November 30, 2011
— Gabriel Malor Some news items to get you started:
Police have mostly cleared out Occupy L.A. The city is officially "renovating" the park for the conceivable future. As of 30 minutes ago, there had been 104 arrests and 2 minor use-of-force incidents.
In the Senate, a bipartisan vote kills the progressives' attempt to strip a measure from the defense bill that will put most Al Qaeda terrorists in military custody. Obama bitterly opposes keeping Al Qaeda detainees in exclusive military custody and has vowed to veto the bill. Cloture vote is scheduled for today, with final passage predicted for tomorrow.
It will be telling if Obama goes through with a veto. As with his desire to close Gitmo, a majority of public is against him. He flinched on Gitmo. Complicating his decision now is that he risks further alienating his progressive base just as the election winds up. And if he truly is abandoning the white, middle class in favor of a coalition of the yuppified progressive elite and minority groups, he's going to have to throw them a bone every now and then. This explains his recent anti-prosperity Keystone XL decision.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
03:00 AM
| Comments (170)
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.
What am I? Chopped liver?
Posted by: SCoaMF's Marxist Ideology at November 30, 2011 03:03 AM (KI/Ch)
Romney on Tuesday lodged his first attack on his surging rival, Newt Gingrich, by labeling the former House speaker “a lifelong politician” and suggesting he lacks credibility on the economy.
How about lifelong Presidential candidate who has no credibility on anything? I say a pox on both their houses.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:04 AM (YdQQY)
Rep. William Panek called the Cain campaign Tuesday morning to say he was dropping his endorsement, telling CNN he will shift his support to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich instead.
Why Newt? Oh, this is NH.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:04 AM (YdQQY)
Senate Republicans will offer a new proposal to extend the payroll tax holiday as they battle with Democrats for supremacy on taxes.
Obviously they are not going to cut spending, we know that already.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:05 AM (YdQQY)
Holder loses it at DC reporter, looks like his days are numbered
Embattled Attorney General Eric Holder today demanded The Daily Caller stop publishing articles about the growing calls in Congress for his resignation because of the failed Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking program.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:05 AM (YdQQY)
If anyone didn't know the major reason why Romney can never get much above 20% here it is
Mitt Romney refused to criticize his Massachusetts health-care program tonight, saying he would prefer to lose the primary rather than renounce it.
If we can get some of the also rans to drop out he will lose. The only way he wins is to have a repeat of 2008 and that will be a disaster. I watched his interview and he told one lie after another.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:06 AM (YdQQY)
Gingrich leads in latest SC poll
According to an Insider Advantage poll of 519 registered voters, Gingrich, in fact, has a commanding lead – 38 percent to only 15 percent for onetime S.C. leader, Mitt Romney, and 13 percent for another onetime S.C. leader, Herman Cain.
Newt shouldnÂ’t be counting his chickens yet though. The last poll that we got to see the internals on here said 75% of the polled were likely to change their vote before the primary. I can not see how anyone who calls themselves a conservative can support Newt. He is just as much a big government liberal as Romney.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:06 AM (YdQQY)
And speaking of Newt, the Wash Examiner tells you why you need to think twice
He is no conservative.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:06 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 07:06 AM (YdQQY)
You say that as if it's a bad thing...
Posted by: mittens at November 30, 2011 03:07 AM (smit2)
One wonders if this article is true.
Especially this part concerning major U.S. banks
As such, they can go on borrowing money from the Federal Reserve at 0% and loaning it to the US government at 2%– a practice that has essentially become the banks’ core business.
Why would the U.S. treasury need to borrow from the banks. The fed is buying all their bonds now? Or are they going at the borrowing route in a two-fisted manner?
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:07 AM (YdQQY)
And finally this from the ONT I have to dispute:
The reason McCain lost was because he lost the moderates in the middle. They went overwhelmingly for Obama.
This is BS, there is no slew of “independent” moderates in the middle who flip flop back and forth. Medved is FOS and he is the myth. While it is true that overall Republican votes went up, one can not just look at the vote totals. Total votes do not determine the outcome of the race. One must look at the key States that switched from Red to Blue between 2004 and 2008. In all those States the total republican vote went down despite overall votes going up. So what does that tell you? A bunch of the base stayed at home.
Not only does the Party leadership not want you to know they really do influence who the candidate is going to be but they want to baffle you with this BS. So how do the influence who the nominee will be? They control which States go first and the rules for the primaries.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:08 AM (YdQQY)
The military already has the authority to detain indefinitely US citizens who are Al Qaeda terrorists. This was hashed out during the Bush 43 Administration. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The new bill doesn't change that. What it changes is that it limits Obama's ability to transfer them from military custody (where they can get military trials) to civilian custody (where they will be tried by the courts).
