Woman to Woman

By stilloniams

February 23, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

At Halliburton/KBR, sexual assault is just part of the workplace experience for women Like many viewers, I watched this ABC 20/20 report when it first aired in December with jaws-open, eyes-bugging horror. It told the story of two women workers for Halliburton/KBR who had been sent to Iraq. There, one, Jamie Lee Jones, a young computer tech, was gang-raped on her fourth day by coworkers after being drugged; the other, Tracy Barker, was sexually assaulted by a State Department employee. Both immediately reported their assaults, only to have KBR first lock them in isolation, then question their accusations. In the case of Jones, it even "lost" the medical report that documented evidence of gang rape.
Click on a small picture to see shocking photos:

By Copyleft

February 25, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

“I have nothing to hide” is the slogan of the lazy American who’s happy to surrender his freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security.

By Gale

February 25, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this

Search and seizure without warrent or even reasonable suspicion is unconstitutional. End of story. If a terrorist is smart enough to hid a bomb in a blackberry, he is smart enough to outwit the TSA. As Andy mentions, the security of my personal files once out of my possession is questionable. Many people use these devices for phone numbers, passwords, addresses, etc. This is an unacceptable invasion of privacy where a citizen has every expectation of privacy.

By Libsrule

February 25, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

Oh these searches are silly. Terrorists? We are the terrorists. Right? The Democrats are in charge, now. Washington is all about love and caring for each other so why would anyone want to try and sneak into our country in order to try to hurt us?

The democrats were right for going on vacation instead of voting to renew our right to ease drop on others. So what if we have another 9-11? No one should worry that anyone is listening when they talk onn their cell phone. What are a few thousand American lives when we are talking about cell phone security? I WANT MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY!!!!

But airport searches? People like Andrea might not want their laptops searched. What are a few thousand American lives compared to Andrea getting through the sirport in a expedient manner. Screw the public. Andrea has appointments.

America needs to learn that now that the Democrats are in charge, no one will want to hurt us anymore. We will be loved by the world just like they loved us during the 1990s.

I understand that every other country in the world has security in their airports which is just as stringent as ours and many have security that is a lot worse, but we are Americans!! We are better than everyone else and I’ll be damned if I am going to stand by and let those mean old Republicans make us afraid.

We don’t need no stinking security. WE NEED MORE HOPE!!!

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Gale

If a terrorist is smart enough to hid a bomb in a blackberry, he is smart enough to outwit the TSA.

If a burglar wants to break into you home, there is no dead bolt that is going to stop them. So … when do you plan on taking all the locks off your doors?

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

it’s EAVESdrop … EAVESdrop!!! criminey, I hate it when people get common expressions wrong — it’s almost as bad as when they turn things into facile “dems just want to hug the terrorists” arguments.

and, yes, I do want my right to privacy. call me crazy, but it’s guaranteed UNDER THE FLIPPIN’ CONSTITUTION. the government can listen to as many phone conversations as it wants - as long as it goes through the appropriate channels.

don’t like it???? go live in a dictatorship, since that’s what you seem to crave.

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Yoyoyo!!! (get me, I’m so hip) … hope your weekend was a good one and that you finally thawed out!!

There’s an oh-so-subtle line between NO security and confiscating everyone’s Bberries, laptops, cphones, etc. Not to speak for Gale, but I don’t think she’s advocating NO security. God knows, I’m not. She’s just making a point that, even if Congress did legalize the confiscation of everyone’s GameBoys, etc., terrorists will still find a way around it - there’s no such thing is perfectly safe.

The question is - how much freedom are you willing to blithely let go???

Me, I just find it SOOOOOOOOOO ironic that a lot of the gun-totin’ crew are more than happy to sign over their personal privacy. “you’ll take my gun from my cold, dead hands … but, hey no problem listening in on all my phone calls, reading my e-mail, looking at my personal files!!!”

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I think it should be market driven. A person goes to the airport and is offered two choices. The first choice is to simply walk onto the plane with no checks.

The other is to walk onto a different secured airplane with all those nasty unconstitutional searches.

I personally would select the secured airplane, taking the risks that they will find my pictures of the USC cheerleading squad, or even some of my very personal e-mails about appointments and lunches. Damn those security people.

Enjoy your flight on your kind of airplane.

By Gandalf, the Grey

February 25, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

Whateva

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

I’ll bet George Washington’s cell phone wasn’t bugged and we still won the civil war.

Ladies and gentlemen … give it up for LibsRule … he’ll be here with his comic stylings all week!!!

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

Wasn’t GW’s (near) first words regarding 9/11 paraphrased as: “The terrorists only win when we give up out lifestyle and live in fear?”

And, no many other governments are not as obtuse as ours when dealing with airport security; more efficient and realistic maybe but not as infringing.

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

I think it should be market driven. A person goes to the airport and is offered two choices. The first choice is to simply walk onto the plane with no checks.

now, you’re just being silly. we’ve had checks since the Summer of Hijacking back in the 1970s (not nearly as fun as the summer of love … but you did get more frequent flier miles). we always will have security at airports because of that kind of terrorism - no one is advocating otherwise.

all we’re saying is, hangonaminnit - what’s with confiscating phones and other devices??? checking them for air security is one thing - rifling through them is something entirely different.

Although, on a related subject … a friend of mine (who happens to be a GA state legislator) came up with the idea of creating a “free enterprise zone” in the city - there would be no regulation/no food inspection/no nothing. If you wanted to go to the restaurants there, it would truly be a “buyer beware” situation. I wonder how long they’d stay in business - and how many of the “free market” people would support them …

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Good weekend. I got suckered into helping a fiend clean out his Public Storage shed. He had paid $160/mo since 1992 to store nothing but junk. I think it had come to around $32,000 in total cost over the years.

I have had one since 2003. That’s close to five grand to store stuff that isn’t worth 500 bucks. I’m spending this afternoon starting the process of throwing away or selling all that crap.

To the issues!!!

I have traveled my whole life. Before 9-11, I used to wear a Gerber utility tool on my belt. It had a 5” blade that is so sharp that it will cut you if you touch it. With that tool, I could have probably taken apart most of the airplane.

That changed with 9-11. Did I get any less trustworthy? Would I now use that tool to take over an airplane? Of course not. But while I was walking thruogh US security with that tool on my belt, I would need to secure it under the airplane when I flew to most of Europe and flying to the Middle East wsa a whole different proposition. The rest of the world has been doing this for years.

We can’t ignore the danger while quoting laws that were written when parchment was the medium of the day.

By AllRelative

February 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

and we still won the civil war.

Doesn’t that depend on who you ask? I have met many Southerners still whining about it and Sherman.

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

jokesOn

Wow. You gave up your lifestyle and are now living in fear? Relax, Pal.

In 2004, I was refused a flight to Israel because I had a Morocco stamp in my passport. What about that is realistic and less infringing?

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Repeat after me: EBay is my friend. EBay is my friend. So is Craig’s List. Get rid of that stuff!! When we fled New England … I mean … when we moved over to the UK, I was floored by the stuff people were willing to pay for on EBay! It made us enough money to make a good dent on furnishing our living room!

ANYhooo … no one is talking about knives. I think we can all agree on knives (whether you plan to dismantle the plane or not, heck, just stow it in your bag for your own safety!). What we’re talking about here is the TSA confiscating your stuff and rifling through the files.

This goes WAY beyond securing a flight. This is delving into your personal files on a “fishing expedition”. Sorry, but, no tickee = no laundry. No subpoena = no right to rifle through my stuff.

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

And, no many other governments…

Look up the word “many,” it does not mean all.

Wow. You gave up your lifestyle and are now living in fear? Relax, Pal.

Wow. That is exactly what we are saying to you. “Do not give up your rights because of fear.” I think you get it…just backwards.

By Archie

February 25, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

My response to the topic question is yes. In a perfect world, we could have perfect privacy and perfect peace, but we don’t live in a perfect world. That aforementioned statement is why I say yes. If airport security had done it’s job as well as the other intelligence people 9/11 would not have happened. I think people can live with less electronics and people and their cell phones are annoying anyway. Remember the topic question is about digital devices. My question to Andrea would be why would you have such private information on a device at an airport when you know such a device will be searched? Surely airport security procedures need to be reviewed and improved so as to not violate privacy but my answer at this time to the topic question is yes.

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Archie,

My question to Andrea would be why would you have such private information on a device at an airport when you know such a device will be searched?

Because it is guaranteed by the constitution.

And lets be clear here. They are not, in most cases, looking for a immediate threat. They are looking for information to gather intelligence regarding possible future threats.

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Archie!

My question to Andrea would be why would you have such private information on a device at an airport when you know such a device will be searched?

Ahhh … but it isn’t supposed to be “searched” - checked, yes. They ask you to turn it on and see if there’s anything weird with it, but they have no right to search through the files.

And, where are we as a country when we can’t carry personal information with us without a fear of it being seized by the government???

And, just to save everyone the time, here’s the text of the 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Pretty darned cut and dry to me - no seizing of papers and effects without a warrant issued for probable cause.

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

right on, jokes on!!!!

By Gale

February 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

I was reminded of a quote and looked it up, only to find the attributed author denied being the source. It seems appropriate here, nonetheless: “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” Ben Franklin.

With each bit of privacy we give up, we edge closer to complete lack of liberty. When we tell school kids they must accept random drug testing and locker searches, what will they allow in twenty years as voters with their damaged sense of privacy?

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

right on, jokes on!!!!

Right back at’cha;)

By jhpoke

February 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

If there are laws that have the possibility of being abused. They will be.

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

When we tell school kids they must accept random drug testing and locker searches, what will they allow in twenty years as voters with their damaged sense of privacy?

Conservatives seem to have no problem searching kids lockers in the name of protecting our kids, but conservatives cannot imagine talking to them about birth control.

Seems the underlying theme here is that the current repugs have no problem asserting control over other people and removing personal choice.

By Jack

February 25, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

The TSA is a joke. How many times have watchdog agencies slipped dangerous stuff right by them? They are impotent as the UN.

By Archie

February 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

Hello USinUk! I am not a lawyer but the 4th amendment says unreasonable search and seizure and since there has been no successful challenge to airport procedures I assume that what they are doing is constitutional. I don’t believe security folk would waste too much time on private information unrelated to their jobs and I think people need to get help for some of this attachment to digital devices. Heck, security people have to do some unusual things because the people they are trying to catch do some unusual things. I get thoroughly checked these days just to go shoot pool so maybe the security people know what they’re doing. I do have some concerns about privacy in other areas but my answer to the topic question is yes.

By AGFNPR

February 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

USinUK - Me, I just find it SOOOOOOOOOO ironic that a lot of the gun-totin’ crew are more than happy to sign over their personal privacy. “you’ll take my gun from my cold, dead hands … but, hey no problem listening in on all my phone calls, reading my e-mail, looking at my personal files!!!”

That’s because the gun-totin crew to which you refer has NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY ON THEIR OWN LAND.

The game-warden can come on your land for any reason, or for no reason at all to check and see if you are following hunting regulations. They have the right to remove gates to your personal property to gain access.

So please forgive me if I am not so quick to defend the rights of those in airports. I only fly about once a year, so these regulations really don’t affect me. And I would be willing to bet the majority of frequent flyers aren’t sympathic to my situation.

I know I have a poor attitude, and I should be concerned about civil rights, but from my point of view, the ACLU crowd isn’t working hard to defend rights for people like me. Why should I care about their causes?

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

AGF -

don’t take this the wrong way, but why would you need the ACLU when you have the NRA?? Criminey, you want to talk a power group in DC?? you should see the size of their headquarters on I-66!! At any rate, here’s what the ACLU has to say on their 2nd Amendment positions (if you’re interested): http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

I can’t speak to the game warden/access issue - except to say that hunting IS regulated as far as the types of weapons you can use (i.e., no bazookas when hunting ducks) and there are restrictions on what you can hunt when (i.e., doe days). If this gives wardens the right of access to check that you’re staying within guidelines, I don’t know — but it would seem so.

By 2D

February 25, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

USinUK… You quote the 4th ammendement, but it is not as clear cut as you may say. It clearly states “unreasonable” search and seizure.

I too am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I believe unless a person challenges these searches in court and gets a ruling from the Supreme Court to declare them unconstitutional, then there are.

Heck… The Constitution also prevents “cruel and unusual” punishment, which at the time did not prevent a good old fashioned hangin’ on the public square. Now, I think some folks will try to attempt to have the death penalty completely rebuked.

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

JokesOn

They are looking for information to gather intelligence regarding possible future threats.

Well somebody get a rope. We need to stop anyone gathering intelligence regarding possible future threats. Looking out for future threats? Hell thst’s as crazy as not running up your credit cards. Live for the day, man. In the words of the great thinker: Scarlett O’Hara: I’ll worry about that tomorrow.

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

jokesOn

Conservatives seem to have no problem searching kids lockers in the name of protecting our kids, but conservatives cannot imagine talking to them about birth control.

So no conservatives tell their children about birth control. Wow. I had no idea. After all the talks I had with my kids about birth control and STDs, I now learn that I’m not even a conservative. Whowouldhavethunkit?

But of course I did the unthinkable. I also explained how abstinence might be a good choice until they are older. I am guilty of being a conservative.

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

Archie -

the 4th amendment says unreasonable search and seizure and since there has been no successful challenge to airport procedures I assume that what they are doing is constitutional. I don’t believe security folk would waste too much time on private information unrelated to their jobs and I think people need to get help for some of this attachment to digital devices. Heck, security people have to do some unusual things because the people they are trying to catch do some unusual things

no challenges to airport procedures … YET. But, I gotta say … no, when it comes to the government, I would never just assume that what they’re doing is constitutional until the Supremes say it is.

yes, security people have to be diligent and aware, but to confiscate items just on the off-chance that there may be something they need to look at??? ah. no. I don’t think so.

Just cause. Warrant. Due process.

If you don’t have that, you really don’t have any privacy in the US, anymore.

By Jack

February 25, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

The right to bear arms was put there to protect us from our own government. When they take our guns, we should worry. Trash the NRA all you want I’m not a member.

By Borrrrrrr-ing

February 25, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

Yawwwwnnnn!

Looks like another week of “Nuh-UH! Everything YOU say is wrong and I’m a geeeeeeeeenius!”

See ya.

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

USinUK.

I am heading over in about an hour. I dread it, but I really need to get rid of that junk.

I have a Georgia and a Tennessee Media permit. I have been checked out so many times that I can’t imagine why I would care if they searched my laptop or ipod.

Like I said, I would get on the plane that did strip searches. When I am at 40,000 feet, getting back on the ground is much more important than wondering if some agent was going to find those pictures of the USC Cheerleading squad or my appointment calender that I carry on my laptop.

I always thank the gate agents even if I am singled out for a more detailed search. Check the shoes, check the baggage, hell, check the underwear. I want to get there in one piece.

By AGFNPR

February 25, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

USinUK -

But WHY should they have access to check and see if I am following guidelines? Doesn’t that assume that I am doing something wrong? So you are saying it is OK to come on my land because someone THINKS I might be breaking the law? Game wardens don’t need a search warrant to search your property. They don’t need probably cause to search your property. These issues SHOULD be hot button items for any good liberal, but they aren’t.

Look - I am not trying to start a fight. I am only pointing out that a good number of liberal folks (who claim to care about civil rights) don’t really care about mine. On this particular issue liberals have a “take care of their own” mentality.

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

2D -

Hey!

• believe unless a person challenges these searches in court and gets a ruling from the Supreme Court to declare them unconstitutional, then there are*

I agree with you - we always need a test case. And, I’m sure we’ll get one if they really do pursue this. From my reading of Andrea’s post, Customs and Border has the right to do it, but she didn’t mention it actually happening to anyone just yet.

As far as reasonable vs. unreasonable - I think we can all agree that, yes, it is reasonable to assess whether the electronic device could be used as a detonator. However, I think reasonable people can agree that it would qualify as UNreasonable to confiscate said device, hold it indefinitely, and rifle through all its files without just cause. And, no, you boarding a plane isn’t “just cause.” Basically, if the police can’t stop you on the street, take your phone/Bberry/GameBoy, and rifle through the files, why should the Custome/Boarder Patrol???

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

So no conservatives tell their children about birth control. Wow. I had no idea. After all the talks I had with my kids about birth control and STDs, I now learn that I’m not even a conservative.

Don’t have a cow man. Just throwing some of your wonderful generalizations back at’cha;) And it worked.

By 2D

February 25, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

USinUK… I think you are missing the whole “checks and balances” setup.

The laws are Constitutional until a legal challenge is made and the courts decide otherwise. You might not believe they are, but as far as the legal system works, they are.

I also highly doubt that the TSA policy states anything like the following “Hey, confiscate any Blackberry that y’all think might look suspicious and rumage through all of the files on a fishing expedition”

Please.

I haven’t read any guidelines, but I would expect there to be a set of guidelines for collecting said devices and a separate set procedures for the search. Even if that guideline is as simple as take every third device and search for a certain type of file. Why do I suspect that? Because with the number of people moving in and out of the airport, they would need some set of guidelines to ensure expedient and broadbased coverage.

I would also suspect that if the TSA found information related to illegal activity NOT related to terrorist activities, that information would not be admissible in court. I’ve seen enough “Law and Order” to know that. :)

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

Borrrrrrr-ing

Later, Gator.

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

AGF -

Again, let me clarify - I really don’t know anything about hunting other than you seem to need a stand for deer and a blind for ducks. And very warm cammos for both. Anything beyond that and I’m lost. So, like I said earlier, I really don’t know if that’s the game warden’s justification - to me, it sounded like a good excuse, but I really don’t know.

But, if it helps - I do care about your rights to privacy on your land. Heck, I didn’t know it was a problem! From what you tell me, I am on your side on this one - no probable cause, they shouldn’t have the right of access on your property.

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

I am heading over in about an hour. I dread it, but I really need to get rid of that junk.

Go with god, my son - be fruitful and DON’T multiply!!! Be ruthless!!! you’ll be a happier man for it.

Like I said, I would get on the plane that did strip searches.

I think Hooters Air may do that … hahaha

Seriously, like I and others have said - we’re all about security. I don’t even have a problem with this new device that basically does a strip search without stripping you (the X-RAY-type thing that allows the security folks to see beneath your clothes). And, I have no problem with being asked to power up my laptop, camera or anything else I’m carrying. Heck, I’ll even walk you through some of my files, if you like.

But, take it from me indefinitely?? Nnnnnnnnope. Not without cause.

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

jokesOn

it’s no problem.

As far as airport security, I think all you guys that want the search and seizure laws to be dated from 1776 should simply have your own airlines. Call it what ever you want. Fly where ever you want except that you can’t fly over major population centers, except to land.

I’ll stick with Delta and if they want to see the pictures and schedules in my laptop, have at it. The only thing I would ask is that you not force Delta to fly their planes under security standards that were instigated to keep parchment from being stuffed in underwear.

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

2D -

The laws are Constitutional until a legal challenge is made and the courts decide otherwise. You might not believe they are, but as far as the legal system works, they are.

I think we’re both in violent agreement on that one. Like I said to Archie - there hasn’t been a challenge to it … YET. And, until there is, the law stands.

I would also suspect that if the TSA found information related to illegal activity NOT related to terrorist activities, that information would not be admissible in court. I’ve seen enough “Law and Order” to know that. :)

why would you assume that? if they didn’t need to have a warrant to confiscate and search your effects in the first place, why would anything be thrown out of court??

By Archie

February 25, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

too am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I believe unless a person challenges these searches in court and gets a ruling from the Supreme Court to declare them unconstitutional, then there are. I agree with that statement. 2D, some nightclubs don’t even allow women to bring their pocketbooks inside and what does that have to do with topic? Well, women have brought firearms inside of nightclub and rather than search those bags thoroughly security doesn’t allow them to come inside. I have done unarmed security work and I have looked through women’s purses and I can say it’s not something you want to remember as far as the contents go. Anyway because the world has changed there are going to be some different kinds of searches that really would be unreasonable 10 to 20 years ago. Looks like another week of “Nuh-UH! Everything YOU say is wrong and I’m a geeeeeeeeenius!” It may not get to that point but I do notice some will disagree with Shanti even she says the sky is blue.

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

I think all you guys that want the search and seizure laws to be dated from 1776

you’re being silly, again. now, just stop it and read what we’re saying. I’m not saying that airport security should go back to 1776 standards - I’m not even saying that airport security should go back to 1976 standards (see my summer of hijacking statement, earlier).

all I’m saying is that, if you want to confiscate my laptop, camera, bberry or anything else indefinitely - then, please, the least you can do is have a warrant - just like any other law enforcement agency would have to have.

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

USinUK

I have postponed my whole day, but am now dreading going to the shed. Must go … Must put down laptop … Must put on jacket and walk out door …

I have a collection of really bad movies that I find in the bins at Walmart and Target. I own a movie called Blue Thunder. Remember it? I think it was actually made into a TV series. The movie was made in 1982, 26 years ago.

It was about this police helicopter that had all this super advanced observation equipment. The big grabber was that in 1982, the ability to see through walls, do advanced data searches, hear through walls from a helicopter, silent mode on a jet copter … all this technology was around in 1982.

Sometime during the 1970s I read about the Soviets had some sort of optical equipment that a person could point at a window. Anyone talking on the other side of that glass would vibrate the glass and the instrument would pick up those vibrations so you could hear what was being said, no matter how far away you were.

I have actually seen a demonstration of a common CRT type TV being used as a camera to photograph people while they were watching TV.

We haven’t had personal privacy in most of our lifetimes. To law enforcement, it has seldom been whether or not we can use the equipment to spy on people, it has been whether or not the evidence collected can be used in court.

That technology has been turned on US citizens for most of our lives. If your laptop has Y-Fi or Blue-ray technology, your laptop can be searched anytime you pass by another network enabled laptop with the right software, even if the laptop is turned off.

Do you honestly think this is not being done? Maybe I am a defeatist, but I just keep my drives clean and expect it.

Big brother has been with us for many years and like it or not, Big Brother is as much a Democrat as he is a Republican.

That Caribbean Island for retirement is looking better and better.

By USinUK

February 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

longer response tomorrow … until then, PUT DOWN THAT LAPTOP, PUT ON THAT JACKET … BE RUTHLESS!!!

good luck!!

hasta la pasta!

By Healthy Liberal

February 25, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

This is what’s REALLY going to kill you, you disgusting blobs of self-indulgent, greedy, judgmental hate, aka Republicans. Good luck with your “health care” needs! Have another shovel full. You won’t be missed.

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

USinUK

It needs to be reasonable. I have missed one flight in all my years of flying and I have been singled out dozens of times. I am always polite and friendly and they usually move me through pretty quickly.

It usually boils down to whether or not the gate agent is a pr*ck. I completely agree that these people should not have such power and yes, we need to be careful about allowing searches to go too far.

But the cops can search your car if they have reasonable cause, which is as little as a busted tail light.

Like I said: Big Brother is here.

I’m thinking a 62 foot Morgan tri-mast with a complete galley and twin engines. Sat link up for the internet and head into the sunrise.

I’m sorry, this is my pre-spring wander-lust that I always go through. It will pass.

By Monica

February 25, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

*However, I think reasonable people can agree that…”

Wow. You’re asking for a lot here!

