Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

start the new year right: with a signing statement that overlooks the long-term historical effect of the signature

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 2 January 2012 05:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

lol I'd forgotten this last screenname, it's a personal favorite

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 2 January 2012 05:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

heil Bam heil, baby

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 2 January 2012 07:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

are the usual commentator cheerleaders doing their thing w/this or is everybody just too depressed about it? I know Greenwald went off about it, and elsewhere 1 person responded to some of my anger about it with "he had to sign it or they would have overridden the veto," which - I mean for a person to adopt that line of thought is deeply pathetic. The signing statement says several lovely things and then enshrines into law a truly horrifying thing which future presidents will be able to lean on to enact a genuinely, not-actually-hyperbole-at-all fascist policy.

I been mad abt some shit before but this is like...find the assailant from the left making the most outrageous claims about the party & this admin, and I bet even he'll be like "wow...worse than I thought"

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 2 January 2012 13:05 (2 years ago) Permalink

all otm this shit is legitimately you-couldn't-write-it ridiculous

DeLonge and Winding Refn (darraghmac), Monday, 2 January 2012 13:16 (2 years ago) Permalink

the day the rhetorical value of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY died

Abattoir Educator / Slaughterman (schlump), Monday, 2 January 2012 14:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

sad lol otm

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 2 January 2012 17:44 (2 years ago) Permalink

And statements like this anger me even more:

I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law

What a relief! I was so worried President Romney wouldn't be as altruistic.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 2 January 2012 17:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

nobody cares. come Armageddon, etc

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 05:31 (2 years ago) Permalink

Alex Cockburn on the defense/detention bill and contractor immunity in his year-end review:

Mindful that the votes of liberals can be useful, even vital in presidential elections, pro-Obama supporters of the bill claim that it doesn’t codify “indefinite detention.” But indeed it does. The bill explicitly authorizes “detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities.”

Will the bill hurt Obama? Probably not too much, if at all. Liberals are never very energetic in protecting constitutional rights. That’s more the province of libertarians and other wackos like Ron Paul actually prepared to draw lines in the sand in matters of principle.

Simultaneous to the looming shadow of indefinite internment by the military for naysayers, we have what appears to be immunity from prosecution for private military contractors retained by the US government, another extremely sinister development. The corporations involved are now arguing in court that they should be exempt from any investigation into the allegations against them because, among other reasons, the US government’s interests in executing wars would be at stake if corporate contractors can be sued. They are also invoking a new, sweeping defense. The new rule is termed ‘battlefield preemption’ and aims to eliminate any civil lawsuits against contractors that take place on any ‘battlefield’.

You’ve guessed it. As with “associated forces”, an elastic concept discussed above, in the Great War on Terror the entire world is a “battlefield”.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/30/goodbye-to-2011-year-of-the-rabbit-welcome-2012-year-of-the-dragon/

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

the entire world is a “battlefield”.

The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

pro-Obama supporters of the bill claim that it doesn’t codify “indefinite detention.”

literally nobody can claim this with a straight face

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:36 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah what does 'codify' mean there?

goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:36 (2 years ago) Permalink

affirms as law the right to indefinitely detain

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

we can use a diff. word than codify if that's a sticking point. "allows." "enshrines." "affirms." it doesn't really matter. the bill makes bad policy law. "codify" means "to arrange rules or laws into a systematic code."

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

i wasn't defending it. i was wondering ironically what defenders of the law meant by "doesn't codify 'indefinite detention'".

goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:41 (2 years ago) Permalink

oh yeah I don't know - I think that's sort of a word that just crept into the discourse here, it's kinda weird actually - it sounds more active than "allows" or "permits" and is less awkward and bald than "makes (x) legal"

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:46 (2 years ago) Permalink

well we're going off one sentence of cockburn's anyway! i wonder if defenders of the law would say it doesn't "codify" x

goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:48 (2 years ago) Permalink

Have there been any prominent defenses of the bill itself from Obama supporters, or just defenses of Obama's response to it?

JoeStork, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:19 (2 years ago) Permalink

there are many people for whom there is no distinction between the two

Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:19 (2 years ago) Permalink

On this board we'd murderize them.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

Adam Serwer sorta disagrees with the concerns in his Mother Jones piece

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa

and Obama's nearly alway right supporter Steve Benen at Washington Monthly earlier said this about signing statements:

As has been well documented, signing statements are not a new presidential tool, and while usage has varied throughout administrations, this power is nearly as old as the presidency itself.