The compromise worked out by Sens. McCain and Levin will let Obama make such transfers, but he would have to publicly announce that he's "waiving" their military detention. This would require that he take full responsibility for the outcome (including not guilty verdicts) of moving detainees to civilian custody. So, of course, Obama hates the idea.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 03:08 AM (XVaFd)
And that’s the news for today. Still not much out there but more than yesterday. I will be leaving for “The City” for my next poison session in about an hour.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:08 AM (YdQQY)
I was thinking the part about detaining citizens on U.S. soil indefinitely was new. I knew they were doing it overseas when captured in battle.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:11 AM (YdQQY)
There is a reason we have trials and a reason we have a constitution.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:15 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: No body at November 30, 2011 03:21 AM (nPr20)
Also, he held dual citizenship with Saudi Arabia so the part about giving citizenship to people from terror supporting countries falls into play as well.
But my question still remains. Why in the hell was he not tried for treason? Why are we giving up parts of the Constitution because we are too chickenshit to try these assholes for treason?
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:21 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: BurtTC at November 30, 2011 03:21 AM (Gc/Qi)
Fed Cop: "So you're for the terrorists?"
Tea Party Guy: "What does that have to do with it?"
Fed Cop: "Well need to question you further. You're under arrest."
Tea Party Guy: "For what?!"
Tea Party Guy's wife: "Hello police. My husband is missing."
Cops: "When was the last time you saw him?"
Tea Party Guy's wife: "Yesterday when he left for work."
Cops: "Lots of that lately lady. We might be in touch. Just move on with your life."
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at November 30, 2011 03:23 AM (j5CHE)
So, how far out of the realm of possibilities is this scenario: We go through the whole primary season and not one candidate gets enough votes to clinch the nomination, and Christie becomes the consensus candidate?
Yes.. I'm dreaming..
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 30, 2011 03:23 AM (UTq/I)
What difference does it make that a U.S. citizen is on U.S. soil? Shouldn't we have the same constitutional protections from our own government whether we are here or abroad?
If we can detain a U.S. citizen who is an Al Qaeda terrorist abroad, I see no reason that we cannot detain a U.S. citizen who is an Al Qaeda terrorist at home. SCOTUS says we can do the former; so should be able to do the latter.
As far as "Who should determine that they are "terrorists"." They get Combatant Status Reviews and limited habeas petitions to the courts. That's sufficient.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 03:24 AM (XVaFd)
There is a reason we have trials and a reason we have a constitution.
Posted by: Vic
...........
Me too.
But I am confused about this bill. Is that what it authorizes?
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 30, 2011 03:26 AM (UTq/I)
The difference is that he was caught in a battlefield fighting against U.S. troops. At that point he becomes a combatant and subject to military trial.
As far as "Who should determine that they are "terrorists"." They get Combatant Status Reviews and limited habeas petitions to the courts. That's sufficient.
I don't agree. This is a damn dangerous precedent.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:27 AM (YdQQY)
But my question still remains. Why in the hell was he not tried for treason? Why are we giving up parts of the Constitution because we are too chickenshit to try these assholes for treason?
We're also too chickenshit to execute any of them. Under the Geneva Conventions, any "illegal enemy combatant" i.e. anyone caught on the field of battle with no uniform, can be executed on the spot or at any time thereafter with no trial, no detainment and no consequences.
Why we aren't doing this befuddles me no end. Common sense would dictate that if we killed enough of them, they'd stop wanting to fight us as a famous WW II General once said.
Why are we fighting the WOT by their rules, not ours?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 30, 2011 03:29 AM (d0Tfm)
The White House has threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act for several reasons, not the least of which is the detainee provisions. In strong language, the Administration has warned that the bill's requirements, including mandatory military custody for those detained on any battlefield, including inside the United States, would greatly hinder its ongoing operations.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:29 AM (YdQQY)
Newt is unacceptable as the GOP nominee...unless the only other choice turns out to be Mutt. I'm still with Perry...me and about 3 dozen others nationwide, seems like. Apparently, the GOP electorate is hunting for a game show host this cycle instead of a president.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at November 30, 2011 03:31 AM (rLhp2)
There are some laws that need changing and we will not have to murder the Constitution to do it.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:32 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: San Antonio Rose at November 30, 2011 03:33 AM (3bJHs)
Why are we fighting the WOT by their rules, not ours?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 30, 2011 07:29 AM (d0Tfm)
Because our political leadership has the spine of a jellyfish - both parties...Bush, if anything, was worse about this than the SCoaMF has been...how many times did that dipstick spout "Religion of Peace"? - and our political leaders and large swaths of the American public have lost confidence in our culture and belief system, and many/most of them have very little or no idea what is right or wrong anymore.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at November 30, 2011 03:35 AM (rLhp2)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 30, 2011 03:36 AM (d0Tfm)
The reason that they want them under military custody is that in the civil justice system, the defense attorneys end up with a whole bunch of intelligence on how we discovered them, how we tracked them and monitored them, etc. This info goes straight to Al Qaeda.
