Support NeoGAF

[JayDubya]

I'm just pointing out that you're claiming your preferred policy would increase life quality, while all evidence says the opposite.

Comprehensively reducing the price index lowers the costs of goods and services (you know, like healthcare and education), which improves quality of life for everyone.

 

[avatar299]

I'm just pointing out that you're claiming your preferred policy would increase life quality, while all evidence says the opposite.

What evidence?

 

[Trurl]

I would be very distracted and even a little offended if one of my classmates brought a gun to class. Couldn't something like this hurt classroom discussion? Who wants to argue against the slightly crazy kid who now has a gun?

 

[JayDubya]

Concealed carry.

 

[mclem]

Does "The slightly crazy kid who *might* have a *hidden* gun" sound better to you, then?

 

[mckmas8808]

Aw, hell with it.

Seung-Hui Cho wasn't allowed to carry guns on campus.

Seung-Hui Cho wasn't allowed to keep them in his dorm.

Seung-Hui Cho did both.

People who want to commit mass murder and don't mind dying in the process don't give a fuck.

So really all the current policy does is ensure that people that do give a fuck are helpless. And by current, I mean soon-to-be-past-tense, and it's about time.

So when do I get to carry that gun on a plane?

 

[Hootie]

Obama heading down to Annapolis for the Commencement Cermony at the USNA where McCain's son will be graduating. Wonder if 'bamaton will give John a shoutout :lol

 

[JayDubya]

Does "The slightly crazy kid who *might* have a *hidden* gun" sound better to you, then?

Well "slightly crazy" applies to almost all of us, and he was specifically referring to feeling threatened by someone waving a gun around in a classroom.

So when do I get to carry that gun on a plane?

Is an airplane public property?

I mean, I would prefer it if the Department of Homeland Security / TSA were nonexistent, but then you still have the issue of the airline itself being able to set its own policy. If an airline allowed you to at least stow your CCW in your luggage, I'd certainly be more inclined to give it my patronage. You're welcome to do the opposite.

 

[avatar299]

I would be very distracted and even a little offended if one of my classmates brought a gun to class. Couldn't something like this hurt classroom discussion? Who wants to argue against the slightly crazy kid who now has a gun?

So when you walk in an area where a gun is allowed, like on a public sidewalk, are you terrified?

 

["God's Beard!"]

its funny... non of the Obama fanatics gives a shit about this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY

Thoughts?

I saw this earllier, and I lost a lot of respect for obama because of it. It's bullshit and he shouldn't even be talking about it. Why the fuck does he even want to close guantanamo for then? For show? Obama's been on a pretty solid disappointment streak lately. Good news for the Colbert Report.

 

[mckmas8808]

I saw this earllier, and I lost a lot of respect for obama because of it. It's bullshit and he shouldn't even be talking about it. Why the fuck does he even want to close guantanamo for then? For show? Obama's been on a pretty solid disappointment streak lately. Good news for the Colbert Report.

I can't view youtube at work. What does it say?

 

[mAcOdIn]

Snipped for space

There's a difference when you purposefully identify them not as soldiers, sailors or just armed service personnel and instead label them as poor uneducated kids. There's an intent there.

Further I'd argue what "educated" means in this day and age. I'll admit that public school as a whole isn't great but for the ones that are decent and the kids that do enjoy learning I'd say it's sufficient to qualify for being "educate." Just as I've met college graduates that are complete idiots I've met high school grads that blow them out of the water. There are of course professions where I would say personal study or on the job training isn't enough and college or some school equivalent is necessary but I'm not convinced that college alone should be the difference between a man being considered educated or not.

I will not disagree that there are a lot of people in the military, the Army especially given it's generous college money compared to say the Marines, that are there primarily because of college money as opposed to it being something they wanted to do. I think the military is one of those areas where the facts don't actually speak the truth. The facts back you up, most enlisted don't have college degrees and are generally poorer. What I disagree with is the extrapolation that all things considered had they just had money for college already that they'd not be there. I know that'd be true for some but I don't think it'd make up near what people or the data would suggest. Nearly every person in my unit didn't have a clue what they'd do in college or had always wanted to join the military but yes we had a few of those just for college.

