patrick.net

Why can't polticians simply ignore this ruling and refuse to take contributions from any corporation such as Candidate Obama did. Wait, I might be wrong on that. LOL

Nomograph says

RayAmerica, superhero defender of the US, slaying liberals over and over with a single question!

I'm glad you at least recognize talent when you see it. Thank you.

theoakman says

Not for nothing…I can’t stand Obama and I think he’ll take the cake for worst president ever. But Sarah Palin wasn’t given a tough interview by Couric. The reason she came off so bad was because she simply couldn’t answer the easiest questions on the face of the planet. It was an easy interview and she failed miserably. If Republicans want to win a presidential election, they should nominate a respectable candidate who knows what he is talking about. Do you honestly think someone like Congressman Ron Paul would have difficulty in answering any of those questions? What did Fox News do? Exclude him from the debates after Fox’s own viewers voted him the winner of the first debate.

I find it quite odd that someone who is cleaning up the fecal matter left behind is the one to blame. There has been a 20 year build up since the deregulation of the S&L industry that has caused these issues. How many times have we seen Conservative Republicans deregulate an industry in attempt to spur business yet when the blowback occurs we the people put a Democrat in office who has to spend tax dollars to fix the issues furthering the stigma that Democrats love to spend.

If Republicans were still in the office do you really think we wouldnt have bailed out the banks or GM?

4X says

If Republicans were still in the office do you really think we wouldnt have bailed out the banks or GM?

Just as a point of fact-TARP was passed under GW Bush

Kattie asked her about the "Bush Doctrine"

There was no doctrine, it was just a spoiled daddies boy, giving the country away to corporations and Oil Companies. No political doctrine here, just in plain sight theivery here.
Kattie leading with that question would be like her asking Mel Gibson, "Why are you Jew hatting miserable son of a bitch?"

It was a baited question that impressed liberals more than anyone else.

I think the fact that every candidate was running on a "Reform" platform, said enough about what both parties thought of the Bush doctrine.

Hell Obama loves it so much, he's embraced it and is following to the letter. Maybe your supreme interviewer should have asked Obama that same question.

Gosh liberals are so easy to marginalize. Give them enough time they'll do it to them selves.

TOT--

You're still seriously spouting this ridiculousness? She was running for Vice President with the oldest candidate ever. She was one heart attack away from the Presidency. And you think she was jobbed by Katie Couric??? How do you think she would fare against Putin, or Chavez, or Kim Jong?

She was and is an intellectual lightweight with no business in serious politics.

"she would fare against Putin, or Chavez, or Kim Jong?"

I'm more worried about the Monsters in Washington, you can't be spouting the same boogie man shit, that has put us in every unwarranted war since 1945, you sound like your trying to tow the Regan line with the liberal agenda.

Pick a stance and stick with it, that way I can respect you.

4X says

theoakman says

Not for nothing…I can’t stand Obama and I think he’ll take the cake for worst president ever. But Sarah Palin wasn’t given a tough interview by Couric. The reason she came off so bad was because she simply couldn’t answer the easiest questions on the face of the planet. It was an easy interview and she failed miserably. If Republicans want to win a presidential election, they should nominate a respectable candidate who knows what he is talking about. Do you honestly think someone like Congressman Ron Paul would have difficulty in answering any of those questions? What did Fox News do? Exclude him from the debates after Fox’s own viewers voted him the winner of the first debate.

I find it quite odd that someone who is cleaning up the fecal matter left behind is the one to blame. There has been a 20 year build up since the deregulation of the S&L industry that has caused these issues. How many times have we seen Conservative Republicans deregulate an industry in attempt to spur business yet when the blowback occurs we the people put a Democrat in office who has to spend tax dollars to fix the issues furthering the stigma that Democrats love to spend.
If Republicans were still in the office do you really think we wouldnt have bailed out the banks or GM?

Obama is continuing all of Bush's policies. Same foreign policy. Same domestic policy. Same military budget. Same violation of civil liberties. And no, he is not fixing a single thing. All that stimulus money is going to special interests.

As far as bailing out banks goes, I'm not sure why you think I'm a Republican. I can't stand 99% of them. And newsflash, Republicans were in office when they bailed out the banks and GM. They voted in unison with Barack Obama.

theoakman says

Obama is continuing all of Bush’s policies. Same foreign policy. Same domestic policy. Same military budget. Same violation of civil liberties. And no, he is not fixing a single thing. All that stimulus money is going to special interests

So you're saying he's not a Socialist, wealth transferring pinko then?

WTF do you need 3000sf for? Sounds like you have really thought this through...homesteading, in a "monster log cabin" lol....

Sounds good to me.
You need a lot of storage when you are out in the boonies.

tatupu70 says

theoakman says

Obama is continuing all of Bush’s policies. Same foreign policy. Same domestic policy. Same military budget. Same violation of civil liberties. And no, he is not fixing a single thing. All that stimulus money is going to special interests

So you’re saying he’s not a Socialist, wealth transferring pinko then?