If the prosecution doesn't release this information, there isn't enough evidence and the terrorist walks.
This was why Bush had them put down in Gitmo rather than bringing them here for trial. To my thinking, this is one of those things that is a real problem either way.
Posted by: Miss Marple at November 30, 2011 03:39 AM (GoIUi)
Evil SFO Mickey D's Skirts Happy Meal Toy Ban With Cunning Work Around
Posted by: Doctor Fish at November 30, 2011 07:13 AM (Lt/Za)
Heh...stoopid hippies hardest hit.
Posted by: billygoat at November 30, 2011 03:39 AM (smit2)
Posted by: MDH3 at November 30, 2011 03:40 AM (GKyUC)
The primaries will boil down to Mitt and the anti-Mitt, with neither side willing to back down. Salon and Politico have already posted articles on how this yearÂ’s GOP rule changes make it far more likely that we could go through the entire primary and not have a candidate with enough votes to get the nomination.
This leaves us with a brokered convention. After the first ballot that fails, all the delegates are free to vote for whoever they want. I canÂ’t imagine the anti-Mitt forces being convinced that they should come over to MittÂ’s side, and conversely itÂ’s improbable that the Mitt people will switch to a Newt or Perry.
Who would be the compromise candidate that (most) everyone could agree on?
Posted by: jwest at November 30, 2011 03:40 AM (qeYI9)
This. Any bill supported by McCain and Levin is not good for America and our liberty.
Posted by: Barbarian at November 30, 2011 03:40 AM (EL+OC)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at November 30, 2011 03:40 AM (p7SSh)
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at November 30, 2011 03:41 AM (j5CHE)
Why are we fighting the WOT by their rules, not ours?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 30, 2011 07:29 AM (d0Tfm)
It's what 'we' do. Repubs fight Dems with Dem rules. With all due respect to Vic, i did not agree that it was a mistake for Cain to "pull the race card". We can't win a basket ball game when the opposing team can tackle you.
Posted by: Cicerokid at November 30, 2011 03:43 AM (zmJCR)
Posted by: Jon at November 30, 2011 03:49 AM (t4YF+)
Again we created the problem. Make all trials for terror that involve secret intelligence to be vetted by a judge and then no evidence released to a defense attorney that is classified.
BTW, manufactoring bombs, whether sponsored by Al Queda or not is already against the law. And if yu use one to kill someone they are eligable for the death penalty.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:49 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Paul Kroenke at November 30, 2011 03:50 AM (V+9zP)
Three inches of global warming on the porch this morning. Just six miles east there was 8 inches and six miles west there was none!
2 hour school delay. Time for an extra pot of coffee.
Posted by: Cicerokid at November 30, 2011 03:50 AM (zmJCR)
They are FOS. Once we get past the Mar 1 date it will move rapidly into Super Tuesday. And unless we still have a hopeless 5 way split it will be over after that.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:51 AM (YdQQY)
From the LA Times crawl:
Occupy L.A.: Police use cherry picker to pluck protesters from trees
Certainly hope nobody gets dropped - Ooops!
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 03:51 AM (oBrVT)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at November 30, 2011 03:52 AM (p7SSh)
Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 03:53 AM (p8B53)
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:54 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Countrysquire for Perry at November 30, 2011 03:54 AM (QB3JR)
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 07:49 AM (YdQQY)
Or to hold a fundraiser.
Posted by: Billy Ayers, ESQ. at November 30, 2011 03:55 AM (fDGF1)
Throwing dissenters/terrorists in prison indefinitely without trials has worked well in every country in which it has been tried (see Union, Soviet). Public trials and sentences of treason, with an implemented death sentence, just leave unnecessary paper trails and might alarm the sheep populace.
Posted by: DHS Administraitor at November 30, 2011 03:55 AM (i3+c5)
And the real pisser is that it is so damn unnecessary. The reason the assholes are pushing it is because they refuse to to try anyone for treason. The constitution is clear, when you take up arms against the country you are guilty of treason.
I think the charge cuts a little too close for some in Congress. They don't want to open up a can of whupass which could be turned on themselves.
Posted by: Truman North at November 30, 2011 03:56 AM (I2LwF)
Watching the live ustream feed by one of the occupiers as they try to remove the occutards from their treehouse. She's dumb as a box of rocks.
But is she hawt?