As far as being "hoodwinked" or manipulated goes the wars have been going on for years now, anyone who was hoodwinked is gone, everyone in the military now has made a decision to be there. Now I do however feel for the National Guard people who I feel have been misused. In the regular military there's always been the idea that you may get deployed in a war you may or may not agree with, I and I think a lot of other people have always felt the National Guard more akin to the militias that they sprung from and primarily as a defensive affair. I don't think it should even be legal for the national guard to be deployed outside the country, why the government continues to pretend that it's more than an Army or Air Force Reserve that can also be used by the State I'll never know, they should just drop the pretenses and either make it the Army Reserve fully or release it back to the states fully not dick around with this dual ownership.

I'm personally for defederalizing it and releasing them completely to the States.

Basically, when you decide to reference men and women as poor uneducated kids instead of say uniformed personnel I will always take offense to that. If people want to have discussions over racial breakdowns of the military or income or whatever, I'd love to but I don't know any other field where I've ever seen it ok to reference a profession like that.

First you said 70, now it's 60! The army is getting browner as you type :lol

Nice try, but there's a difference between the Army's racial breakdown and the whole military which encompasses the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

Does "The slightly crazy kid who *might* have a *hidden* gun" sound better to you, then?

Again, this is any different from how it is now how?

But, amusingly enough, that means there's a common ground between us as I also would not want a crazy person owning a gun. Care to discuss what changes should be made to concealed carry laws to facilitate that?

 

[adamsappel]

They could be implemented a lot faster if people demanded it more. Instead of defending the slow process which it takes... to do what? Sign a bill...

I don't think you understand how the legislative process works.

If there was an option on the ballot "none of the above" I would have voted for it.

It's called not voting. Or, alternately, voting for someone like Nader or Paul.

Further proof he fears of being soft on terrorism... further proof he cares more about his ass then the constitution

Maybe he always believed in this things (see PATRIOT act voting), and it's just you who were projecting your hopes and dreams onto him.

We're gonna secede . . . just as soon as they are done fixin' my house.

How do you feel about this, Jay? Do you even believe that housing should be provided by taxpayers for the governor? Shouldn't your own Texas state taxes pay for it? Maybe you should complain about this, too.

 

[APF]

here, simple:

VP != P
current P != ex-VP

Other useful calculations:

Flowers != Trees
Birds != Bees
You != Me

 

[PantherLotus]

DCCC Offers Donors A Chance To Have Dinner With Pelosi; NRCC Offers Dinner With Newt

The DCCC is now upping the ante in its special raffle -- the one they began last week, in which people who donate only $5 or more are given a chance to win a free trip to Washington for the Dem committees' big fundraising dinner in June, and get their picture taken with President Obama.

In an e-mail that was just sent out, Speaker Nancy Pelosi offers this extra incentive: "If you enter today, you and your guest will sit at my table should you be the lucky winner who is chosen."

Meanwhile, the NRCC is getting in on the act, too, with a contest to come to the GOP's own big June dinner -- and the winner and their guest will get to sit at Newt Gingrich's table: "If you've ever watched Newt on TV and thought 'I'd like to meet this guy,' this is your chance!"

Interestingly, the NRCC's raffle tickets start at $50, compared to only $5 for the DCCC and the similar contest from the DSCC. In all three cases, the obvious wager is that the sweepstakes will bring in more money than the cost of airfare and hotels for the winners.

Check out the fundraising letters, after the jump.

Dear Friend,
How would you like to sit at my table at a dinner with President Obama?

I wanted to make sure that you saw this exciting message about your chance to win a free trip to Washington, D.C. to join President Obama, our Democratic Leadership, and me in Washington, D.C. Thursday, June 18th to celebrate our New Direction for America.

If you enter today, you and your guest will sit at my table should you be the lucky winner who is chosen.