But regardless of party, there’s cause for concern — this is a practice that’s easily abused. Ideally, Congress would pass legislation and if a president (any president) has significant enough concerns about the scope of its provisions, he or she would have to decide between signing the bill and vetoing it. Signing statements can quickly turn into an effort to find a third category: the president likes the bulk of the bill, but can issue a signing statement to note some language within legislation that doesn’t quite work for him or her.

Bush took these abuses to levels unseen in American history. Obama’s not in his predecessor’s league — many of his signing statements relate to Congress exceeding its authority over the executive branch — though criticism that he took a different line on signing statements before taking office seems more than fair.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/the_omnibus_gets_a_signing_sta034306.php

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 21:13 (2 years ago) Permalink

It’s snugged into the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

Isn't the repeal of DADT in this also? Ha, Obama did not want to veto that! Alright i don't buy that argument either.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 21:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

holy shit never seen a picture of Cordray/Kenneth the Page before

The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 23:13 (2 years ago) Permalink

but yes finally jesus just make some recess appointments

The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 23:13 (2 years ago) Permalink

Taibbi brings some perspective (no point in putting this in the Rotisserie Caucus thread):

This widespread and growing movement against the twin corrupting influences of money on our politics and state patronage on big business is going on everywhere – on the streets, in these courthouses, in the homes of people refusing to move after foreclosure, even in the antitax movements and the campaigns against state pensions.

The only place we can be absolutely sure this battle will not be found is in any national presidential race between Barack Obama and someone like Mitt Romney.

The campaign is still a gigantic ritual and it will still be attended by all the usual pomp and spectacle, but it’s empty. In fact, because it’s really a contest between 1%-approved candidates, it’s worse than empty – it’s obnoxious.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

But the ugly reality, as Dylan Ratigan continually points out, is that the candidate who raises the most money wins an astonishing 94% of the time in America.

that is a handy stat that i will likely use to annoy people for the next several years.

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

otm i learned that from my ran-for-city-council-on-the-libertarian-party-ticket gov teacher in high school

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:08 (2 years ago) Permalink

...and have never forgotten it, is how that sentence was supposed to end

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:10 (2 years ago) Permalink

ha your civics class was taught by a libertarian? how was that?

k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

ehhh that stat doesn't prove that elections can be bought (although they can)

it just proves that people give more money to people who are gonna win

iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

"people"

k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:40 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah, i think the fact that most congressional elections are effectively non-contested kinda proves iatee's argument ... who's gonna give money to a sacrificial lamb?!?

Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

me?

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

ever the martyr, you.

Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

Zac that Ratigan interview is very odd, whats with the random end bit of "oh hey you're into surfing lets talk about that instead of WORLD DOOM for a bit ok yeah".

Trayce, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:11 (2 years ago) Permalink

i didn't even watch the clip tbh, i was just keeping the link from the original taibbi article that the quote was from.

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah, i think the fact that most congressional elections are effectively non-contested kinda proves iatee's argument ... who's gonna give money to a sacrificial lamb?!?

― Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, January 4, 2012 4:50 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

whole lotta hat hanging on the word "effectively" there

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

most congresspeople are popular within their district so even when they're seriously contested, spending more money isn't enough. this isn't an argument that money doesn't matter, just that it buys influence more than it wins election.

iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

s

iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

and why are they non-contested? because the gerrymandering is done by the two corporatist parties? High rate of incumbent return is another result from the same game-fixing.

xxp

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:59 (2 years ago) Permalink

also cause most voters are happy w/ their shitty congressperson as long as they bring home a project or two and don't have a sex scandal

iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

"happy" implies that they're actively satisfied. the truth is they don't really give a fuck.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

and why are they non-contested? because the gerrymandering is done by the two corporatist parties?

short answer: no

goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

It's complicated, but I'd say gerrymandering done by the two corporatist parties is a factor along with zoning rules, the history of residential segregation, various other political and economic issues, and more.

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

YES Cordray appointed

The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:15 (2 years ago) Permalink

FYI

The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:15 (2 years ago) Permalink

disgust with the NDAA not overwhelming enough to keep me from lol'ing at Republicans getting endrun on the Cordray appt

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

did he end up going with Rob or Nate

Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

what can u do tho? he's a friend and we chat about politics. such is life.

Mordy, Thursday, 25 October 2012 04:01 (1 year ago) Permalink

his father, who was an AQAP propagandist.

lol

Force Boxman (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 25 October 2012 21:20 (1 year ago) Permalink

if it's true that video game aptitude correlates to drone operation skill (something i've read before), i believe i'd be an excellent drone operator. that's what i remind myself whenever i'm feeling depressed about my job - it could be worse, i could be carrying around the guilt of killing people for a living.

