ThinkFast: August 30, 2007
ThinkFast: August 30, 2007
Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) became the fourth member of Congress to call on Sen. Larry Craig to resign. “While additional concerns are being raised, Senator Craig already demonstrated that he is unfit to serve in the U.S. Congress when he pled guilty,” Souder said in a statement. “I believe that he needs to step down.”
Next week, the Pentagon’s inspector general will head to Iraq to investigate how weapons given to Iraqi security forces by the American military have been found “by the authorities in Turkey after being used in violent crimes in that country.” Offical estimates of the amount of weapons found in Turkey vary from dozens to hundreds.
White House officials are considering five names that “have kind of emerged” as possible candidates to take over the beleaguered Justice Department: former Solicitor General Ted Olson, former Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, and Solicitor General Paul Clement.
$1 billion: The amount the Defense Department is paying private contractors in more than 30 separate contracts to collect and analyze intelligence for the four military services and its own Defense Intelligence Agency.
The Washington Times reports “more Americans see war as winnable,” citing a UPI/Zogby poll that shows 54 percent of Americans believe the war is not lost. 66 percent of Democrats said the mission has failed already, compared with 9 percent of Republicans who shared that view. About 49 percent of voters said the troop surge was not working.
“UNAIDS, the global standard-bearer in the fight against HIV, has come under stinging attack in two new books accusing it of allowing politics to trump science in its efforts to combat the disease.” One book “accuses UNAIDS of intentionally inflating its estimates of how many people have HIV in order to dramatise the epidemic and win more money from donors.”
“At least 96 interstate highway bridges rated ’structurally deficient’ by government inspectors in 1982 had the same rating last year, suggesting they weren’t fixed or had lapsed and again require repair. … Those spans carry 3.8 million cars and trucks every day.”
Under strong pressure from lawmakers and lawmakers and “several large aid organizations,” the Bush administration has “decided to sharply scale back its plan to screen U.S. foreign aid contractors around the globe for potential terrorism connections.” Groups called the screening “onerousand unwarranted.”
The LAT profiles Iraq war vet and founder of VoteVets, Jon Soltz. “Soltz has helped transform the war debate in Washington by channeling the raw anger and frustration of many Iraq vets into a political campaign both sophisticated and visceral.”
And finally: The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) has enlisted the help of Weird Al Yankovich to bring attention to tort reform. ATRA has posted his song, “I’ll Sue Ya,” on its website, urging that it be “adopted as a theme song by America’s personal injury lawyers.” “It’s been awhile since I’ve personally kept up with Weird Al’s work, but it’s nice to know he hasn’t lost his genius,” the ATRA director of communications said.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Senator Craig already demonstrated that he is unfit to serve in the U.S. Congress when he pled guilty..”
Just like McCain, this guy thinks he is unfit because he “plead guilty”, not because of what he did. Would they have been fine with this guy if he had not plead guilty? Republicans are such hypocrites.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:06 am“$1 billion: The amount the Defense Department is paying private contractors in more than 30 separate contracts to collect and analyze intelligence for the four military services and its own Defense Intelligence Agency.”
Why the Bush Administration thinks it’s a good idea to outsource our intelligence gathering to a FOR PROFIT corporation is beyond me. Our government has been doing this for many years and until Bush came along, they have done a pretty darn good job of it.
The new Democratic President will need to take at least the first six months of their term undoing all the harm that Bush has done to this country by outsourcing our government. Then they will have to deal with the mess he has made out there in the world.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:11 amI am glad to see that the votevets.org group is flourishing. I was a memebr of VVAW upon my return from Vietnam and I believe we made a difference in ending that stupid and illegal war as well. I hope this group ca ne as successful.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:12 am“The Washington Times reports “more Americans see war as winnable,†citing a UPI/Zogby poll that shows 54 percent of Americans believe the war is not lost.”
So the propaganda is working again. I guess the sheepepole really don’t get it. What is the “it”. The “it” is that there is no way you can “win” an occupation. We are not fighting a war in Iraq, we are occupying a country against it’s will.
I am very sad for what this country has become.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:13 amMy money is on Olson. He’s a hard line con, he’s got the credentials, and he lost his wife on one of the planes on 9-11. That last one will make it very difficult for anyone to question his actions combating terrorism. Yes, that is cynical, but it’s also par for the course with this adminstration.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:14 amABout the Washington Times poll: I’d like to see the actual questions, and who wants to bet that the same trolls who decry polls here will be touting this particular one.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:16 amComment by Bobwurst — August 30, 2007 @ 9:14 am
Have you ever listened to that guy talk? He is one scary dude! Sounds like bill kristol with an attitude!