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2011 03:56 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Jon at November 30, 2011 07:49 AM (t4YF+)
An interesting question...and one that friends of mine have kicked around as we've aged. If we as (nearing retirement aged) 50 yo somethings had any brains we'd all vote for D's because of all the goodies they give away to various groups...retirees being a large constituency. However, we've all concluded (and vote) in the opposite direction...just...can't...do...it. So my answer is there's no amount of money -- it is just too contrary to my life and the journey through same.
...and now off to the slaveship!
Posted by: billygoat at November 30, 2011 03:57 AM (smit2)
Some Many US citizens might go missing.
Posted by: Jon at November 30, 2011 07:57 AM (t4YF+)
FIFY
Posted by: DHS Administraitor at November 30, 2011 03:59 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: DJ Monghee at November 30, 2011 04:00 AM (Zb6Vo)
Occupy LA:
Police had already begun to demobilize, and officers lined up to board buses back to their staging area at Dodger Stadium.
Before boarding the buses, many of the officers dipped their shoes into shallow decontamination pools.
Had to shoe douche to get the hippy filth off the bottom of their shoes? Good Lord, what a cesspool the City Hall lawn must be.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 04:02 AM (oBrVT)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 30, 2011 04:03 AM (UTq/I)
Had to shoe douche to get the hippy filth off the bottom of their shoes?
Make your world beautiful.
Power wash a hippie today.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2011 04:04 AM (sbV1u)
The net is tightening. Now if only the MBM could find the time between hunting for dirt on R candidates to do their fucking jobs.
Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2011 04:05 AM (ENKCw)
Occupy LA:
The Los Angeles Police Department's raid at the Occupy L.A. camp included officials in white latex hazmat suits.
Officials said the protective dress was needed out of concern some protesters might fling urine and feces at them as they began to clear out the park.
Well, my goodness....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 04:06 AM (oBrVT)
Posted by: Doomsayer at November 30, 2011 04:09 AM (LPRBM)
Posted by: Truman North at November 30, 2011 04:11 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 04:11 AM (p8B53)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 30, 2011 04:12 AM (AQD6a)
Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 04:13 AM (p8B53)
Posted by: Doomsayer at November 30, 2011 04:16 AM (j7IJ7)
Occutopia! We are the 99%!!!!!
Posted by: Occupoopers at November 30, 2011 04:17 AM (s7mIC)
BTW - AP is reporting 1400 cops took part in the Occupy LA raid.
God knows what last night's crime stats are going to look like for the rest of the city while The Man was busy rousting the bums.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 04:18 AM (oBrVT)
Posted by: Doomsayer at November 30, 2011 04:18 AM (052zE)
Horse slaughter plants have become legal again, after Congress quietly unbridled restrictions on processing horse meat. The Stuttering Clusterfuck signed the enabling bill on Nov. 18.
My wife is beside herself on this. We own horses, she rescues horses, and the SCOAMF kills them. She said, Obama is the most unAmerican president I've ever seen.
Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 04:22 AM (51Nv7)
Posted by: RINOs for Perfectly Coiffed Hair at November 30, 2011 04:24 AM (/ZZCn)
Posted by: moki at November 30, 2011 04:24 AM (dZmFh)
Posted by: Doomsayer at November 30, 2011 04:25 AM (YO+5B)
You realize Gabe, they're already of the opinion that anyone who opposes any part of their agenda is a terrorist and have used that EXACT language in public discourse. This is about putting people like you into indefinite detention during a war that will never end.
Tinfoil hat time, already? I haven't even finished my coffee yet.
The detainee bill doesn't apply to those that are simply labeled "terrorist." It applies to terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda. And they still get an administrative detainee status review and the right to make habeas petitions to the courts.
Let me repeat: they still get to petition the U.S. courts to review their detention in military custody. Your hysteria simply does not reflect the facts of this detainee measure or even of our current law. Reminder: the military already has the power to detain U.S. citizens who are Al Qaeda terrorists. This measure is only about limiting the power of the President to transfer such terrorists into civilian custody.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 04:28 AM (IkTb7)
Posted by: BurtTC at November 30, 2011 04:29 AM (Gc/Qi)
One more time for the hard of hearing or conspiracy theorists among us: What this bill doesn't do:
Allow presidents to just seize any American and hold them indefinitely without review by the courts
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 04:31 AM (IkTb7)
About that whole "recovery" thingy...
Layoffs announced in November dropped slightly from the prior month, though cuts in 2011 have already surpassed last year's total, according to a report released Wednesday.
Outplacement consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas said job cuts announced this year are up 13% overall and now total 564,297 -- already more than 2010's full-year total of 529,973 -- and we still have to get through December.
CNNMoney
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 04:31 AM (oBrVT)
Death By Government
The only way to make Socialism work is by killing people in the most atrociously public manner, populations in public slavery. "Death of one person is a great tragedy. Death of a million is a mere statistic." (Stalin)
Strip government of its propaganda to see the naked Emperor. We are paying our taxes to pay more taxes to be brainwashed, for our children's minds to be polluted for bigBigBIG government. We are losing cultural wars because the socialist goal is seen as the ideal, the war to be won at any and all costs, by any means, our nation destroyed by toxic and narcissistic leadership.