I do agree that taking my laptop indefinitely seems to be a bit unreasonable.

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

If your laptop has Y-Fi or Blue-ray technology, your laptop can be searched anytime you pass by another network enabled laptop with the right software, even if the laptop is turned off.

Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

But the cops can search your car if they have reasonable cause, which is as little as a busted tail light.

Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

Read up on illegal search/seizure appeals and you will find that even with dramatic eye-witness knowledge by the cops they are not to search/seize without either a warrant or proof of reasonably immediate danger.

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

I’m not talking about legal searches. Remember the only difference between legal and illegal searches is what can be used in court. RFK ordered wire taping of MLK. That was the early 1960s. Would anything they collected be used in court? Of course not.

Read my post to USinUK about Blue Thunder. Do you remember any court orders being issued for “through the walls intell” to be collected during the 1980s?

it is here and is being used every day.

As far as cops, yes they can pull you over for a broken tail light. If they determine that you are “behaving suspiciously”, they can search your vehicle. They need to ask your permission, but if you say no, they have the right to detain you until a search warrant can be obtained. So you can technically deny them the permission to search your car, but you go to jail until they go the route of filling out the paper work and getting a judge to give them permission.

Now what is “Nope, nope, nope” about that?

By Ironman Carmichael

February 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Far as I’m concerned, they can keep ‘em. This may be 21st Century heresy, but most digital devices are more bother than they’re worth.

By 2D

February 25, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

Yo… “Healthy Liberal”, what’s the point???

That article is just spewing stats and stating that obesity is going to wreck our economy and our health care system. And??? Tell me something I didn’t know.

By Libsrule

February 25, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Healthy Liberal

This is what’s REALLY going to kill you, you disgusting blobs of self-indulgent, greedy, judgmental hate, aka Republicans. Good luck with your “health care” needs! Have another shovel full. You won’t be missed.

You tell em. We are right!!! Onward with HOPE!

Hope of getting our bills paid by evil Republicans.

Hope of closing down plenty of evil capitalist companies that just steal from us. Screw the employees. If they are so stupid to refuse state assistance, they are no better than the X-icans.

Hope of showing those ignorant Christians exactly what a fetus is really worth. Flush ‘em!!

Hope and Health care.

Hope and health care and food stamps.

Hope and health care and a good old all American race based hiring system where evil White Males can’t get all the good jobs.

Hope and health care and food stamps and race based hiring and plenty of abortions.

I’m with you all the way!!!

By blah blah

February 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

Because RFK wiretapped MLK, I’m a genius and you’re an idiot. Any more questions numbnut?

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Like I said: Big Brother is here.

You act as though that is a reason to embrace him instead of beat him back into the repugs imperialist cave.

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

As far as cops, yes they can pull you over for a broken tail light. If they determine that you are “behaving suspiciously”, they can search your vehicle. They need to ask your permission, but if you say no, they have the right to detain you until a search warrant can be obtained. So you can technically deny them the permission to search your car, but you go to jail until they go the route of filling out the paper work and getting a judge to give them permission.

Notice that the individual has rights until/if the courts override those rights through a procedure. Quite different to those who choose not to be deliberately obtuse.

Now what is “Nope, nope, nope” about that?

Seeing as you wrote: But the cops can search your car if they have reasonable cause, which is as little as a busted tail light. Which is totally incorrect.

TOJ. Like I said, I would get on the plane that did strip searches. When I am at 40,000 feet, getting back on the ground is much more important than wondering if some agent was going to find those pictures of the USC Cheerleading squad or my appointment calender that I carry on my laptop.

Would you be just as flippant if this was your wife? Child? Mother?

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

RFK was a democrat. If you think it is just the Republicans that do this, you are part of the problem.

I don’t put sensitive info on my laptop. In fact, I’m not sure what I would have anything on any of my computers that anyone would want. I don’t carry drugs in my car. I don’t try to sneak anything back into the country. I have to get security clearance sometimes and so far, I am always approved.

I have no problem with Big Brother because I am aware of him being here. I don’t like it, but you or I are not going to beat him back into anyone’s cave.

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

Notice that the individual has rights until/if the courts override those rights through a procedure. Quite different to those who choose not to be deliberately obtuse.

That would be the right to go to jail. That’s not really a right. That’s having your rights taken from you until they find a judge that will issue a search warrant. But if you want to consider being put in handcuffs and detained as a right, good for you.

Seeing as you wrote: But the cops can search your car if they have reasonable cause, which is as little as a busted tail light. Which is totally incorrect.

My apologies. They need two reasonable causes. One to pull you over and one to search. Again, I apologize.

Would you be just as flippant if this was your wife? Child? Mother?

My wife, child and mother all fly. Yes, I want them to also go on the secure airline. As long as the gate agents all follow procedure, they can all be searched. Everyone is someone’s child.

By MissedOut

February 25, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

Because RFK wiretapped MLK

is that a variation on But Clinton did it, But Clinton Did it, But Clinton Did it?

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

TOJ,

Answer my question to you please.

You are boarding a plane and the officials take your wife and child with the intent on strip searching them: Are you just as flippant?

I don’t like it, but you or I are not going to beat him back into anyone’s cave.

I agree if everyone bellies-up like you are willing to but many of us are not.

By Libsrule

February 25, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

Blah blah

Because RFK wiretapped MLK, I’m a genius and you’re an idiot. Any more questions numbnut?

That’s right. You tell em. He makes me feel really bad about myself, too. I join you in your grief. Pardon me while I weep.

Damn X-ican.

By Libsrule

February 25, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

Missed Out

That’s right. That is what it is. It’s just another version of the Bill Clinton thing.

And we all know that the world loved us while Billy was in office. republicans ruin everything and they should not be able to point to ANY democratic mistakes in the past. It’s not fair and we should never stand for it.

RFK was a SAINT. HE GAVE US HOPE!!!!

By Newzwyre

February 25, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

The new “Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life- US Religious Landscape Survey” is out. Yay!

Did you know -

There are just as many Athists and Agnostics in the United States (4%) as there are Mormons (1.7%), Jews (1.7%), and Muslims (.6%) combined? But there are three times as many who are unaffiliated with ANY organized religion?

13% of Georgians are unaffiliated with any religion, are agnostic, or atheist.

most “unaffiliated, agnostic or atheist” are white (73%), married (46%), with no children (67%)and 40% have at least some college education.

http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

You are boarding a plane and the officials take your wife and child with the intent on strip searching them: Are you just as flippant?

Would I be joking about it? No. But would I go along with it? Absolutely. Would I like it? No.

I agree if everyone bellies-up like you are willing to but many of us are not.

Hate to tell you this, but today 150,000 travelers went through the Atlanta airport and joined me at the bar. And the same number will be there tomorrow, and the next day and the next. Your computer is joined to the internet and can be searched whenever anyone likes it, legal or not. Use a debit card or charge card lately? How about that Kroger Plus card? You can preach about your latest crusade all you want, but you are right now opening up the biggest portal to your life, your computer. And you are worried about the airport?

I promise you that it is nothing that I like, but we have no privacy.

I have many battles like everyone else. I am self employed so my battles often involve whether or not I sleep indoors. Those battles take my whole life. Searches at airports is a battle I will leave to you. I keep my private stuff in private places.

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre

67% have no children. That says something. I’m not sure what. But it says something.

By Newzwyre

February 25, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022501014.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide when police without a warrant can search the vehicle of a person who is under arrest.

Rodney Joseph Gant was handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car and under police supervision when Tucson, Ariz., police officers searched his car.

[snip]

The justices said they will hear the case next fall to decide whether officers must demonstrate a threat to their safety or the need to preserve evidence to justify a warrantless search in cases like Gant’s. Gant was arrested about 10 feet away from his parked car.

[snip]

The state said the ruling, if allowed to stand, would impose a “dangerous and unworkable test” that would complicate the daily lives of law enforcement officers.

The case is Arizona v. Gant, 07-542.

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

Would I be joking about it? No. But would I go along with it? Absolutely. Would I like it? No. Thanks for being honest. I would not be so amiable.

Your computer is joined to the internet and can be searched whenever anyone likes it, legal or not. (joined?!?!)

With all due respect, you need to keep to subjects you know about. Your tech info is totally incorrect. Granted, you and many others that do not know how to set up their home networks (off unused ports on your pc/router, if you have a router, for example) may be quite vulnerable, but it still is not anywhere as easy as you believe.

I promise you that it is nothing that I like, but we have no privacy. And as Big Brother puts another nail in the bill of rights coffin you cheer instead of rally against the machine.

By Flippant

February 25, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

I’m a Republican and I’M ALWAYS RIGHT! And if you don’t shut up and agree with me, YOUR ALWAYS WRONG! Why are you so stupid? I answered your question and the answer shows that you are stupid, and I am a geeeeeeeeeeeeeeenuis!

Neener neener neener neener! ppppbbbbbllllplplplplplplppppttttt!

obligatory crotch grab

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

TOJ,

Ohh yea. The spammers can post after 5 because they open multiple instances of the page while it is available and post after hours. Probably because the searches gather all the sites (especially those that correlate to porn like “woman to woman”) during one phase and distribute the spam during the next. Might even be some error checking involved, hence why we see the “Interesting site” posts: they are just checking for bounce-backs/404s. The easy solution would be to make us all have user names/passwords to post.

By Perhaps

February 25, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

67% have no children. That says something. I’m not sure what. But it says something.

That they do not subscribe to the ugly desert dwellers God-driven mandate to go out and breed like rats, perhaps?

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

By JokesOn

Thanks for being honest. I would not be so amiable.

It is a matter of priorities. If the authorities decide it’s time to search my daughter and they have a female agent to do it, she is going to be searched. I can either raise holy hell and get myself srrested and ruin the trip or I can keep my mouth shut and move on. I think that is also what you would do. If it is not, what would you do differently?

With all due respect, you need to keep to subjects you know about. Your tech info is totally incorrect. Granted, you and many others that do not know how to set up their home networks (off unused ports on your pc/router, if you have a router, for example) may be quite vulnerable, but it still is not anywhere as easy as you believe.

My system was set up by the same company that set up Crawford communication’s new sat uplink in Norcross. It’s probably set up right. I don’t know the terms. Joined. Linked, whatever. It isn’t easy for most to do, but it can be done. Spyware can be bought by anyone.

And as Big Brother puts another nail in the bill of rights coffin you cheer instead of rally against the machine.

How many times do I need to write that I am not happy about it before you get it? I wish all people were honest and all women had long legs, but I got here too late. Mankind had already spent 200,000 years screwing it all up and these ideas of honestly and privacy were already corrupted.

You claim to want to fight it. What would you propose? The information the Bush administration has requested on individual terrorists is much less that the information Kroger collects on you everytime you buy a cart full of groceries.

I have a big problem with the merchant tracking, but I honestly couldn’t care less about the terrorists.

By Libsrule

February 25, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this

By Flippant

I’m a Republican and I’M ALWAYS RIGHT! And if you don’t shut up and agree with me, YOUR ALWAYS WRONG! Why are you so stupid? I answered your question and the answer shows that you are stupid, and I am a geeeeeeeeeeeeeeenuis! Neener neener neener neener! ppppbbbbbllllplplplplplplppppttttt! obligatory crotch grab

You tell him!! He thinks he is so cool actually discussing topics and stuff. He should be more like you and show his feelings and whine about those mean old X-icon posts. Debate? Shoot no!!

You start debating a Republican and pretty soon he will have you so confused that you will start believing that Al Gore is NOT a God.

I’m with you, Buddy. You are really the smart one here!!

By Libsrule

February 25, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

Perhaps

That they do not subscribe to the ugly desert dwellers God-driven mandate to go out and breed like rats, perhaps?

See? You get it. As a liberal, it is our duty to diminish our footprint here on this planet. If more people thought like you, our horrible species would not have survived this long and the planet would be filled with nothing but natural animals like donkies and cats and elephants.

We would have never survived long enouigh to ruin this planet.

Viva Gore. Down with humans. We s*ck!!!

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

I think that is also what you would do. If it is not, what would you do differently?

Refuse until my lawyer arrived. If I would have to sacrifice a trip for it - so be it.

I did just that once when a friend and I got pulled over on 295 going around Jacksonville. We were pulled over for doing 7 miles over the limit and the cops said we looked nervous and suspicious driving a acura legend, and therefore were going to search the car. I told them nope and neither were saying another word until my lawyer was present. They puffed up for 15min, saw we were not going to cooperate, called in the drug dogs, dogs were totally unresponsive, and were were let go: With the explanation that we could have made it much easier by letting them search the car.

A hassle? yep. Worth it? absolutely.

How many times do I need to write that I am not happy about it before you get it?

I did a search on the page for “not happy” and it was not found. The greater point being, if you are “not happy with it,” why would you argue for its practice? (please provide more of a reason than “big-b is already out there”)

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 25, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

order cialis

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

By JokesOn

Refuse until my lawyer arrived. If I would have to sacrifice a trip for it - so be it.

I’ll choose my battles. Setting on the side of a highway, just to make a point to a couple of cops who just thinks you are a jerk for wasting everyone’s time might be a victory, but at what price? If I go to battle, I go to win something worth fighting for. Did you change the system? Did you do anything other than make a point that had probably been made to those cops a dozen times? did you consult with your friend who’s time you would also be spending to prove your point? If he didn’t approve if it, you were as guilty as the cops at taking away someone’s rights.

A hassle? yep. Worth it? absolutely.

How so? What did it accomplish?

I did a search on the page for “not happy” and it was not found.

this is what I said: I promise you that it is nothing that I like, but we have no privacy.

The greater point being, if you are “not happy with it,” why would you argue for its practice? (please provide more of a reason than “big-b is already out there”)

I’m not happy about radical Islam. I’m not happy about needing that kind of security at the airports.

I’m not happy about the search and seizure laws cops have. I’m not arguing for them. I am arguing for living your life without charging windmills.

I’m not at all happy with the internet and the way it is set up, but I use it every day.

By The Other Jack

February 25, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

Thanks for the explanation of the night time posts.

Seems like a lot of work to post stuff that no one reads.

By FYI

February 25, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

Seems like a lot of work to post stuff that no one reads.

Seems like someone who claims to know “the internet and how it’s set up” would realize that it’s not “work” when a bot does it.

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

Did you change the system? Maybe.

Did you do anything other than make a point that had probably been made to those cops a dozen times? Other than preserve my rights? Maybe.

did you consult with your friend who’s time you would also be spending to prove your point? If he didn’t approve if it, you were as guilty as the cops at taking away someone’s rights. Nope. It was my car and he does not have any rights to it. He agreed though.

I’m not happy with.. Well, I AM happy with my constitutional rights and will do what I can to retain them, no matter how ineffectual you and others think the cause/actions might be. A million ants can turn into a impressive force.

Seems like a lot of work to post stuff that no one reads. Since it is performed by pc’s even a 1% success rate is profitable.

By NeedsEdjamacation

February 25, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

bot? wat dat? dat moore of dat computa speek?

By NeedsEdjamacation

February 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

okay, that was a rhetorical question, asked in jest.

I had a cop pull me over legally(for failure to use a directional when changing interstate lanes) but then, because I was pulling off the interstate in a predominately black neighborhood(I am white) and had plates for another county, wanted to search my vehicle for drugs. Now, never mind I was returning to work from a lunch-trip to Home Depot. I laughed him right out of the area, back to his car. and No ticket for the reason(or so he said) he actually pulled me over. All of his questions indicated he felt I had to right to be near where I work, when my car plates indicated I did not live there.

By Thomas Jefferson

February 25, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this

Not no. But hell no!! This whole security thing has gone way too far. Government should forever and always keep its hands off our property, and its eyes and ears out of our lives. And for you chicken littles out there that quiver and quake over all of the big bad terrorists waiting to jump you in your driveway, get a grip. As my good friend Ben Franklin once said, “He who would give up his freedom for security, deserves neither.”

By NeedsEdjamacation

February 25, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

NO right(to be in the area), should have been with all his questionings.

and specific questions: Any weed? Nope, any coke, Nope? I almost volunteered “Gee, you need to ask the right question, since I have a pound of meth in the trunk, wonder when you can get to the CORRECT question”.

seriously, I laughed him right back to his car.

By JokesOn

February 25, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

In order to be clear: I would not have anywhere near a problem with security stating that we cannot have these items on a plane, and if you bring one it will be confiscated and sent to you or at a pickup site. Searching through it for info is bs though.

By 2D

February 26, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this

Very interesting posting lately…

Why does it seem that one group of posters attempt to keep their content focused on facts and their own experiences and another routinely resorts to name calling insults? Perhaps it’s a lack of substance, just like their probable Presidential nominee.

By USinUK

February 26, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this

JokesOn -

Well, I AM happy with my constitutional rights and will do what I can to retain them, no matter how ineffectual you and others think the cause/actions might be. A million ants can turn into a impressive force.

you are SO my hero. :-)

By JokesOn

February 26, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

you are SO my hero. :-)

You do know that it is not trendy to dig me or my posts, no? hehe

I have no idea who you used to be on here, if anyone. Mind sharing?

By USinUK

February 26, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

JokesOn -

I have no idea who you used to be on here, if anyone. Mind sharing?

Nope - never used to be anyone else but me … loitered for a long time before starting to take part in the forum back in November-ish.

As long as I’ve been here, I’ve enjoyed your posts - but, then, that could be because we’re usually on the same side of the debate ;-)

Hear it’s a rainy day in GA today … good thing!! I know you need it. It’s bright and sunny here - saw a gorgeous hillside of daffodils on my journey to work this morning … man, I love the spring.

By The Other Jack

February 26, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Daffodils? It’s already spring there? It’s still pretty nasty here.

By Copyleft

February 26, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

Fighting a violation of our rights is ALWAYS worth the time and trouble, to those of us who still value them.

Yes, raise a stink. Delay or cancel your trip. Wage a “hopeless” court battle and tie up the system with red tape. If that’s what it takes to challenge yet another government intrusion into our freedoms, DO IT.

Too many lazy Americans these days, just shrugging and accepting whatever the government wants to do.

By kimberly

February 26, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

Hello all, do you mind if I stray off topic for a moment and express my “woman to woman” feeling on a “woman” thing today?

Frankly, I’m having a hard time with this whole “hope” business I keep hearing about, when all I hear on every TV, radio, and print medium, and from the mouths of my fellow Americans is how much they hate that B-word or C-word with the cankles and too much ambition. Objective, substantive reporting re: election coverage is non-existent in this century. (Memo for editors: Fell-ate this one, do the eye-roll whenever you mention the other one’s name…)

I mean, I knew James Brown was right (at least he was honest!) that it is indeed a man’s world. But I never realized how much the men in this country TRULY hate the idea of a successful smart woman, and basically, women in general. (After all, the blog doesn’t really reflect a cross-section of Americans, does it?) Apparently it does. Even the “liberal” commentators in the news have taken to all-out favoritism in their hatred of the “Evil SHE.” Some men (former military especially) have been honest enough to admit that men just aren’t comfortable with female authority, and I appreciate their forthright admissions, even though most of them defend the raping of female soldiers on the “she wanted it” premise. Even women join in with woman-hating, a practice I find doubly discouraging.

I’ve tried to be objective, and for that, have been ridiculed. Y’all can jump in and spout and sputter that you don’t hate ALL women, and you respect SOME women, but frankly, I’m neither seeing nor feeling it from any of you. Stop telling me after all these years of having lies and war and contempt for thinking Americans forced upon us that I’m supposed to wake up in the morning and suddenly feel “hope” because either Obama or McCain is going to be the next President. Sorry, but this is one b-word that requires more than empty words to believe you, and I think I’ve heard quite enough.

Okay, I’m done. Thanks for listening, and please return to your regularly scheduled topic.

By The Other Jack

February 26, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

JokesOn

Yesterday you were quick to lecture me for not raising a stink if my daughter were to be submitted to a strip search at an airport. I asked what you would do, but strangely enough, you ignored the question.

So what would you do? Considering you are willing to stop your life, the life of a friend and the work of at least two police officers and a drug dog in order to prove an inane point to two cops and a dog, I’m anxious to hear what you would do to prove a point at the airport.

By Libsrule

February 26, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

NeedsEdjamacation

bot? wat dat? dat moore of dat computa speek?

You are just a brilliant comedian. And you are really putting that mean old conservative in his place. Doesn’t use computer dweeb speak in everyday conversation. What an ignorant person.

Since he doesn’t spend his life fixing other people’s tools so the other people can be creative and resourceful, he isn’t smart enough to speak the language. You tell em, Buddy. How dare he do something else with his life than fixing computers.

And as we all know, computer mechanics are at least as important as car mechanics and almost just as cool.

By The Other Jack

February 26, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

Kimberly

Hillary Clinton is nothing like most women I know.

I tend to think about individual people. As an individual, she is dishonest and full of hate. This does not mean that I believe all women are dishonest and full of hate.

If men (and women) need to blindly accept Hillary Clinton as the leader of the free world in order for you not to believe that all men have no respect for all women, this is going to be a long year for you.

By USinUK

February 26, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Daffodils? It’s already spring there? It’s still pretty nasty here.

yep … daffs … the tulip greens are starting to come up … trees are starting to blossom …

it’s been chilly and we’ve had frost in the mornings, but it’s still been a pretty mild winter (yay!)

now … from what I saw of yesterday’s W2W traffic, you did not make it down to your storage unit for a clear-out. BAD TOJ! Bad!!!

By lozen

February 26, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, I understand and I agree with you. I don’t care how many ppl say, “I hate Hillary because she’s evil and full of hate, certainly not because she’s a woman” I don’t buy it either. Sexism is alive and well in the USofA; you know it and I know it. And we are not the only ones who know it.

By lozen

February 26, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

And Kimberly, your statement, “Hello all, do you mind if I stray off topic for a moment and express my “woman to woman” feeling on a “woman” thing today?,” is appreciated also.

By USinUK

February 26, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

lozen -

Sexism is alive and well in the USofA; you know it and I know it. And we are not the only ones who know it.

I agree with you that sexism is alive and well in the US, the UK, France (god knows, the woman who ran against Sarkozy was vilified, too) and many other countries.

But to say “you hate Hillary because she’s a woman” is just … well … facile. It demeans 1) the women like myself who support Obama, implying some kind of self-loathing and 2) the people who don’t support her because of her support of Bush’s war.

There are legitimate reasons to support a non-ovaried American for President - please, don’t demean us by saying that we’re mysogenists …

By Funny

February 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

BAD TOJ! Bad!!!

Is USinUK holding a rolled-up newspaper?

By The Other Jack

February 26, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Not so fast. I did actually get quite a bit done. I found out that about half of the space was a tape library for an old client that has been out of business for about three years. I loaded the old Volvo Wagon up with those tapes and now about half the space is empty.

My ex is taking a couple of pieces of furniture that she had wanted anyway. I have a bunch of expensive birch plywood that I am going to slice up into shelves for a utility room.

Then it will just be some outdated music equipment, a few tools and college books. There are several boxes that have not been opened in years. I am debating opening them up. If I just throw them out, i will never miss what I had. If I open them up, I could find some cool stuff that I would end up sticking in another box.

Stopped raining but it supposed to get cold tonight. I need to see a palm tree.