Mordy, Thursday, 25 October 2012 21:20 (1 year ago) Permalink

some convenient omissions being made there bro

xp

Force Boxman (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 25 October 2012 21:20 (1 year ago) Permalink

true, he didn't even mention that the dad's killing was unlawful too

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 25 October 2012 21:22 (1 year ago) Permalink

we need more polls that are pictures of people with the question "do you know who this guy is"

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 25 October 2012 21:37 (1 year ago) Permalink

we need more polls that are pictures of people with the question "do you know who this guy is"


ROMNEY: Boy, seems like I remember this guy at a campaign stop somewhere in... Minnesota? Wisconsin?

pplains, Thursday, 25 October 2012 23:54 (1 year ago) Permalink

pplains, Thursday, 25 October 2012 23:55 (1 year ago) Permalink

I'm not necessarily subscribing to this, but I'm linking it here because it seems relevant to the general discourse:

http://screwrocknroll.tumblr.com/post/34335827297/civilian-deaths-2003-present-this-graph-is-meant

Gukbe, Friday, 26 October 2012 02:15 (1 year ago) Permalink

Oh look what a surprise: the GOP blocks release of a report showing how cutting tax rates on the rich is not uh a fiscally sound idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html

the ones that I'm near most: fellow outcasts and ilxors (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 1 November 2012 22:17 (1 year ago) Permalink

lol

thraeds of life (The Reverend), Friday, 2 November 2012 09:26 (1 year ago) Permalink

I mean the "third term" business is what makes it hilarious

thraeds of life (The Reverend), Friday, 2 November 2012 09:27 (1 year ago) Permalink

The "If you gave money to Newt Gingrich, your living nightmare has only deepened and intensified since he quit the race" aspect is not without charm, though.

Andrew Farrell, Friday, 2 November 2012 10:18 (1 year ago) Permalink

Funniest thing to me is that to make clear that Newt didn't send this, they also have to make clear that Newt is a desperate, broke schill who will happily spam his onetime supporters with random inexplicable crap if someone will pay him for it.

Doctor Casino, Friday, 2 November 2012 12:34 (1 year ago) Permalink

I'm not proud of it, but I actually did slog through the video mentioned in the article and the way obama will get 4 terms? Shale gas.

Matt Armstrong, Friday, 2 November 2012 18:12 (1 year ago) Permalink

(shale oil more precisely)

Matt Armstrong, Friday, 2 November 2012 18:14 (1 year ago) Permalink

for future use

Johnny Fever, Friday, 2 November 2012 19:11 (1 year ago) Permalink

GG takes on the history question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/02/obama-civil-liberties-history

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 2 November 2012 21:37 (1 year ago) Permalink

Fantastic Rick Perlstein article on the origin of the alternate reality of American conservatism in direct marketing, pyramid schemes and salesmanship: http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_long_con

My only disagreement is that the "con" of salesmanship is often more willful self-delusion than cold prevarication. A positive and outgoing approach absent doubt or any nuance is the key to effective salesmanship, and this is deliberately cultivated as a character trait. "Clear eyes, full heart" for Romney this year, or Amway's "fake it 'til you make it".

Self delusion also exists on the buyer's side, though less explicitly. The Republican voters conned by mail order scams are being for the opportunity to feel like savvy insiders, to inhabit a ready made universe of clear distinctions that spares them the tiresome and nerve-wracking experience of being unsure what to think and feel. Clarity of purpose and position is the whole point of being an authoritarian.

Could probably tie this into evangelical Christianity too, but it's late.

Plasmon, Saturday, 3 November 2012 07:24 (1 year ago) Permalink

My mom was really into Amway about 17 years ago. She got really into christianity (a couple different, but equally bullshit versions of it) about 13 years ago. Her politics went from voting third party and complete distrust of the two party system to GOP party line about 10 years ago after she moved to Alabama.

Fetchboy, Saturday, 3 November 2012 07:40 (1 year ago) Permalink

Yeah, Amway was how my parents got into Pentecostalism. I was young enough that I have no idea about their politics before that, but their professions (social worker and child psychologist) would suggest more of a social conscience than the strictly pro life right wing approach they've followed since. My Dad evn subscribed to the Limbaugh letter in the 90s, can't imagine there were too many Canadians reading that.