August 30th, 2007 at 9:17 amAnother Repub calling for Craig’s resignation. I understand that Craig now has all the appeal of a skunk at a church picnic to his party, and that many wish to go on record calling for his ouster. I predict more will be jumping on the bandwagon.
But hysteria aside, let’s examine the question — “should a Senator who is guilty of a crime be required to resign his Senate seat?”
There is nothing in the Constitution that says a Senator must have a clean criminal record in order to serve. I don’t know what the current Senate rules of conduct say, because they change a fair amount. (I do know that in the House, the Republicans once made a rule that any Republican indicted must step down — this rule was made during the Clinton years, to show the moral superiority of the Republicans, and then abandoned when Tom DeLay was indicted.)
If there is no law or rule preventing a Senator from serving after pleading guilty to a crime, then it should be up to the Senator’s constituents.
We’ll get a lot of posturing from other politicians, but it will be of real consequence to Craig if the people of Idaho mount a recall campaign.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:18 am“investigate how weapons given to Iraqi security forces by the American military have been found ‘by the authorities in Turkey’”
Can we have the Department of Commonsense investigate why the Pentagon is surprised this has happened?
August 30th, 2007 at 9:21 ammissmolly, I agree
August 30th, 2007 at 9:23 amCraig pled to a misdemeanor.
I could maybe understand kicking him out if he was guilty of a felony.
But it’s a misdemeanor. It was regarding a private personal act.
If he wants to leave, fine. But he shouldn’t have to resign.
That being said, if his party wants him out, then they have every right to pressure him to do so. Same with his constituents.
The WaTimes article said “according to the online nationwide survey of 6,711 adults, conducted over the weekend”. If this was an online poll, it’s hardly scientific.
This isn’t the first Zogby poll I’ve seen that wildly diverges from the results of other polls — usually skewed toward the right.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:25 amRepublicans are hot to dump Craig because he’s an embarrassment, not because there is any legal reason for him to step down. If he’d been convicted of a felony, yes, obviously, but in reality this is a petty case. It’s just icky having one of your colleagues get busted in a toilet and the Republics want this to go away as quickly as possible. Remember that last year certain “conservative” pundits accused the Democrats of sitting on news about Foley until just prior to the elections. They’re terrified that this episode will still be stinking the place up in 2008.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:26 am“ABout the Washington Times poll:”
That’s another point. Isn’t the Washington Times the Mooney Times? Someone else more reputable better do a poll soon or this one is going to be used by the propaganda machine.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:27 am#7 – But hysteria aside, let’s examine the question — “should a Senator who is guilty of a crime be required to resign his Senate seat?â€
The other question is: is it fair to be asking Craig to resign whilst giving Vitter a pass?
Craig: pleads guilty to doing some Riverdance on the john.
Vitter: admits to using prostitutes.
If we are in the business of asking Senators who’ve done wrong to resign, don’t we need some consistency?
August 30th, 2007 at 9:27 amWhite House officials are considering five names that “have kind of emerged ..from the dung filled cesspool.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:28 amNext week, the Pentagon’s inspector general will head to Iraq to investigate how weapons given to Iraqi security forces by the American military have been found “by the authorities in Turkey after being used in violent crimes in that country.†Offical estimates of the amount of weapons found in Turkey vary from dozens to hundreds.
UhOh…sounds like Turkey has justification to attack us now, using our own logic.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:29 ambilbogaggins sez:
Yes…exactly. Souder isn’t sour on Craig because of what he did…he’s sour on him because he got caught, and admitted guilt…two of the worst cardinal sins a Repuke can commit.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:29 am@13 – you know the reason. Vitter’s replacement would be a Democrat. No Republican will call for his resignation for that reason. QED.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:30 amLarry, Larry, quite the fairy,
How does your hard-on grow?
With ass-crack smells and foot-tap tells,
August 30th, 2007 at 9:31 amAnd toilet stalls all in a row.
As far as the contractor budgets are concerned as long as they stay visible no problemo. At least the public can know what their tax payments are going for and can be used as an example of Dear Leader’s legacy. Now the Intel budget, I’d really like to see how much my tax dollars go to Hookers and Limos.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:32 amI don’t believe Olson is a shoe in. He has baggage in that he worked for the Arkansas Project and he represented Bush in Bush v Gore. I don’t believe Congress will give him a free pass just because his wife died in 9/11. However, whomever Bush nominates has a well deserved beating coming their way.