Contribute $5, $10, or more and be automatically entered for a chance to win a free trip to Washington, D.C. to join President Obama and me in D.C. June 18th -- you will even sit at my table and go home with a photograph with the President!

Every time you give is another chance to join us.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi​

Versus:

Friend,
Please join Republican Leadership and me on June 8th in Washington D.C. for the 2009 Senate House Dinner with keynote speaker, Newt Gingrich.

If you've ever watched Newt on TV and thought "I'd like to meet this guy," this is your chance!

My team at the NRCC has reserved two seats at Speaker Gingrich's table for one individual and his or her guest to join Newt for the 2009 Senate House Dinner. With a contribution of only $50 or more, you will be entered into the drawing. To enter the contest, please visit:

www.nrcc.org/dinnerwithnewt

If you are not the lucky winner, don't worry, we have set up a live webcast so that you can enjoy the night's event from the comfort of your home or office!

I look forward to your attendance at the dinner or through our webcast.

Best of luck!

Pete Sessions

P.S. To guarantee a spot at the 2009 Senate House Dinner please log onto www.nrcc.org/senatehousedinner for more information on the many different packages we have for you! I'll see you on June 8th!​

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Comprehensively reducing the price index lowers the costs of goods and services (you know, like healthcare and education), which improves quality of life for everyone.

Isn't deflation worse than inflation?

 

["God's Beard!"]

I can't view youtube at work. What does it say?

indefinite preventive detention, like minority report.

 

[mclem]

Again, this is any different from how it is now how?

Currently, the guy who might have a gun had at least planned to bring a gun in; there's some premeditation required there. If they're already in the habit of bringing a gun in, then I would suggest that it opens up more potential for non-premeditated incidents, suddenly flying off the handle and doing something they'd regret.

But, amusingly enough, that means there's a common ground between us as I also would not want a crazy person owning a gun. Care to discuss what changes should be made to concealed carry laws to facilitate that?

Unfortunately nope. I think it's too inherently ingrained in your society to be reasonably solvable. It doesn't help that the point of reference you're referring to feels completely alien to me; it's not necessarily something that's *wrong*, but it is something I just can't really comprehend.

The second amendment really troubles me, coming from the background I come from; it seems anathema to what is required for a good society, and seems to promote an arms-race attitude. Now the lid's off the bottle, fear is leading to more fear and more arming up, and there's probably no way back.

Is the only solution - now - to ensure that everyone has the option to be armed at all times, so they can defend themselves against those who are already armed? Perhaps. And so the arms race continues. It bothers me that something that's not a million miles away from MAD appears to be a desirable outcome, but yet that may be the only reasonable solution.

I do sometimes wonder if America would be better off as a nation if the second amendment had never existed. It'd certainly be markedly different. Possibly to the extent of no longer existing, of course.

 

[Trurl]

Well "slightly crazy" applies to almost all of us, and he was specifically referring to feeling threatened by someone waving a gun around in a classroom.

Where did I mention "waving a gun around?" It can be known that a person carries a gun to class even if it is concealed, and knowledge of that would make me uneasy.

 

[mckmas8808]

indefinite preventive detention, like minority report.

Actually that's NOT what Obama said yesterday. But I've seen it reported that way by the far left.

Listen to what Obama actually said.

 

[PantherLotus]

Video: Obama Speaks To Navy Graduates

 

[mAcOdIn]

Currently, the guy who might have a gun had at least planned to bring a gun in; there's some premeditation required there. If they're already in the habit of bringing a gun in, then I would suggest that it opens up more potential for non-premeditated incidents, suddenly flying off the handle and doing something they'd regret.

That is true, I won't deny that now that people have a better chance to protect themselves from premeditated or spontaneous attacks that the chance of a spontaneous incident also goes up.

Unfortunately nope. I think it's too inherently ingrained in your society to be reasonably solvable. It doesn't help that the point of reference you're referring to feels completely alien to me; it's not necessarily something that's *wrong*, but it is something I just can't really comprehend.