Vaccine against Socialism: the open discussion of the government crimes, especially for young people who are naturally still young idealists. Read "The Soviet Story" archives left behind in Latvia when the communists fled (Library of Congress), and read Karl Marx's own 1848 editorials from his Cologne publication, The Neue Rheinische Zeitung - Organ der Demokratie ("New Rhenish Newspaper - Organ of Democracy"). Marx was first to order the "necessary holocaust of entire human populations" east of Central Europe (Poland, the Balkans, Ukraine, etc.) for being too backward to be worthy of toleration by a modern Socialist-democratic civilization. Compare today the death warrant that Marx issued to what's now a former Soviet country that in one fell swoop cleansed itself of communism. Estonia (ranked 4th) enjoys as much economic freedom as America (ranked 6th in a Tallahassee Florida university study). Rather than basing "wealth" strictly upon natural resources, a nation's prosperity relies upon the Liberty of its people. Socialism exterminates people in order to promote/save itself in a vain effort to hide its innate failures.
Acknowledge the potus candidate avidly speaking out against abuses of power, working for decades to sustain Constitutional Governance and your Liberty, and to comport American foreign relations according to long-term effects of policy on economic strength emphasizing respect for human rights and freedom.
"China Made Me Do It" Washington Times
As a matter of record, think again, Mr. Wang, because the US government has already adopted its own means to the same commie/Socialist ends against its own citizen/population becoming "public slavery" (Yuri N. Maltsev) at this point according to our own Senate of elitists, the same "proponents of government subsidies" (below). For instance, our federal government's CyberCzar and Intelligence agents have easy access to our online accounts and willfully manipulate records of sites visited without our knowledge or consent in order to achieve their own ends. It would be folly to assume that because you are innocent, the federal authorities that decided to prosecute you will respect your constitutional rights.
(Govt. attorney) Eric WANG: China made me do it
Will Obama endorse the one-child policy next?
Listening to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and members of Congress citing China as justification for the deeply troubled federal clean energy loan program, we are reminded of parents admonishing recalcitrant children that just because someone else jumps off a bridge, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to follow suit. Sino-envy as justification for federal policies is unprincipled and unjustified because it fails to explain why we do not emulate China in other areas. Why, for example, should we not attempt to boost American exports by undervaluing our currency by as much as 25 percent to 40 percent, as many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have accused China of doing? (Never mind our Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing.”) Perform censorship of the Internet ... be far more efficient as the Chinese do and simply lock up the political opposition. The point is, proponents of government subsidies of clean energy and high-speed rail have justified these programs using conclusory statements that China is doing the same, while failing to articulate any principles as to when we should follow China’s lead and when we should not. In the absence of any such principled distinctions, not only are comparisons to what China is doing unpersuasive, they also cause America’s demands for Chinese reforms in these other policy areas to ring hollow. Why would the Chinese bow to our objections to their currency manipulation, computer hacking, environmental degradation, labor exploitation, human rights abuses and suppression of political and religious liberty when we cite them as exemplars in other areas? Whether clean energy and high-speed rail are deserving of government investment, the arguments must rely on the underlying merits of these programs. Policymaking through red-colored glasses (with a constellation of yellow stars) is unprincipled, unjustified and undermines our credibility in the Sino-American relationship.
Posted by: The Pirates Your Mother Fears at November 30, 2011 04:34 AM (lpWVn)
Easy solution: All persons deemed terrorists MUST have some sort of an Al Qaeda connection, US citizen or no. We will demonstrate the connection at the trial at a to be determined date.
What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by: DHS Administraitor at November 30, 2011 04:34 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Doomsayer at November 30, 2011 08:16 AM (j7IJ7)
You forgot mindlessly repeating the slogans leaders shout at us.
("Yes! We! Can!")
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 30, 2011 04:34 AM (AQD6a)
One more time for the hard of hearing or conspiracy theorists among us: What this bill doesn't do:
Allow presidents to just seize any American and hold them indefinitely without review by the courts
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 08:31 AM (IkTb7)
We have to pass this bill to see what is in it too.
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi & Co. at November 30, 2011 04:35 AM (oif6Y)
Posted by: Fritz at November 30, 2011 04:36 AM (/ZZCn)
Gingrich ties Romney among Calif. Republicans
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is in a statistical tie with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, according to a Field Poll released today.
The survey of registered California Republican voters found that 26 percent supported Romney and 23 percent backed Gingrich - up from 7 percent in a September Field poll.
