Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Pepsi

Pages: 1 ... 1156 1157 1158 1159 [1160] 1161 1162 1163 1164 ... 1168
17386
Election 2008 / Rock Star in New Hampshire
« on: January 05, 2008, 07:12:53 AM »
Oh-ba-ma Fires It Up

MILFORD, N.H. ? Spontaneous combustion! We?re here at the New Hampshire Democratic Party?s big dinner and out of the masses of 3,000 people, who have been listening politely to Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson, comes a huge surge of people toward the stage for the next speaker ? Barack Obama.

An announcer tries to get them back to their seats. ?For safety concerns, before we can proceed, please take your seats,? says a disembodied voice. A mild buzz kill. The crowd moans but doesn?t really disperse. Then Mr. Obama strides to the podium, the crowd remains packed around the stage and the room is electrified.

?O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma,? they roar.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/oh-bam-a-fires-it-up/

17387
Election 2008 / Re: Poll: Obama Takes 4 Point Lead Over Hillary In Iowa
« on: January 04, 2008, 09:25:48 AM »
Once gender is taken off the table, I'm likin' our chances a lot better than I have for the last couple of years or so.  ;D

Obama got more female votes than Hillary, so there goes your thesis that being a women will attract more female votes.

I agree it's not over by a long shot for Hillary.   

17388
Election 2008 / Re: Poll: Obama Takes 4 Point Lead Over Hillary In Iowa
« on: January 03, 2008, 10:47:32 PM »
To sit back and let racism do the ugly work we all know fuels itself

Obama won Iowa with what a 97% white population?

17389
Election 2008 / Re: Poll: Obama Takes 4 Point Lead Over Hillary In Iowa
« on: January 03, 2008, 10:46:32 PM »
Pepsi asks,

That's a good question and I can only tell ya what I would do and that is focus on his total lack of experience for the job.

Actually the same would be true of Hillary but most women would never accept that her eight years as first lady didn't count.  As far as they are concerned, she was right there with Bill, running the country.

Obama won't have that going for him.

He is a child compared to the back-ground and experience of almost all the Republican alternatives.  With the gender/spouse-of-former-president issue off the table, I'm  confident that (almost) any Republican can win the race.

The Dems will of course follow Obama over the cliff but independents will probably prefer a grown-up.

I don't know, Obama has a pretty impressive cross-party appeal.   I think he'll get the most independent support of any democrat, and a lot of cross over republicans.   

I am very pleased Obama won Iowa.

17390
Election 2008 / Re: Rudy Plays the Fear Card
« on: January 03, 2008, 10:03:29 PM »
dah... going to war with Germany was not in response to Pearl Harbor, it was response to their invading our allies, sinking our merchant ships, and declaring war on US.   sheesh  :silly:

I honestly can't think of an anology in history...

17391
Election 2008 / Re: Rudy Plays the Fear Card
« on: January 03, 2008, 04:37:02 PM »
I'm not sure there's a historical analogy to compare with what we really want to avoid, that is getting attacked by group A and counter-attacking against a completely different entitity that had nothing to do with the attacking entity (read George Bush invaded Iraq in response to Al Qaeda attacking America).

I guess it'd have to be George Bush.     We don't need another George (W) Bush.

17392
Election 2008 / Re: Rudy Plays the Fear Card
« on: January 03, 2008, 02:13:52 PM »
PS. my guess is that Huckaby would be "your man" from the Repubs on foreign policy

I'd go with Ron Paul on foreign policy.   In regards to Huckabee, he's best left to televangelizing in my opinion.

17393
Election 2008 / Re: Rudy Plays the Fear Card
« on: January 03, 2008, 01:11:54 PM »
Other than Ron Paul, whom I believe to have other tragic flaws, do any Republican candidates offer anything more than 4 more years of the Bush administration?

Rudy is trying to out-Bush Bush, it's not just more of the same, it's the same on steroids.   President Guiliani is truly a scarey thought.

17394
Election 2008 / Rudy Plays the Fear Card
« on: January 03, 2008, 12:49:33 PM »
Are you scared enough to vote for this megalomaniac yet?

17395
General Discussion / Re: Happy New Year to All
« on: January 01, 2008, 09:45:22 AM »
Same to you Lucy.   Let's hope it's a good year.   

17396
Politics / Bush administration's dumbest legal arguments of the year
« on: December 31, 2007, 01:58:23 PM »
Bush administration's dumbest legal arguments of the year

10. The NSA's eavesdropping was limited in scope.

9. Scooter Libby's sentence was commuted because it was excessive.

8. The vice president's office is not a part of the executive branch.

7. The Guantanamo Bay detainees enjoy more legal rights than any prisoners of war in history

6. Water-boarding may not be torture.

5. Everyone who has ever spoken to the president about anything is barred from congressional testimony by executive privilege.

4. Nine U.S. attorneys were fired by nobody, but for good reason.

3. Alberto Gonzales.

I am forced to put the former attorney general into his own category only because were I to attempt to round up his best legal whoppers of the calendar year, it would overwhelm the rest of the list. As Paul Kiel over at Talking Points Memo so aptly put it earlier this year, Gonzales was and is clearly "the lying-est attorney general in recent history." Kiel went on to catalog Gonzales' six most egregious legal lies of the year, but I'll focus here on just two. First, his claim at a March press conference that he "was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on" with respect to the U.S. attorney firings. This was debunked shortly thereafter when Kyle Sampson testified that Gonzales was frequently updated throughout the process. Second, his April testimony that he had not "talked to witnesses because of the fact that I haven't wanted to interfere with this investigation and department investigations," which was promptly contradicted by Monica Goodling's testimony about his efforts to coordinate his version of the story with hers.

