Support NeoGAF

[APF]

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"

Actually, the story is about McCain's son.

 

[Particle Physicist]

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 wasnt about making all dorms gun-free.. but having some gun-free dorms. kinda like the alcohol/drug free dorms some schools have.

 

[PantherLotus]

The Newburgh Four -- And The Goverment Mole Who Betrayed Them
By Zachary Roth - May 22, 2009, 11:57AM

We're starting to get a rich picture of the four hapless Jihadis who were arrested Wednesday night for plotting to bomb two New York synagogues, as well as the FBI informant who deceived them. And the overall portrait that's emerging is that of a group of struggling, disaffected petty criminals, who bonded at a Newburgh, NY mosque over having spent time in prison, before being taken in by a Pakistani immigrant looking to win leniency for a crime of his own.

There's little doubt the bumbling would-be bombers went far enough with the plot to demonstrate that they had the intention to commit terror, and for that they'll pay the price. But the whole tale comes off perhaps more as a sad glimpse into the lives of a loose group of aimless and obscurely embittered Americans than as a dire illustration of the threat of home-grown terrorism.

Based on reports in the New York Times, Post, and Daily News

The article has a profile on all four and the informant.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Pelosi stands her ground

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6dtK1demlQ&fmt=18

At her weekly meeting with Friday, Speaker Pelosi refused to answer questions about the CIA and waterboarding, referring the Press to her previous statements.

 

[mckmas8808]

Actually, the story is about McCain's son.

But is Obama there just for McCain's son?

 

[APF]

But is Obama there just for McCain's son?

Good point, it was weird that they decided to put Obama in the headline for an article about McCain's son, but it appears the media just can't get enough of Bams.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Actually, the story is about McCain's son.

I meant "for a story ____" in the sense that the event that occured was that obama spoke at the naval academy's grad ceremony, and mccain's kid was one of the grads, but the headline makes it sound like obama spoke there on behalf of mccain's son or something. It's a pure grab at gettinng viewers with "HEY LOOK MCCAIN AND OBAMA TOGETHER AGIAN!"

 

[mckmas8808]

Good point, it was weird that they decided to put Obama in the headline for an article about McCain's son, but it appears the media just can't get enough of Bams.

Which is quite sad actually. I hate being "that guy" who hates the main stream media. :|

 

[PantherLotus]

The Newburgh Four -- And The Goverment Mole Who Betrayed Them
By Zachary Roth - May 22, 2009, 11:57AM

The article has a profile on all four and the informant.

I actually read this after I linked it, and I must say you guys should read it. It's incredibly sad.

 

[APF]

I meant "for a story ____" in the sense that the event that occured was that obama spoke at the naval academy's grad ceremony, and mccain's kid was one of the grads, but the headline makes it sound like obama spoke there on behalf of mccain's son or something. It's a pure grab at gettinng viewers with "HEY LOOK MCCAIN AND OBAMA TOGETHER AGIAN!"

I think you're just reading the headline wrong, since you're expecting it to be about Obama and not Jack. It's two parts: "Obama speaks" and "graduation for McCain's son." Note that they've changed the headline now: "At Naval Academy graduation, lives of McCain, Obama to overlap." Not sure if that's better, but it's clearer.

 

[PantherLotus]

Could Cheney Be (Gulp) Right?

The most pointed attack on President Obama in Dick Cheney's speech yesterday was his claim that after all is said and done Obama is still reserving to himself the right to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the future. We documented that this talking point is a riff off comments made by CIA Director Leon Panetta -- and that it's arguably stretching what Panetta actually said. But it should be noted that Chris Matthews gave David Axelrod a chance to rebut Cheney's claim, and Axelrod only danced around the question. Watch the video. We asked the White House yesterday to comment on Cheney's claim and got no response.

--David Kurtz​

video here

 

[PantherLotus]

I think you're just reading the headline wrong, since you're expecting it to be about Obama and not Jack. It's two parts: "Obama speaks" and "graduation for McCain's son." Note that they've changed the headline now: "At Naval Academy graduation, lives of McCain, Obama to overlap." Not sure if that's better, but it's clearer.

Yeah, that headline is both less misleading and more interesting.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I think you're just reading the headline wrong, since you're expecting it to be about Obama and not Jack. It's two parts: "Obama speaks" and "graduation for McCain's son." Note that they've changed the headline now: "At Naval Academy graduation, lives of McCain, Obama to overlap." Not sure if that's better, but it's clearer.

I'm not misreading the headline, I'm saying that cnn's desparately trying to bring attention to an article by connecting obama to mccain (again).

Plus, it shouldn't be one of the top stories if you ask me.

It just reminds me of those spam emails you get that just try to fit in as many buzzwords as possible

 

[PantherLotus]

***BREAKING NEWS: First person dies under Washington state's new assisted suicide law***

/msnbc

 

[Karma Kramer]

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.

What? :lol

Maddow clearly shows clips of Obama saying he will detain people for an indefinite period of time without trial...

You got to stop sucking Obama's dick and open your eyes.

 

[empty vessel]

The Newburgh Four -- And The Goverment Mole Who Betrayed Them

The article has a profile on all four and the informant.

The Informant
- An upstate motel owner, identified by the New York Post as Shahed Hussain, 52, he became a government informant in 2002, after he was busted for helping immigrants cheat on drivers tests while working as a DMV translator. He was hoping to win leniency in his sentencing and avoid being deported to Pakistan ....
- The imam also said he had been told that Hussain offered at least one member of the congregation a substantial amount of money to join his "team."
- The owner of a local restaurant (either Denny's or Danny's, reports differ) where the Newburgh Four wold regularly eat rice and beans said that a few months ago, a fifth man starting showing up. He appeared to be of South Asian descent and would usually pay for the meal. The restaurant owner said he thought the man was the boss.
- This isn't his first sting operation. A few years ago, he posed as an arms dealer who had sold a shoulder-launched missile to be used to kill a Pakistani envoy. Two Albany men, Mohammed Hossain and Yassin Aref, helped him launder money from the supposed sale, and were convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.