This would be impressive -- if there were more than six Republicans left in the state.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 04:36 AM (oBrVT)
We'd all be living in tents, shitting like dogs, and scrounging for scraps. That's some utopia.
Do the more equal ones get cool tree forts to live in, above the mess and muck?
Posted by: Count de Monet at November 30, 2011 04:36 AM (4q5tP)
ZH has an article about this very issue, though it uses one case too to make the same broad point. Their case is Corning Glass, which makes most of the glass for LCD screens.
I guess the answer is we will have to wait until after 4Q earnings results come out to see just how much this bump in sales really affected profits.
Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2011 04:37 AM (ENKCw)
Posted by: Aunt Cranky at November 30, 2011 04:37 AM (JoeF6)
Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2011 08:05 AM (ENKCw)
We are doing our jobs, we cover for Obama and his accomplices every day.
Posted by: the MSM at November 30, 2011 04:38 AM (w7Lv+)
Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 04:39 AM (p8B53)
Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2011 04:40 AM (73tyQ)
The problem with the question is that no matter how much they pay me they'll just take it all back in taxes, inflation and DOOM. To bad these bastards currently at the trough don't get that.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 30, 2011 04:41 AM (tf9Ne)
...note well, Holder's Court system without integrity.
Andrew C. McCarthy pointed out the huge folly from Congress and specifically Republicans, relying on the Courts, on the SCOTUS, to rectify unconstitutional legislation. Try as they will and do, judges can't legally legislate bills. That judges value previous judges' decisions over the Constitution itself is no comfort, either.
Posted by: The Pirates Your Mother Fears at November 30, 2011 04:41 AM (lpWVn)
NY Assemblyman William Boyland Jr. arrested on new corruption counts
Just weeks after being acquitted on federal corruption charges, State Assemblyman William Boyland Jr. was arrested again by the FBI on new bribery and extortion charges -- money he allegedly solicited to help pay legal bills from his earlier case.
The charges in this latest case allege that while on trial in federal court in Manhattan, Boyland was out soliciting additional bribes.
According to the criminal complaint, Boyland said he needed money because of costs piling up from his federal case.
"I have legal fees for this legal thing that I have .... I have a good attorney, I just can't pay him," he is accused of telling an undercover FBI agent.
You know, almost makes sense, in its own way...
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 04:42 AM (oBrVT)
The primaries will boil down to Mitt and the anti-Mitt, with neither side willing to back down.
dont forget the anti-Mitt crowd is boiling down to fucking over every new top anti-Mitt guy, already folks for Perry (mr. 85) and Cain (mr. thinking about leaving the campaign) are all over Newt being not conservative enough. yet if their in-fighting leads to a road for Mitt we're not listening to them and thus deserve them sitting out the election *shakes head at the stupidity*
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 04:42 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 04:43 AM (yAor6)
We have seeds, weapons, and friends in all the right places. It would never happen.
Posted by: Aunt Cranky at November 30, 2011 04:43 AM (JoeF6)
Is there a law that says Obama must debate him? No.
Even if such a law existed, is there a chance in hell Obama comply?
No.
Posted by: real joe at November 30, 2011 04:43 AM (w7Lv+)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 04:44 AM (IkTb7)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 04:44 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 04:45 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 04:45 AM (p8B53)
Newt's already said he'll follow Obama around the country rebutting anything he says that day,
Posted by: nickless at November 30, 2011 04:46 AM (MMC8r)
Is there a law that says Obama must debate him? No.
Even if such a law existed, is there a chance in hell Obama comply?
No.
Posted by: real joe at November 30, 2011 08:43 AM (w7Lv+)
if Obama doesn't debate Newt it will hurt Obama. That shit wouldn't fly today in a world where independents swing elections
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 04:46 AM (yAor6)
Allow presidents to just seize any American and hold them indefinitely without review by the courts
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 08:31 AM (IkTb7)
Posted by: Hrothgar at November 30, 2011 04:47 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: nickless at November 30, 2011 08:46 AM (MMC8r)
I like that idea, plus Newt prob knows you can register to vote at 18 not wait until your 21
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 04:48 AM (yAor6)
No, but repeated taunts about it might be just as effective.
Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2011 04:48 AM (ENKCw)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 04:48 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 30, 2011 04:49 AM (SB0V2)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at November 30, 2011 04:50 AM (p7SSh)
I'll say it again: Obama will probably duck any debate that would make him look bad. SCOAMF can wag the worms out of a very big dog from his seat in the Oval Office.
I hope your right and he won't debate because it will only help the GOP nominee if he does that
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 04:51 AM (yAor6)
Yes indeedy, that's what the words say. But if the Constitution can be viewed as a living document requiring constant reinterpretation to meet the needs of our current civil masters, how much faith do you place in judicial interpretation of mere legislation?