By USinUK

February 26, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

good gravy … my spelling has gone to hell in the proverbial handbasket …

that should be “misogynists” …

(-5 for spelling)

By The Other Jack

February 26, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

USinUK

There are legitimate reasons to support a non-ovaried American for President - please, don’t demean us by saying that we’re mysogenists

The tragic thing about this is that Kimberly and Lozen will believe you, not because you made a great argument (which you did), but they will believe you because you are not a man.

But oddly enough, their entire posts are all about sexism.

Sometimes this is a very entertaining place.

By Geezer

February 26, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

To answer the question, NO!

Are US Customs and Border Protection agents I.T. security experts? Are they fluent in multiple languages? I think not.

It could take an I.T. security specialist several days to properly search a disk drive for illegal content. If the content was in a foreign language, someone fluent in that language would need to interpret.

Furthermore, the proper investigative technique (admissible as evidence in a court of law) requires creating a bit for bit backup of the disk drive, then performing the analysis on the backup. The original disk drive can’t be tampered with; it must follow chain of custody rules to be entered as evidence along with an MD5 checksum as proof that no one tampered with the contents. A decent attorney could get a case dismissed outright, even if illegal data was found, by not following the proper investigative technique. (Unless, of course, you are deemed an enemy combatant) If a border agent searches a laptop for illegal data, they may have already compromised the data, since they can’t prove that they did not place the illegal data on the disk drive.

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century~!

February 26, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

-=-

This is just wrong no matter how you spin it…

It is Illegal search and Seizure at it’s utmost disgusting level.

I am so glad the EFF is challenging this in the courts.

I can clearly understand checking devices for physical (and immediate) dangers, such as explosives in a blackberry.

But to check the data content of your personal belongings is wat out of line. Not only does it compromise your rights to have your personal effects and belongings protected for privacy, it also affects people who have intellectual property data and corporate security data and secrets as well. My patent preliminary work for example would be at risk of being compromised before I applied for the patent.

And yes, there have already been many cases where laptops, blackberrys and even I-Pods (on suspician of illegal downloaded songs) have been confiscated to be further examined. To make matters worse — these items are seldom returned back to their original owners after having been confiscated.

This is a clear invasion of the peoples rights and their privacy, and to surrender your rights without a fight is not only un-patriotic, but un-american. Remember that this is not a king, or dictatorship, but a democracy with the very foundation of government BY THE PEOPLE!…

Thomas

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791

By USinUK

February 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Good TOJ!! (putting away the rolled-up newspaper)

here: http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/hammock-2-l.jpg

hope that helps! you earned it for your hard graft yesterday.

By kimberly

February 26, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Lozen! Always nice to hear from you.

TOJ, you prove my point, so I suppose some thanks are due. “Dishonest?” As compared to all the other politicians of any party and the deals they make to work the system? “Full of hate?” I’m sorry, I’ve been paying attention and haven’t seen any evidence of the “full of hate” thing. Even listened to the speeches AND debates, and nope, didn’t see it from her, only from those talking about her.

“Blindly accept?” I never asked anyone to blindly accept anything. I don’t even ask it of my own family, so I certainly wouldn’t ask it from strangers. You must be confusing me with the religious fundamentalists and the war apologists who’ve been insisting for years that the ever-changing rationalizations don’t equate to outright lies. How about some “objective thought” instead? That’d be terrific, thanks.

USinUK, Obama’s been a Senator for a few years now. Has he voted to withhold funding for the war? Did he filibuster anything war-related? What HAS he done to bring the troops home besides criticize others who have also failed to do so? Just curious. BTW, I keep hearing about “change.” For 15 years the Repugs chanted and ranted that everything bad in the world is “Clinton’s fault” (depsite the historical record of several pretty good years). Now I’m hearing it from the Dems as well. So…. WTF has changed? I will support Obama over McCain, but I’m pretty much over the constant derision I receive from his supporters because I liked Sen. Clinton’s answers in the debates better than his.

By The Other Jack

February 26, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

Kimberly

Mrs. Bill Clinton has been known as one of the most divisive candidates in America since 2000. But while Obama has captured the imagination of the “We Are The World” folks, I agree with you in that while presidential looks and stolen catch phrases might win the progressive base, it will do nothing to win the logical, fair minded centrist.

Personally, I think if anything will defeat McCain, it will be Obama’s looks. Obama presents a virile, young, active man and McCain is an old slumped over man.

I like McCain because he has worked with the democrats. I like McCain because I believe that he can get Washington working again. I like McCain because he p*sses off Rush Limbaugh. And like Eisenhower, McCain knows what war is. Obama is no better than Bush because he just sees it as a political tool.

Obama claims to be a centrist wanting to bring the country back together while he desperately tries to convince his base that he really didn’t say anyhing good about Reagan. He is so media trained that I have a hard time watching him.

I wouldn’t trust Mrs. Bill Clinton to babyset my cat. but with Obama, I am seeing a state of the art, 21st century politician. I don’t like or trust politicians.

Now was that objective enough for you?

By ???!!!

February 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Why does it seem that one group of posters attempt to keep their content focused on facts and their own experiences and another routinely resorts to name calling insults? Perhaps it’s a lack of substance, just like their probable Presidential nominee.

Are we reading the same blog? I guess that the non-stop fake posts by “Libsrule” and whatever fake name right-wingers constitute “sticking” to the issues?

And…since USinIK is obviously not a conservative and sticks to facts and experiences, and JokesOn ALSO sticks to facts and experiences, what reason to you have to insinuate in this quote that it’s the REPUBLICANS who are being civil and reasonable and the DEMOCRATS who are not?

As time goes by, you’ve become more and more of a rigid ideologue - you used to actually be a reasonable poster, but now you’re no better than Other Jack and his constant irrational rants about evil progressives.

By USinUK

February 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

kimberly -

sorry for the delay (grrr … computer is acting up) … I’ll say to you the same thing I said to Monica last week - check out his Senate page if you want to know what he’s authored and co-sponsored:

“In January 2007, Senator Obama reintroduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act to improve the VA’s planning process to avoid budget shortfalls in the future. The bill requires the VA and the Department of Defense to work together and share data so that we know precisely how many troops will be returning home and entering the VA system.”

“Senator Obama introduced an amendment that became law providing food services to wounded veterans receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services at military hospitals. Previously, service members receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services in a medical hospital for more than 90 days were required to pay for their meals. “

“Senator Obama sponsored the Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act. The bill would shed light on the almost 16,000 earmarks that were included in spending bills in 2005. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists. Several of these provisions were included in the ethics and lobbying reform bill that passed the Senate in January 2007.”

“Current audit findings estimate the waste at more than $2 billion. This waste not only defrauds taxpayers; it deprives vulnerable citizens who are struggling to restore their livelihoods in the wake of a national tragedy. To stop these abuses, Senator Obama introduced amendments to the Homeland Security and Defense spending bills to reinforce the requirements for competitive procedures in contracting and to limit the use of unnecessary exceptions by government officials. Senator Obama has continued to aggressively conduct oversight actions to bring FEMA into compliance with these laws.”

As far as For 15 years the Repugs chanted and ranted that everything bad in the world is “Clinton’s fault” (depsite the historical record of several pretty good years). Now I’m hearing it from the Dems as well

ummm … which Dem has said that?? I certainly haven’t heard Obama say that, nor any other Dem that I’ve seen.

As far as derision - I’m sorry to hear you’ve been on the receiving end. However, saying that anyone who doesn’t plan to vote for Hillary is doing so because they hate women is - at the risk of being redundant - facile. For me, it’s her vote for the bankruptcy bill - that’s why I do not support her. I’m sure other folks have their reasons, but that’s mine. Ovaries ain’t got nothing to do with it.

By The Other Jack

February 26, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

???!!!

Why does it seem that one group of posters attempt to keep their content focused on facts and their own experiences and another routinely resorts to name calling insults? Perhaps it’s a lack of substance, just like their probable Presidential nominee.

Why does it seem that when a progressive wants to be a partisan jerk, they post under an anonymous name like ???!!!

It’s a convenient, yet rather cowardly way of keeping one’s nose clean.

I do find it rather amusing that the person attacking conservatives will not sign their commonly used name.

And…since USinIK is obviously not a conservative and sticks to facts and experiences, and JokesOn ALSO sticks to facts and experiences, what reason to you have to insinuate in this quote that it’s the REPUBLICANS who are being civil and reasonable and the DEMOCRATS who are not?

So who are you, again? LOL!

As time goes by, you’ve become more and more of a rigid ideologue - you used to actually be a reasonable poster, but now you’re no better than Other Jack and his constant irrational rants about evil progressives.

I have asked for such ignorant people as yourself to post anything I have done that even approaches what your cowardly accusations claim. but you won’t. You are a stupid coward who doesn’t have the character to stand behind what you say.

I know you are not USinUK. I can tell that she is smart enough that she would never need to hide in order to try and make a point. She makes her points rather well and there is no one on here that I respect more.

But as far as what you think about me? I can’t respect the opionion of a coward. Now be sure to come back with lots of stupid little names saying stupid little things.

By The Other Jack

February 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

USinUK

Yes it did help.

Thanks.

By Corrector

February 26, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

Obama’s EXACT Reagan comments: The Clintons outright LIED in saying he was using words like “good” and “better”.

Read it all again if you want, you won’t find “better” or “good” in there, or synonyms or implications along those lines.

By The Other Jack

February 26, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

Corrector (Or whatever name you are hiding behind today)

As expected, you completely missed the point, but you are known for not being the brightest bulb in the box. (Whoever you are)

Obama claims to want to “cross the aisle”, (my phrase, not his) in order to work with Republicans in order to make Washington’s partisan nonsense cause less damage to our country. When questioned about a perceived compliment toward the party that he claims he will get along with, he animately denied saying anything good about any Republican.

And this is the man that is going to work with Republicans? LOL!!!

I’ll take “Just another lying politician” for 100 Alex.

By ???!!!

February 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

Oh no, the delusional “I am perfect” Other Jack/Other Dog has chastised me and attacked my intelligence. Sniff sniff - whatever will I do!

By USinUK

February 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

Hooray!!! CLEVELAND - Sen. Christopher Dodd endorsed one-time presidential rival Barack Obama on Tuesday and said it is time for Democrats to join forces to defeat the Republicans in the fall campaign.

I do so love me some Chris Dodd - he’s a good man and has been a fantastic senator.

By chuck

February 26, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon:

I had a busy day yesterday and didn’t get to post. I read most of the posts last night and thought I’d jump in here and correct ya’ll ONCE AGAIN on the Constitution. There is a special case involving search and seizure at the BORDER. There is no protection against these search and seizures AT THE BORDER. A quick search of “Findlaw” revealed the following. If you want to read about a variety of situations concerning your 4th amaendment rights you can read the entire article here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/04.html#f87

The section on border searches reads as follows:

Border Searches .—”That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration.” 87 Authorized by the First Congress, 88 the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops. 89 Moreover, while prolonged detention of travelers beyond the routine customs search and inspection must be justified by the Terry standard of reasonable suspicion having a particularized and objective basis, 90 Terry protections as to the length and intrusiveness of the search do not apply. 91

Inland stoppings and searches in areas away from the borders are a different matter altogether. Thus, in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 92 the Court held that a warrantless stop and search of defendant’s automobile on a highway some 20 miles from the border by a roving patrol lacking probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal aliens violated the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the Court invalidated an automobile search at a fixed checkpoint well removed from the border; while agreeing that a fixed checkpoint probably gave motorists less cause for alarm than did roving patrols, the Court nonetheless held that the invasion of privacy entailed in a search was just as intrusive and must be justified by a showing of probable cause or consent. 93 On the other hand, when motorists are briefly stopped, not for purposes of a search but in order that officers may inquire into their residence status, either by asking a few questions or by checking papers, different results are achieved, so long as the stops are not truly random. Roving patrols may stop vehicles for purposes of a brief inquiry, provided officers are ”aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that an automobile contains illegal aliens; in such a case the interference with Fourth Amendment rights is ”modest” and the law enforcement interests served are significant. 94 Fixed checkpoints provide additional safeguards; here officers may halt all vehicles briefly in order to question occupants even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. 95

The number represent footnotes that I did not include here. Go to the article if you want to find the specific case law for the 4th amendment.

By Libsrule

February 26, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

???!!!

*Oh no, the delusional “I am perfect” Other Jack/Other Dog has chastised me and attacked my intelligence. Sniff sniff - whatever will I do!^

Well the best thing you can do is to let it all out and just have yourself a good cry. Granted, we will never be able to match those nasty old conservatives on logic and intelligence, but by god, we can sure launch the personal attacks.

I loved it when you said that he launches into irrational rants about evil progressives. I love it when you are able to start accusing the non-geek of things like that. And scr*w him for wanting you to post anything he said. We both know that he meant to say those things whether he did or not.

You are my hero.

Viva la computer dweeb!

Viva la avoiding the debate!

Viva la personal attacks!

Viva la ignorance!!!

By kimberly

February 26, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

USinUK, thanks for sharing what specifically you like about Obama, and yes, I remember the bankruptcy bill discussion, in which you and I are in complete agreement. Since the beginning, I have voiced my support for ALL our fine Democratic candidates this year, and in no way have I ever said he is not worthy of my vote in November.

I did NOT, however, say that anyone who won’t vote for Hillary doesn’t like women. Rather, I complained about the increasing prevalence of misongynistic comments in what should be a debate about the issues. Since you present facts, reasoning, and opinions in a respectful way, I was of course NOT referring to you!

But obviously, I AM hearing a lot B-word, C-word, and heifer references and a clear bias in the “news” in which “she’s so devisive/cold/insincere/hysterical/dishonest” et al displaces actual quotes or examples, or I wouldn’t be bothered enough to complain about it.

I HAVE had numerous men validate my “just can’t stand the b—-h, don’t know or care what she said or how she voted” assertion. Two more just this morning. I envy you for being there and not here. It’s ugly here, and I’m discouraged by that. Truth.

By The Other Jack

February 26, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

kimberly

I AM hearing a lot B-word, C-word, and heifer references and a clear bias in the “news”

What news are you listening to? You hear the B-word and C-word in the news? I heard the Jane Fonda comments, but that is the only C-word I have heard.

I understand that since I am not a woman that my opinion means nothing to someone fighting against sexual bias like yourself, but I would really like to know where you heard these comments.

By chuck

February 26, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, there is only one reason to vote for or against a presidential candidate. Is that person the best candidate for America?

The problem with Hillary is not her gender, but her policies. She is decidedly to the left of her husband. I remind you that as much as Bill wanted to pull the country to the left, the Republican congress kept him from doing it. There is, at the moment, nothing to stop her from doing that. Obama is more of the same. I am not excited about voting for McCain, but it doesn’t look like I will have a choice (UNLESS of course we have no candidate reach the required number of delegates. Anything could happen in a brokered convention). At least he is pro-life. I could not under any circumstances ave voted for Giuliani.

By Lyrazel

February 26, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

We are under attack and this is one way we must be able to defend ourselves. I want to know who is attacking us, Shaunti?

Paranoia is all the rage these days but most paranoids are an unsteady bunch who would scream bloody rage if say a security person inadvertently erased all the data on an impounded blackberry/laptop/phone then handed it back saying: Oops.

Take for example a group of tourists all senior citizens all white all traveling coach on a Sunday morning flight all carrying personal data devices put in a room with one middle eastern young man with a laptop. In comes the data police officer who must now check all files on their electronic equipment. The data police officer has cleared our middle east fellow quickly (one thing about targeting—the targets know they will be looked at and won’t travel with sensitive files) and by Thursday morning after searching 79000 downloaded photos of grandchildren, home photos and emails the last senior tourist is released for the flight. Waiting in line to have their files reviewed are the 100000 other travelers from Monday-Thursday… not to mention pilots, flight attendants and children traveling without parents who have cell phones…

Yes, lets scan data at airports.

By kimberly

February 26, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

TOJ, I said “and” not “in.” Glad to know you’re secure enough in your masculinity to watch “The View.” I never watch it myself.

USinUK, let me provide a little more background. I AM a Democrat, as in: active, go-to-meetin, work-the-campaigns party member. Had dinner with 5,000 downtown last month. (She accepted our invitation to speak, he did not. Edwards dropped out that morning after learning Atlanta traffic was on his agenda that evening.) I participate mostly at the state level, and stayed out of working the primaries. Here’s what I’m saying: I haven’t heard a single Hillary supporter say he or she would not vote for Obama, but I can’t count the Obama supporters I hear saying they’d never vote for “HER.” This likely makes him more electable in November, but I hope you’ll forgive me when I say that the “Unity” cry rings hollow. I was kinda hoping for it, you know, and I feel a bit let down. (Deja vu?)

Chuck, you have your value system; I have mine. That all you can say about HER is that she “wants to pull the country to the left” tells me you haven’t listened to a single Democratic debate, nor informed yourself of the issues the candidates are attempting to address. Base your assumptions on whatever you want, Dude. Who am I to argue?

By The Other Jack

February 26, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

kimberly

TOJ, I said “and” not “in.” Glad to know you’re secure enough in your masculinity to watch “The View.” I never watch it myself.

So you did. I apologize. But apparently you must be hanging with a pretty rough bunch. i have never heard her called the C-word and have heard her called an egotistical assh*le much more than I have heard her called the B-word.

In the post you say that you are an active, go-to-meetin, work-the-campaigns party member. The fact that you don’t get Chuck’s point that both want to pull the country to the left is no surprise. Socializing one third of the US population while insisting that we pack up and leave a nation in which we have invested the lives of our children is very “far left”.

By chuck

February 26, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

Hillary’s record:

Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus. (Oct 2005)

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

Treat kids as “child citizens” not “minors” under the law. (Dec 1999)

Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

Establish leadership & moral authority via multilateralism. (Dec 2007)

These are just a few reasons

By chuck

February 26, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

BTW, Kimmie, if you don’t understand that the policies of your own party are to the left of center, maybe you should go to a few more meetings.

By kimberly

February 26, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

Nice googling, cutting & pasting, Chuck. Excellent use of pointless labeling too. I should learn to boil it all down to “left” and “right” and then I’ll be smarterer like you. BTW, is spending more than you earn, blowing the surplus, exploding the deficit and compounding trillions in debt a “right-wing” philosophy? Just trying to learn something from ya.

Anyway, bored now. Y’all have a lovely afternoon.

By Popular Vote

February 26, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

Popular vote:

2000: Bush: 50,456,002 Gore: 50,999,897 Nader: 2,882,955

2004: Bush: 62,040,610 Kerry:59,028,444 Nader: 465,650

By Popular Vote

February 26, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

Looks like a good 1/2 the country is left of center.

By Copyleft

February 27, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this

You got that exactly right, PopVote: the GOOD half of the country.

By USinUK

February 27, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this

TOJ and Kimberly -

Good morning – I hated having to miss part of yesterday’s conversation, but GMT is GMT and dinnertime is dinnertime. So, what you get is a deeeeelayed response – sorry ‘bout that.

Anyhooo … on to the business at hand …

i have never heard her called the C-word and have heard her called an egotistical asshle much more than I have heard her called the B-word.*

TOJ, there is an oh-so-charming Republican 527 organization called Citizens United Not Timid whose mission is to “educate the public what Hillary Clinton really is.” The organization was started by Republican Roger Stone (of Nixon’s dirty tricks mob, of “work with Roy Cohn to buy NY for Reagan” mob, of the “Brooks Brothers Riots” mob … and on and on). According to Weekly Standard’s Matt LaBash, Stone said of his 527 organization: “[I]t’s one-word education. That’s our mission. No issues. No policy groups. No position papers. This is a simple committee with an unfortunate acronym.” Stone also reportedly told Labash that the group originally tried to come up with an acronym for “b***”: “The truth is, we sat around for hours trying to come up with words for B.I.T.C.H. and just couldn’t do it.”

So, yeah. There it is in all its glory. And, yes, he’s been on Fox. He’s been on MSNBC. He’s been in the Washington Times promoting his (ahem) political “rhetoric”. (and as someone who loves language and debate, I hate using that word in association with someone as odious as Stone).

His wiki page if you’re interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone

Finally, I do agree with Kimberly on the media’s treatment of Hillary (something I brought up a few weeks ago on the forum) – regardless of who the first female president is, she will endure ludicrous amounts of scrutiny on: her cycle/her menopause, her cleavage, her cankles, her mood swings, god-forbid-she-ever-eats-chocolate-in-public, her weight gain/loss, her suits, her hair, her nails, her jewelry … and on and on … things that men RARELY have to deal with (only exception I can think of is Bill’s weight gain/loss).

I can’t count the Obama supporters I hear saying they’d never vote for “HER.” This likely makes him more electable in November, but I hope you’ll forgive me when I say that the “Unity” cry rings hollow. I was kinda hoping for it, you know, and I feel a bit let down. (Deja vu?)

kimberly – when push comes to shove, do you really think anyone on our side of the aisle would vote for McCain over Hillary??? I sure as heck don’t. People have had eeeenough of the GOP and are ready to wash away the elephant poo from the White House. If the superdelegates swing the vote to Hill instead of Obama, yes, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. And, yes, there will be plenty of bitterness to go around – enough, even, to keep some people from voting in the General. However, it sure as shootin’ won’t drive people into the arms of John McCain.

By Copyleft

February 27, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

UK, I think the greater risk is that Obama supporters, rather than voting for Hillary OR McCain, would simply go third-party or sit out the election.

By JokesOn

February 27, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this

Yesterday you were quick to lecture me for not raising a stink if my daughter were to be submitted to a strip search at an airport.

You seem to have misread my post. I simple asked what you would do and said thanks for being honest. Why one would turn that into “lecture” is not worth the psych evaluation.

I asked what you would do, but strangely enough, you ignored the question. No. Strangely enough we had a couple volleys on the topic and you forgot and tried making it into an insult…again.

You: I think that is also what you would do. If it is not, what would you do differently?

Me: *Refuse until my lawyer arrived. If I would have to sacrifice a trip for it - so be it. *

Considering you are willing to stop your life, the life of a friend and the work of at least two police officers and a drug dog in order to prove an inane point to two cops and a dog, I’m anxious to hear what you would do to prove a point at the airport. Uhem. The cops delayed me and my friend, beyond the reasonable 10min for a speeding ticket, not the inverse.

Again, your lack of memory is getting tiring. My friend was in total agreement that a search was uncalled for. Inane for a repug that has no intention protecting the rights of living people above the rights of the government is more like it.

By JokesOn

February 27, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

USinUK,

Sorry, but I had some fires and had to split. Thanks for the encouragement.

By Shirley U. Geste

February 27, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this

Everybody knows that Barack Obama will never offer Senator Clinton the VP slot (even if she was open to that, which is doubtful) but what about him offering to nominate her for the next open SCOTUS slot? She’s an accomplished lawyer, she’s already been vetted to the “n-th” degree, her Senate collegues would probably jump at the chance to advance one of their own, and it’s not an elected position. It’d also scare the bejeesus out of the conservatives, which the Democratic base will love.

Whaddyall think of that idea?

By USinUK

February 27, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this

Copyleft -

UK, I think the greater risk is that Obama supporters, rather than voting for Hillary OR McCain, would simply go third-party or sit out the election.

gah. Nader. talk about conceit.