Plasmon, Saturday, 3 November 2012 16:12 (1 year ago) Permalink

This series of swing-state interviews at Wonkblog is pretty interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/tag/swing-state-interviews/

Hans von Jerkoffsky (WilliamC), Saturday, 3 November 2012 20:01 (1 year ago) Permalink

interesting just to see how misinformed everyone is. here's the first thing i read:

Q: Why are you voting for Romney?

A: It’s mainly because of what Obama’s doing on coal. He’s killing people over energy by bottling over all the sources of energy, other than green energy. I saw on TV he said that if you want to invest in coal, go ahead, but you’re going to go bankrupt. What kind of attitude is that from that guy?

There’s a lot of people in PA hurting. Electric bills are up 40-50 percent, they’re shutting down electric power coal plants, and there’s probably four in a 50-mile radius of where I live. When you start to curb supply, price goes up, because demand won’t go down.

Q: What do you think Obama’s motivation for cracking down on coal is?

A: It’s probably tied all in to the climate warming thing and his desire to go into alternative sources of energy, which I’m in no way against. But it’s all got to be proportionate to invest in. Look at the electric car. It’s supposed to save energy but it goes, what, an hour and then you have to recharge it? Natural gas, we’ve got a ton of it right underneath us and I don’t think he’s doing anything to help that.

who is asking these questions? Klein? some dipshit getting paid in pizza? "What do you think Obama's motivation for cracking down on coal is"??? it's got nothing to do with anyone cracking down on coal, it's got everything to do with natural gas prices dropping (due in large part to fracking), which causes electricity suppliers to shift away from coal.

but the boo boyz are getting to (Z S), Saturday, 3 November 2012 20:35 (1 year ago) Permalink

I do think that the misinformation behind the answers is the most interesting part of those interviews. I actually think that playing along with that misinformation and digging a little deeper with followup questions is more revealing than trying to push back against it and educating the interviewees.

Hans von Jerkoffsky (WilliamC), Saturday, 3 November 2012 20:40 (1 year ago) Permalink

The danger is that the interviews come across as "lol at stupids".

Hans von Jerkoffsky (WilliamC), Saturday, 3 November 2012 20:41 (1 year ago) Permalink

xpost

Electric bills are up 40-50 percent

this guy's from pennsylvania. Here are the average residential prices for electricity in pennsylvania in august of the last four years (in cents/kilowatthour)

August 2012: 12.87
August 2011: 13.14
August 2010: 12.43
August 2009: 11.24

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/

even if you cherrypick the data (looking at 2012 vs 2009, when the worst part of the recession drove down demand and thus prices for electricity), that's a 14% increase. if this guy is seeing an increase in electricity bills by 40-50%, then maybe he should stop using 40-50% more electricity than he used to. so fucking frustrating. STOP WATCHING FOX

but the boo boyz are getting to (Z S), Saturday, 3 November 2012 20:44 (1 year ago) Permalink

I actually think that playing along with that misinformation and digging a little deeper with followup questions is more revealing than trying to push back against it and educating the interviewees.

you're probably right. it's just frustrating because i'm sure whenever this guy talks to people he knows about the price of electricity everyone is just like "yeah if only obama would stop cracking down on coal", and then he turns on fox and they say the same, rush limbaugh's barfing the same misinformation, an ad paid for by the coal industry says the same, grandpa says the same, everyone repeats this garbage. then someone who might know better interviews him, he regurgitates the same garbage that someone barfed into his brain over the last year, and then interviewer humors him by playing along. i get why they do it, but it's incredibly frustrating.

but the boo boyz are getting to (Z S), Saturday, 3 November 2012 20:47 (1 year ago) Permalink

anyway i'm not sure if i can look at the rest of the interviews because here i am 2 paragraphs into the first one and i've worked myself into a tizzy

but the boo boyz are getting to (Z S), Saturday, 3 November 2012 20:48 (1 year ago) Permalink

I'm glad Obama's been doing so much about climate warming but then again I'm a radical socialist leftist like him!

Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 3 November 2012 20:53 (1 year ago) Permalink

Just to play devil’s advocate, some environmentalists argue that coal plants will only make those investments if we make it more expensive not to, to keep burning coal in a way that hurts the environment.
That’s probably a true statement. Again, I’m not an expert. But dirty coal, high sulfur content I believe what they claim that is, sometimes that’s the only stuff we have available. I don’t know. I really shouldn’t answer a question I’m not familiar with. Can the government really make that coal more expensive? Isn’t it just supply and demand? They can say, “You can’t burn it because you don’t have the controls and it’s going to take millions and millions to get that equipment.” And then they make the decision, we’ll do it or we’ll shut it down, and they’re tending to shut it down.

but the boo boyz are getting to (Z S), Saturday, 3 November 2012 20:54 (1 year ago) Permalink

Someone ask these idiots how much coal they put in their car.

Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 3 November 2012 20:58 (1 year ago) Permalink

alright, i'll stop with this one, but i have to quote this in full:

David is a 61-year-old coal miner living in Virginia.

Ezra Klein: Who are you supporting in the election?
David: Romney.
EK: Why?
D: Cause Obama is against everything. Particularly coal miners. And he’s done nothing.
EK: When you say he’s against coal miners, what are you referring to, specifically?
D: He’s shut the coal mines down. That’s why I’m not working.
EK: When did your mine shut down?
D: Been off work four months.
EK: Why did they say it shut down?
D: No market for it. Because of the electric power plants. Obama’s shutting them down, Because of the EPA.
EK: Do you think the mine will reopen if Romney is elected?
D: Yes.
EK: Why?
D: He supports coal miners.
EK: What are your other voting issues?
D: Obamacare isn’t any good. He shoved it down the American people’s throats. They didn’t even know what they voted on. 2,500 pages or more. They didn’t even read it. That’s what the Democrats do. They’re just no good.
EK: What would you like to see Romney do on health care?
D: Repeal Obamacare.
EK: Do you want him to put anything in its place?
D: Yes, like it was before. The United States had the best health care in the world. They didn’t have to mess with it. It’s gone up double since Obama.
EK: Which candidate do you prefer on Medicare?
D: Romney.
EK: Why?
D: Because of his plan.
EK: What do you like about it?
D: Folks my age don’t have to worry about Social Security. But before me they can put it into stock. It’s their decision. Obama is taking billions of dollars out of Medicare for Obamacare.
EK: So you’d like to see private accounts in Social Security?
D: That’ll be good.
EK: What do you think about Afghanistan. Do you think we should leave in 2014, as Obama has said? Or sooner? Or stay longer?
D: We should stay longer.

but the boo boyz are getting to (Z S), Saturday, 3 November 2012 21:26 (1 year ago) Permalink

sorry, but lol @ stupid

Johnny Fever, Saturday, 3 November 2012 21:54 (1 year ago) Permalink

The Perlstein article reads a lot like he has never ever heard of spam before in his life. I see a lot of those '23-Cent Heart Miracle' ads on a lot of sites - isohunt for example - they don't really signify "you'll buy anything" as much as "we have no idea what to sell to you, or what to sell you as". If it's an indictment, it's of the fact that there's no coherent audience on these sites - my favourite ads on the conservative sites that I've started to click on (thanks to ILX) are the ones where the ad-provider has gone "fuck it, throw them a World of Warcraft ad".

Andrew Farrell, Sunday, 4 November 2012 14:49 (1 year ago) Permalink

But then there's this...

Maggie Neale is a 69-year-old retiree living in Central Virginia. She’s a registered Republican who voted for John McCain in 2008 but plans to vote for President Obama this time around. We talked by phone.

Q: Who are you planning to vote for in this election?
A: Well, my husband would roll over in the grave if he heard this… actually he’s up on the shelf so maybe he’d explode [laughs softly]. But I’m going to vote for Mr. Obama.

Q: And did you vote for him last time around?
A:No, I voted for McCain in 2008. I’m a registered Republican. I did vote for Carter way back when, but I’ve pretty much voted for Republicans ever since. If I had been a year older, I would’ve voted for Mr. Kennedy when he was running.

Q: So what changed your mind this time?
A: I liked the man running against Obama in ’08, and I don’t like the man who’s running against him now. And I don’t think Obama’s done that bad a job. People will point to the economy being bad, but the problems have been worldwide. We haven’t slipped any, and we’ve come up since.

Q: Do you have criticisms of Obama?
A: He could have been stronger on a few issues. Maybe on the debt.

Q: And what don’t you like about Romney?
A: His feelings on a lot of issues dealing with women, his attitude toward women. I think he’s for the upper class. I know if Obama wins, my taxes will go up because I live on stock income, since my husband was a farmer, but… I don’t know if I’m going old or what, but I’m more socially-minded than I used to be.

Q: Were social issues a big factor for you in the last election?
A: No. Last time, it was Afghanistan and things like that. And the economy. But Obama has inherited this mess, this banker’s mess.