That? That right there that I quoted? If you truly believed that and had the courage of your convictions, you'd be holed up in a cabin in Montana. Since you are not, you clearly place plenty of "faith" in "judicial interpretation of mere legislation."
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 04:53 AM (IkTb7)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 30, 2011 04:53 AM (SB0V2)
Posted by: real joe at November 30, 2011 04:54 AM (w7Lv+)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 30, 2011 08:53 AM (SB0V2)
yes it will, I pray he pulls this off because not only would it prove you dead wrong but help in a GOP victory
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 04:54 AM (yAor6)
But I haven't read the article yet and I'm just getting my information from this thread and it doesn't look like a good idea.
Posted by: oh my at November 30, 2011 04:55 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: real joe at November 30, 2011 08:54 AM (w7Lv+)
The base of the Dems was far gone before Obama even existed, the indys will not like an unpopular incumbent not debating his challenger, the last incumbent to get away w/ not debating his challenger was Nixon in 1972 and Nixon was popular and looking good for re-election
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 04:56 AM (yAor6)
the cat pee...it stings!
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 04:57 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: nickless at November 30, 2011 04:58 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 30, 2011 04:58 AM (SB0V2)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans oZfic at November 30, 2011 04:58 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: mike at November 30, 2011 05:00 AM (p8B53)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 08:53 AM (IkTb7)
Point taken; however, I don't have plenty of faith in the judicial system, I have just enough faith that I am staying in place praying that it won't get as bad as I think it might, and that even if it does I will have had a good enough run while the America I grew up in still existed.
Posted by: Hrothgar at November 30, 2011 05:01 AM (i3+c5)
You forgot mindlessly repeating the slogans leaders shout at us.
And downtwinkles. Never forget the downtwinkles.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at November 30, 2011 05:01 AM (4df7R)
you guys do know the Doom thread is up and that the sole comment on there right now is Glenn Beck fapping?
Posted by: AuthorLMendez
We're waiting until he finishes before we knock and go in....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2011 05:03 AM (oBrVT)
The legislation that needed this responsive post might be a good idea to have posted and linked.
I do remember reading in history books as a lass , internment camps in america in the 40s.
no idea if this is relevant but maybe having both bills explained enthusiastically, and with ones that understand legalese isn't a bad thing.
it might be silly, but what's wrong with investigating ?
and Oz. Solzhenitsyn, did do a great job writing his books, yes it can happen , don't think we are there. But we do need to concern ourselves with failed economic managment. and over burdening regulations destroying our means of making a living, and the hardship it causes.
Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 05:04 AM (h+qn8)
Equine slaughter bill isn't a bad thing... it's a good thing. That whole ban thing was soooo stupid and short sided. I appreciate horse lovers being upset, but I own horses and know folks that do and there was a horrid result of not being able to put down a horse... Folks were loading them up, inhumanely in trucks and trucking them to Mexico to be slaughtered, and/or ranchers were taking them out to a gully and shooting them to stay in compliance with the stupid law.
Once again, we can debate the intent, but the law of unintended consiquences when Congress gets involved. I am glad to hear the SCOAMF signed this..
Posted by: Yip in Texas at November 30, 2011 05:06 AM (cQhQZ)
Congress is washing their hands of constitutional responsibility. Legislators' interest follows the money, not the rule of law. An individual citizen's liberty is a legal nuisance that unnecessarily interferes with easy profits through piracy and organized crime. Members of Congress advocate against those who would expose congressional corruption. Don't expect Legislators to break the chains they put on you.
Is this Senate bill going to provide the political resurrection of Obama's savior/antichrist image to the gullible? Will the SCOAMF veto as promised, providing the propaganda supporting his re-election as the Potus who protected your rights after annihilating the ghost of bin-Laden in time to ally with al-Qaeda in order to advance terrorism through lawless warring? "Fore!"
Posted by: The Pirates Your Mother Fears at November 30, 2011 05:12 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Justamom at November 30, 2011 05:25 AM (Sptt8)
Dude, I can get internet service there too.
And we appreciate that. Thanks to your ever-so-cooperative ISP, I can have a CIA wet team en route right now.
/tinfoil
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 30, 2011 05:46 AM (IkTb7)
Posted by: Marie at November 30, 2011 05:46 AM (P9OJs)
and the Emirates.
Posted by: clayton endicott at November 30, 2011 05:46 AM (AH8RI)
NERC is telling the EPA that they're AFU. We all knew that Green is the new Red. Now, we have one government agency telling another government agency they're fucking us over.
Posted by: 2549 at November 30, 2011 05:56 AM (kvxPn)
Posted by: Wooga at November 30, 2011 05:56 AM (tCKJA)
Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 05:59 AM (5H6zj)
So, if we put all our eggs in the debate basket, what will happen if he doesn't debate? Why, we will have a candidate defined by the MSM. To overcome this the GOP candidate will have to have deep pockets for ads and a first-rate organization to get ground troops mobilized.