The second amendment really troubles me, coming from the background I come from; it seems anathema to what is required for a good society, and seems to promote an arms-race attitude. Now the lid's off the bottle, fear is leading to more fear and more arming up, and there's probably no way back.

Is the only solution - now - to ensure that everyone has the option to be armed at all times, so they can defend themselves against those who are already armed? Perhaps. And so the arms race continues. It bothers me that something that's not a million miles away from MAD appears to be a desirable outcome, but yet that may be the only reasonable solution.

I do sometimes wonder if America would be better off as a nation if the second amendment had never existed. It'd certainly be markedly different. Possibly to the extent of no longer existing, of course.

I don't think the "problem" is the 2nd amendment at all but of a society that has for centuries fostered and promoted the individual and is now coming to grips with promoting a "society."

Anything done for the good of America is usually at the expense of the individual, you can not promote individualism and collectivism at the same time and I think a good many of these problems are because of this conflict. There's of course a host of other issues involved as well, whether it be repeat offenders that should have been incarcerated, mental illness, and other stuff so I'm not saying it's all the fault of one thing but I think individualism being at war with collectivism is also a major factor and the hardest to address. 2nd amendment or no, I don't think the result would really be any different.

Now for hardcore criminals, fuck them. Dealing with them is easy and yet we don't have the stomach to do so.

 

[Macam]

Some more details on the actual measure:

According to a legislative analysis, 23 states with concealed weapons permits do not ban license holders from carrying weapons on campus. Even so, only 12 colleges and universities allow them.

The Texas bill allows private schools to ban weapons from campus. The Senate rejected several attempts to make the ban optional for public schools and to create gun-free dorm rooms.

A ban on taking weapons to college sports events would not change.

Opponents argue allowing guns won't prevent similar scenarios and will confuse law enforcement if they arrive on a crime scene and find several people carrying weapons.

"We don't need to incentivize campus Rambos," said Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat who voted against the bill.

"It makes us feel like we've gotten tough -- deputizing students -- but the fact is that the universities don't want it and law enforcement doesn't want it because they know it will not make our campuses safer," Ellis said.

The bill is supported by the National Rifle Association and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a group that claims more than 37,000 members across the country.

It also has run into fierce resistance from other campus groups. At the University of Texas, which has its own history of shooting violence, the idea has met stiff opposition.

The UT student government, the graduate student assembly and the faculty advisory council have all passed resolutions against the campus guns bills.

Texas graduate student John Woods was a Virginia Tech student in 2007 and his girlfriend was among those killed. He has helped organized resistance to the Texas bill.

"The Senate voted against allowing a student to be in a gun-free dorm room; this shows exactly how little concern our lawmakers actually have for student safety," Woods said.

Which only underscores the point that it's not about safety, it's about guns.

 

[eznark]

Just watched Olbermann on Cheney. Holy shit, Keith is completely over the bend. I apologize to PanterLotus from the other day. If all you watch is MSNBC, I could see how you would think Chris Matthews is level headed.

 

[JayDubya]

The Texas bill allows private schools to ban weapons from campus. The Senate rejected several attempts to make the ban optional for public schools and to create gun-free dorm rooms.

Which totally makes sense, as it isn't really "optional" for a public school to comply with the Bill of Rights, but a private school has that leeway. Not sure why you bolded that.

At the University of Texas, which has its own history of shooting violence, the idea has met stiff opposition.

Not surprised, but that's really less about Charles Whitman and more about UT being a festering den of hippies.

 

[PantherLotus]

Just watched Olbermann on Cheney. Holy shit, Keith is completely over the bend. I apologize to PanterLotus from the other day. If all you watch is MSNBC, I could see how you would think Chris Matthews is level headed.

:lol

Yeah he's psycho. The best word for him was earlier in this thread: bombastic. He's so over the top, that even when he's right (most of the time) it's shocking to hear people talk like that. I think he could make all the same points with none of the emotion--and while being slightly more effective, he wouldn't have a TV show.

And Matthews IS level-headed. I didn't say "independent," I said "not a psycho." I had him pegged as a replacement on Meet the Press until his and Olberman's antics during the Obama speech.