As for the Zogby poll, I question the wording:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1352
According to the poll 11% of Americans already feel the war in Iraq is “won” and there are several different definitions given for “winning.”
August 30th, 2007 at 9:33 amThe other question is: is it fair to be asking Craig to resign whilst giving Vitter a pass?
Craig: pleads guilty to doing some Riverdance on the john.
Vitter: admits to using prostitutes.
If we are in the business of asking Senators who’ve done wrong to resign, don’t we need some consistency?
Comment by Dumb_Fox — August 30, 2007 @ 9:27 am
I agree that there need to be consistency. I think they should both step down. It is not a matter of prostitutes or homosexuality, but of hypocrisy.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:38 amThat Zogby poll is crap. There is no way that an on-line poll can have a margin of error of +- 1.2%. I also question why they don’t list the questions they asked. As anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows, it is easy to skew a poll by the way the questions are worded.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:42 amYou Leftists must love dwelling on bad news.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:43 amYou guys need mental help.
You love it when US Troops die and when bridges fall!
A sick bunch of nuts all of you are!
#21 – On the basis that hypocrisy disqualifies you from office, is there anyone alive fit to serve?
My other point is more that the seriousness of the offense is always going to be the determing factor in these matters… can anyone honestly say Craig’s admited offense is worse than Vitter’s?
August 30th, 2007 at 9:44 am“I agree that there need to be consistency. I think they should both step down. It is not a matter of prostitutes or homosexuality, but of hypocrisy.”
And in Craig’s case dishonesty. The fact that he went before the public and lied through his teeth is justification enough for him to leave. At least Vitter admitted that he did wrong and apologized for it. That showed a hell of a lot more character than Craig’s “I was harassed by my local newspaper so I had to plead guilty”.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:44 am#21 – On the basis that hypocrisy disqualifies you from office, is there anyone alive fit to serve?
My other point is more that the seriousness of the offense is always going to be the determing factor in these matters… can anyone honestly say Craig’s admited offense is worse than Vitter’s?
Comment by Dumb_Fox — August 30, 2007 @ 9:44 am
My view is that these people were elected because they CLAIMED to represent a certain POV. Now that their covers are blown, it could be said that they fraudulently representing themselves and they do not represent that POV. Therefore their constituents elected them under false pretense and they should resign.
And no, IMO Craig’s offense is not worse than Vitter’s.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:50 amI’d like to ask those who think the war in Iraq is “winnable” just exactly what do they mean by winnable?
August 30th, 2007 at 9:50 amComment by bilbogaggins — August 30, 2007 @ 9:44 am
point taken
August 30th, 2007 at 9:51 amVitter wasn’t charges with anything!
Also it was a private matter.
Craig did it in a bathroom!
Big difference DemoKKKrats!
August 30th, 2007 at 9:51 amPlease, let’s not engage J-Hova
August 30th, 2007 at 9:52 ambilbogaggins sez:
I concur. A poll of only 6711 individuals with a margin of error of only +-1.2% is difficult to swallow in and of itself, but when you consider that the questions aren’t listed, as well as that all 6711 respondents seem to be either Democrat or Republican (no mention of alternate parties, Independents, or even an ‘other’ column), the reliability of this ‘poll’ goes right out the window.
Of course, that’s not going to stop the trolls from citing it endlessly for the next three weeks. *sigh*
August 30th, 2007 at 9:52 amI’m a little stumped about the whole Larry Craig business. Why on earth are Republicans calling for him to resign?
Do they think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that a Democrat could steal the seat in the next election? Idaho is as red a state as it gets.
Are they appalled at Craig possibly being gay? There are lots of gay Republicans, and in fact they have their own little pet name ~ Log Cabin Republicans.
Are they ashamed that he is trying to lie his way out of a bad situation? Since when does this distinguish himself from any other Republican?
What kind of action that requires an ethics investigation would only get you a misdemeanor? Don’t we have an entire foreign country under occupation with billions of dollars flying out the window every day into the coffers of private contractors? Maybe that should be investigated first.
They didn’t ask, he didn’t tell, but someone outed him, and now they want to honorably discharge him and go their separate ways. Well, that’s tough. In real life, people are diverse. In real life you make mistakes and recover from them. In real life you have to do your job regardless of whether the barbershop quartile you golfed with for 20 years turns out to be an airport baggage manhandler.
This is life, ye from red states. It’s shocking, and grotesque, but it was fairly elected and deserves to serve out its ugly term no matter how much it chafes with your prejudices.