Only 2 candidates could do that: Perry and Romney.
Posted by: Miss Marple at November 30, 2011 06:10 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at November 30, 2011 06:21 AM (YmPwQ)
You can't think of a reason executive power is more substantial where he is prosecuting a war against foreign citizens or US citizens engaged in hostilities abroad than it is where he is detaining US citizens domestically?
Back to Con Law I you go.
Posted by: Vermin at November 30, 2011 06:27 AM (2csLb)
I'm really worried about where we're headed.
Personally, Newt is acceptable to me operating under the popular assumption that a (more) conservative Congress would help keep the really liberal tendencies in check and because Newt, unlike Romney, actually has shown the ability (and willingness) to nail the Dems to the wall on occasion. His ability to be combative and knowledge of DC - and his ego, frankly - would probably mean that we would win one or two major battles against the Dems. The rest of his governance would probably be bad, but no worse than Romney. But, he does have a lot of skeletons. Many more than Perry. (I don't think we really know Romney's yet because he has not faced the same sort of scrutiny as the other two.)
I find Romney's decision to run essentially as a cypher whose only consistent tendencies are to lean left kind of scary. But more importantly, I'm just not that impressed by his resume and accomplishments. So he fails for me on both rhetoric and record. And now I also doubt his character, something that I didn't worry about prior to this primary season.
Perry has much that I wanted to see in terms of rhetoric and certainly record, but he's suffered from having a target on his back from day one and some unforced errors that have been magnified by a 'conservative' media that clearly wants Romney. So I don't know. The fact that he's still campaigning in New Hampshire and that the GWU/Battleground Poll showed him ahead of Romney in key states (FL, TX, CA), makes me wonder if his campaign knows something that we don't. Plus, the support for all of these candidates is really soft and Mitt still can't break 25% (iirc, he's only done so once, then slipped back down)... so I have some hope, but I see folks being discouraged by the reporting out there. I just hope people don't throw away their votes in a desire to try to guess who is the most electable non-Romney.
Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 06:31 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: oh my at November 30, 2011 06:32 AM (oZfic)
It's been ages since we've had a haiku thread.
Ace of Spades Morons
Excel at funny haiku
Haiku for us soon?
Posted by: shibumi at November 30, 2011 07:00 AM (z63Tr)
Posted by: t-bird at November 30, 2011 07:17 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at November 30, 2011 08:02 AM (qwK3S)
Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 01:31 PM (7WJOC)
Posted by: Fate’s Edge ePub at November 30, 2011 05:03 PM (vaJa6)
Posted by: Hedy’s Folly iBooks at November 30, 2011 05:44 PM (vaobd)
Posted by: Will I Ever Be Good Enough AudioBook at November 30, 2011 06:01 PM (mLPSm)
Posted by: Pricing the Future ePub at November 30, 2011 10:26 PM (5FOUx)
Posted by: December 1941 ePub at November 30, 2011 10:30 PM (5FOUx)
pdf to word transfer
Posted by: nanonu at November 30, 2011 11:01 PM (vzqIo)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.4058 seconds, 298 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Ongoing fight over the detainee provisions in the defense bill
I have not seen this bill so I donÂ’t know the exact provisions however, it would appear it calls for the military to detain American citizens without trial indefinitely. These provisions were written by McCain and Graham, not two of my favorite people.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced legislation Tuesday that would prohibit any American captured by the U.S. military in its war on terrorism from being held indefinitely without trial, this in the wake of an overwhelming bipartisan defeat of a measure that would have stripped language from a massive defense spending bill that requires military custody for individuals suspected of being members of al Qaeda or its affiliates.
This is one time I agree with Feinstein (who is being supported by Rand Paul). This bill is blatantly unconstitutional. And the real pisser is that it is so damn unnecessary. The reason the assholes are pushing it is because they refuse to to try anyone for treason. The constitution is clear, when you take up arms against the country you are guilty of treason.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
I suspect the “two witnesses” provision is what has them all excited, although I would think the arresting personnel could be witnesses. But if that is the case then perhaps congress can write a new law for this that provides the death penalty and call it actively supporting terrorists in attempting to murder U.S. citizens.
We do not want to give the federal government the authority to arrest and permanently detain citizens inside the U.S. without a trial. Arrest on the battlefield with the enemy is a different matter all together though. They are now prisoners of war, as well as treasonous assholes.
Oh, and quit giving citizenship to foreign nationals from terror sponsoring countries and that will go a long way to curing this problem.
BTW, the bill to give the military that authority did pass 61-37. For the life of me I can not figure out why Obama would be opposed to this provision.
Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 03:03 AM (YdQQY)