Anyway, if somebody has something where it shows that he's NOT being level headed, please show me. The dude comes across as having a reasonable position and backs it up with genuine points, and lets his guests attempt to make theirs.

I have no problem admitting wrongness, which happens more oftent than I'd like. Show me his non-level-headedness and I'll say sorry.

 

[PantherLotus]

NYT Editor On Changes To Front-Page Gitmo Story: No Biggie

Michael Calderone at Politico has gotten comment from the New York Times Washington bureau chief, Dean Baquet, about the paper's changes -- sans correction -- to the online version of a story on freed Guantanamo detainees engaging in terrorism that was on the front page of the print paper Thursday.

At issue were changes to the headline and lead of the story that amounted to a walk back of its original claim that one in seven Gitmo detainees "returned" to terrorism. The headline shifted from "1 In 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds" to "Later Terror Link Cited for 1 in 7 Freed Detainees."

The difference is between a story about the government blundering by letting hardened terrorists free, only to rejoin the fight against America, and a more complicated story in which some Gitmo detainees may have become radicalized while imprisoned.

Baquet thinks the changes, which would seem to speak to basic assumptions about the nature of Guantanamo, were no big deal, and therefore did not warrant notifying Times readers in a correction or editor's note.

Here's what he told Calderone:

Reading some of the criticism it seems that people are saying it undercut the story. It did not. The story was about the estimate of the number of people who ended up, by DOD"s account, as being engaged in terrorism or militant activity after leaving Gitmo. That still stands. The change was an acknowledgment that some assert that not everyone in Gitmo is truly a terrorist. Some critics have said that Gitmo is also filled with people who aren't truly terrorists.

Anyone who is reading a significant retreat in the story, or as us somehow saying the story is wrong is looking for politics where it ain't.​

The problem here is that the use of variations on the word "return" throughout the original story was wrong and significant. And keep in mind that the story was pounced on by right-wing media and picked up on cable, where the "returned to jihad" phrasing was endlessly parroted. (Others have pointed out the credulousness of the piece on other fronts.)

As we said above, the use of this phrasing speaks to important assumptions about what happened at Guantanamo -- and, potentially, how we deal with detainees there in the present. Which is presumably the same reason why the Times rewrote the headline and lead of the piece.

 

[mckmas8808]

Just watched Olbermann on Cheney. Holy shit, Keith is completely over the bend. I apologize to PanterLotus from the other day. If all you watch is MSNBC, I could see how you would think Chris Matthews is level headed.

What did you watch it on? And what did he say?

 

[empty vessel]

What evidence?

Human Development Index (Welfare states rank higher than US)

See also http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Human Poverty Index (Welfare states rank higher than US)

See also World Happiness Map (Welfare states rank higher than US)

 

[mckmas8808]

NYT Editor On Changes To Front-Page Gitmo Story: No Biggie

Very very interesting....

 

[eznark]

Matthews is a giddy school girl. I don't even care about bias (he was a dem strategist and was planning on running against Jowls for God's sake, of course he loves leftists), the guy is a giddy ball of retardation and moronic questions. Brit Hume is bias but level headed. Wolf Blitzer is bias but level headed. Chris Matthews is a flighty douche bag. Pull up 5 videos randomly on YouTube (I can't here at work) and I'm willing to bet he is practically bouncing off the walls with excitement and sputtering out inanities.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Some more details on the actual measure:



Which only underscores the point that it's not about safety, it's about guns.

Again it's a safety of the group versus safety of the individual.

If I'm in a school where a shooting has started I am safer if I have a gun however the group is less safe because they then have to depend on those with guns to not be crazy.

The last bolded bit was a bit of a duh to me as if they were to allow guns on campus where else but their dorm room would they be stored? Would an armory have been better?