The better news is in seeing the reactions of others, and seeing how deep their prejudices go, and wondering why. Maybe if you’re really angry about gays… it’s because you really hope you’re not gay too.
Right, Tucker?
August 30th, 2007 at 9:52 amAnother Installment of….Two Years Later
August 30th, 2007 at 9:55 amTwo years ago today, people were waking up to the aftermath of the Storm of the Century. Katrina had blown in, upsetting lives for miles around. She was Category 4 when she hit the coast. Within hours, she was Category 3 and on her way into Mississippi. New Orleans proper was hit by Category 1 force winds. Everything up to this point was nature. But everything past this point, including the fact that today, 2 years later, not even the rich people have had their houses rebuilt, is the doing of Man.
What man do you ask? Some want to blame Nagin. His failings are alot clearer to them than to me, though. They point to the yard with the flooded out busses. I have the following questions for them. 1) How do we know if these busses worked. In Baton Rouge, busses are kept at the driver’s homes, and only find their way to yards when they need repairs. Could it be the same in New Orleans? 2) The biggest question of all: How can these busses be driven if no one is available to drive them? 97% of the population of New Orleans was gone by the time Katrina struck. The remaining 3% included, for the vast majority, people who couldn’t get out because they didn’t have a car and/or couldn’t drive. “Alright, guys. 30 hours left until the storm gets here. It’s time for you to get your CDL so you can drive you and your people out of here…well, you and the 30 people that can fit in each bus. I think we have about 30 busses here.” They requested 900 busses from FEMA, and got a hundred…
Some want to blame Blanco. “She didn’t do enough. It was her responsibililty!”
I’m going to go out on a limb here. Being a part of the United States imposes responsibilities on you as it grants you rights. As a State in the US, you are expected to share your wealth. Your young blood fights the wars that the American Government says we need to fight. Your treasure is taken by the Federal Government. You’re expected to help other states if they’re in a bind. In return, if you’re attacked, the other 49 states react as if they were attacked as well. You benefit from national programs such as agriculture help. And most pertinent to this conversation, if you are hit by a disaster, you expect help from the United States, especially if the disaster is of this magnitude. Louisiana has paid the price, but they have not gotten the benefits. They have all the responsibilities, but none of the rights. Were I in Blanco’s shoes, I would be asking myself, “Why the hell do we stay with the US if they aren’t going to help us after this horrible disaster.”
Two Years Ago today, Bush was vacationing in Crawford. In the day between the storm’s landfall and this day two years ago in history, $177 million had been spent on the war in Iraq, and $0 had been spent for Katrina’s recovery. I’m going to keep track of these values over the next few days, showing our nation’s priorities. Until then, keep New Orleans in your hearts and minds, and remember that the disaster is still going on today, Two Years After.
(That’s what I get for posting half asleep)
August 30th, 2007 at 9:55 amI’d like to ask those who think the war in Iraq is “winnable†just exactly what do they mean by winnable?
Comment by Marie — August 30, 2007 @ 9:50 am
Go to the Zogby link in post #20. It gives vague definitions of what people mean by winning.
I call for Craig to stay. Craig is the perfect posterchild for Republican hypocrisy and the longer he hangs out, the longer we can keep our poster posted. There is no need for him to resign at this point as he will certainly never win re-election.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:55 am#26 – My view is that these people were elected because they CLAIMED to represent a certain POV. Now that their covers are blown, it could be said that they fraudulently representing themselves and they do not represent that POV.
Politicians not living up to campaign promises is something that should surely be dealt with at election time. As with lying to reporters and all the other scummy habits of politicians.
And if the issue is serious enough, then they should resign. My beef here is that Craig is getting a unfairly rap from his party because the insinuation is that he is gay… though I accept that this might just be a simple case of poltical calculus (as suggested @ 17), there’s a strong whiff of homophobia here as well.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:02 amI find McInsane’s comment regarding pleading guilty as being the problem as just as an eroneous thought process as Craig making a point that he is not gay. WTF are these supposedly informed, intellectual individuals thinking? Certainly, they’re lost their way.
For McCain the admonishment should be all about the fact that Craig engaged in criminal activity in a men’s room and was caught red handed. For Craig, it has absolutely nothing to do with being gay or straight; it has everything to do with breaking the laws and pleading guilty to doing so.
A 6 year old could bring greater powers of deduction to each of these scenarios and we’re “paying these idiots” to do this?
August 30th, 2007 at 10:06 am“The Defense Department is paying private contractors more than $1 billion in more than 30 separate contracts to collect and analyze intelligence for the four military services and its own Defense Intelligence Agency, according to contract documents and a Pentagon spokesman.”