Wealth transferring? Yes. Socialist? No. If he were a socialist, he would be distributing that money to the poor. He continues to subsidize Wall St and the military industrial complex. The only distinguishing feature I can come up with is that Obama is willing to employ some construction workers to build a few more bridges to no where.

I’d be glad to be out of the city

Really? I miss riding my bike around a big city like I did in LA & Tokyo. Much fun.

Cities aren't so bad -- Chipotle, Target, Costco. . .

My go-to place is either Bellingham or up in the Santa Cruz mountains somewhere. I like trees. And Costco is easy to get to on Highway 9. Plus the ocean is real close.

One of my personal role models, an ex-Atari guy, sold up in San Jose and moved out into the Nevada boonies, 10 miles out of Reno. Awfully lonely out there, looks like.

I thought TOT's post said "boobies" and not "boonies" ... had to share the laugh. lol

Once I was online, I typed "I want 1800sf 3/2 home on 0.25 acre at $350K. No bigger than that because I hate to mow the lawn". The guy on the other side of screen typed back "WTF man. I paid 100K for 4000sf house, 10 acres of land. I love horse riding"

Do you have water rights? Have you checked into the cost of drilling a well? Depending upon how deep you have to go, you would be amazed at how expensive it could be. As would be solar power.

Storage does not have to be under a homes roof. Storage can and should be a nice, steel building that requires little maintenance.

For true "homesteading" IMO one would be foolish to build too big a home. The bigger the home, the more fuel or energy you need to heat or cool, the larger the roof and roof maintenance, the more windows, doors and interior space that needs maintenance. A good homestead would have a smaller, energy efficient house with several outbuildings.

A couple of things:

1. This won't change all that much. It just means the companies won't have to launder their money through quite as many PACs as they do today.

2. Who is going to gain power anyway? Wall Street banks and energy companies already control the government.

3. We've been here before, and when shit got bad enough we enacted the laws that the SCOTUS was ruling on in the first place.

We should be more concerned about the fact that 65% of people don't even vote than we are which giant media conglomorates (yeah, Fox is owned by News Corp, but CNN is owned by time warner and MSNBC is owned by Comcast). Do you guys even realize how few people actually even pay attention to so-called "mainstream" news outlets? People threw a shit fit because the state of the union speech was going to conflict with the season premiere of Lost.

Quite frankly, almost all politicians, whether they be Republican, Democrat, or one of the bullshit assholes that calls themselves "Independent" despite agreeing with 100% of the agenda of the major parties, neither know nor care about fixing problems in America.

What we need are term limits (I'm in favor of single, 8 year terms for congress and presidency), and a strong movement towards de politicizing the position of President (which will automatically de politicize the supreme court). The best way to de politicize the presidency is to remove some of the ridiculous powers accumulated since WWII and give them back to states and congress where they belong. Citizen funded elections might help here generally, though that's not going to fix everything.

Lastly, everyone really needs to settle down. Nobody is "ruining" the country nor are we all doomed. Please kill yourself now if you honestly think that's the case. We're in a very deep recession and shit will be bad until we get out of it. No politician has or will ever end a recession like this through domestic policy.

Kevin, if you understand all of that, then what you need to understand is...

What we need is the politicians that gives all of the other politicians Mental Wedgies and makes them crap their pants. That person may not be perceived as the "best person" for the people and their media fabricated agendas. In fact that person would person would be antithesis of those agendas. Such as tough stance on Russia and Terrorists, they are not our threat, Corporate America Inc. is the biggest threat to America today.

Now ask your self, "Who fits that bill?"

Then Mention Sarah Palin around a bunch of Pig Men, then watch for puddles that collect around your feet.

Was it raining, or did they wet themselves laughing at her? ;o

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Joke all you want, she gives the standard politician in Washington hives.

If that doesn't attract you, then you deserve every bold faced lying politician that stole every nickle you bent over to give them.

Tenouncetrout says

Kevin, if you understand all of that, then what you need to understand is…
What we need is the politicians that gives all of the other politicians Mental Wedgies and makes them crap their pants. That person may not be perceived as the “best person” for the people and their media fabricated agendas. In fact that person would person would be antithesis of those agendas. Such as tough stance on Russia and Terrorists, they are not our threat, Corporate America Inc. is the biggest threat to America today.
Now ask your self, “Who fits that bill?”
Then Mention Sarah Palin around a bunch of Pig Men, then watch for puddles that collect around your feet.

You think Sarah Palin is a threat to Corporate America? She's working for one of the largest, most politically active corporations in the world. Nothing that she has ever done suggests that she's any different from any of the other 600 lying, conniving bastards that run the country.

I imagine that politicians are afraid of her in the same sense that any sane person would be -- that she might get mad that someone made fun of her and start WWIII over it.