Q: And what’s your take on Afghanistan?
A: We never should’ve gone over to start with. We’re making ourselves broke with all these wars. And a lot of it’s about oil and all that. We need to concentrate on using less oil at home and being energy conscious. And that would probably better under Obama, especially with conservation and the fuel economy standards. I do think we need to be more conscious of everything we do environmentally. Romney would get rid of a lot of environmental rules on companies, but I don’t think that’s the right way to go.

Q: Has Obama’s health care law been a big issue for you?
A: I don’t think the health care bill was the best it could have been, but the country needed something and a step in the right direction. And I think repealing it would be awful for the poor and those on the edge.

Q: Have you been saturated with ads out in Virginia? Anything that stands out for you?
A: I really don’t pay much attention to TV. I read. My most contact has been through the phone. I’m out here in central Virginia, rural Virginia. I bet the Republican National Committee has called me 10 times for every call Obama has made. It’s gotten to the point where I just hang up when I see the initials RNC.

Q: Anything else that strikes you about this election?
A: I don’t know that I have ever completely voted my conscience before, but the Republican Party has gone way way too far to the right. I know a lot of middle-class people will vote for them because they think it will make economy better, but I think we’re doing the best we can right now.

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Sunday, 4 November 2012 17:08 (1 year ago) Permalink

WKIW this lady I think.

Doctor Casino, Sunday, 4 November 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink

yes

absurdly pro-D (schlump), Sunday, 4 November 2012 18:42 (1 year ago) Permalink

Supposedly it's a really minor fracture and he'll be back in a week

The Perlstein article reads a lot like he has never ever heard of spam before in his life. I see a lot of those '23-Cent Heart Miracle' ads on a lot of sites - isohunt for example - they don't really signify "you'll buy anything" as much as "we have no idea what to sell to you, or what to sell you as". If it's an indictment, it's of the fact that there's no coherent audience on these sites - my favourite ads on the conservative sites that I've started to click on (thanks to ILX) are the ones where the ad-provider has gone "fuck it, throw them a World of Warcraft ad".

What you're missing is the endorsement aspect. Republican newsletters and personalities directly endorse and advocate for snake oil. It's not sold ad space.

Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 4 November 2012 18:56 (1 year ago) Permalink

totally xxp

all mods con (k3vin k.), Sunday, 4 November 2012 18:57 (1 year ago) Permalink

ugh zing failure again sorry, gotta work on that

Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 4 November 2012 20:06 (1 year ago) Permalink

meet the new boehner, same as the old boehner

all mods con (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 7 November 2012 20:38 (1 year ago) Permalink

Surprise surprise

Raymond Cummings, Wednesday, 7 November 2012 20:46 (1 year ago) Permalink

Whoa, Boehner might be willing to be reasonable on the budget!!

The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, striking a conciliatory tone a day after the Republican Party’s electoral drubbing, said on Wednesday that he was ready to accept a budget deal that raises federal revenue as long as it is linked to an overhaul of entitlements and a reform of the tax code that closes loopholes, curtails or eliminates deductions and lowers income tax rates.

hold the phone, was that a typo...?

The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, striking a conciliatory tone a day after the Republican Party’s electoral drubbing, said on Wednesday that he was ready to accept a budget deal that raises federal revenue as long as it is linked to an overhaul of entitlements and a reform of the tax code that closes loopholes, curtails or eliminates deductions and lowers income tax rates.

but how would that even

Mr. Boehner made it clear that his vision for additional revenue includes a tax code that lowers even the top income tax rate from where it is now, 35 percent, not where it would be in January when the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire — 39.6 percent. At least some of that additional revenue would come from economic growth that he said would be fueled by a simpler tax code.

FUCK YOU JOHN BOEHNER

but the boo boyz are getting to (Z S), Wednesday, 7 November 2012 22:29 (1 year ago) Permalink

yeah he was being extra sneaky today, fuck him forever

all mods con (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 7 November 2012 23:30 (1 year ago) Permalink

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0aKPIse1bbtAHD3LIdkpTfHfw7g?docId=c116e763ff084c0289aa2bd1b519032d

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The California man behind an anti-Muslim film that roiled the Middle East was sentenced Wednesday to a year in prison for violating his probation stemming from a 2010 bank fraud conviction by lying about his identity.

U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder immediately sentenced Mark Basseley Youssef after he admitted to four of the eight alleged violations, including obtaining a fraudulent California driver's license. Prosecutors agreed to drop the other four allegations under an agreement with Youssef's attorneys, which also included more probation.

Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 7 November 2012 23:41 (1 year ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.