I think “sit out” would be the option a lot of people would choose. call it a “pocket veto”, if you will.

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

JokesOn

So … once again, you avoid the question,

What would you do if the authorities at the airport insisted that you daughter be strip searched?

Again, your lack of memory is getting tiring. My friend was in total agreement that a search was uncalled for. Inane for a repug that has no intention protecting the rights of living people above the rights of the government is more like it.

And yet more lecturing instead of answering a simple question. Yes it is tiring, but expected.

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Oh come on. You support the political party that has as one of it’s major supporters: George Soros, a person who has been charged by your own adopted country of trying to devalue the pound in order to make billions. He did the same thing to France.

And now you site one Republican that I had never heard of and try to hang his ignorance on the whole party.

By JokesOn

February 27, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

So … once again, you avoid the question, You are really sounding dense. Although I answered, I will repost and rephrase to account for you lack of acknowledgment.

*Refuse until my lawyer arrived. If I would have to sacrifice a trip for it - so be it. *

What would you do if the authorities at the airport insisted that you daughter be strip searched?

Everything and anything to prevent it, short of getting me or them shot.

They would get so chewed up by the courts and media that it would change something.

By USinUK

February 27, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

And now you site one Republican that I had never heard of and try to hang his ignorance on the whole party.

no, not tarring with a broad brush. you said you hadn’t heard anyone use the C-word - I’m saying that 1) there is a whole GOP ORGANIZATION that is using the c-word … and that, 2) yes, they’ve been in major national media.

as far as not knowing who Roger Stone is - just because you don’t know who he is doesn’t mean he isn’t a major political operative.

and, please … George Soros??? you can do better than that, TOJ. he’s the right’s favorite whipping boy, I know, but believe it or not, he doesn’t fund half the things you guys like to say he does (like Media Matters, for one).

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Louis Farikhan just endorsed Obama. Do you really want to go into who says what?

and, please … George Soros??? you can do better than that, TOJ. he’s the right’s favorite whipping boy, I know, but believe it or not, he doesn’t fund half the things you guys like to say he does (like Media Matters, for one).

How do you know he doesn’t and what if he did? He openly sponsors moveon and you know his criminal background. He is the favorite whipping boy because he was willing for people like you and your hubby to lose almost everything you have in order for him to make even more billions. Causing a country’s monetary system to collapse in order to make lots of money may be acceptable because he claims to support progressive ideas, but he is at least as bad as big oil and has no interest in anything in the US succeeding.

He wants to be the 21st century ruler of the world. Conservatives would rather people choose their ruler, not have the position stolen by one of the richest and most corrupt people in the world. Progressives should refuse his money and run away from him. You will eventually understand why, but that man does nothing to benefit anyone but George Soros.

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

Jokes

Everything and anything to prevent it, short of getting me or them shot.

You wouldn’t be shot. You would be tasared and arrested and the entire episode would be video taped. It would be the latest clip in Real TVs Outrageous Behavior series and any judge upon seeing that the airport personal followed procedure would enforce a strict fine and if you had no priors, you would be released.

There are laws that allow strip searches. The fact that you think yourself above those laws might impress your friends on here, but I would be willing to bet that any judge would not be so impressed.

Why do you think that you shouldn’t be subjected to what every other person is subjected to? Are you above it all?

They would get so chewed up by the courts and media that it would change something.

It would definitely change your life. People on the street would see you and say: Look. Its that guy that thought he was above the same laws that everyone else has to abide by.

Just for fun, you should check and see how many people have refused airport searches. Then ask how their refusal has affected the media or affected the system in any way.

Why do you think that you would be paid attention by the media? Why do you think you would be treated any differently than anyone else by the criminal justice system?

By chuck

February 27, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

Excellent use of pointless labeling too. I should learn to boil it all down to “left” and “right” and then I’ll be smarterer like you.

Big problem with that Kimberly, I don’t think you will ever take the time to actually learn about the Republican positions on the issues since you apparently don’t know that your own party’s positions are WAAAAAAAAAY to the left of center. Based on your posts, it doesn’t appear that you have a grasp on any of the things we discuss, because all you do is sit back and snipe at conservatives. Kind of like Obama.

By Sam

February 27, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

The Other Jack, you sicken me. You and other lemmings like you are nothing more than useful idiots that enable governments to strip its citizenry of vital freedoms and liberties. You are a prime example of un-american thought. But I do have to admit, lackeys like you and others of your ilk would be great fits in Cuba. The Castro boys need a few more block watchers. And you certainly fit the bill commie.

By JokesOn

February 27, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

TOJ,

Your just getting obtuse again. Must be that you get more dim as the week goes on: cannot recall posts, convert polite tone to lecturing, getting belligerent.

There are laws that allow strip searches. The fact that you think yourself above those laws might impress your friends on here, but I would be willing to bet that any judge would not be so impressed.

Hmmm. And I thought we were talking about how without those laws you would still abide, just like the pc discussion. And I am sure your wife and child adore you for letting them be violated for no reason besides general suspicion. I can see you patting your girl on the head saying “do what ever they tell you.” I would be ashamed to be such a mouse.

Why do you think that you shouldn’t be subjected to what every other person is subjected to? Are you above it all? Man I am not into the whole “spell it out for me” thing today. If you cannot comprehend that strip searches, as well as search/seizures, are not ok for anyone under the bill of rights you do not deserve them.

Why do you think that you would be paid attention by the media? Why do you think you would be treated any differently than anyone else by the criminal justice system? That, for example, I was at a party in south georgia back in the day and they cops raided the place and tried to strip search everyone. The ones who resisted were in fact jailed for the night, but every one of the cops involved were relieved of duty.

Those that did not resist were paid $25k each and the rest of us got $5k our records expunged.

What first hand experience do you have?

By Newzwyre

February 27, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

He wants to be the 21st century ruler of the world. Conservatives would rather people choose their ruler, not have the position stolen by one of the richest and most corrupt people in the world. — that man does nothing to benefit anyone but George Soros.

Yet he was the founder of “The Open Society Institute” - a private operating and grantmaking foundation, aims to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform. On a local level, OSI implements a range of initiatives to support the rule of law, education, public health, and independent media. At the same time, OSI works to build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as combating corruption and rights abuses.

Soros is also staunchly anti-Communist. He is acknowleged to being a player in the collapse of the Soviet Union through his support of groups like Solidarity in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, and has been widely credited for his role in Georgia’s 2003 Rose Revolution. Odd kind of philanthropy for a guy who “does nothing to benefit anyone”.

I’m guessing that you don’t actually know a lot about Soros, other than his business dealings maybe. Though I’m not positive you know a lot about that either, because almost everyone else knows that if the BoE had either raised its interest rates to that of other EU exchanges or floated its currency, Soros wouldn’t have made such a killing and the Bank wouldn’t have taken such a hit. Actually, I don’t see how the party of money sharks like Scaife, Murdoch, Prince and Egan has any room for throwing brickbats at Soros for how he made his money.

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

Kimberly

I have to say that I feel your pain. (This is not in response to a poat) I watched Senator Clinton talking about media bias last night. It is interesting watching a progressive reacting to bad press. Not to say only Republicans get bad press, but Hillary is getting what is called in combat: withering fire. It never lets up. Obama is the selected winner by the media and every move Hillary makes is overtly twisted to support Obama. When SNL does a spoof about the bias, it is obvious.

Hillary should have called GW or any high profile Republican before pointing out the bad press. You can’t do that. The press isn’t going to allow anyone to call them on anything. She is dead meat. They will crucify her for that.

I should be pleased. I don’t like Mrs. Bill Clinton. But I am not.

I am seeing a completely unfair bias against an American Politician which will eventually cost her the White House. It is the egotistical American Media which is deciding this election. That’s not right and no matter how much I dislike Mrs. Bill, I can’t support such behavior by the media.

The only hope of any good coming out of this is when the next time (very soon I assure you) that the media levels its guns at a Republican, maybe, just maybe, you will start to understand what we are talking about.

Well … Maybe.

By Ain't It Grand

February 27, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

Actually, I don’t see how the party of money sharks like Scaife, Murdoch, Prince and Egan has any room for throwing brickbats at Soros for how he made his money.

Ain’t Capitalism great? So great SUPPOSEDLY one little greedy grubber can bring down a whole BIG COUNTRY economy. Gotta love it.

By chuck

February 27, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

when push comes to shove, do you really think anyone on our side of the aisle would vote for McCain over Hillary???

I don’t think this would happen USinUK. BUT, there may be a significant number of Barack Hussein Obama voters who don’t vote at all, which is almost as damaging. I don’t think that the democrat party understands (I hope anyway) that Barack Hussein Obama has energized a group of YOUNG voters who typically don’t vote in elections. If he wins those voters will go to the polls. If Hillary pulls a fast one with the “super delegates” and wins the nomination many of those voters will stay home.

By USinUK

February 27, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

rats. made a post 15 minutes ago and it seems to be lost in the etherworld.

anyway.

Louis Farikhan just endorsed Obama. Do you really want to go into who says what?

… and Obama both renounced AND rejected it (according to the accounts of last night’s debate). so what??

YOU said: i have never heard her called the C-word and have heard her called an egotistical asshle much more than I have heard her called the B-word.

all I did was show you that there exists an entire operation dedicated to defeating Hillary that is using the c-word as its name - AND it has been on major broadcast media.

as for the right’s obsession with George Soros - the only reason the GOP has a problem with him is because he spends his money on the dems and not the republicans. period.

By chuck

February 27, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

She’s an accomplished lawyer

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I blew coffee out my nose at that one Shirley. First, let me remind you that she hasn’t practiced law nearly 20 years. 2nd, I would hardly think that protecting those big, bad corporations from lawsuits while she was at the Rose law firm would qualify her for a seat on the Supreme Court.

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I think the server is screwed up.

By chuck

February 27, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

Jokeson, you are just wrong about this issue which concerns Crossing America’s BORDER. While I think the ongoing argument between you and TOJ is rather silly, it really would not matter whether you would like it or not. That’s why they have all of those big guys standing around with guns. Read the info that I posted yesterday from “findlaw”. Once you enter the customs area to return to the United States from ABROAD, they can pretty much do anything they need to do at that point to search someone. They don’t have to have a warrant. This pretty much includes searches for no apparent reason. The last time I went to Europe they pulled people out of line at random for more thorough searches. 3 of the 30 or so in our party received this treatment. Once you enter those areas you are subject to security screening. If you refuse they escort you out of the airport. They also put your name on a no fly list. BUT, the bottom line concerning this topic is that border agents can search anything they want to WITHOUT A WARRANT. They want ask your permission and they may not even be polite about it. It’s great to sound big and tough, but most of that is going to stop when you are on the floor in chains with someone’s foot on your neck.

Here’s what I posted yesterday, which had you read it would have probably ended this argument 20 posts ago.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/04.html#f87

The section on border searches reads as follows:

Border Searches .—”That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration.” 87 Authorized by the First Congress, 88 the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops. 89 Moreover, while prolonged detention of travelers beyond the routine customs search and inspection must be justified by the Terry standard of reasonable suspicion having a particularized and objective basis, 90 Terry protections as to the length and intrusiveness of the search do not apply. 91

Inland stoppings and searches in areas away from the borders are a different matter altogether. Thus, in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 92 the Court held that a warrantless stop and search of defendant’s automobile on a highway some 20 miles from the border by a roving patrol lacking probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal aliens violated the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the Court invalidated an automobile search at a fixed checkpoint well removed from the border; while agreeing that a fixed checkpoint probably gave motorists less cause for alarm than did roving patrols, the Court nonetheless held that the invasion of privacy entailed in a search was just as intrusive and must be justified by a showing of probable cause or consent. 93 On the other hand, when motorists are briefly stopped, not for purposes of a search but in order that officers may inquire into their residence status, either by asking a few questions or by checking papers, different results are achieved, so long as the stops are not truly random. Roving patrols may stop vehicles for purposes of a brief inquiry, provided officers are ”aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that an automobile contains illegal aliens; in such a case the interference with Fourth Amendment rights is ”modest” and the law enforcement interests served are significant. 94 Fixed checkpoints provide additional safeguards; here officers may halt all vehicles briefly in order to question occupants even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. 95

By chuck

February 27, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

ooops…they WON’T ask your permission

By USinUK

February 27, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

I think the server is screwed up.

man. it figures. technology is NOT making my life easy today. grrrrrr…

By chuck

February 27, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Actually USinUK, I watched the debate highlights this morning and what he said was that he denounce Louis’ antisemitic remarks. I don’t beleive that he actually rejected OR denounced the endorsement.

Let me ask you another question though: Do you think someone who could be the next president of the United States should belong to a church that HONORED LOUIS FARANKAN?

By GOB

February 27, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

Chuck - Is there a point, other than to attempt to link Obama and Saddam Hussein, in using his middle name when you refer to him? Do you really think that a decision that his parents made 40 some years ago is really relevant to his qualifications to be President? Just curious…

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

By JokesOn

Your just getting obtuse again. Please. For God’s sake. http://www.english-zone.com/verbs/your1.html

I know you hate for me to point that out, but instead of lecturing others about how everyone should be like you, you should be outside the high school that gave you a degree and screaming at the top of your lungs that you were ripped off. And then you say that I am getting dim as the week progresses. I hope that you never write business letters, Pal.

Hmmm. And I thought we were talking about how without those laws you would still abide, just like the pc discussion. And I am sure your wife and child adore you for letting them be violated for no reason besides general suspicion. I can see you patting your girl on the head saying “do what ever they tell you.” I would be ashamed to be such a mouse.

Great. Such a mouse. You can call your little girl from the cell and explain to her how she will be the target of every smart comment about her idiot daddy that is shown on every TV set in the city, jerking and bouncing around on the floor of the airport until the officer decides to let up on the taser button.

Do you have any idea of what a complete self righteous jerk you sound like when you launch into yet another sermon about what a noble stance you would take to prove a point?

^Man I am not into the whole “spell it out for me” thing today. If you cannot comprehend that strip searches, as well as search/seizures, are not ok for anyone under the bill of rights you do not deserve them.*

And you don’t deserve to be anywhere near any aircraft that I or my wife or my daughter would ever board. Their safety is much more important than any self righteous rant that you might have. I want you searched. If the logic that you present in this blog is the true logic you live by, you are dangerous and I want to be as far away from you as possible whenever I am in the air. Damn your tirades. I have my life to live, and my daughter is well taken care of.

That, for example, I was at a party in south georgia back in the day and they cops raided the place and tried to strip search everyone. The ones who resisted were in fact jailed for the night, but every one of the cops involved were relieved of duty.

Wow. Never saw that one coming. I don’t think it ever happened, but if it did: of course the cops were fired. They broke the law. We are talking about legal searches at airports.

What first hand experience do you have?

I have been a member of the media since 1979 and have traveled all over the world. I have been strip searched twice (Once in the Caribbean and once in South America) and have been detained for two days in a North African jail.

When I was released, I was never told why I was detained and was glad to get out of there with my life. No lawsuits against the “cops” that detained me. No getting 5K or 25K. I was just allowed to leave. I said nothing. I left. I’m sure playing this “mouse” just turns your stomach, but one of your temper tantrums could have cost me my life. That’s the reality of the world. The reality of a small town in the land of the free and the home of millions of attorneys is quite different.

That’s the world I live in. I can’t afford to be the next idiot on “World’s Dumbest Criminals”. I have traveled enough to understand what gets a person strip searched. I have taught my daughter how to behave in an airport that is charged with protecting each and every person that passes through that airport. I respect that job and understand the importance of what they are doing. I resent people like you who would rather compromise my safety and the safety of my family in order to attempt to make a pointless point.

By USinUK

February 27, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Oh, Chuck …

Do you think someone who could be the next president of the United States should belong to a church that HONORED LOUIS FARANKAN?

good grief. you must LOVE the WorldNetDaily as you seem to pass along all their crackpot talkingpoints.

I think it’s possible to belong to a church that supports things that you do not. I was a practicing catholic for a long time - the church I attended supported anti-choice organizations that are antithetical to what I believe.

so, yes. I think that Barak Obama can belong to a church that has a newsletter that praised Louis Farrakhan. And, yes, I think Barak Obama will make a FAB president. Ergo, yes, I think that a president can belong to a church that has a newsletter that praised Louis Farrakhan.

By Newzwyre

February 27, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Chuck, what do you expect Obama to do, start rejecting the support of every American he disagrees with? There’re a lot of people who disagree with him on border security, should he be have to publically reject them?

He’s already said that he didn’t ask for Farrakahn’s support and he’s condemne his remarks, so what else do you think he should do? Maybe he could walk up the the man, shake his fist like an 8-year-old Beaver Cleaver and demand that Farrakahn “take it back before I sock you one!”

By USinUK

February 27, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this

Newzy -

Maybe he could walk up the the man, shake his fist like an 8-year-old Beaver Cleaver and demand that Farrakahn “take it back before I sock you one!”

thanks a LOT. Now, I have an image of Farrakhan as Eddie Haskell walking up to Mrs. Obama saying “gee, Mrs. Obama, you’re looking lovely today”

;-)

By chuck

February 27, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this

Gob, let me answer your question with a question. How do you refer to our CURRENT President? Do you call him W? Dou you call him any other derivative of his middle name like Dumbya?

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this

USinUK

good grief. you must LOVE the WorldNetDaily as you seem to pass along all their crackpot talkingpoints.

He also must love The BBC, CNN, CNNi, ABC, NBC and FOX Newschannel. that’s just from channel surfing, not media research and not looking on the net. I’ll bet it is on every channel. That one is out of the box.

Obama needs to distance himself from that church: that is, if he wants to win. We get Screwy Lewis on Comcast Channel 23 here on Sunday morning. If conservatives link Obama to this guy, he is toast. And it’s not a far link with that church he attends.

Is it fair? Was the NYT article about McCain fair? It’s American politics and this is the Big Show. It’s for the White House.

By chuck

February 27, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

Text size – + Obama distances himself from Farrakhan Email|Link|Comments (35) Posted by Scott Helman, Political Reporter January 15, 2008 08:06 PM The friction between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over Clinton’s words about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. may have ebbed, but Obama today found himself in another delicate situation involving race and a prominent black leader.

In this morning’s Washington Post, columnist Richard Cohen took Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, on Chicago’s South Side, to task for giving an award last year to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. The church, through its magazine, bestowed on Farrakhan its Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award — named for its pastor — saying Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.”

“Maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan ‘epitomized greatness,’ Cohen wrote. “For most Americans, though, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism.”

The Washington Post is not exactly known as a conservative paper now is it USinUK

By Newzwyre

February 27, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

USinUK, sorry! LOL! It’s funny though, because I always thought that Eddie had much better manners than those Cleaver boys :-)

Say, since you’re “inUK”, did you see the BBC article about Turkey beginning what could realistically be called an Islamic Reformation?!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm

“Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion.”

“The country’s powerful Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith, the second most sacred text in Islam after the Koran.”

[snip]

“Commentators say the very theology of Islam is being reinterpreted in order to effect a radical renewal of the religion.

Its supporters say the spirit of logic and reason inherent in Islam at its foundation 1,400 years ago are being rediscovered. Some believe it could represent the beginning of a reformation in the religion.”

continued at link -

it’s really a fascinating article.

By Scalia

February 27, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I am going to have to agree with what you said about Hillary and her gender being a part of it. Look no further than the way that TOJ keeps referring to Hillary as Mrs. Bill Clinton. Sexism at its finest. She doesn’t have an identity, but is defined by her husband.

By USinUK

February 27, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

chuck -

Do you call him W?

you mean, all those cars with the “W” stickers on their bumpers are DEMOCRATS????

well, I’ll be …

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre

Chuck, what do you expect Obama to do, start rejecting the support of every American he disagrees with? There’re a lot of people who disagree with him on border security, should he be have to publically reject them?

Come on, man. I know you know more about American politics than that. Like it or not, Obama’s association, real or perceived, with Farakhan’s organization is going to hurt Obama. If the Clintons thought it was enough of a weakness to send out the picture of Obama in African garb, believe me, it is a weakness.

Most of the people that have no problem with Obama’s association with Islam (that means you: USinUK) are going to vote for him, anyway. He has to convince Moderates and some Republicans to vote for him and that’s not going to happen if he is linked with Islam, particularly a fairly radical group like Farakhan’s group.

Personally, I think he can stay above the fray for only so long. Once the generals start, that church he belongs to will make Kerry’s Swift Boat problems look minor. It won’t even come from McCain, but the switft Boat stuff didn’t come directly from Bush. McCain Feingold just opened the doors for the big guns.

Do not even imagine that I support these kinds of politics, But you have to see that no matter how much Obama denounces Farakhan, his supporting a church that supports Farakhan has got to be a liability.

What can he do? I don’t know. If he leaves the church, he will be seen as giving in and weak, but if he doesn’t distance himself a considerable distance, he is in for a long year.

By Jack

February 27, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

I consider the media vulture scum. (except for Lozen) Is there bias? Hell yes. Give the left a pass and crucify the right.

By USinUK

February 27, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

He also must love The BBC, CNN, CNNi, ABC, NBC and FOX Newschannel. that’s just from channel surfing, not media research and not looking on the net. I’ll bet it is on every channel. That one is out of the box.

wow - Fox news did a story on the church newsletter praising Farrakhan??? I’m shocked. I’d be shocked if they only did 12-15 stories on it. I’d be shocked if they didn’t do a whole 24-hours on it.

even doing a quick internet search on it, it was a (non) story back in mid-Jan.

I mean, what is he supposed to do? leave and denounce the church?? “you wrote an article I disagree with - I denounce thee!!” anyone who has belonged to a church for a number of years knows that you build ties, make friends, find a community. If the pastor or his family decides to write some numty article in the newsletter, why should he and his wife leave the church they’re a part of???

By chuck

February 27, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

So Newzwyre, If David Duke endorsed you would you accept that endorsement? What about Fidel Castro or Hitler? Do you want them associated with your campaign?

By USinUK

February 27, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

chuck -

The Washington Post is not exactly known as a conservative paper now is it USinUK

what’s your point, chuck?? Obama denounced Farrakhan. period. end of (non)story.

so what if his church newsletter had an article on Farrakhan, praising him??? again, is Obama expected to leave his church because of it?? criminey - are catholics around the world supposed to leave the church because of pedophile priests?? are baptists supposed to leave their churches when their pastors are caught with their hands in the till?? if these people decide to stay with their churches, does that mean that they support pedophilia and theft???

oooohhhh … it’s OBAMA, so it’s a different story. HE’S supposed to be pure …

got it.

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

Scalia

Kimberly, I am going to have to agree with what you said about Hillary and her gender being a part of it. Look no further than the way that TOJ keeps referring to Hillary as Mrs. Bill Clinton. Sexism at its finest. She doesn’t have an identity, but is defined by her husband.

You have never been able to lift yourself above the level of name calling, but at least you did get my point.

She defines herself as being defined by her husband. Her primary pitch is all about her experiance. What experiance? Her husband was president, not her.

Hillary could have won. She blew it. She played her kind of politics against another democrat and the world was shocked. Welcome to the Republican Party. We have had to deal with their slime for 20 years. Why do you think Al Gore wouldn’t have anything to do with Clinton during his campaign? The country thinks it would have helped him. Slick Willy would have sabotaged Gore just like he sabotaged Hillary.