:)

America's Health Plan... "It's better than Nothing." I miss the hell out of Critical thinkers in Washington.

Constitutional rights granted to terrorists. What a brilliant idea! That should make the Islamofacsists see we care and are willing to be nice. If that doesn't change them from heartless, beheading, torturing, drooling murderers into Obama fainters that love the good old USA, nothing ever will.

Let's blame President Obama for holding a trial for the people responsible for killing over 3,000 innocent Americans. This, too, is yet another example of how anything can be manipulated into being the president's fault. For example, the memo entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" that was given to President Bush on August 6, 2001 while he was on yet another vacation in Crawford, Texas (where he spent the majority of his presidency) was really Obama's fault, because he should have anticipated the attacks and somehow stopped them. The terrorist attacks of 911 were horrible. There needs to be a trial. People who anonymously criticize the current administration on the interweb for the way anything to do with 911 is handled are spineless. Put your money where your mouth is - get an am radio show of your own and broadcast your ignorance to the world.

I'm not bitter, just tired of you. I'm sure you're used to that - that's probably why you're here now.

elliemae says

just tired of you.

and yet here you are talking back. Must be getting under your fur?

RayAmerica says

Constitutional rights granted to terrorists. What a brilliant idea!

Doesn't US law require all people be given this, regardless of how distasteful?

Liz Pendens says

Doesn’t US law require all people be given this, regardless of how distasteful?

We are at war. The terrorists are enemy combatants that were engaged in attacking America and therefore should be tried as such in a military court. As enemy combatants, they have no constitutional rights or protection whatsoever. Case in point: when German spies were captured here in the USA, FDR had them tried by a military tribunal. There were found guilty and subsequently executed.

RayAmerica says

We are at war. The terrorists are enemy combatants that were engaged in attacking America and therefore should be tried as such in a military court. As enemy combatants, they have no constitutional rights or protection whatsoever. Case in point: when German spies were captured here in the USA, FDR had them tried by a military tribunal. There were found guilty and subsequently executed.

So we can declare war on any grouping we see fit now? I didn't know that. Let's declare a war on organized crime--then we don't have to afford gangsters any rights. And on gangs for that matter. Lock up all the bangers without a trial. Where do you draw the line?? For someone who talks about following the letter of the Constitution, you are pretty quick to dismiss it when it suits your needs...

RayAmerica says

Liz Pendens says

Doesn’t US law require all people be given this, regardless of how distasteful?

We are at war. The terrorists are enemy combatants that were engaged in attacking America and therefore should be tried as such in a military court. As enemy combatants, they have no constitutional rights or protection whatsoever. Case in point: when German spies were captured here in the USA, FDR had them tried by a military tribunal. There were found guilty and subsequently executed.

Should they have lawyers, and how to deal with the torture they were subject to before hand? I believe that's against US military law.

Liz Pendens says

Should they have lawyers, and how to deal with the torture they were subject to before hand? I believe that’s against US military law.

The problem with civilian trials for these people are numerous. If tried in a military court, they are provided with legal counsel. Their charge of "torture" provides them with a defense that they would not have in a military court. Civil court also provides for the legal discovery process, along with subpoenas of government documents & officials, endless calling of witnesses, and numerous appeals, etc. This could go on for years, and it will be used by the terrorists for propaganda, etc. against us. Our intelligence apparatus can potentially be exposed as well, endangering agents in the field and further diminish our national security.

RayAmerica says

Their charge of “torture” provides them with a defense that they would not have in a military court.

So if they were indeed tortured, as apparently documented by more than one source, they won't have any recourse, right? RayAmerica says

Our intelligence apparatus can potentially be exposed as well, endangering agents in the field and further diminish our national security.

Valerie Plame was outed. What to make of that situation?

RayAmerica says

We are at war. The terrorists are enemy combatants that were engaged in attacking America and therefore should be tried as such in a military court.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America, in their reading of the Constitution disagrees with you. We have not had a constitutional declaration of War by congress. We are not at war without such a declaration. If you want a legitimate war, get your congressional representatives to put forth and vote on a war resolution.

staynumz says

Either way, on one side we have aggresive interogation. On the other we have miranda and the ACLU. Pick a side. I will go for VERY aggressive interogation. What about you?

It's a false choice. VERY aggressive interrogation methods work no better than traditional methods. Jack Bauer is fiction. Hard core terrorists lie when they are being tortured.... We have gained zero useful intelligence from torture despite Dick Cheney's lies.

staynumz says

Also, what type of information are we getting from the panty bomber since he was read his “rights”?

The same amount that we would have gotten if he were tortured.

SPAM

tatupu70 says

Jack Bauer is fiction.

You can always count on a Liberal to post deep .... very very deep thoughts.

tatupu70 says

Hard core terrorists lie when they are being tortured….

Do all terrorists lie when they are being torutured?