That said, I'm kinda miffed that they did not allow public schools to make the decision themselves. I think allowing it to be a vote each semester would have been a fair compromise, there's a long history of towns and establishments not allowing guns even in the old west. Just as I think it'd be not fair to not allow students to carry weapons if they overwhelmingly supported such a thing I think it's also wrong to say that if they overwhelmingly oppose carrying weapons that they still have to allow it.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Just watched Olbermann on Cheney. Holy shit, Keith is completely over the bend. I apologize to PanterLotus from the other day. If all you watch is MSNBC, I could see how you would think Chris Matthews is level headed.

Man, I like Chris Matthews. He's kooky but in a cool kinda way, and he's actually somewhat fair.

Edit:
And by fair, I mean compared to the bias of most of the liberal hosts.

 

[eznark]

Man, I like Chris Matthews. He's kooky but in a cool kinda way, and he's actually somewhat fair.

Maybe we're failing in defining level-headedness. I'm thinking along the lines of professionalism and just acting like an adult. Not content, demeanor.

 

[PantherLotus]

BIASED

If one has bias against a paritcular issues, he or she is BIASED, not BIAS.

Thank you.



edit:

"Chris Matthews is biased" = correct
"Brit Hume is bias" = retarded and uneducated

 

[mckmas8808]

Matthews is a giddy school girl. I don't even care about bias (he was a dem strategist and was planning on running against Jowls for God's sake, of course he loves leftists), the guy is a giddy ball of retardation and moronic questions. Brit Hume is bias but level headed. Wolf Blitzer is bias but level headed. Chris Matthews is a flighty douche bag. Pull up 5 videos randomly on YouTube (I can't here at work) and I'm willing to bet he is practically bouncing off the walls with excitement and sputtering out inanities.

Brit Hume is NOT level headed. :lol
And your reasons are why I love Chris Matthews.

 

[APF]

NYT Editor On Changes To Front-Page Gitmo Story: No Biggie

This is a good post, it helps clear-up some of the questions readers here had on the original story. Thanks. I should note that since this was helpful to know in terms of being able to fully understand that article, it's mind-boggling to me that there wasn't an official correction--not that official corrections really mean anything, but still.


mckmas8808: I don't see Hume as a hothead, which is how I'd often describe Matthews

 

[eznark]

BIASED

If one has bias against a paritcular issues, he or she is BIASED, not BIAS.

Thank you.



edit:

"Chris Matthews is biased" = correct
"Brit Hume is bias" = retarded and uneducated

Obnoxious and pretentious

Brit Hume is NOT level headed.

I haven't watched his show in a long time, maybe his monotone drone fooled me and he actually is excitable.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Maybe we're failing in defining level-headedness. I'm thinking along the lines of professionalism and just acting like an adult. Not content, demeanor.

I wasn't remarking on level-headedness. In general though, I think the fact that Matthews is so casual is charming, not infuriating.

 

[mckmas8808]

This is a good post, it helps clear-up some of the questions readers here had on the original story. Thanks. I should note that since this was helpful to know in terms of being able to fully understand that article, it's mind-boggling to me that there wasn't an official correction--not that official corrections really mean anything, but still.


mckmas8808: I don't see Hume as a hothead, which is how I'd often describe Matthews

Yeah APF I completely agree with you on that man. There most def should have been an offical correction. Look at how many times the article has been quoted within the last 24 hours.

And if that's your definition of level-headed, then okay I'll agree with you and eznark that he is.

 

[PantherLotus]

1. Yeah, perhaps "level-headed" isn't the appropriate term. I think I meant "not an idealogue that flies into blind rage." I think his positions are real and his love of politics is greater than his "love" of the left. When I watch his show I feel like I know more how about the minutiae of political wonkery, unlike any other show on television. But I can see how his excitement and cult of personality stuff, as well as amusing references to mid-70s obscure political happenings, is charming to some (me) and offputting to others (people that think Brit Hume is worth a shit).

2. That NYT article and the perception of it is fascinating to me. The use of the word "return" and the walk-back of it is very, very interesting. The implication of using that word is the assumption/admittance that prisoners at GITMO were indeed already terrorists. Softening that language is definitely interesting, especially if they're asserting that GITMO radicalized them further, or may have pushed them to terrorism.