The only thing I hate about his is the lessons you guys are learning about the Clintons will be forgotten before warm weather.

There are lots of women that I would love to see as President. None of them are Democrats. I can’t imagine why you would think that I am a sexist for not supporting one of the slimiest and far left liberals in the country. Unless you are just so desperate to make yourself fell all righteous by calling yet another conservative an unfounded name.

By chuck

February 27, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

BTW Gob, In order for that decision by Barack Hussein Obama’s parents to be relevent to his qualifications to be president, he would actually HAVE TO HAVE SOME QUALIFICATIONS TO BE PRESIDENT. He has the same qualifications for the presidency as Barney Fife had to be Sheriff of Mayberry.

AND, as for the reason I include his middle name most of the time when I refer to him? I enjoy all of the foaming of the mouth that occurs afterwards AND since it really IS his middle name, it is appropriate to do so. Lyndon Baynes Johnson, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, George Walker Bush, Barack Hussein Obama…the only difference being that all of those others actually embraced the name and heritage given to them by their parents. Why doesn’t Obama? Is he ashamed of his heritage? Oh, the other difference is that all of those other were elcted President. He never will be.

By Copyleft

February 27, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

Right, I remember how the media gave BushCo such a hard time when they was trying to sell the war in Iraq—asking all those tough questions, fact-checking, accepting nothing at face value…

Oh, wait! That NEVER HAPPENED. Yep, you got a left-wing media for sure, there.

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

USinUk

This is not my fault, but you know it will be an anchor around his neck. Remember the Swift Boat people? They are the equivalent of moveon.org. They post whatever they want and cannot be challenged.

I may be wrong, but I’ll bet sometime during the summer, this will be a huge problem for Obama. If I were his adviser, I would suggest that he invent a reason to transfer his membership to a Washington based “Politico Church”, like the Bushes and the Clintons and the Bushes and the Reagans and the Carters and the Fords and the Nixons did.

But if he doesn’t do it now, he will have this to deal with until November. I’d like to see him protect himself. What if we had a good, clean campaign on both candidates part?

By Copyleft

February 27, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

It IS interesting how Obama’s suddenly being subjected to a level of scrutiny and purity-screening that never touches Hillary or McCain.

I guess the right-wing think tanks finally figured out who our next president is going to be, and started digging for new mud to sling. Too bad they haven’t found any, isn’t it? (smirk)

By Copyleft

February 27, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

quote: “the only difference being that all of those others actually embraced the name and heritage given to them by their parents. Why doesn’t Obama?”

See, now you’re just lying again, Chuck. Obama DOES embrace his name and heritage; that’s why he belongs to a traditionally black, Africa-affiliated church. And you give him nothing but grief for it! (Big surprise—when you want a president to “embrace his heritage” you REALLY mean you want a WASP.)

Just admit you hate the librul darkie and be done with it, Chuck. We know that’s what’s really going on.

By JokesOn

February 27, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

And TOJ begins the recess fight…so be it.

And then you say that I am getting dim as the week progresses.

You cannot remember a discussion and I am slack for not giving a hoot to spell out what I am saying in total adherence with high school grammar. Got it. If you have that hard of a time understanding what I am saying because of a missing “‘re”, I guess I have to drop my bar even lower for you.

Do you have any idea of what a complete self righteous jerk you sound like when you launch into yet another sermon about what a noble stance you would take to prove a point?

Yup. About 1/3 as much of a jerk as you normally do each day. To someone who wants to hold everyone else up to their personal idea of morals you make a big stick about me holding officials up to the standards that are written.

When I was released, I was never told why I was detained and was glad to get out of there with my life. No lawsuits against the “cops” that detained me. No getting 5K or 25K. I was just allowed to leave. I said nothing. I left. I’m sure playing this “mouse” just turns your stomach Sounds just like where your repugs are taking us. Seems like you will be able to play mouse more often. You will be comfortable in this world of reduced rights.

By chuck

February 27, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

USinUK, I can guarantee you if MY CHURCH made anti-semitic or racist statements or honored those who did (and his church has done BOTH) then I can assure you that I would either fix the problem by voting out those who made the statements or failing that, would change to a different church. There would be no question as to what the RIGHT THING to do would be in my mind. His failure to either of those things gives defacto approval to them.

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

Copyleft

You can smirk all you want, but this is American politics. Chuck nor I control it. If you think that Obama can support a church that gives awards to racist fascists, and not be subjected to scrutiny, you are living in a fantasy world.

If McCain attended a church that gave an award to David Duke, McCain would not only be subjected to a level of scrutiny far beyond anything that will happen to Obama, but he could not win the office of dog catcher.

By PotMeetKettle

February 27, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

Her primary pitch is all about her experiance. What experiance?

Wonderful spelling there TOJ! Twice in two different sentences. Kind of means it was not purely a typo, huh? You cannot refrain from being the hypocrite.

By The Other Jack

February 27, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

By JokesOn

I guess I have to drop my bar even lower for you.

I’m actually asking you to raise the bar. But you can’t even understand that. Be ignorant, Pal. Knock yourself out.

Yup. About 1/3 as much of a jerk as you normally do each day. To someone who wants to hold everyone else up to their personal idea of morals you make a big stick about me holding officials up to the standards that are written.

I would ask you to post any such statements I have made, but we have already gone that route. Never let it be said that facts ever got in the way of yet another gripping sermon by the Joke.

Sounds just like where your repugs are taking us. Seems like you will be able to play mouse more often. You will be comfortable in this world of reduced rights.

Boo Hoo. Just do me the favor of staying away from the airport on the days I travel. I want them to search anyone they want and self righteous jerks like you put my family in danger.

By Newzwyre

February 27, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

Chuck writes “If David Duke endorsed you would you accept that endorsement? What about Fidel Castro or Hitler? Do you want them associated with your campaign?”

First you do know that Castro and Hitler are not giving out endorsements, right? Okay, then. How exactly does one do such a thing like “refuse” an endorsement? I fail to understand how you think I could stop David Duke from saying whatever he likes, endorsing whomever he wants, and generally making a nuisance out of himself regardless of what I might want. I didn’t “ask” Duke to endorse me, Obama didn’t ask Farrekahn to endorse him, but it’s a free country and we can’t stop ‘em from liking us nor from telling their friends that they like us. Like TOJ has pointed out, Obama is in a no-win situation on this. But he didn’t ask to be there.

Here’s some food for thought -

To Denounce and Reject - BY MARJORIE VALBRUN

(Why the Farrakhan litmus test must go)

[excerpt]

“If Farrakhan were a white man who said about black Baptists what he said about Jewish people, many of us would call for his head. But would we ask every prominent white politician to stand up and publicly repudiate and reject him? Recent history indicates we would not. How many white politicians would even feel any compunction to actually do so?”

“The larger question is why Farrakhan is the litmus test for black politicians’ views on race and not the politicians’ own record of comments, actions and legislative votes? Why is it that only after they repudiate Farrakhan are they then deemed not to be closet black militants? Farrakhan does not have the political influence over black people that some white Americans apparently believe. Nor does Rev. Al Sharpton, or Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., or any of the other prominent black people that the media treat as proxies for all black people.”

[snip]

“Isn’t it time the statute of limitations ran out on Farrakhan? The portion of the black American population who are followers of the Nation of Islam’s brand of Islam is minute. Most blacks in this country could give two hoots what the man says or thinks. They do give him props for pulling off the Million Man March – that’s credit where credit is due. But they are hardly looking to Farrakhan for direction on how to vote.”

continued on link -

http://www.theroot.com/id/45012/page/1

By Libsrule

February 27, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

PotMeetKettle

I think it is good that JokesON just accepts that he constantly miss the same commonly used words. A person needs to understand their own capabilities. Incorrect English is cool.

After all, computer dweebs should be able to make fun of someone else for not using geek talk like “bot” on a day-to-day basis without any fear of the same thing.

By JokesOn

February 27, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

Just do me the favor of staying away from the airport on the days I travel. I want them to search anyone they want and self righteous jerks like you put my family in danger.

You do not need me for that. You will happily deliver them into danger.

By JokesOn

February 27, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

I think it is good that JokesON just accepts that he constantly miss the same commonly used words. A person needs to understand their own capabilities. Incorrect English is cool. Actually it is more of a cost/benefit thing, but that takes logic to understand.

After all, computer dweebs should be able to make fun of someone else for not using geek talk like “bot” on a day-to-day basis without any fear of the same thing. Or one (TOJ) has no business spreading more incorrectly based fear and awe in subjects they do not understand what-so-ever.

So, do I now point out that you wrote: I think it is good that JokesON just accepts that he constantly miss the same commonly used words. The proper agreement would be “misses.”

Ohhh the inanity of it all. Must mean you ran out of valid points again.

By GOB

February 27, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

Chuck - I typically refer to the President as “Bush.” It comes across as petty to me that you imply that his given name is somehow deragatory, or has a negative impact on his ability to lead.

The idea that it IS his middle name somehow hasnt made its way into your posts about McCain or any other politicians that I remember you posting about. Do you refer to your students by their full names all the time too, or only when you are being especially witty?

By kistov

February 27, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

http://index1.bethereink.com >hot sexy mermaid

By kistov

February 27, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

http://index1.bethereink.com >hot sexy mermaid

By kistov

February 27, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

http://index1.bethereink.com >hot sexy mermaid

By kistov

February 27, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

http://index1.bethereink.com >hot sexy mermaid

By kistov

February 27, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

http://index1.bethereink.com >hot sexy mermaid

By NetBanker

February 27, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

Hey kids! Not much time to catch up on the whole conversation here, but I’ll try (while listening to a conference call) to catch up on today’s posts. It appears that we’ve moved on to Hillary.

My opinion on the posted topic is in general agreement with other posters which is that it’s fine to check out the device, but not to go poking around in my files or to confiscate my device without a warrant or probable cause. To those who argue the opposite I’m going to guess that you haven’t personally experienced any type of ID theft. As someone who has experienced electronic fraud against my bank account to the tune of roughly $11,000 I am very protective of my personal, electronic information.

“The truth is, we sat around for hours trying to come up with words for B.I.T.C.H. and just couldn’t do it.” Hello?! That acronym stands for Bringing Integrity To Christian Homemakers…here’s the website http://www.bettybowers.com/b***.html.

I don’t think you will ever take the time to actually learn about the Republican positions on the issues since you apparently don’t know that your own party’s positions are WAAAAAAAAAY to the left of center. I hate to say this but learning a party’s positions is practically a moot point and almost pointless exercise since what is stated doesn’t necessarily reflect the reality of actions. As an example that easily comes to mind as a former Republican, the Republican platform states a position for smaller government (as do I), but under 2 of the past 3 Republican Presidents (those being Reagan and W) we’ve seen unprecedented growth in the size of government and government spending.

Give the left a pass and crucify the right. Yes, the media is certainly giving Hillary a pass. She’s not being crucified at all in the media.

By chuck

February 27, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

USinUK, Let me answer the 2 specific analogies that you gave. In both instances, these are personal MORAL FAILURES made by people in leadership of those churches. I can’t speak for the Catholic Church except to the extent that I have witnessed their responses on news stories that they have tried to right the wrongs that occurred through monetary means and didn’t appear to really deal with the behavior of the priests. In some cases they just moved the priests to a different parish. I would disagree with that.

As for the Baptist pastor analogy, individual churches have their own church governance based on Matthew 18.

15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

I’ve only been in one church that had to go to the point of putting a member out of the church. The member was committing adultery and chose to continue in that sin knowing that it would lead to expulsion from the church.

The bottom line is, there can be no restoration if there is no repentence.

To answer your question in the plainest terms, if the church allowed those things to go on and refused to deal with them biblically, I could not in good conscience remain in that church.

By Geek?

February 27, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this

After all, computer dweebs should be able to make fun of someone else for not using geek talk like “bot” on a day-to-day basis without any fear of the same thing.

Apparently your reading comprehension needs improvement. I was actually making fun of the fact that Other Jack seemed to believe that someone was manually entering spam onto the pages at night. Someone as all-knowing as Other Jack claims to be should certainly be familiar with, you know, COMMON tech.

By Archie

February 27, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

Since the subject of Farrakhan has come up let me say this Farrakhan apologized for his statements concerning Jews years ago. Years ago!!! The questions to Obama on that subject were unnecessary because he is not in the NOI and hell, is McCain going to be asked to reject Rush Limbaugh who has been known to make racist comments or is McCain going to be asked to reject Bill O’reilly?? You can be a racist and still vote for whoever you want. I say again Farrakhan apologized for those remarks years ago and it really was not good journalism to ask Obama about a quote that’s 20 years old and a quote that the person who made it apologized for years ago. I agree with Newswyre Farrakhan does not have the political influence over black people that some white Americans apparently believe. Nor does Rev. Al Sharpton, or Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., or any of the other prominent black people that the media treat as proxies for all black people.” Twenty-three years ago I called a woman a b..tch so am I a sexist because of that? Twenty years ago I had major issues with gays so am I homophobic? I voted for Hillary in the primary and yes I support gay marriage and yes I am black. So basically I can support gays and a white woman inspite of my past statements. Hopefully somebody gets it that no one is perfect and there should not be a litmus test for black politicians. Farrakhan has done some good commmunity work and as far as I know there are no taxpayer buildings in his honor and my point is look up the history of Ben Tillman here in South Carolina and yes he has a stature on statehouse grounds. If you’re looking for a way to justify being against Obama, Farrakhan ain’t it. Either you like Obama’s politics or don’t and the same thing with Hillary and everything else said about them is nonsense.

By Newzwyre

February 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

Archie wrote “I agree with Newswyre Farrakhan does not have the political influence over black people that some white Americans apparently believe. Nor does Rev. Al Sharpton, or Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., or any of the other prominent black people that the media treat as proxies for all black people.”

I’m flattered that you think I could have written with such authority and clearness, but the words belong to Marjorie Valbrun, the author of the article I excerpted. The rest of the article is equally relevant.

By chuck

February 27, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this

Archie, my position is that whatever it takes to defeat Obama is fine. The obvious restrictions on that are 1) It has to be true. (his middle name is Hussein, his church did honor Louis). 2) It can’t be something that would be considered as “dirty tricks”.

I don’t have any qualms in playing “politics” to defeat someone that I believe will take America in the wrong direction. If reminding people of those things causes them to reconsider and vote for McCain or just stay at home, then that’s great.

By ObamaFears

February 27, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

Chuck - the GOP is certainly AFRAID of Obama, aren’t they? They know they can kick Hillary’s butt, but Obama, they aren’t so sure.

Bush and the GOP Congress(from 1994 to 2006) have had more than enough time to demonstrate that The GOP IS THE GREATEST but it seems the country really isn’t buying it anymore, is it.

By lostyand

February 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

By lostyand

February 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

By lostyand

February 27, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

By lostyand

February 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

By Archie

February 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre I was writing fast because this has been a busy week but your post is relevant and I will come back to check out the link but it is also true that Farrakhan hasn’t always voted. Many religious people do not vote!!! I say this to all Obama fans, you need to read that 3:47 pm post by Chuck because that’s what you’re dealing with. All the emotionalism in the world about Obama will not sway people like Chuck and I talked about emotionalism before and I hope at least the people reading this blog understand Hillary is not the enemy. If you support Obama and he doesn’t win you better support Hillary if you feel strongly about the issues that Obama supports and vice versa. As a christian,Chuck, I don’t think you should appeal to the prejudice factor by playing up Obama’s middle name. If you don’t like his ideas debate that and vote against that as for the rest it is something that’s a dirty trick.

By lostyand

February 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

By lostyand

February 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

By No Apologies

February 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

ObamaFears: “Bush and the GOP Congress(from 1994 to 2006) have had more than enough time to demonstrate that The GOP IS THE GREATEST but it seems the country really isn’t buying it anymore, is it.”

That would be a good point except for one thing. Its all the Clintons fault! If not for the Dispicable Duo, the Bush years would have gone down in history as the BEST EVER! Darn them.

By lolita

February 27, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

http://index1.bethereink.com >hot sexy mermaid

By lolita

February 27, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

http://index1.bethereink.com >hot sexy mermaid

By lolita

February 27, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

http://index1.bethereink.com >hot sexy mermaid

By lostyand

February 27, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this

By lostyand

February 27, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this

By lostyand

February 27, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this

By lostyand

February 27, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this

By lostyand

February 27, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this

By lostyand

February 28, 2008 1:55 AM | Link to this

By lostyand

February 28, 2008 1:55 AM | Link to this

By listik-28081

February 28, 2008 5:18 AM | Link to this

By listik-28081

February 28, 2008 5:18 AM | Link to this

By listik-28081

February 28, 2008 5:18 AM | Link to this

By listik-28081

February 28, 2008 5:18 AM | Link to this

By listik-28081

February 28, 2008 5:19 AM | Link to this

By listik-28081

February 28, 2008 5:19 AM | Link to this

By USinUK

February 28, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this

Archie -

The questions to Obama on that subject were unnecessary because he is not in the NOI and hell, is McCain going to be asked to reject Rush Limbaugh who has been known to make racist comments or is McCain going to be asked to reject Bill O’reilly??

-and-

As a christian,Chuck, I don’t think you should appeal to the prejudice factor by playing up Obama’s middle name. If you don’t like his ideas debate that and vote against that as for the rest it is something that’s a dirty trick.

GOOOOOOOOOOO Archie!!! (raucaus applause)

By USinUK

February 28, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

Okay … random answers (in no particular order)

TOJ - Remember the Swift Boat people? They are the equivalent of moveon.org.

Well, actually, no, they aren’t. The “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” attack on John Kerry was done by a group of men who did not serve with Kerry, but who lied and represented themselves that they did, then distorted his record.

You may not agree with what MoveOn.org says (or how they’re funded) - but show me a lie. You may not have liked the General Betray Us ad - but was it deceitful??? That’s the difference between the Swift Boat attack and MoveOn.

chuck - There would be no question as to what the RIGHT THING to do would be in my mind. His failure to either of those things gives defacto approval to them.

And that would be your decision to leave. Just as it is your opinion that Obama should have left the church. Just cuz you think that doesn’t mean it’s so. It’s his life - and his church - and he obviously felt otherwise. That doesn’t mean that he approved of the newsletter’s contents. And it sure as heck doesn’t mean he approves of Louis Farrakham (which, I believe, he has been very clear about). There’s an expression about babies and bathwater that I think is appropriate for this situation - but that’s just me.

To address TOJ’s point that this will be a millstone around his neck - I think the right will try to make it one. But, unless you can show Obama giving Farrakhan an award and priasing him, then I think it’s just a lot of hot air. Something most people in the States are just plain tired of, long about now.

Heck, even in today’s WaPo, the Anti-Defamation League is exasperated with the whole Farrakhan non-issue: Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said yesterday from Jerusalem that Obama has gone much further than other black leaders in his denunciation of Farrakhan and has recently expressed stalwartly pro-Israel views.

“As far as I’m concerned, this issue is behind us,” said Foxman, who has not endorsed a candidate. “But with the Internet, as all Jews should know, these things have a half-life. They just keep going.”

and lastly

newzy -

thanks for the link!! I’ve been up to my eyeballs in pivot tables lately and hadn’t seen that story about Turkey. I’ve printed it and plan to read it on my way home tonight - thanks!!

By Doc

February 28, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Howdy bloggers—Thought I’d poke my head in and see what’s happening with the regulars. Hope everyone is in good health and good spirits.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

As per the topic of the week, all I can say is that I miss the good ol’ days at the airport when you could show up 15 minutes before your flight with all your “party supplies” stuffed in your underwear. I’ll never forget a flight in 2000 (i.e. pre-9/11) when I was selected for a special search of my bags. I felt like the guy in “Midnight Express” when he was detained by the Turkish authorities. Thank God I got through. That’s the last time I tried to carry anything onto an airplane.

By Libsrule

February 28, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

USinUK

MoveOn is a propaganda based sight. It is there to say things that the candidates can’t say. You might respect them because they spout propaganda that you might agree with, but make no mistake, they are slime and they are paid for by slime.

I think it is great that progressives do not understand the danger of associating Ferikhan with Obama. He cab blow it off all he wants. His wife can talk all she wants about never being proud of her country, but that feeds into the Ferikhan mantra, perfectly. Obama is the perfect liberal candidate. He looks great and he never directly addresses issues that really matter. But a lot of people resent a woman who seems to only be proud of this great country when the populace votes for her husband. Being disgusted with America works great when talking to liberals, but will it work with centrists?

All these things work great to the touchy-feely crowd, but every day he makes another huge mistake in conveying exactly what he really knows about our foreign policy. Yesterday he said if Al Quida decides to establish a base in Iraq, he will send troops back in. LOL!! Was there anyone in the United States that didn’t know that our soldiers have lost hundreds of casualties to Al Quida in Iraq?

His noble looks and shrugging off Hillary’s attacks will never work in debates against McCain. And this isn’t the swift boat attacks. These are real issues that he seems clueless about. I loved Obama’s great comeback. He was stumped. He managed to get a huge crowd response for saying that Al Quida would have never been in Iraq if it weren’t for the US policies, but that was ignoring his ignorance of a basic premise in our biggest foreign policies.

The Democrat’s nightmare is here. Even press from all over the world are saying that we are making huge advances in Iraq. Al Quida is complaining that many in the world of Islam is turning away from jahad. In spite of the negative press. In spite of democrats that ran away from their support when the going got rough, our military is doing well.

What if the Bush / Clinton policies toward Iraq actually work? What if our soldiers live and aren’t slaughtered in the streets? What if the democrats nightmare of our military’s achievement actually happens?

I would not want to be in a position of wanting our soldiers to be killed, but the more American soldiers that die in Iraq, the better it is for Obama.

By 2D

February 28, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

USinUK…

Can’t quite agree with you on your assessment on Obama and his church association.

Obama has made multiple comments (paraphrasing here) that his current church has been instrumental in his life. In particular his current pastor has been a mentor to him. That is high praise and shows a deep relation to the church, the organization and the man who leads it.

The whole situation with Farrakhan is an issue. This is now the second time Farrakhan has been injected into the discussion of Obama. Taken in context with the official positions of his church (see website if it’s still up) and the teachings of his pastor, it would be irresponsible to not consider this in your evaluation of the candidate.

Why???

Because this is all we know about the candidate. He has virtually no record on which to stand. He has accomplished absolutely nothing of note as a Senator. He accomplished nothing of note as a state Senator. Heck, he didn’t even have to win an election in 2006 after the smear job done against Ryan. A smear job that made his ex-wife sick because she (at least stated publicly) did not want any of that information leaked. That meant he didn’t need to debate anyone, take a position on anything or put himself out there to be scrutinized.

Right now, Obama is a blank slate upon which many are projecting their own hopes and dreams, when in reality, those people have no idea that he will be deliver anything. I can’t believe that intelligent people, including the ones I disagree with on this board, could be duped so easily. When I see Obama-mania, it takes me back a set of 80’s Wendy’s commercials: “Where’s the Beef?”