Good heavens — we’re outsourcing our SPIES now? What’s next, outsourcing our astronauts?
August 30th, 2007 at 10:07 amdumb_fox: Get over the “gay issue” here. The real issue is that he engaged in criminal activity according to the laws in this country! It wouldn’t matter if he was male or female, gay or straight. He got nailed doing it and admitted it. End of story. His story is over!
August 30th, 2007 at 10:08 amdim wit: I’m also with you in permitting Craig to stay for precisely the identical reason. Let him tank this cadre of criminals (aka GOP) even further than they already are. There will be more…much more….in the weeks to come which will totally destroy it well in advance of the election in 08.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:09 amDF,
Do we KNOW or FEEL he is getting an “unfairly rap from his party because the insinuation is that he is gay”?
For some that may be the case. For others (like me) it is not. Of course I am not an elected official or a party “high member” (no pun), so my opinion means little.
If you think about it, this can also be a play for the Republicans to try to hold power. “If you go against the values that we preach, then out the door with ya’”. That is why Vitter needs to go too. Otherwise it does look like a homophobic witch-hunt.
Like we said, consistency.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:10 am#23 – “You love it when US Troops die and when bridges fall!” Comment by J-Hova — August 30, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Wrong! (No surprise there.)
We want the soldiers to come home so they WON’T die for a failed occupation! Its those of your ilk that wish to see our soldiers die for a failed policy.
We want the money spent on a failed occupation to be spent on infrastructure and healthcar for children! It’s those of your ilk that would rather watch bridges fall and tax breaks given to the ultra-rich and corporate welfare.
Wake up and smell the truth! It’ll tick you off, but it will set you free!
August 30th, 2007 at 10:10 amIsn’t this horse already dead? This story has dominated TP for the last 3 days or so, with most threads turning to this topic (Sen Craig). Let it go, until the “troller” steps down, or refuses, then re-post something.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:11 amas someone said in an earlier thread: what a bunch of a$$clowns we have in our elected officials. I think it’s time to sweep this government clean of every last one of them myself.
check out: http://www.911strike.com for the planned nationwide strike on 911 to protest the war, BushCo, and everything else wrong with this government.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:11 amYes, what about Vitter being a married man and admitting to using prostitutes? Does he call that “family values”?? You’ve got to be kidding me.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:11 am“He got nailed doing it and admitted it.”
Comment by veritas — August 30, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Ummm…No he didn’t. He was trying to, but he didn’t.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:12 am#41 This occupation was doomed to failure from the outset. It was based on bogus intel, outright lies, and never had a legitimate plan – ergo….total and unequivocal failure. Two wrongs never made a right – which is precisely what Bush is doing right now. Nothing of any substance can survive when it is built on “false grounds”…i.e.Iraq war.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:13 am“He was trying to, but he didn’t.”
Comment by hacker bob
In any event, it sure sounded like he knew all the tricks of the trade…
August 30th, 2007 at 10:16 amwonder who he learned them from…….
I agree that there need to be consistency. I think they should both step down. It is not a matter of prostitutes or homosexuality, but of hypocrisy.
Comment by hacker bob — August 30, 2007 @ 9:38 am
I’ve got an even better idea. Let’s say that if you publicly moralize about sex, if you advocate discrimination against gays, if you endorse the idea of our government in people’s bedrooms, if you condemn others for their sex lives, then your own sex life is fair game.
If you respect the privacy rights of other consenting adults, then your own privacy should be respected.
Imagine if all of our elected leaders quit obsessing about sex and got on to more important business!
August 30th, 2007 at 10:17 amComment by Raven — August 30, 2007 @ 10:16 am
Do the initials M.F. or J.G. come to mind?
August 30th, 2007 at 10:17 amVeritas,
August 30th, 2007 at 10:18 amA 9/11 March in Support of Islam.
Well My and my peeps will be looking for you clowns and pelt you with eggs down here in Florida!
Muslims worship a Moon God and Mecca should be nuked!
August 30th, 2007 at 10:20 amI don’t know why they’re calling for him to quit just because he’s a polesmoker. I mean it’s pretty much the definition of being a Republican.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:21 amComment by missmolly — August 30, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Good idea, but it won’t happen.
You have one side that wants to advocate against gays and condemn people for their personal choices. Then you have the other side that wants to push as much legislation as possibe to advocate for this issues of gays and “other lifestyles”.
Either way, someone is in your bedroom. You just have to figure out who to accept. But the issue will not go away anytime soon.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:22 amanybody see/post this?