3. Obnoxious and Pretentious? Me? Guilty as charged. Just get it right next time.

 

[PantherLotus]

It might be too late this morning, but I intend on posting this on a daily basis in the future. I won't do all the linking, but 'the daily roundup' is a nice short treatise on what to expect throughout the day. It's good stuff and can be found at TPM every morning. I'll just copy/paste it from here on out.

TPMDC Morning Roundup
By Eric Kleefeld - May 22, 2009, 9:00AM

WaPo: White House To Steer G.M. Into Bankruptcy
The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration is preparing to send General Motors into a planned bankruptcy as the end of next week, with the intention to give the company nearly $30 billion more in aid to help them restructure.

Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will sign the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act, at 9 a.m. ET in the Rose Garden. At 10 a.m. ET, he will deliver the commencement at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. At 3 p.m. ET, he will return to the Rose Garden to sign the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act.

Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President Biden is spending the day in Beirut, Lebanon. He is meeting with President Michel Sleiman, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, and Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri. He will also make an announcement with Defense Minister Elias Murr, on military assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Senate Votes For $91.3 Billion In War Spending
The Senate voted last night by an 86-3 margin to approve a $91.3 billion spending bill for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The bill will now go to House-Senate negotiations, with an expected final passage some time in June. The three dissenters came from the left and right: Progressive Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, independent socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- and conservative Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

U.S. Prisons Already Hold Convicted International Terrorists
The Washington Post points out that, despite all the arguments about whether to bring terror suspects to U.S. prisons, there are already 33 terrorists at the supermax prison in Colorado. Indeed, many of the prisoners there have ties to al-Qaeda, including Ramzi Youself, who headed up the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993, and 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

McCain's Son Graduating From Naval Academy Today
John McCain will be attending the Naval Academy graduation ceremony today -- where President Obama will be delivering the commencement address -- for the graduation of his son John Sidney McCain IV. The younger McCain, commonly called "Jack," is the fourth John Sidney McCain in a row to graduate from Annapolis.

Bush: It's Liberating To Be Out Of Office
Former President George W. Bush gave the commencement address yesterday at Artesia High School in New Mexico, and said how he appreciates his return to the life of a private citizen. "I no longer feel that great sense of responsibility that I had when I was in the Oval Office," said Bush. "And frankly, it's a liberating feeling."

 

[PantherLotus]

Will GOP attacks on Nancy Pelosi backfire?
By JOHN BRESNAHAN | 5/22/09 4:19 AM EDT

After a one-two punch from Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney, House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican lawmakers worry that their party has overplayed its hand on Nancy Pelosi.

The Republicans’ fear: Gingrich’s call for Pelosi’s ouster has set an unattainable goal, and Cheney’s jabs at her during a speech Thursday will allow Democrats to portray the controversy as a partisan attack by one of the GOP’s most polarizing figures.

“If the story becomes about us and not her, it’s a problem for us,” said a senior Republican lawmaker.

Boehner has been working to cool off other Republicans who want Pelosi’s scalp. He fears that, if Republicans move to call for Pelosi’s ouster — as Gingrich did — before laying out a case for an investigation first, then they will have squandered a major opportunity to cut into Pelosi’s authority.

He’s not the only one worried about going too far, too fast.

“I can’t speak for [Gingrich], but I think most members of the House believe that whether it’s this issue or something else, we have a procedure if there are questions of impropriety or wrongdoing on the part of any member,” said Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.), ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and a former member of the intelligence committee. “If that system is gonna stay together, I think we have to respect or implement it.”

Rather than advocating Pelosi’s ouster, House GOP leaders Thursday pushed a resolution calling for an intelligence committee investigation into the truth of her claim that the CIA misled her. The House voted 252-172 not to consider it.

Boehner declared himself “disappointed” that Pelosi’s “Democratic colleagues blocked the effort to look into this matter in a bipartisan way,” and Republicans made it clear that they’ll try to revisit the matter when Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess.

But House Democrats believe that the worst of this is now behind them — and that the double-barreled attack from Gingrich and Cheney has helped put it there.

