, CA), makes me wonder if his campaign knows something that we don't.  Plus, the support for all of these candidates is really soft and Mitt still can't break 25% (iirc, he's only done so once, then slipped back down)... so I have some hope, but I see folks being discouraged by the reporting out there.  I just hope people don't throw away their votes in a desire to try to guess who is the most electable non-Romney.

Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 05:31 AM (5H6zj)

Posted by: oh my at November 30, 2011 05:32 AM (oZfic)

Posted by: oh my at November 30, 2011 05:43 AM (oZfic)

Posted by: oh my at November 30, 2011 05:56 AM (oZfic)

163 Over at Hot Air, there's a haiku thread.

It's been ages since we've had a haiku thread.

Ace of Spades Morons
Excel at funny haiku
Haiku for us soon?

Posted by: shibumi at November 30, 2011 06:00 AM (z63Tr)

164

 Are we really going to try to unseat Barrack Obama with the Pillsbury Doughboy?

Well, and apologies to my fellow morons who are holding onto the brokered convention fantasy like a warm blanket on a cold night, its going to be one of the current crop of candidates. And honestly, it probably doesn't matter. Because the only way the GOP loses this race is if Obama can make it about the GOP nominee and not about him.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 30, 2011 06:04 AM (OWjjx)

165 Where can I buy me one of these stickers? I saw a great one yesterday. At first I was confused, because it looked like a dark blue Obama sticker on a desert-issue Army Chevy Suburban. But under the big white-lettered 'Obama' was 'Impeach Him' in a low-contrast gray letters. Stealth.

Posted by: t-bird at November 30, 2011 06:17 AM (FcR7P)

166 Isn't it about time for some Obama Joker stickers?

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at November 30, 2011 07:02 AM (qwK3S)

167 *senses a disturbance in the schwartz*

Posted by: lauraw at November 30, 2011 07:51 AM (VSwP9)

168 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 12:31 PM (7WJOC)

169 I don’t usually add my comments, but I will in this case. Nice work. I look forward to reading more.

Posted by: Fates Edge ePub at November 30, 2011 04:03 PM (vaJa6)

170 I am not clear if I totally understand the full thought pattern behind this.

Posted by: Hedys Folly iBooks at November 30, 2011 04:44 PM (vaobd)

171 I was very happy to search out this web-site.I needed to thanks to your time for this excellent read!! I definitely enjoying each little little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post.

Posted by: Will I Ever Be Good Enough AudioBook at November 30, 2011 05:01 PM (mLPSm)

172 Yep! I was agreed, I'll keep in touch to your blog.

Posted by: Pricing the Future ePub at November 30, 2011 09:26 PM (5FOUx)

173 Wow this is soo helpful I have been trying to figure this out on my own for a long time now. Hopefully making this change will help encourage discussion on my blog.

Posted by: December 1941 ePub at November 30, 2011 09:30 PM (5FOUx)

174 Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! mtv downloader  flv to dvd converter  dvd creator
pdf to word transfer

Posted by: nanonu at November 30, 2011 10:01 PM (vzqIo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
176kb generated in CPU 0.89, elapsed 2.6516 seconds.
62 queries taking 2.3845 seconds, 410 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.