IAEA: Iranian Cooperation Significant
Thursday August 30, 2007 2:31 PM
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) – The U.N. nuclear agency said Thursday that Iran was producing less nuclear fuel than expected and praised Tehran for “a significant step forward” in explaining past atomic actions that have raised suspicions.
The assessment is expected to make it more difficult for the United States to rally support for a new round of sanctions against Tehran.
At the same time, the report confirmed that Iran continued to expand its uranium enrichment program, reflecting the Islamic republic’s defiance of the U.N. Security Council. Still, U.N. officials said, both enrichment and the building of a plutonium-producing reactor was continuing more slowly than expected.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:23 am[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6885640,00.html
Do the initials M.F. or J.G. come to mind?
Comment by hacker bob
Likely candidates, and let’s not forget Rev. T.H.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:24 amhacker bob
Er, no. The argument around giving gays the right to marry means that you have one side wanting to legilise it, the other side wanting to keep it illegal. The ones who want to legalise it want less government intervention in your bedroom, or do you think the Democrats want to make gay marriage mandatory?
August 30th, 2007 at 10:30 amComment by Jeremy — August 30, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Jeremy,
Thanks for your recent posts. Please keep it up. There is generally a fairly shallow pissing match going on here. Sometimes, someone like you will step up and try to elevate the discussion, but too rarely.
The TV news reports yesterday should have prompted more awareness and more discussion of the Gulf Coast’s plight, but I haven’t seen it.
Solutions are what is needed, not more vitriol. Here, we read mostly vitriol.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:30 amAnd finally: The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) has enlisted the help of Weird Al Yankovich
That’s “Yankovic”.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:31 amIslam sucks!
Comment by Lloyd Banks — August 30, 2007 @ 10:19 am
Muslims worship a Moon God and Mecca should be nuked!
Comment by Lloyd Banks — August 30, 2007 @ 10:20 am
– — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – —
Um — do you have any intelligent point to make, or are you just randomly lobbing nonsense into the thread?
August 30th, 2007 at 10:32 amRE: Craig.
The arresting officer said he saw Craig’s blue eye peering through the crack in the door.
Does anyone else see a similarity between this and the Republican idea of Privacy that gave us the patriot act ?
August 30th, 2007 at 10:38 am>Under strong pressure from lawmakers and lawmakers and “several large aid organizations,†the Bush administration has “decided to sharply scale back its plan to screen U.S. foreign aid contractors around the globe for potential terrorism connections.†Groups called the screening “onerousand unwarranted.â€
Lawmakes and Lawmakers?!? When will the madness end?!
(More seriously, someone might want to proofread this, because I don’t really understand it. What the heck does that last sentence say?)
August 30th, 2007 at 10:39 amEr, no. The argument around giving gays the right to marry means that you have one side wanting to legilise it, the other side wanting to keep it illegal. The ones who want to legalise it want less government intervention in your bedroom, or do you think the Democrats want to make gay marriage mandatory?
Comment by Bruce Gorton — August 30, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Ummm, no. I do not think that Democrats want to make gay marriage mandatory. But as soon as it is approved 1) the other side will fight it and try to overturn it. 2) Some other special interest group will come along and demand that they be given the same rights as 2 person marriages. After all, who says that marriage HAS TO be only 2 people? Why can’t it be 1 man and 3 women? Or 3 men? Or 5 women? ( I am not stupid enough to include animals or minor children)
August 30th, 2007 at 10:41 amSolutions are what is needed, not more vitriol. Here, we read mostly vitriol.
Comment by Jockamo! — August 30, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Get out of Iraq, bring the soldiers and equipment back so that it can be used in NO. Do a thorough audit on just what happened to all of that money that was pumped into Iraq and hold fraud hearings to try and recover some of it.
Fire the current “Reconstruction” tsar on New Orleans and get in someone with some qualifications in urban planning, flood control and administration. Bring in an auditing firm, preferably English, South African or Australian, to come up with internal controls to make sure that the funds allocated to reconstruction in New Orleans, are used for reconstruction in New Orleans.
Failure to pass audit should result in instant dismissal for the chief and investigations being launched in order to detect possible fraud.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:41 amHumans do not always live up to our highest ideals.
But those who say one thing with great vehemence and then do the opposite have deeper problems. Don’t want this type of authoratarian, psychologically impaired, hypocrit in my government.
Having said that I realize I don’t even want a run of the mill authoritarian in my government.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:43 amMy post continued.
In order to achieve this however, you need to get rid of the current American president, who has shown a propensity to both punish whistleblowers and to shield fraudsters.