By Doc

February 28, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Per the election results so far, I stand corrected in my prediction that Obama had no chance to win the Democratic nomination. Although I disagree vehemently with his political vision of a socialistic society, on a personal level I like the guy. I think his good manners and classy style are far more palatable than the ever-negative Hillary.

Due to some negative personal fallout following the 2000 and 2004 elections, I’ve already decided to keep my emotional involvement in this election to a minimum.

By Benjamin Franklin

February 28, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

Chicken littles like The Other Jack are costing the rest of you your precious liberties, you know. Grow a set Jack! Crawl out from under your bed and stop fearing something that is less likely to befall you than your chances of winning the Power Ball Lottery. Be a man Jack. Cowards like you don’t deserve security or freedom. Better yet. Go to Cuba Jack. You would make a fine block watcher for the Castro brothers.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

Right now, Obama is a blank slate upon which many are projecting their own hopes and dreams, when in reality, those people have no idea that he will be deliver anything. I can’t believe that intelligent people, including the ones I disagree with on this board, could be duped so easily. When I see Obama-mania, it takes me back a set of 80’s Wendy’s commercials: “Where’s the Beef?”

2D—I’m with you. Obama’s eloquent speeches of hope for a brighter future are nice to hear, but I’m too old and cynical to believe “motivational speeches”. One of his most dangerous positions IMO is the notion of reclassifying capital gains taxes as ordinary income. Capitalism only works when it is profitable to take a risk. Penalizing the capital providers to our economy sounds like a one-way ticket to failure to me.

By 2D

February 28, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

USinUK… A couple of other quick points…

I do believe McCain will reject statements made by Limbaugh and others if he believes them to be out of line. We actually saw him denounce his own opening speaker the other day for making sophmoric comments about Obama.

We should keep the debate about candidates on the issues, but as mentioned before, Obama doesn’t have a position on any major issue excpet “Get out of Iraq”. While I don’t believe we should continually here his middle name, there is much fat to chew since he rarely takes a strong stance on anything.

I believe most people would leave their church (or any other organization for that matter) if the belief and values of the individual and church or its pastor diverge. I have done it. I know others who’ve done it. I see it happen ALL OF THE TIME. If Obama doesn’t leave or at least strongly denounce aspects of his church it can only mean one of three things: he agrees with positions; he doesn’t believe the positions are that big of a deal; he isn’t strong enough in his personal convictions to leave.

We already see Obama getting “technical” and attempting to slip out of a pledge he made a year ago. When he was behind in fund raising, he made a pledge to use public financing. Now that he is ahead and McCain would gladly mmatch that offer, he’s trying slip free. What does that say about strength in conviction?

By Doc

February 28, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

Crawl out from under your bed and stop fearing something that is less likely to befall you than your chances of winning the Power Ball Lottery.

Ben—From a “risk-management” standpoint, I agree with you that the time and effort being put into airport security is a waste. My best guess is that the over-response is aimed at providing some kind of mental peace of mind for Americans who might have been a little shell-shocked following the 9/11 attacks. In other words, the financial cost of all this unnecessary security is less than the psychological cost would be of another hijacking in the opinion of those in charge.

By USinUK

February 28, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

2D -

Let’s see. Obama has both rejected and denounced Farrakhan publicly. What else would you like him to do? I’m being completely serious, here. Obama has actually gone further than a lot of other politicians have in rejecting the man - but, now, people want him to leave his church, denounce his minister and … what??? burn the place down and every copy of the newsletter in question??

fact is, now that certain people have the bit in their teeth, they’re not going to let it go.

if you want to know what Obama has done, go to his Senator page: http://obama.senate.gov/. If you want to know his campaign platform, here: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - there IS NO JOB that gives training or experience to be president - so, this whole “experience” thing is, to me, a non-issue. You don’t get Presidential experience as 1 in 100 people in the Senate, not even in the executive role of a Governorship. The best we can hope for is someone who has integrity, ethics and intelligence - and who surrounds himself with people who are the same.

As for the Ryan “smear job” - since when are official court documents considered a “smear job”??

By Archie

February 28, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

Hello USinUK, I am a member of Moveon.org but I have never given them any money because it’s just hard for me to trust everything done over the internet. Thank you USinUk for your compliment but I must say this SOME people look for a racial villain that’s not white as if it offsets some mistreatment of people of color. As far as I know the Nation of Islam has not blown up anybody and they have not hung anyone, but they have allowed some hateful comments to come from their leader. Well if you check out a lot of church’s hateful comments come their leaders all the time. If you start up a commentary about hateful associations you will end up in a t** for tat. I can say this, there are some black people that like Farrakhan but those same people think he’s crazy. They only like the community work that he does but they are not going to follow him anywhere. I will say this too that Obama supporters better get ready for much stronger distortions and outright lies, but I do give McCain credit for at least trying to keep things classy.

By Enoughwiththecrying

February 28, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this

Benjamin Franklin

Quit whining, you little b*tch. We are all tired of it. This flaming war is dominating the forum. We all know it is you, JokesON and it is TOJ that is Libsrule. Take it somewhere else.

We come here to discuss politics, not watch you lose control of your fragile temper. You can’t grasp basic grammar. He can’t spell. We all get it.

Now go set and the corner and cry until you think you are mature enough to discuss politics.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

I do believe McCain will reject statements made by Limbaugh and others if he believes them to be out of line. We actually saw him denounce his own opening speaker the other day for making sophmoric comments about Obama.

What puzzles me is why any serious supporter of McCain would believe they are helping his cause by taking juvenile pot-shots at Obama (or even Hillary for that matter). Who really cares what the guy’s middle name is?

By USinUK

February 28, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

2D -

I do believe McCain will reject statements made by Limbaugh and others if he believes them to be out of line. We actually saw him denounce his own opening speaker the other day for making sophmoric comments about Obama.

As Mike Myers used to say “yeah … and monkeys will fly out of my butt.” John McCain is going to spend the next 8 months working his patootie off wooing conservatives in his party. He’s going to pick a veep that’s farther to the right than he is. He’s going to bend and stretch and twist as much as possible to overcome the people like Ann Coulter who is saying that she’d rather vote for Hillary than John McCain.

Oh, he might try to show his “straight talking” side by making a side-swipe at an opening speaker - but do you REALLY think he’s going to alienate Rush Limbaugh’s listeners or Bill O’Reilley’s viewers by saying that either one of them are racists??? He needs each and every one of those audience members to go to the polls and vote for him - he’s not going to risk alienating them by demonizing their favorite talk show host.

As far as Obama’s pledge - from my understanding, he’s said that if both parties make a pact to use public funding, that’s what he’d do. From everything I’ve read on the subject, he’s never made a firm commitment - http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/theobamapledge.html

By The Other Jack

February 28, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

Doc

Before 9-11, I could walk on an airplane with a Gerber Universal tool strapped on my belt. That’s a 5” ultra sharp blade and another 5” serrated edge blade that would easily decapitate anyone. I could carry on a conversation with the pilot during flight because the paper thin door was usually left standing open.

I have flown Internationally since 1982 and was always appalled at how lame our airport security had been. Now we are about average in the world. A lot of it is for appearances, but just like putting a dead bolt on your door will not stop everyone, you have to do the obvious, first.

Also remember that the liability of the airlines is always at stake considering our legal system and all the John Edwards type ambulance chasers ready to make a buck.

The entire point of JokesOn’s (Benjamin Franklin is just todays name that he hides behind when attacking others because he doesn’t have the stones to do anything else) post was yet another childish attack toward me because I dared state that if my Daughter was ordered to be strip searched at a US airport, that I wouldn’t throw a temper tantrum about it.

The boy has serious problems that go way beyond his need to portray himself as a righteous crusader on this blog. Considering how he hides behind these stupid names, I am pretty sure the boy doesn’t have the courage to stand up to anyone, anytime. That’s why it is so important that he continues to tell his tales of his great crusades and victories against the “Man”.

By USinUK

February 28, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

Archie -

I will say this too that Obama supporters better get ready for much stronger distortions and outright lies, but I do give McCain credit for at least trying to keep things classy.

why should he take the low road when Clinton and Obama are duking it out?? or, better yet, when your opponent(s) are causing themselves damage, the best thing you can do is just stand back and let them.

As for McCain and “class” - sorry, but he lost me back in the 1990s when he told a crude joke about Chelsea Clinton at a GOP fundraiser. ANYone who thinks it’s okay to make fun of a kid has no integrity and certainly no class.

But, yeah, any Dem should get ready for the GOP smear machine to roll out after the nomination. Same “stuff” different election year.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

Now go set and the corner and cry until you think you are mature enough to discuss politics.

In case you haven’t figured it out, Enoughwiththecrying, almost no one comes to an anonymous blog to “discuss politics” for the purpose of actually learning something and to possibly grow as a person. I think most people come here to (1) vent emotions that they can’t vent in the “real world” (2) To confirm prejudices they already had. Case in point is kimberly whose life’s mission is apparently to confirm her worst thoughts about men. (Sorry, kim, had to zing you once!)

By kimberly

February 28, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

If you have any freedoms you want to use, hop right on that now, mmm-kay? (Oh, unless you’re a corporation, then don’t worry.) This just in:

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday pressed Congress to give telecommunications companies legal immunity for helping the government eavesdrop after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Speaking at a White House news conference, Bush continued a near-daily effort to prod lawmakers into passing his version of a law to make it easier for the government to conduct domestic eavesdropping on suspected terrorists’ phone calls and e-mails. He says the country is in more danger now that a temporary surveillance law has expired.

The president and Congress are in a showdown over Bush’s demand on the immunity issue. Bush says that allowing telecommunications companies to be sued would “give al-Qaida and others a roadmap as to how to avoid the surveillance.”

A temporary intelligence law has expired, and Bush wants Congress to renew it, and to provide legal immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the government after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

By 2D

February 28, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

USinUK…

Obama did not make any denouncements of Farrakhan until after a great deal of pressing by folks from all sides. Heck he even tried to slip the endorsement question when posed by Tim Russert and only then gave a half-baked rejection. Sure, his websites may have something now, but I would prefer to have seen an immediate denunciation in the same manner that McCain did the other day. Immediate and without any ambiguity. As for leaving his church, yes, I would have preferred to see that as well.

Next topic…

I agree with you that no job in the world trains an individual to be President. It is the toughest job on the planet. However, wouldn’t you agree that there jobs that reveal many of the skills and qualities necessary to be President or at the very least how an individual may respond to Presidential duties?

A CEO of a successful company would display the ability to set vision for an organization, drive teams of people to accomplish that vision, manage disparate groups of individuals, make decisions that are best for the whole and not a select group of individuals and select advisors that will not only assist in day to management but offer advice and even challenge when necessary? These are qualities that the President needs and if Obama had done this we would have some sense of his qualifications.

A State Governor will display many of the skills necessary to fill the Office. A governer is essence the President of a State and the larger the State the more reasonable facsimile the position is of the Presidency. This position will reveal how the candidate may potnentially run the govenrment and we as voters can see how said candidate’s ideas have actually affected a constituency. If Obama had done this we would have some sense of his qualifications.

An experienced Senator will have gone through the legislative wars, made their positions known and been involved in many key issues that reveal their character, leadership ability and positions on many important issues to the American people. If Obama continues as a Senator and actually fulfills the job description we would have some sense of his qualifications.

I could expand this list, but I need to go work.

The point is, Obama has little to no experience to speak of at anything that even remotely reveals whether he could lead this nation. The biggest organization he’s been the “leader” of is the Harvard Law Review. Prestigious indeed, but hardly revealing of qualities to be President.

BTW…

The Ryan divorce files were sealed. I believe that means they aren’t public knowledge. That means someone leaked this information when they weren’t supposed to, and based on the timing, I suspect for the expressed purpose of getting Obama elected.

By The Other Jack

February 28, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

USinUK

McCain already has the right. Obama already has the left. McCain has p** off the right by being too centrist. Obama has had to appeal to the far left in order to defeat Clinton and while he claims to be a centrist, his records and his stances prove that he is far from centrist.

Centrist votes decide elections. Not the left and not the right. Give me a reason why centrist would want to vote for someone as far left as Obama?

By Doc

February 28, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

The boy has serious problems that go way beyond his need to portray himself as a righteous crusader on this blog. Considering how he hides behind these stupid names, I am pretty sure the boy doesn’t have the courage to stand up to anyone, anytime. That’s why it is so important that he continues to tell his tales of his great crusades and victories against the “Man”.

TOJ—Once again, I like a lot of your ideas, but have trouble understanding your anger towards the other bloggers.

By kimberly

February 28, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

Oooops. Sorry. Obviously I can’t party here any more. It WAS fun, y’all. Bye.

By The Other Jack

February 28, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

Doc

Once again, I like a lot of your ideas, but have trouble understanding your anger towards the other bloggers.

Whatever. I have spent the time to give you two posts this morning that were civil and respectful. Sorry that you want to add to the soap opera.

When you want to talk politics, let me know.

By Copyleft

February 28, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

“Give me a reason why centrist would want to vote for someone as far left as Obama?”

Because the majority of Americans are in agreement with him on all those so-called “Far Left” positions. Next question?

By f(x) = 36x^2

February 28, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

I’m curious…when fundamentalist Christian hate-mongers like Pat Robertson and James Dobson endorse candidates like George W. Bush, where was the outcry from people like chuck and 2D for those candidates to denounce the viciously anti-gay, anti-muslim, anti-etc. etc. etc. statements made by those men? Or, are we picking and choosing what prejudices need to be apologized for?

By USinUK

February 28, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

2D -

The Ryan divorce files were sealed. I believe that means they aren’t public knowledge. That means someone leaked this information when they weren’t supposed to, and based on the timing, I suspect for the expressed purpose of getting Obama elected.

portions were officially unsealed by a judge - http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/ryan.divorce/

As for the whole Obama/newsletter/Farrakhan tempest in a tea-cup, I’ve made my feelings known. So have you. The Anti-Defamation League doesn’t seem to have a problem with Obama or this situation, either. So, there it is. We can continue to post on this until the cows come home, but I don’t think we’re going to change each others’ minds.

The biggest organization he’s been the “leader” of is the Harvard Law Review. Prestigious indeed, but hardly revealing of qualities to be President

oh? and what has McCain led? he’s been one of 100 for years, but hasn’t led anything. Does this mean that we should only elect Governors? And, god knows, after the shambolic “leadership” of the last 7+ years, I’ll never vote for another “CEO-style President” (not that I voted for this one).

Have a good day at work!

TOJ McCain already has the right.

he does??? says who?? the GOP is stuck with him, but, if you’ve surfed around on the blogs or read Madam Coulter, etc, you’ll see that he hardly “has” the right. They don’t like him. Not even one little bit.

Rush - says McCain betrayed conservative principles. Coulter - would rather vote for Hillary. Malkin - hates McCain for “shamnesty”. Laura Ingraham - McCain is liberal Sean Hannity, etc. etc. etc …

By USinUK

February 28, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

CopyLeft -

Because the majority of Americans are in agreement with him on all those so-called “Far Left” positions. Next question?

he shoots … he scores!

By The Other Jack

February 28, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

USinUK

As for McCain and “class” - sorry, but he lost me back in the 1990s when he told a crude joke about Chelsea Clinton at a GOP fundraiser. ANYone who thinks it’s okay to make fun of a kid has no integrity and certainly no class.

Come on. Have you ever seen Good Morning Viet Nam? Robyn Williams has some great zingers aimed at LBJ’s wife and daughters. Think about the jokes that were told about the Bush girls in their wilder days by Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Jay Leno.

It isn’t in the best of class, but Chelsea is not the first White House kid to be made fun of.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

When you want to talk politics, let me know.

I guess that ultimately I’m more interested in people and what makes them tick, what drives their anger than I am in whatever the temporary “news of the day is”. Sorry I ruined your day (or anyone else’s) with the personal comments. I guess I’m still not welcome here. Oh well.

By USinUK

February 28, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

TOJ -

Have you ever seen Good Morning Viet Nam? Robyn Williams has some great zingers aimed at LBJ’s wife and daughters. Think about the jokes that were told about the Bush girls in their wilder days by Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Jay Leno.

Good Morning Viet Nam was a movie not real life. Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Jay Leno made comments about the girls’ ACTIONS (falling down drunk in bars, etc).

John McCain’s joke??? “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?”

oh, yeah. that’s class.

By BrightLightGoesOff

February 28, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

Or, are we picking and choosing what prejudices need to be apologized for

say it ain’t so, Ma, say it ain’t so.

By Newzwyre

February 28, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

Doc writes “In case you haven’t figured it out, Enoughwiththecrying, almost no one comes to an anonymous blog to “discuss politics” for the purpose of actually learning something and to possibly grow as a person.”

Perhaps the participants aren’t here to “actually learning something and to possibly grow as a person” but many DO come here to discuss politics and state our views. Whether or not that view changes anything is sort of irrelevant. Nor do I agree that people come here just to vent or to reaffirm prejudices. For myself, I just like to hear what other people think, even when I don’t agree with them or support their views in any way.

If you’ve been lurking for long, or if you’ve looked at some of the older archives, you might notice that most of the discussions were pretty civil at one time. It’s only in the last year or so that the change in tone becomes apparent.

By Jack

February 28, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

“Oooops. Sorry. Obviously I can’t party here any more. It WAS fun, y’all. Bye.”

:( :(

By KymberlySupporter

February 28, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

(Sorry, kim, had to zing you once!)

well that is certainly a FIRST

(snorting so much I am choking on my coffee)

By Captain Jack Harkness

February 28, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Why can’t we just all have indiscriminate sex with each other? That always clears up these hurt feelings and prickly personalities.

By The Other Jack

February 28, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Doc

Sorry I ruined your day (or anyone else’s) with the personal comments. I guess I’m still not welcome here. Oh well.

Maybe that’s what I don’t get. How could a comment from a stranger on a political blog ruin my day?

I have never been welcome here. There are some blogs and forums where I am welcomed with open arms, but they are boring. Everyone agrees. Here, there are opposing views. I spend a lot of time reading posts that I never respond to. I respond to posts that interest me and I respond to a very few of the many attacks toward me.

Thin skinned people should not be here. Look at Kimberly. She is probably a sweet woman in person who has been frustrated by men, the power men have and the lack of power that hurt many women. She can be brutal in her claims and attacks, but she, like so many here, can dish it out but they can’t take it.

I like the politics. I have been to forums about airplanes, exotic cars, travel, sailing, scuba and music, all subjects I love, but two people discussing the advantages of Ferrari over Lotus just doesn’t do it for me. Politics does.

I just wish we could discuss politics instead of “feelings”.

I hated the Sopranos. I was so tired of mafia hit men setting in classy restaurants talking about their feelings that I wanted to puke. it’s a TV series about violent and brutal gangs. Shoot somebody!! Enough with the feelings.

I hate reality TV because of all the side interviews about the feelings involved in whatever they are doing. If I want feelings, Ill rent Sleepless in Seattle. This is politics.

By USinUK

February 28, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

I have never been welcome here.

OI!! what am I??? chopped liver?? you know I love our sparring and our music swaps!! I have no problem with the fact that you’re always wrong

;-)

By Shirley U. Geste

February 28, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

There are some blogs and forums where I am welcomed with open arms, but they are boring. Everyone agrees.

They welcome you and they agree with you. Hmmm. So I guess it’s safe to say that you aren’t an insulting jerk to folks who agree with you.

By The Other Jack

February 28, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

USinUK

Well, it’s not like Leno could make fun of the Bush girl’s looks. (Yes, I’m feeling those bad vibes being thrown at me from across the pond. Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!)

BTW. The ebay thing won’t work on a lot of my stuff. It is a lot of professional audio and video equipment. Here’s an example. I have a Tascam 238 multitrack cassette deck. Great quality and I also have the optional remote controller and sync unit. The total cost to me in 1990 was just over $3,500. There is one of the 238s already on ebay and the price is just under 10 bucks (at least it was yesterday). I could get more on my taxes if I took it to Good Will.

Video equipment is even worse. I have a Sony UVW-100 Betacam which cost almost $20,000 including the lens and they are going for as little as $500.

I am considering renting a much smller shed because I just don’t have the room and I can’t bring myself to throw away this beautiful equipment.

By 2D

February 28, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

USinUK…

Thanks for the clarification on the divorce filings. Per the article, the docs were sealed and then media outlets sued to get them unsealed. Wonder why???

Also…

I never said that those were the only stepping stones to the Oval Office. That is a blatant and sophmoric attempt to put words into my mouth. Those examples were given because they demonstrate many of the qualities that I and I believe most Americans find essential in a President. They also happen to be the backgrounds of several previous Presidents and the current crop of contenders save Obama.

John McCain has actually displayed leadership in a variety of fashions. First, he led the largest naval combat unit at the time of his enlistment. He also showed great courage during his time as a POW. Both very impressive. Second, he has shown a great deal of himself during his years as a congressman and as a Senator. He has shown the ability to work with individuals from all places on the political spectrum based on his beliefs and values, even if it makes his party’s base or the media angry. To me, that not only shows leadership, but also shows that he is a man of conviction.

I would imagine that over the course of 50 years of service, we would find some inconsistencies, shifts in position and possibly even some mistakes. However, we as a voting public have the ability to make a decision based not on an entire body of work. Like him or not, I don’t believe anyone would be surprised with decisions he makes when faced with the inevitable crisis he will face.

I would make the same case for Hillary Clinton. Like her or hate her (there doesn’t seem to be much in between), she is a known quantity and I believe has shown more, if not quite up to the level of McCain, in the leaderhsip arena than her competition.

All of this now leads back to Obama.

While I have given numerous reasons either directly or indirectly as to why I don’t believe he is qualified to be President, I have not heard you provide one reason why he is. Is it possible to articulate his qualifications for Presidency? Is it possible to articulate why he would make a good President without falling back on ambiguous terms? Is it possible to articulate how he would handle certain issues both domestically and abroad, back that up with things he’s actually already done and then project how those decisions would change America?

One other question…

You said you’d never vote for another “CEO-type” President, but, what exactly do you think the Presidency is? That office is the Chief of the Executive branch. The responsibilities are far too large for the President to be too deeply involved in too many decisions. The last several Presidents have all been “CEO-type” Presidents and I don’t believe the success or failures of those men had anything to do with that. It had to do with the confluence of their ideas, the populous and the external forces pressing the US in a variety of different ways.

By Copyleft

February 28, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

“Thin skinned people should not be here. Look at Kimberly. She is probably a sweet woman in person who has been frustrated by men, the power men have and the lack of power that hurt many women. She can be brutal in her claims and attacks, but she, like so many here, can dish it out but they can’t take it.”

It’s fun to watch blogdrones justify their rudeness and hostility by whining about how OTHER people are rude and hostile. Keep it up, OtherJack! You offer great entertainment value.

By The Other Jack

February 28, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this

UsinUK

You and a couple of others are the exception. And you were pretty brutal to me until you learned what a sweetheart I really am.

I like discussing issues with you because you are civil, you have a good heart and above all, you are smart and well informed. You challenge me. I like that.

But look at JokesOn’s response to the same post you responded to.

At times this place reminds me of adults trying to discuss serious topics in a day care center. There is always some child screaming in the background.

By USinUK

February 28, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

2D -

Wonder why???