“The best thing for anyone, let alone Nancy Pelosi, is to be the subject of a petty, venal, absurd attack by Newt Gingrich,” said Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.). “He’s the gift that keeps on giving.”

“If anything, people have circled the wagons around her,” said Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson. “All you have to do is mention the names Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney as attacking the speaker of the House ... and people see this for what it is.”

During his speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Cheney said that “leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House,” were briefed on the Bush administration’s interrogation program “on numerous occasions.”

“Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs,” Cheney added. “They support them in private and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.”


Pelosi has said that she attended just one briefing on the Bush administration’s enhanced interrogation program and that she was not told during that September 2002 briefing that the CIA had begun using waterboarding.

Gingrich said earlier this week that Pelosi has “disqualified herself to be the speaker” with an allegation that “smears” intelligence officers who have kept Americans safe.

Democrats say there’s an element of political payback in the former speaker’s criticisms. Pelosi served on the subcommittee of the House ethics panel that investigated Gingrich back in the mid-1990s. Gingrich was eventually reprimanded by the ethics committee and required to pay a $300,000 fine for giving inaccurate information to congressional investigators.

Democrats acknowledge that the GOP campaign has disrupted their own PR efforts to play up major legislation they’ve passed in recent days, including a big credit card bill this week.

“In that sense, it has been effective,” admitted a senior Democratic leadership aide. “We are talking about [Pelosi] rather than what we want to talk about.”

We all knew this was happening, but interesting to see Politico pick this up days after we knew it would backfire. What's more interesting is to see them suggest that it's because "Cheney and Gingrich are polarizing" and not "she was telling the truth."

 

[i_am_ben]

1. Yeah, perhaps "level-headed" isn't the appropriate term. I think I meant "not an idealogue that flies into blind rage." I think his positions are real and his love of politics is greater than his "love" of the left. When I watch his show I feel like I know more how about the minutiae of political wonkery, unlike any other show on television. But I can see how his excitement and cult of personality stuff, as well as amusing references to mid-70s obscure political happenings, is charming to some (me) and offputting to others (people that think Brit Hume is worth a shit).

2. That NYT article and the perception of it is fascinating to me. The use of the word "return" and the walk-back of it is very, very interesting. The implication of using that word is the assumption/admittance that prisoners at GITMO were indeed already terrorists. Softening that language is definitely interesting, especially if they're asserting that GITMO radicalized them further, or may have pushed them to terrorism.

3. Obnoxious and Pretentious? Me? Guilty as charged. Just get it right next time.

Brit Hume is a subtle expert at trolling

 

[Clevinger]

Matthews is a giddy school girl. I don't even care about bias (he was a dem strategist and was planning on running against Jowls for God's sake, of course he loves leftists), the guy is a giddy ball of retardation and moronic questions. Brit Hume is bias but level headed. Wolf Blitzer is bias but level headed. Chris Matthews is a flighty douche bag. Pull up 5 videos randomly on YouTube (I can't here at work) and I'm willing to bet he is practically bouncing off the walls with excitement and sputtering out inanities.

I'd say Blitzer is easily as retarded and moronic as Matthews, just more boring.

 

[PantherLotus]

Brit Hume is a subtle expert at trolling

It's not subtle.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I like how cnn's headline for a story on obama speaking at the graduation ceremony of the US Naval Academy is "Obama speaks at graduation for McCain's son"

 

[eznark]

I'd say Blitzer is easily as retarded and moronic as Matthews, just more boring.

boring, professional...thin line

 

[Particle Physicist]

Other useful calculations:

Flowers != Trees
Birds != Bees
You != Me

:lol

is your life really that shitty that you have to make yourself feel superior to random internet folk with petty insults?

 

[PantherLotus]

I like how cnn's headline for a story on obama speaking at the graduation ceremony of the US Naval Academy is "Obama speaks at graduation for McCain's son"

YES, THAT'S THE REASON HE'S THERE!

@ CNN

boring, professional...thin line

:lol