Further you need a Congress which isn’t afraid to stand up to a deeply unpopular president and his increasingly unpopular retinue. America needs an independent to run who doesn’t preach radical tax structure changes (Such as the “fair” tax) but is willing to raise taxes if it comes to that. You need someone who has a grip on the fact that America’s infrastructure isn’t going to maintain itself.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:48 amComment by CJG — August 30, 2007 @ 10:39 am
Come now, let’s not point out peoples grammatical errors
August 30th, 2007 at 10:49 amAmerica needs someone to run, who will do whats best for the people of America, not the Corporations. Frankly the only candidates I see who don’t seem to be covertly run by special interest are Dennis Kucinich, and possibly Ron Paul, though I would have to read up more on his positions. The rest including Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guilani, and John Edwards will continue the same policies that Bush started.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:52 amStill “all Craig, all the time,” huh?
August 30th, 2007 at 10:55 amUmmm, no. I do not think that Democrats want to make gay marriage mandatory. But as soon as it is approved 1) the other side will fight it and try to overturn it. 2) Some other special interest group will come along and demand that they be given the same rights as 2 person marriages. After all, who says that marriage HAS TO be only 2 people? Why can’t it be 1 man and 3 women? Or 3 men? Or 5 women? ( I am not stupid enough to include animals or minor children)
Comment by hacker bob — August 30, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Legalising polygamy would mean even less government intervention in your bedroom. Besides that, speaking as a South African, I feel that polygamy is a absolutely practical means of running a family :p
August 30th, 2007 at 10:56 amComment by Krazny — August 30, 2007 @ 10:52 am
nail.on.head
August 30th, 2007 at 10:56 amnail.on.head
Comment by hacker bob — August 30, 2007 @ 10:56 am
What can I say, I try to cut through the bullshit. I am not happy with any of the candidates running. I think the whole thing is a dog and pony show, and what we are left with is approved candidates. One of the biggest mistakes the US government ever did was giving the rights of the individual the corporations. If you look at the legislation passed over the last 30 years or so, it has all benefited big business often to the detriment of the people. Look at the bankruptcy billed passed a few years ago, and ask yourself, who profited from that pig?
August 30th, 2007 at 11:00 amLegalising polygamy would mean even less government intervention in your bedroom. Besides that, speaking as a South African, I feel that polygamy is a absolutely practical means of running a family :p
Comment by Bruce Gorton — August 30, 2007 @ 10:56 am
By legalizing polygamy, you devalue marriage, IMO. Marriage in the modern sense is supposed to be a committed relationship between two people, at least in the U.S. and most western nations.
There is the alternative, do away with the institution of marriage all together.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:04 amKrazny
You don’t need to replace the Republicans with a party you have to beg to do the right thing, you need to replace the Republicans with a party which will just do the right thing.
So long as the Democrats feel that they can win by simply not being the Republicans, America will suffer from being corporate controlled. You need independents to rise up and overthrow the so called blue dogs, and take America back for Americans.
The thing is, you need independents with a strong, and viable platform. Ron Paul is not one of those independents.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:07 amThere is the alternative, do away with the institution of marriage all together.
Comment by hacker bob — August 30, 2007 @ 11:04 am
I could go with that.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:08 amThere is the alternative, do away with the institution of marriage all together.
Comment by hacker bob — August 30, 2007 @ 11:04 am
I don’t think we need to do that. I think we need to remove the government from the institute of marriage. Perhaps we can extend the rights a married couple gets to any two people living in a commited relationship. It doesn’t have to be a marriage, and not even necessarily a sexual relationship. What about say two sisters, who share expenses in their senior years? I am sure there are dozens of examples.
Let churches marry. Then Churches that don’t want to perform gay marriages don’t have to. And Churches that do can.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:08 amNot Lost is not synonymous with winnable.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:16 amComment by Krazny — August 30, 2007 @ 11:08 am
It was a joke, son!
How do we extend the rights to people without government intervention (such as a marriage license)?
August 30th, 2007 at 11:19 amThey do already to some extent. Common law marriages in some states etc. Perhaps some similar thing, that states a bond between people. I suppose it would essentially be a marriage license, but would be called something different. I live in Washington, and they passed a bill that allows for two people to gain the same rights as a married couple. I am guessing it will need some fine tuning, but at least the government is deciding who is married and who isn’t.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:25 amComment by Krazny — August 30, 2007 @ 11:25 am
What about if the relationship should end? How do you go about division of assets aquired during the relationship? Sounds like a divorce to me. Again governmental intervention.