Easy - to clarify the “he said/she said” speculation. Ryan was Mr. Family Values - if there were rumors that he was going to sex clubs and trying to coerce his wife into participating, I do believe there is a public interest in getting to the truth of the matter. Evidently, the judge agreed.

I never said that those were the only stepping stones to the Oval Office. That is a blatant and sophmoric attempt to put words into my mouth.

I never said you you said that - I was just trying to NOT write a tome and get to the crux of the matter. If anything, I believe I was the one who brought up experience and the examples of Senate and Governor, not you.

As far as why I would vote for Obama - well, first of all, I’m a pro-choice Dem - no way am I voting for McCain. So, there’s that option off the table. My first choice in the primaries was actually Chris Dodd - I liked him when he was my Senator, think he has a great track record and is an all-around great guy. So much for that option. Now, it’s between Hillary and Obama - and, frankly, I like the work Obama has done for vets, I like his voting record in regards to choice and (as I’ve now stated numerous times, but one more for the road) I was proud of his vote on the bankruptcy bill.

How is he going to lead? I don’t know. But, he doesn’t seem to be the jack**s that McCain is and isn’t as divisive as Hillary - so, there ya go.

You said you’d never vote for another “CEO-type” President, but, what exactly do you think the Presidency is? That office is the Chief of the Executive branch.

No. I’ll never vote for anyone who says they’ll “run this country like a CEO”. The essence of government - its purpose - is entirely different from that of business. The goal of business is profit - the goal of government is service (whether we’re talking protection via the military/intelligence or building bridges or providing emergency services). So, IMHO, you need a completely different mindset and way of operating - definitely not a Jack Welch type.

By Archie

February 28, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

The Anti-Defamation League doesn’t seem to have a problem with Obama or this situation, either. So, there it is. I agree with you USinUk. I called him McCain classy because he did denounce Cunningham pretty quick but USinUk the people bringing up the church issue aren’t going to vote for Obama anyway. It’s a waste of time to bring it up. As for the public funding of campaigns Obama is a politician and he says things in a way that leaves himself an out just as McCain does. Obama has to do things in a way that are fair to both sides as he says and McCain knows this too. Really the debate should be about policies not emotional non-issues.

By USinUK

February 28, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

TOJ -

And you were pretty brutal to me until you learned what a sweetheart I really am.

POT!!!! I think we’re both good at the snark, truth be told.

By The Other Jack

February 28, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

Copyleft

The obvious response would be to look at any post I have sent to you today or this week and then look at this:

It’s fun to watch blogdrones justify their rudeness and hostility by whining about how OTHER people are rude and hostile. Keep it up, OtherJack! You offer great entertainment value.

So who is being rude and hostile today, copyleft? And who was rude and hostile yesterday? And the day before. Now do what you always do and claim that I am trying to be the victim. Nice dodge for people as much in need of drama as you.

You, JokesON, Archie, and lozen are the problem here. You have such a loser of a life, that this is the only place you can feel good about yourself so you play this stupid drama day after day.

Keep your sermons to yourself, drama queen. If you want to whine, go rent a movie and weep for a while. I’m pretty sick of your whining.

By USinUK

February 28, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

Archie -

Really the debate should be about policies not emotional non-issues.

hear, hear!

By Newzwyre

February 28, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

here’s an interesting article on the “Barack Hussein Obama” issue. As usual, there’s a lot more to the item than the little bits I post. Really a lot of good points in it.

excerpt -

I want to say something about Barack Hussein Obama’s name. It is a name to be proud of. It is an American name. It is a blessed name. It is a heroic name, as heroic and American in its own way as the name of General Omar Nelson Bradley or the name of Benjamin Franklin. And denigrating that name is a form of racial and religious bigotry of the most vile and debased sort. It is a prejudice against names deriving from Semitic languages!

[snip]

Barack and Hussein are Semitic words. Americans have been named with Semitic names since the founding of the Republic. Fourteen of our 43 presidents have had Semitic names (see below). And, American English contains many Arabic-derived words that we use every day and without which we would be much impoverished. America is a world civilization with a world heritage, something Cunninghamism will never understand.

Barack is a Semitic word meaning “to bless” as a verb or “blessing” as a noun. In its Hebrew form, barak, it is found all through the Bible. It first occurs in Genesis 1:22: “And God blessed (ḇāreḵə ) them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”

[snip]

Now let us take the name “Hussein.” It is from the Semitic word, hasan, meaning “good” or “handsome.” Husayn is the diminutive, affectionate form.

Barack Obama’s middle name is in honor of his grandfather, Hussein, a secular resident of Nairobi. Americans may think of Saddam Hussein when they hear the name, but that is like thinking of Stalin when you hear the name Joseph. There have been lots of Husseins in history, from the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, a hero who touched the historian Gibbon, to King Hussein of Jordan, one of America’s most steadfast allies in the 20th century. The author of the beloved American novel, The Kite Runner, is Khaled Hosseini.

continued on link -

http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/barack-hussein-obama-omar-bradley.html

By Ain'tDatTheTruth

February 28, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

You offer great entertainment value

Don’t most of us use this blog as from work entertainment in our spare time?

By Ain;'tDatDaTruth

February 28, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

You have such a loser of a life, that this is the only place you can feel good about yourself so you play this stupid drama day after day.

Isn’t that a Kettle Black sort of thing?

By Irony

February 28, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

So who is being rude and hostile today, copyleft? And who was rude and hostile yesterday? And the day before. Now do what you always do and claim that I am trying to be the victim. Nice dodge for people as much in need of drama as you.

You, JokesON, Archie, and lozen are the problem here. You have such a loser of a life, that this is the only place you can feel good about yourself so you play this stupid drama day after day.

Keep your sermons to yourself, drama queen. If you want to whine, go rent a movie and weep for a while. I’m pretty sick of your whining.

Preceded by…

At times this place reminds me of adults trying to discuss serious topics in a day care center. There is always some child screaming in the background.

In immortal words of Teal’c - “Indeed”.

By 2D

February 28, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

USinUK…

Guess what…? Your reasoning for unsealing the divorce documents are the EXACT reason why we must continue to examine everything between Obama and his church and people like Farrakhan. Obama is running as a uniter. Obama is running as a person who is going to bring an end to the divisive politics of Washington. Yet, his church does not preach an inclusive message and he needed excessive prodding to denounce the backing of one of the most divisive figures of the last 30 years.

Obama is running as a person above the fray, railing how special intersst groups have too much influence in politics. Yet he will now not adhere to his pledge of public financing. He makes false statements about how much money he receives from “small” contributions. These are simply more items that need to be examined to better understand the kind of person he is and his personal integrity.

Whether or not Obama is a pro-choice Dem, or how he votes on the Bankruptcy Bill are fine and dandy. But that in no way shape or form identifies the man as a leader or as capable of running an organization with the size and complexity of the Federal Government of the United States. Those are nothing more than positions on secondary issues. Being a CEO, a Governor, heck even a General Manager for a Baseball team, shows more leadership experience than Obama.

Interesting though, that you’re not really able to say much about McCain other than him being a jacka$$. He is by far the most qualified and most ready to step in and handle the duties of President.

I guess that’s where you and I differ. The government is here to serve, but I do believe that if our President was more like Jack Welch, we’d all be better off.

Individuals, like Jack Welch, who have run corporations, particularly different corporations understand how to work with people, motivate people, get the best out of people and drive to a goal that makes for the benefit of the whole. They understand how all of the different offices must interconnect in order for that to happen. Not only that, they show the ability to adapt to fit the organization which they are leading.

As for the argument of “experience”, I’ve been making it on this board, for quite some time. I didn’t this time, nor have I ever taken another person’s idea.

By JokesOn

February 28, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

Just dropping in for a second to clear up more bs from TOJam:

The entire point of JokesOn’s (Benjamin Franklin is just todays name that he hides behind when attacking others because he doesn’t have the stones to do anything else) post was yet another childish attack toward me because I dared state that if my Daughter was ordered to be strip searched at a US airport, that I wouldn’t throw a temper tantrum about it.

I dare anyone to read my polite and appreciative response to TOJ stating he would obey the officials. You will not find any slam for his being honest until I got sick of him stating that I was anything less than cordial.

*The boy has serious problems that go way beyond his need to portray himself as a righteous crusader on this blog. Considering how he hides behind these stupid names, I am pretty sure the boy doesn’t have the courage to stand up to anyone, anytime. That’s why it is so important that he continues to tell his tales of his great crusades and victories against the “Man”. *

I have never posted under other names. Think about it for a second…I have no trouble slamming you using my normal alias. What would be the point?

I am sure you have no way to comprehend people having anything other than the hateful/bigoted/mousy demeanor than you. That way you can never change for the better.

I still think you are just chuck trying to reinvent himself on here and are PO’ed that even without the fanatical religious angle people do not like you and your anger shines through. You are a pitiful scared little boy.

By Jack

February 28, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

“You have such a loser of a life, that this is the only place you can feel good about yourself so you play this stupid drama day after day.”

Exactly that kind of condesending attitude makes you soooooo popular on this blog. If you treat people in person as you do on this blog you must be one tough SOB. This blog has never stayed on topic and the folks you mentioned opinions are just as valid and hold just as much weight as yours. If you get so agitated by the blog, go somewhere else. There is plenty of vitrol on Wootens blog. You may feel more at home there.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

Individuals, like Jack Welch, who have run corporations, particularly different corporations understand how to work with people, motivate people, get the best out of people and drive to a goal that makes for the benefit of the whole. They understand how all of the different offices must interconnect in order for that to happen. Not only that, they show the ability to adapt to fit the organization which they are leading.

2D—Once again I am in complete agreement with you. While discussing specific political issues is interesting in its own right (and provides a nice break from the office for those of you stuck behind a computer), I believe most voters ultimately select their candidate of choice based on a “whole person analysis” which includes such nebulous items as “personality”. Obviously, any such “non-issue” discussion is likely to be irrational, emotional, and reflective of each person’s prejudices, and therefore may be unsuitable for an “issues-only” blog. However, I have always been interested in such discussions insofar as they reveal what folks are really made of, moreso than any “non-emotional” discussion of facts ever will. Case in point is chuck’s continued use of Obama’s middle name, which has absolutely nothing to do with the election. Because it is an “issue” with chuck, you have to guess it reflects something deeper on his part.

By Jack

February 28, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way.

I can’t wait to look in the mirror cause I get better looking each day.

To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man.

By 2D

February 28, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Doc… Unfortuantely, I do not believe most voters look at a “whole person analysis” when selecting their candidates or representatives.

I believe most people do one of two things:

If we had more substantive debates on the whole person, I think we would end up with better candidates and representatives. However, I think we are a long way from that. I believe our society has fragmented to the point where we do not see ourselves as Americans, but as individual groups that live in America. Each individual group then wants to make sure their own interests are taken care of regardless of the whole.

By JokesOn

February 28, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

I believe most voters ultimately select their candidate of choice based on a “whole person analysis”

Do you think so, dog?

I would have guessed that is true for most democrats, but the current republicans seem to absolutely tied to specific issues. For example, they have been wrenched trying to find a candidate that they feel reflects the party. I have heard over-and-over this election how each of the candidates are not republican enough because of right to life/marriage-civil unions (personal and policy making)/the war…

Input?

By Doc

February 28, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this

You have such a loser of a life, that this is the only place you can feel good about yourself so you play this stupid drama day after day

Personally, I don’t think anyone needs to apologize for enjoying spending time on a blog, whatever the reason. No one is better than anyone else, and we all do strange things in our private lives. I can think of a lot more harmful activities than blogging.

Aintdatthetruth reminds me of the snobby high schoolers who think they’re so much better than their peers.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

They are party line voters who will always vote for the Dems or the GOP.

It may be a stretch, 2D, but I see “party-line” voting as an example of voting for a certain personality, rather than weighing through specific issues, even if the ascribed “personality” is strictly some kind of psychological projection and not reflective of the candidate’s true personality. In this way, I think a certain segment of our population identifies with Bush, despite any specific missteps he may have made along the way. Similarly, I think Bill Clinton’s popularity among his supporters is based more on his personality than his actual record.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

For example, they have been wrenched trying to find a candidate that they feel reflects the party. I have heard over-and-over this election how each of the candidates are not republican enough because of right to life/marriage-civil unions (personal and policy making)/the war…

Glad to hear from you, JokesOn. Our continued cordiality proves to me that folks with differing political views can certainly get along without personal animosity.

As for your specific point, I do see the Far Right Wingers in a tift right now because they don’t think McCain is conservative enough. I’d like to believe they are in the minority, but who knows? I’m pleased with McCain, though his record is somewhat spotted (Keating 5, etc.). I laughed my butt off when Ann Coulter endorsed Hillary, however, due to her dislike of McCain. What a freakin’ idiot.

The bottom line, JokesOn, is that while I consider myself to be a “conservative”, I don’t defend the religious whackos and racial bigots who identify themselves with the Republican Party.

By Jack

February 28, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

JokesOn. It’s kind of blurred these days. The current crop of Republicans are not conservatives. Conservative are supposed to be for less government, less government intervention. Think. Why would someone working for the government want less government? If you could vote yourself a raise you would, wouldn’t you? I sure would. We need to replace all of them. I’m not a big Obama fan but we need to get rid of these career politicians. I hold them in the same regard as news reports & personal injury lawyers.

By f(x) = 36x^2

February 28, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

I’m a party line voter because I agree with the basic Democratic platform. It has nothing to do with personality or I sure as hell wouldn’t have voted for John Kerry.

I also refuse to lend my support to a party that is so heavily influenced by religious fundamentalists and one that has done so much to contribute to the very fragmentation 2D mentioned.

Speaking of which, I’m still waiting to hear from 2D about Reublican candidates rejecting the hateful messages of people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson when said candidates receive said hate mongers’ endorsements.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

Personal to Jack—Sorry if I upset kimberly today by challenging her ongoing claims of widespread misogyny among males. I know you enjoy chatting/flirting with her on the blog, and I don’t mean to step on that. Hopefully she has noticed that I haven’t blogged in the past 1 1/2 months, and will be taking another long “blog-break” after today.

By Newzwyre

February 28, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

2D wrote “Individuals, like Jack Welch, who have run corporations, particularly different corporations understand how to work with people, motivate people, get the best out of people and drive to a goal that makes for the benefit of the whole. They understand how all of the different offices must interconnect in order for that to happen. Not only that, they show the ability to adapt to fit the organization which they are leading.”

Unlike Doc, I disagree. The problem with having a “CEO President” is the differences between government and business, not only in mission as USinUK pointed out, but in composition and heirarchy.

The CEO of a business is used to being “The Boss”.

Immediately below him are Directors, which is like the Presidential Cabinet. As long as the Board doesn’t object, the CEO can do pretty much anything s/he wants.

And the role of middle management, legal, and labor (Legislative, Judicial, and bureaucracy) is to do as they are told and carry out the directives of the Executive. They have no place in the actual decision-making process.

Government doesn’t work that way. A government “of the people, for the people, and by the people” cannot exclude “the people” simply because it’s an easier way to do things. The Office of the President et al (the Executive Branch), should be no stronger (or weaker) than the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. Governing is, or should be, a collaborative effort.

CEO’s tend to be autocratic. Presidents need to be democratic (no pun intended) and diplomatic.

I hope that you could follow my reasoning here. I may not have been as clear as I might have.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

I’m a party line voter because I agree with the basic Democratic platform. It has nothing to do with personality

f(x)—please excuse my non-mathematical, non-precise use of the word “personality”. Think about Bill Clinton’s popularity for a minute. Almost none of the actual laws passed during his administration could be considered “liberal”, yet he is universally loved by Democrats. Similarly, almost none of the laws that have been passed under Bush could be considered “conservative”, yet hard-core conservatives still identify with him. In both cases, I have to guess that the “image” and “public perception” are more important to their supporters than their actual records of accomplishment.

By Jack

February 28, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

NP.

By JokesOn

February 28, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

Glad to hear from you, JokesOn. Our continued cordiality proves to me that folks with differing political views can certainly get along without personal animosity.

Agreed. I think that most of us on here are looking for s very similar place in the political spectrum. Some of us think that it is better starting from the republican perspective and others start from the democratic. All-in-all though I think %98 of this blog could reach a compromise of the two. In short, there are only a few that adamantly defend either party, and they tend to be the instigators of mean spirited chat; whether they intend it or not.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

Immediately below him are Directors, which is like the Presidential Cabinet. As long as the Board doesn’t object, the CEO can do pretty much anything s/he wants.

Newzwyre—I don’t think that 2D’s point is that the logistics and structure of both business and the government are so similar that every successful CEO would automatically make an excellent President. I believe his/her point ( I’m guessing her, BTW) is that the job of Prez is so large and involves coordinating so many people, that ultimately leadership ability is the most important qualification, and not so much the specific ideology. A perfect example of that is Jimmy Carter, an honorable man who had almost zero leadership skills while he was in office.

By Newzwyre

February 28, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

Doc, I know that 2D wasn’t saying that every CEO would be a good president. I was just explaining why some people, me included, might me uncomfortable voting for a “CEO President”.

I think s/he’d have to prove to the voters that their leadership style was NOT that of a “corporate” CEO but instead was more in line with the President of a large non-profit, or a hospital, or something where “the boss” isn’t necessarily “THE BOSS”,(more “a leader” than “The Leader”)if you know what I mean.

George Bush is the type of CEO president that considers himself “The Leader” and Reagan was more “a leader”.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

I just read something profound about finding love, written by a woman who was trying to give her son dating advice:

“We’ve all gotten hurt, have our share of baggage, and are often obsessed with “playing the game” just right in the hopes it’ll lead to a serious relationship. But the path to true love isn’t a chess game, and there’s no “right move” to make. Sam knows that when the time is right, love will happen. It’s that easy. It may seem innocent and naïve, but I think a little innocence and naiveté are great qualities to have at hand when you’re looking for love—even at my age. Especially at my age.”

At least for me, the path to love is often blocked by fear. Toss in the typical male’s penchant for being competitive, and I’m often way off the mark. And, as a typical human, I’m prone to start blaming others for my own failures. It’s not misogyny that most males feel, just frustration, IMO.

By 2D

February 28, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

Doc… Thank you for understanding my point about corrolating being a successful CEO to showing qualifications for the Presidency.

I would also like to add that most successful CEOs I’ve either read about or worked for do not run their organizations in the fashion described by Newzwyre. They are not autocratic. Those successful CEOs set the visions and high level objectives, but left it his other C-Level officers, VPs, directors, et al to drive those goals.

That is exactly how the government should work. It hasn’t always worked that way with this administration, but I believe that is how it would work the best.

Also… Those successful CEOs are also very diplomatic. They must be in order to have their organizations survive. The CEO is the face of the organization. If the public doesn’t like them, they’ll have issues. The CEO secures financing when necessary. Closes mergers when necessary. Gets out in front when lawsuits and other issues come about. Many even get involved with political leaders when their corporations are large enough. Basically, they must be plenty diplomatic.

By Archie

February 28, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

Jack I agree with your 1:41 pm post.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

George Bush is the type of CEO president that considers himself “The Leader” and Reagan was more “a leader”.

Newz—I agree with your analysis of Reagan and Bush. Unlike the Democrats, however, I’m willing to cut GWB a little slack in recognition of the incredibly difficult challenges he’s had to deal with while in office. In hindsight, maybe no immediate reaction to the 9/11 attacks was necessary, but it sure felt that way in the days and months following the attacks. So much so, that virtually every Democrat voted with Bush to send troops to Iraq, including Hillary. My opinion of the Dems has been lowered by their constant backtracking on their initial support, however. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying “We made the decision at the time which we felt was best for the country, but realize now that it wasn’t”. I don’t respect their claims that they never supported the war, however, when the voting records are clear.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 28, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://groups.msn.com/tramadolbestprice/]cheap tramadol[/URL]

By Doc

February 28, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Hey Archie—I didn’t like reading TOJ’s negative comments toward you earlier today. Like JokesOn, you and I don’t agree on a lot of political issues. However, I enjoy your contributions and have found you to be a decent, honorable person who is willing to speak his mind. Thanks for being a part of the W2W blog community.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 28, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

cheap tramadol

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 28, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

tramadol online

By Doc

February 28, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

2D—In my limited experience as a small business owner, I found out quickly that autocracy and barking orders goes over like a lead balloon (or is that a Led Zeppelin?). Workers will only perform up to their capabilities when there is a shared vision of why we’re there in the first place. Obviously, no “shared vision” can come strictly from the top, it has to be accepted by everyone involved.

Most folks I meet who have never tried to supervise others seem to have a bad attitude toward management, believing that it’s all roses at the top. Personally, I think being at the top sucks due to the overwhelming responsibility and stress that go with it. It’s far easier to punch the clock, IMO, than to try to lead the parade.

By Doc

February 28, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

I enjoyed the visit today. I’ll catch you guys again when you’re all older. ; > }

By f(x) = 36x^2

February 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

And 2D remains silent on conservative nominees accepting endorsements from influential members of the religious right.

By The Other Jack

February 28, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

By f(x) = 36x^2

And 2D remains silent on conservative nominees accepting endorsements from influential members of the religious right.

Give it up, man. Why do you give the influential members of the religious right so much credit? Republicans are glad to get their votes, but all Republicans don’t think alike.

International criminals and arms dealers not only endorse Democratic causes, they donate enormous amounts of money to attack machines.

Obama raises questions about Farakhan and I respect him for that. That will cost him votes. For that, I respect him even more.

By Archie

February 28, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

Thanks Doc, Jack and I don’t agree but we have rarely said anything crazy to each other. Jack and I had a debate about WMD’s and we argued but it never was crazy. I disagree with lozen on male/female issues but then I agree with her too. I am amazed at the liberal folk who never admit they’re wrong and of course you have conservatives who think they are always right and none of us get paid the way Bush,Clinton, and Barack do. I am not a millionaire but Bush,Clinton, and Barack are. Bush owned a sports franchise and Hillary lent,lent her campaign 5 million dollars and I read that Barack is worth 1.5 million dollars so he’s not super rich but he isn’t broke either.

By JokesOn

February 28, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this

I enjoyed the visit today. I’ll catch you guys again when you’re all older. ; > }

Good to hear from you again dog. You take care.

By The Other Jack

February 28, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this

2D

I agree with most of what you say about CEOs. Of course the larger the business, the more your description is accurate.

In reading what several have said about the president’s role, it is amazing how different the ideas are.

I also believe that a business model should work well for the white house.

But consider this: There is an Atlanta based organization called Afterburner Seminars. It is a group of active and retired fighter pilots that teach military training to business people. Teamwork and making the proper decisions at the proper time are taught by using simulated attacks, etc. etc.

So fighter pilots teaching business people.

John McCain was a fighter pilot.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 28, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this

order tramadol

By Newzwyre

February 29, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this

The Other Jack wrote “Why do you give the influential members of the religious right so much credit? Republicans are glad to get their votes, but all Republicans don’t think alike.”

well, how is it any different than assuming that Farrakahn speaks for blacks? Why give him so much “credit”? Democrats and blacks don’t all think alike either.

to f(x) = 36x^2’s point though, will McCain be called on to disown Hagee’s endorsement? -

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/johnhageepost.php

“Barack Obama was questioned at Tuesday night’s debate by Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton about repudiating Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement — which Obama said was unsolicited — in the strongest terms possible. He was repeatedly badgered by Russert, and was forced to disown Farrakhan over and over again.”