2. State secrets.

Again, it's virtually impossible to cite the single most egregious assertion by the Bush administration of the state-secrets privilege, because there are so many to choose from. This doctrine once barred the introduction into court of specific evidence that might compromise national security, but in the hands of the Bush administration, it has ballooned into a doctrine of blanket immunity for any conduct the administration wishes to hide. The privilege was invoked in 2007 to block testimony about its torture and extraordinary rendition program, its warrantless surveillance program, and to defend the notion of telecom immunity for colluding in government eavesdropping, among other things. No longer an evidentiary rule, the state-secrets privilege has become one of the administration's surest mechanisms for shielding its most egregious activities.

1. The United States does not torture.

First there was the 2002 torture memo. That was withdrawn. Then there was the December 2004 statement that declared torture "abhorrent." But then there was the new secret 2005 torture memo. But members of Congress were fully briefed about that. Except that they were not. There was Abu Ghraib. There were the destroyed CIA tapes. So you see, the United States does not torture. Except for when it does.

http://www.slate.com/id/2179934/pagenum/all/#page_start

17397
The Media / Paul: Fox News is 'scared of me'
« on: December 29, 2007, 08:09:15 PM »
Paul: Fox News is 'scared of me'

PLAISTOW, N.H. -- Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network "is scared" of him.

"They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," Paul said in an interview at a diner here. "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."

Paul's staff said they are beginning to plan a rally that will take place at the same time the 90-minute debate will air on television. It will be taped at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown.

"They will not win this skirmish," he promised.

The Fox debate occurs less than 24 hours after two back to back Republican and Democratic debates on the same campus sponsored by ABC News, WMUR-TV and the social networking website Facebook.

Paul, the Republican Texas Congressman, was wrapping up his final day of campaigning in New Hampshire until the Iowa Caucuses on Thursday.

He spent much of the day campaigning at diners in Manchester and Plaistow and downtown walks in Derry and Exeter.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/12/paul_fox_news_i.html

17398
Music, Movies, TV, Art / Sometimes Always
« on: December 28, 2007, 02:32:52 PM »
A great band and song.. pick a version 

Jesus and Mary Chain & Hope Sandoval - Sometimes Always - Studio


Jesus and Mary Chain & Hope Sandoval - Sometimes Always - Live

17399
Election 2008 / Candidates on executive power: a full spectrum
« on: December 27, 2007, 05:18:23 PM »
The responses to this Boston Globe questionaire to the candidates is important in how the next president keeps / extends the executive power established by Cheney/Bush, or come back to a system of checks and balances.   I think Obama, an ex-constitutional law professor, gets it right.  Several republicans sound like Cheney, indeed treat the issue with contempt.

Candidates on executive power: a full spectrum

WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain says that if he is elected president, he would consider himself bound to obey treaties because they are "the law of the land." But Mitt Romney says he would consider himself free to bypass treaties if they "impinge" on his powers as commander in chief.

..Democrat Hillary Clinton says "in very rare instances," she might attach a so-called signing statement to a bill reserving a right to bypass "provisions that contradict the Constitution." But Bill Richardson says if a president thinks that parts of a bill are unconstitutional, then "he should veto it," not issue a signing statement.

These contrasts are found in the answers to a Globe survey of the presidential candidates about the limits of executive power. The study is the most comprehensive effort to date to get the candidates to declare in specific terms what checks and balances they would respect, and whether they would reverse the Bush administration's legacy of expanded presidential powers.

"These are essential questions that all the candidates should answer," said Illinois Senator Barack Obama in responding to the survey. "The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility - particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this administration."

Bush has bypassed laws and treaties that he said infringed on his wartime powers, expanded his right to keep information secret from Congress and the courts, centralized greater control over the government in the White House, imprisoned US citizens without charges, and used signing statements to challenge more laws than all predecessors combined.

Legal specialists say decisions by the next president - either to keep using the expanded powers Bush and Cheney developed, or to abandon their legal and political precedents - will help determine whether a stronger presidency becomes permanent.

"The sleeper issue in this campaign involves the proper scope of executive power," said Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor.

Six Democrats and three Republicans provided answers to the Globe survey. Three GOP candidates did not respond to the survey: Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson.

The Giuliani campaign instead provided a general statement by its top legal adviser, former Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson. He said that a president "must be free to defend the nation," but provided no specific details about what limits, if any, Giuliani believes he would have to obey as president - in national security or otherwise.

Of the nine candidates who answered, Romney expressed the most positive view of Bush's approach to presidential power.

"The Bush administration has kept the American people safe since 9/11," Romney said. "The administration's strong view on executive power may well have contributed to that fact."

There were some differences among the Democrats. For example, Clinton, a veteran of congressional investigations of her husband's administration during the 1990's, embraced a stronger view of a president's power to use executive privilege to keep information secret from Congress than some rivals.

full story


17400
Food and Travel / Re: Christmas Dinner
« on: December 26, 2007, 03:00:58 PM »
Well the meal above was for Christmas eve.   For Christmas day we ordered Indian.    :bigglass:

Pages: 1 ... 1156 1157 1158 1159 [1160] 1161 1162 1163 1164 ... 1168