So, how would be be keeping the government out exactally?
August 30th, 2007 at 11:34 amWe would be keeping the government out of the term marriage. But you are right, it would still require a license, still extend the same rights, and still require a big legal mess upon seperation.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:39 amhacker bob
What about if the relationship should end? How do you go about division of assets aquired during the relationship? Sounds like a divorce to me. Again governmental intervention.
Not really. Divorce is a function of the contract between the individuals involved – upon which the state may be called to mediate.
The real issues where government gets involved, are based around taxation, in which marriage does have definite advantages. Indeed the heart of the gay marriage debate can be argued to be that gays in dedicated couples are prejudiced against by America’s tax system.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:43 amComment by Krazny — August 30, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Therefore we are keeping the government out of the vocabulary, but not the institution.
So they are still in our bedroom regardless.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:45 amComment by Bruce Gorton — August 30, 2007 @ 11:43 am
A marriage “contract” and a divorce “contract” are both required to be recognized by the state. Even if a divorce is amicable and settled out of court, it still requires state recognition. Again, government involvement.
I agree that married couples have the tax advantage. It is a way of trying to encourage (bribe) couples to stay together and when children are involved we get a bigger tax break as an “offset” of child raising expenses. It is basically a way to encourage procreation. So instead of changing the marriage laws, why not change the tax laws in order to accommodate gay couples.
I said, on TP, long ago that this needs to be a Federal issue for these very reasons.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:00 pmThere are other rights accorded to married couples that are not extended to gay couples. Visitation rights if one is sick, inheritence, and and few other issues. I think those need to be extended to gay couples as well.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:05 pmThe easiest solution is to basically open it up to gay couples – but include the proviso that no religious institution be forced to marry anyone.
That way, gay people can still get married, and churches can still choose not to marry them on religious grounds.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pmhttp://whenthesaints.org/
August 30th, 2007 at 1:29 pm“You need independents to rise up and overthrow the so called blue dogs, and take America back for Americans.”
Unforutnately, it has been tried and has failed so many times. The fact is, Americans are used to the 2 Party system. Love it or hate it, they rely on it (moslty) to keep things “simple”.
The change has to come from within one or both of the 2 parties. Once the rest in the party see that its popular and could keep them in office, then they’ll jump on the bandwagon because that’s what they do. The problem is, views that help most Americans really aren’t popular. I think it is mainly due to the issues aren’t really being discussed. Many of the “average” citizens who don’t read those “evil blogs” don’t even realize that an alternative which benefits them could even actually exist.
Right now, it is the corporations who recognize what the Government can do for them and they utilize it to get billions in “subsidies”. They, in turn, spend countless millions on convincing the Average American that that’s what they want, too.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pmsucks to your grammar!
August 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pmmaybe the voters in IDAHO will overlook his little indescretion and remember all the wonderful things he has done for the state….. NA,,,, Republicans have a harder time getting over this stuff than MARION BARRY and democrats do….
August 30th, 2007 at 2:59 pmBetter yet,,,, just wait until Judges give PEDOPHILE rights like they do Homosexual rights and then we will have to let them get married too….
PS,,, historically PEDOPHILES and POLYGAMISTS have a claim to marriage,,,, not so for HOMOSEXUALS
August 30th, 2007 at 3:02 pmOhhhh you don’t like the PEDOPHILES because Current Law states that CONSENT cannot be given by children,,,
HMMMMM Well that’s not to tuff,,, (just like SODOMY, MARRIAGE, and ADOPTION are or will be changed for HOMO) we can have a JUDGE change the AGE of CONSENT or ADULT,,, how does 10 sound……. (remember when a judge rules it there is nothing you can do about it).
You don’t really think that this CONSENT or ADULT thing is going to stand in the way of PEDOPHILES do you? Why is it any more difficult than SODOMY, MARRIAGE, or ADOPTION is for HOMOS?
As for the INCESTS or POLYGAMISTS,,,, well thier RIGHTS should have been here before the HOMOS,,,, where’s the justice in that…. or the GAY LOBBY pushing for others rights?
August 30th, 2007 at 3:09 pmIf an idiot screams on a blog and no one reads it, is he still an idiot?
August 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pmPresident Bush visited “that part of the world” again, yesterday.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/051971.php
Hello….
August 30th, 2007 at 4:51 pmWe are in America!!!
I see someone forgot to flush their copy of the Times after using it…
August 30th, 2007 at 9:22 pmhow about talking about real news?
September 5th, 2007 at 11:05 am