“The very next day, John McCain appeared onstage in Texas with Pastor John Hagee, an influential activist in the Christian Zionist movement. Hagee’s comments about world affairs can make Farrakhan seem pedestrian at times: He eagerly awaits the Armageddon, considers the Catholic Church to be the Anti-Christ, and has said that Jews brought their own persecution upon themselves.”

[snip]

“So here’s the question: Will the same media outlets who have hammered Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan’s uninvited endorsement now ask John McCain to denounce and reject the support of John Hagee, which was actually sought and publicly accepted?”

(There’s also a video that I found pretty shocking and quite alarming.)

By USinUK

February 29, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear …

So, Obama is put on the firing line for receiving an endorsement from Louis Farrakhan. He denounces Farrakhan. He rejects Farrakhan. He denounces AND rejects Farrakhan and still he gets the treatment.

Meanwhile, McCain sought out and says he’s “very honored by Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement today,” because “(h)e has been the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement in many areas, but especially, most especially, his close ties and advocacy for the freedom and independence of the state of Israel.”

Well, that doesn’t sound so bad … but what else has Hagee had to say???

“Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.”

And

• “I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that (via Katrina)”*

And it seems that Hagee has said other things about the Catholic Church, calling it ‘The Great W*******,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’ “

Here’s a link to Ann Althouse - who links to video: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-is-mccain-appearing-with-raving.html

I wonder if the media will raise quite the same level of stink about McCain’s endorsement as they did Obama’s??? I mean, let’s compare and contrast here – the Anti-Defamation League came out and said they’re happy with Obama’s denunciation of Farrakhan and, as far as they’re concerned, this is a non-issue – and, yet, he still gets the Little Timmy Russert once-over. The Catholic League is spitting mad about the McCain endorsement and his pride in it, and what do we get from the media??? No mention of Hagee’s more controversial statements in most of the major news stories about the endorsement.

“liberal media” my patootie.

By chuck

February 29, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this

Because it is an “issue” with chuck, you have to guess it reflects something deeper on his part.

Yes, USinUK. I have deep, dark, racist tendencies because I use Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name in my posts. If you read my response to Archie a couple of days ago you’ll understand why I do it.

Politics is A GAME. It shouldn’t be, but that’s what it is. AND, it is a game with really SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. Unfortunately there are way too many stupid Americans that have the right to vote. ESPECIALLY these silly women who FAINT at Obama rallies. How stupid is that? ANYBODY who thinks that he is a serious candidate for the most powerful position in the world is a lunatic.

So, if people are naive enough to be afraid to vote for Obama in the general election because of his given name…well, that’s fine with me. They should be afraid to vote for him because he would be a disaster in office, but if that doesn’t work and his middle name does?

YES I am a cynic when it comes to politics. Most thinking people are. When it comes to BELIEFS, I am decidedly an IDEALIST, but when it comes to expectations from politicians, I am a REALIST. There are just not many TRUE BELIEVERS on either side of the aisle. Those of you on the left have the same problems as Republicans. Your candidates are in it for the POWER, just like OURS.

Face it. True believers on either side can’t be elected because they tell the TRUTH about their positions and then the press and the other side ridicule them for those positions until they are run out of the race. That’s how politics in America work. We then get the leaders we deserve…people with few core beliefs who will say and/or do anything to get elected. If true believers could be elected we would have a contest between Duncan Hunter and Ralph Nader next November.

By USinUK

February 29, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

Newzy!!

Great minds think alike :-) good catch on Haggee

oh, and thanks for that recommendation on the Turkey/Islam article - VERY interesting … especially in light of their decision to allow headcoverings at universities.

By Gem o' the Day:

February 29, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

Patriotism at its finest:

“Unfortunately there are way too many stupid Americans that have the right to vote.”

By USinUK

February 29, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this

chuck -

Because it is an “issue” with chuck, you have to guess it reflects something deeper on his part … Yes, USinUK. I have deep, dark, racist tendencies because I use Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name in my posts. If you read my response to Archie a couple of days ago you’ll understand why I do it.

Doc said that you have issues … not me. Redirect your bile, if you please.

By The Other Jack

February 29, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

USinUK

liberal media” my patootie.

I would be willing to bet that this endorsement will be used in an eye popping espose’ about the radical element that is supporting John McCain. I can see an award winning story on CBS 60 Minutes. CNN Election Central: Hard Hitting Series on the Far Right, The Religous Element That is the Backbone of the Republican Base. (Fade down dark music, cue talent)

Think about it. Why would they run this now? McCain is not even in competition with anyone. A single story like this would have a shelf life of two weeks. So if they run it now, there will be no damage done to McCain. the New York Times only ran the Mccain story because they wedre about to be beaten to the draw.

I may be wrong, but this will not be the last time we hear about Mccain”s connection with the religous right.

Editors at the New York Times understand the damage a story like that does to their circulation. They are obviously willing to sacrifice the credibility of the world’s greatest newspaper in order to promote their political agenda. I’m willing to bet that 60 Minutes will also run into the same problem this year.

By The Other Jack

February 29, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Chuck

It is simple. If the country watches the debates, McCain wins. If the country falls for the coming media storm, allocating Obama as the new JFK, Obama wins.

It all depends on who is paying attention to what.

By chuck

February 29, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

One thing that would help as far as having better candidates would be to CLOSE PRIMARIES. If McCain is going to represent the REPUBLICAN party, he should be nominated based on an election in which ONLY Republicans participate. He would never have wone such an election. He was given the nod by SOME Republicans and MANY “independents” and democrats that crossed over.

By 2D

February 29, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

Gotta get back to work, but wanted ato make a couple of quick points…

First on the McCain/Hagee fracas… As with Obama, McCain needs to be careful of which endorsements he elicits and accepts. If he does not distnace himself from Hagee or others, then he leaves himself open for criticism.

The difference between McCain and Obama is this… McCain actually has a record of more than 50 years of service with which to put the Hagee endorsement into context. Without such context, it becomes more difficult to make distinctions.

Chuck…

I agree with you on the primaries to a point. I would very much agree with not allowing “cross-over” voters (dems to GOP and vice versa), however, I do not have any problems with registered independents voting in one of the primaries. I believe that gets the best candidates selected because more POV’s were incorporated into the selection.

However, if GA closed their primaries, we may still have Cynthia McKinney as Rep from the 4th district so cross-over isn’t all bad. :)

By Jack

February 29, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

Chuck. If they closed primaries Cynthia Mckinney would still be in office. many, many people crossed over to see that she sat in that chair no more. Give the voting public a little more credit, they know McCain is the lesser evil in this election. That’s all we vote for these days is the “lesser of the evil”.

By chuck

February 29, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

I agree with your conclusion Jack, and it’s a shame. I would much rather vote for a great candidate than vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

By chuck

February 29, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

BTW, I’m really more concerned with a closed PRESIDENTIAL Primary than with state/local offices.

By chuck

February 29, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

Here’s one of the reasons that I am so cynical about politics:

The democrats are screaming that we have all of these “PROBLEMS” in America, and what are they focused on right now? Whether or not Roger Clemens LIED to Congress. Not only are they holding these STUPID hearings, but they have now asked the Justice Department to have FBI agents investigate Clemens to see if he lied to CONGRESS!?!?!

Every freakin’ congressman lies to congress every day. Let the FBI investigate them. OR…better yet, let the FBI investigate possible terrorists in the United States.

TELL THE TRUTH: Wouldn’t you rather have the resources of the FBI focused on fighting terrorism rather than investigating CLEMENS?

NO WONDER we have a stinking deficit.

By Archie

February 29, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

It wasn’t just democrats focusing on Clemens. There were republicans at those hearings as well and Mr. Specter investigated Belichek who is a football coach. Tell the truth completely if you’re going to bring that subject up. Personally I think Clemens lied but basically chickens are coming home to roost. I want to see how they spin it to let Clemens off and yet prosecute Bonds. People are always using drugs in gyms these days and there was a study done to prove just that fact so I never understood the uproar over Bonds,Mcquwire, or Sosa. The governor of California used steriods and Nfl players in the 1970’s used steriods and I know this because a guy named Jim Haslett who played at the time said steriods were common. Hypocrisy is simply coming home as people went after Bonds because he is a jerk,black, — take your pick, but now that Clemens is being shown to be a jerk,liar —- take your pick, some folk want figure a way out for this guy. Heck, neither Bonds nor Clemens should go to jail because anyone that really wanted to know could have found out those guys were users long ago. We somehow need to be honest about racism and classism.

By Point of Reality

February 29, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

I agree with you, Chuck, about the ridiculousness of Congressional involvement in baseball. The deficit, however, is not so much a result of steroid hearings, though.

Writing a blank check from our treasury to the Vice-President’s close personal friends who are servicing their war needs while cutting taxes at the same time, and continuing this foolishness for several years in a row has a bit more to do with the deficit than a few pointless hearings, don’t you agree?

By Investigator

February 29, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

But we are supposed to investigate liars.

If you remember the Bill Clinton/Paula Jones/Monica thing? I think there was a whole impeachment proceedings over that. Do you teach history?

By 2D

February 29, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Chuck… Not sure if you mean deficit or debt, but in either case, we have them because the GOP cuts taxes doesn’t cut spending.

There’s a great graph that shows the increase of the debt over time since 1938. The largest increases are under Reagan and Bush, by a wide margin.

At least when the Dems spend like drunken sailors, they also tax the $h1t out of the American people to pay for it.

Both scenarios are testament as to why the Government should get out of the business of doing nearly all of what they are doing. To provide the services it provides, it needs to tax us to death to pay for it. Those taxes cause a drain on the economy. If we cut taxes and don’t cut services, our national debt increases and that causes a drain on the economy.

Cut taxes. Cut services. Roadblock the road to the nanny state. Allow people to control their own financial futures.

By USinUK

February 29, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

chuck -

NO WONDER we have a stinking deficit.

you’re right. it has nothing to do with this administrations decision to expand government, dive head-long into a war on 2 fronts AND cut tax revenues at the same time.

it’s all because of the baseball hearings.

sheesh.

By Newzwyre

February 29, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

USinUK, I agree that it’s an interesting “coincidence” that the ban on headscarves is repealed during the same time frame that the elders are editing the cultural dogma out. It will be interesting to see how that goes in the more conservative countries like Saudi Arabia and in the tribal areas of Pakistan. I suppose it’ll give everyone a chance to see which societies repress their women because they honestly believe the prophet wants them to, and how many are just doing so because their fathers and grandfathers did.

By USinUK

February 29, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Newzy -

It will be interesting to see how that goes in the more conservative countries like Saudi Arabia and in the tribal areas of Pakistan

I think, for the foreseeable future, it will remain within Turkey, frankly. The article compared this move to the Reformation - which I think is apt on a number of fronts - not the least of which is the idea that the Reformation didn’t happen overnight, either. What this is going to do, in the longer haul, is give imams a foundation on which to stand up and fight the fundies.

I’m still so blown away by the Turkish gov’s decision to fund this project - Given his push for a secular state, I don’t know that Attaturk would be proud, per se, of recent decisions … but I think he would appreciate the scholarship behind the project.

By Newzwyre

February 29, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

In case you couldn’t tell, I’m leaning Obama (mostly because my candidate didn’t make it through the primaries) even though he is a bit “unseasoned”. This guy pretty much spells out why, even with his very slim resume, he causes so much excitement. I especially liked the last line of the excerpt -

I Love Barack Obama. And This Is No School Girl Crush — by Ian Dunn

excerpt

“— I’m not a fool. I am aware that perhaps the largest part of his appeal is that he’s a blank slate. We can project what we want onto him. His record is slim enough that all manner of men can see their greatest hopes in him. He’s anti war, he’s good for the environment, he’ll chase the special interests out of Washington. We hope. He’s new enough and fresh enough that he can be whatever I want him to be.”

“That’s undoubtedly a key part of his appeal. We know he’s charismatic, and he’s made a lot of vaguely leftish promises but the truth is we cannot be sure what kind of president he’ll make. He might be a Ronald Reagan-esque colossus who reshapes America and the world. We don’t know.”

“Politics is a fantastically dirty business that demands a thousand little compromises every day. There’s also a reasonable chance he follows in Jimmy Carter’s footsteps and is a rotting stinking failure, weak and ineffectual, who achieves nothing except to embolden the very worst in America and across the world.”

“Even if he easily clears that low bar there’s going to be huge disappointment. All the more so because he promised so much. He’ll have to settle for what’s less than perfect, live in the real world.”

“And yet, And yet. There’s one story about Obama I keep coming back to. It dates to his time in the Illinois state senate.”

“He introduced a bill that would require the videotaping of all police interrogations in capital cases. This was a good bill. It prevented police intimidation and brutality and stopped false confessions being obtained under such circumstances.”

“However no politician’s ever won an election sticking up for criminals. It was strongly opposed by police, state prosecutors, and the newly elected Democratic governor. Death-penalty abolitionists viewed the bill as too moderate, and his fellow legislators were terrified of being seen as soft on crime.”

“The Bill passed unanimously and has since been adopted as a model by several other states.”

“Because he convinced his opponents. He sat down with them and convinced them. All of them.”

“And that’s how it should work. The whole damn democratic system, that’s how it should work. A man has a good idea and he convinces everyone else.”

Continued at link — http://www.theschalter.com/index.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=022008&newsid=12

By Newzwyre

February 29, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

the winning entry is amazing. Got me all misty eyed. :-)

http://www.linktv.org/onenation

By chuck

February 29, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

In 2003 federal tax revenues were: 1,950,910,000,000

In 2007 federal tax revenues were: 2,401,750,000,000

Looks like an increase in revenue of almost 27% since 2003. I don’t think that the TAX CUTS caused the deficit.

By 2D

February 29, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

Newzwyre…

I think everyone understands that the reasons you quoted along with many others are why Obama generates so much excitement. Heck, he makes me feel good and I am not a supporter!

I would equate this Presidential election with something akin to the NFL draft. When a team is sitting at the top of the draft board and getting ready to spend an a*******load of cash, they need to ask themselves the following question: Am I going to draft and gamble my franchises future on upside potential, or am I going to invest into the known wquantity that will stabalize my franchise.

Rarely does the gamble pay off. In fact, far too often the gamble implodes and wrecks the franchise for many, many years.

This election will be one of the most pivotal elections we’ve had in a while. I can’t understand why anyone would gamble on upside. The payoff could be huge, but anything less will generate a disaster that could literally last generations. Carter is a great case in point. We are STILL paying for his mistakes.

Right now, I could not vote for Obama. However, in 4 or 8 years after he has seasoned himself, shaped his positions and shown some expertise on a variety of different issues, well all of that combined with his charisma and charm could turn into one of the greatest Presidents ever.

Just remember, Reagan desperately wanted the 1976 nomination but had to wait his turn. I think it was probably the best thing that ever happened for him. Not only did he get 4 more years to shape himself, he was able to follow Carter and become one of the most revered Americans of all time.

Obama could be the same, but his chances are far greater in 4 or 8 years than they are now.

By Investigator

February 29, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

Looks like an increase in revenue of almost 27% since 2003. I don’t think that the TAX CUTS caused the deficit.

don’t those figures actually support the argument that lower taxes for the wealthy causes greater income for others, INCREASING revenue from taxes? This is supposed to be simple economic theory there.

So the deficit is more likely caused by increased spending, relative to tax revenue. Could you post how much spending when up? It would appear it would be MUCH MORE than 27%. Should I send my rebate I received in 2000 back to the government, since they obviously screwed up with the math somehow?

By chuck

February 29, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 bil­lion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm

By Jack

February 29, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

USinUK. Tax revenues went up as a result of the tax cuts via new jobs, more GNP.

By Point of Reality

February 29, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

I don’t think that the TAX CUTS caused the deficit.

$8 billion per month just to run the war. Private contractors can make $400K per year over there while the soldiers make maybe $40K, and you’re okay with that. Ask how much Ashcroft’s private retainer is now that he’s no longer in office but still receiving funds from our treasury. Either way, who do you think is paying those salaries? You are, and your grandchildren by way of interest to the hostile, civil-rights-hating countries that were kind enough to lend us the money for killin towl heads.

What caused the deficit and $$-trillions-$$ in debt? You want your war, you want your roads and interchanges to be navigable, you want your police and fire departments and long long prison terms for drug users, you want your persecution of “liars”, and county government staying busy shutting down toy shops and making sure poor kids don’t take one too many reduced-priced lunches at school, but you don’t want to pay for it.

You sold America’s soul and your progeny’s future into long-term, high-interest debt for the $500 you saved on income taxes. I won’t ask what that makes you, since deep down, you already know.

By Investigator

February 29, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

Didn’t Carter win because the country was fed up with the criminal elements of previous administrations? hmmmmm. Do you see a potential upcoming pattern here?

Thanks Chuck, I’ll get out my calculator for the percentage.

By Newzwyre

February 29, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

2D - I know, but it looks like it’s going to end up being between McCain and Obama. For various reasons I cannot bring myself to cast a vote for Senator McCain. Either I don’t vote at all, or I choose Obama.

I have definite reservations about some of his politics, but even more about McCain’s. At the least, Obama is more likely to surround himself with new blood (experts, academics, professionals etc) as opposed to McCain who is beholden to so many party pooh-bahs. I used to admire him a great deal but I believe he sold out his principles for party support. When he wobbled on the issue of torture, that’s when he lost my vote.

It may be completely subjective, but Obama gives me a feeling of cautious optimism about the future. McCain seems like the same old same old.

By chuck

February 29, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

UHHHHH Investigator. THE COURT found that Clinton lied NOT THE CONGRESS. THE COURT disbarred Clinton NOT THE CONGRESS. The question of impeachment concerned whether the CONVICTION of a sitting PRESIDENT for perjury rose to the level of HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS as outlined by the constitution.

By Investigator

February 29, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

Chuck - like I said, all over a lie. thanks.

By Clinton was in IDIOT!

February 29, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

When pressured into testifying before the 9-11 Commission, after they opposed the formation of the commission, and then opposed the idea of testifying like EVERYONE else had, Bush and Cheney made the following pre-conditions to their testimony: (1) We will NOT be sworn under oath (2) There will be no record of our testimony (3) We will only testify together, holding hands.

No oath, no perjury. BRILLIANT! There’s more than one way to avoid being caught in a lie. Why didn’t Bill think of that?

(Then they passed this along to their oil buddies for those pesky congressional hearings. Why should they swear to tell the truth, when they don’t even know how? No oath, NO PERJURY!)

By USinUK

February 29, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

Chuck and Jack -

yes - tax revenues went up - because of record-level corporate earnings (despite the fact that fewer companies are actually paying their corporate taxes … but that’s a discussion from a couple of weeks ago).

and companies were making record-level earnings because of 1) easy money and 2) not giving proper pay raises to their employees - not to mention, all the issues we’re paying the piper for now: hedge funds investing in ABS and sub-prime loans.

Lastly - I didn’t say that tax cuts caused the deficit - I said that tax cuts and the administration’s expansion of government did.

By USinUK

February 29, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

AND fighting a war on 2 fronts.

By Jack

February 29, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

Where is NetB when you need him? LOL

By Jack

February 29, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

Can I reel one in all the way across the Atlantic? Hee hee.

By Monica

February 29, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this

Whew!! Long week. Why does February always seem so looong?

Anyway, check out the front page of AJC and you can see what our State Senate has been busy with today - passing a bill that would require elementary school officials to weigh and measure each child in the school twice a year, and then record the aggregate BMI data on their school website. As if that is also the school’s responsibility now.

By USinUK

February 29, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

Investigator -

Didn’t Carter win because the country was fed up with the criminal elements of previous administrations?

Most presidential campaigns are more a referendum on the party in power than they are an election of a single person. The GOP won in 2000 because of Clinton fatigue. Carter won in 1976 because of GOP/Nixon fatigue. and so on.

That’s why I wouldn’t be too quick to crow if I was on the other side of the aisle right now … their Glorious Leader has an approval rating on a par with Nixon … and there are loads of lovely pictures like this for the Democrats to tie McCain to him (sorta like cement shoes): http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/R/e/1/mccainbushhug.jpg

By chuck

February 29, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

Gotta love those politicians, huh Monica? When they POST THEIR BMI then we will talk.

By USinUK

February 29, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

chuck -

Gotta love those politicians, huh Monica? When they POST THEIR BMI then we will talk.

LOL … too true … and, for many of those yayhoos, it would be the first BMIs that had a COMMA in them!!!

By Jack

February 29, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

Monica. What is that going to do for the children’s self asteem? Politicians are complete morons. Unbelievable.

By lozen

February 29, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

You, JokesON, Archie, and lozen are the problem here. You have such a loser of a life, that this is the only place you can feel good about yourself so you play this stupid drama day after day. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Oh yeah, TOJ. Everybody else is the problem and you’re just the misunderstood, ganged up on, unappreciated genius. You never play the hysterical queen! Give me a break!

USinUK, probably didn’t xpress myself very well in that response to Kimberly earlier this week. What I was trying to say was that many ppl who don’t like Clinton are ppl who are sexist and don’t want any woman to have that much power. I did not mean to say everyone who doesn’t like her doesn’t like women. We’ve all heard the irrelevant, sexist, comments about her from both women and men. And there are women who think so little of themselves and other women they would never vote for a woman! I do not think you are one of those women.

By USinUK

February 29, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

lozen - fear not - I didn’t think you were painting everyone with the sexist brush! :-)

I’m off to hang with the hub -

everyone have a great weekend! see you next week.

By Investigator

February 29, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

USinUK - work with me here,(LOL)I was attempting to draw parallels with the current too special to take an oath criminal elements, as pointed out by ClintonWasAnIdiot at 2:33 PM.

Of course we don’t usually vote FOR someone, we vote AGAINST the incumbents. Jack has it right, flush them all.

By Monica

February 29, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

Jack, USinUK, Chuck,

If I were in the 5th grade and had to be weighed at school, I would feign sickness daily. I was not overweight but was never small and dainty like some of my classmates. I seriously believe that something like that would have sent me to the eating disorder stage.

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 29, 2008 7:25 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://groups.google.com/group/tramadomed/]tramadol side affect[/URL]

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 29, 2008 7:29 PM | Link to this

tramadol online purchase

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 29, 2008 7:46 PM | Link to this

tramadol withdrawal symptoms

By HsvsRsvsesv

February 29, 2008 9:20 PM | Link to this

[URL=http://groups.google.com/group/tramadomed/]120 cheap tramadol[/URL]

By oquscy prlah

March 21, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

xbcehsa lzbei nykbefhsg tamk udopa jpofkgwy ipzht

By ÑÛ´ü

April 1, 2008 7:57 PM | Link to this

º¼ÖÝÑ¡¿ó¹¤ÒÕÁ÷³ÌÍø¡¢º¼ÖÝÑ¡¿ó¹¤ÒÕÁ÷³Ì¹«Ë¾

By ×ÔÎü±Ã

April 2, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

×Ô¶¯´ò°ü»ú·þÎñ. ×Ô¶¯´ò°ü»úΪºÎÔÚÑÇÂíѷͶ×Ô¶¯´ò°ü»ú