This is nothing but entrapment. An informant looking to avoid his own legal problems seeks to curry favor with law enforcement by catching terrorists. Only he is the one who convinced them to do something criminal in the first place. This is the FBI creating terrorism, not thwarting it.

 

[PantherLotus]

This is nothing but entrapment. An informant looking to avoid his own legal problems seeks to curry favor with law enforcement by catching terrorists. Only he is the one who convinced them to do something criminal in the first place. This is the FBI creating terrorism, not thwarting it.

I didn't read it that way. Is it true that he encouraged these guys to plan an attack? Where did you read that?

 

[speculawyer]

This is nothing but entrapment. An informant looking to avoid his own legal problems seeks to curry favor with law enforcement by catching terrorists. Only he is the one who convinced them to do something criminal in the first place. This is the FBI creating terrorism, not thwarting it.

Meh . . . the informant heard them talking about committing crimes before he entered into the story . . . then they ran a long lasting sting showing these guys really would commit the crimes (if the explosives they gave them had been real).

These cases can be very tricky. But as long as the people are talking about committing a crime before the mole enters the picture and show that they are willing to move forward on the plan . . . they'll get nailed.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/gop-invokes-daisy-in-gitmo-web-video.php?ref=fpb

Seriously?

 

[BobTheFork]

This is nothing but entrapment. An informant looking to avoid his own legal problems seeks to curry favor with law enforcement by catching terrorists. Only he is the one who convinced them to do something criminal in the first place. This is the FBI creating terrorism, not thwarting it.

You aren't going to totally convince innocent people to commit a major terrorist act. If these guys were willing to go through with the plan and they are not 'unfortunate' people who were roped into something they didn't understand. That said, the article really makes it sound like these guys were in way over their head, and without a mole looking for save himself, the worst they might have done is tip over a soda machine.

 

[PantherLotus]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/gop-invokes-daisy-in-gitmo-web-video.php?ref=fpb

Seriously?

uuuuuuuuuggggggggghhhh.

The only thing Republicans have left is Fear and Anger. Two of the least evolved emotions of any animal, and they're running their entire party off of it!

Fear and Anger. That's pretty much it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

What? :lol

Maddow clearly shows clips of Obama saying he will detain people for an indefinite period of time without trial...

You got to stop sucking Obama's dick and open your eyes.

Yeah, Obama is doing a lot right but I'm flabbergasted at some of the moves. I think he did the right thing in overhauling the military tribunals - with one exception: allowing hearsay evidence. He shifted the burden of proof from the defendant to the prosecution, but rejecting hearsay outright should be a no-brainer.

Likewise, I generally approve of most of his national security policies. There was a black and white contrast between both the tone and content of Obama and Cheney's speeches. But again, we should not even be entertaining the thought of keeping people indefinitely if we can't charge them. If we can't charge them, by definition they need to be let go. I think - and hope - Obama will lose this fight in court once the first person is determined to held this way.

I'm encouraged by the actual action so far. Another 48 Gitmo detainees were cleared to be shipped back to other countries, bringing the total to 50, and one has been cleared for trial in US courts. Good progress. To the extent that he does stuff right, he deserves support. But even his most fervent supporters should be livid at the exceptions.

From what I can tell, I don't see a lot of the left excusing it.

 

[gcubed]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/gop-invokes-daisy-in-gitmo-web-video.php?ref=fpb

Seriously?

i keep hoping someday someone will stand up in that party that is worth a damn and take the reins to lead the GOP back to a viable alternative.

Then i see this, and see that that person doesnt exist yet

 

[mckmas8808]

What? :lol

Maddow clearly shows clips of Obama saying he will detain people for an indefinite period of time without trial...

You got to stop sucking Obama's dick and open your eyes.

Robert freaking Gibbs said that there will be legal ramifications that will be used in those small instances. And Obama said the samething too!

Fuck man either you hate Obama now or Rachel Maddow pulled a real bullshit move, by only showing off the truth.

 

[mckmas8808]

You aren't going to totally convince innocent people to commit a major terrorist act. If these guys were willing to go through with the plan and they are not 'unfortunate' people who were roped into something they didn't understand. That said, the article really makes it sound like these guys were in way over their head, and without a mole looking for save himself, the worst they might have done is tip over a soda machine.

That's what everone says, until 200 people die.

 

[GhaleonEB]

On a different note: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOQPmbrh1ZrA&refer=home

Let me get this straight. A major justification for TARP was that tax payers were taking a big risk, but would share on the upside. And now that the bet seems to be paying off, banks want - and may get - off the hook before tax payers see any of the benefit?

I generally didn't get angry about the bailouts partly for this reason. But this is such utter bullshit I don't even know where to start.

 

[Particle Physicist]

***BREAKING NEWS: First person dies under Washington state's new assisted suicide law***

/msnbc

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30888637/

Having seen my grandfather suffer through pancreatic cancer... i fully agree with this law. some deaths are so painful and drawn out, people should have the option to go out peacefully.

 

[gcubed]

On a different note: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOQPmbrh1ZrA&refer=home

Let me get this straight. A major justification for TARP was that tax payers were taking a big risk, but would share on the upside. And now that the bet seems to be paying off, banks want - and may get - off the hook before tax payers see any of the benefit?

I generally didn't get angry about the bailouts partly for this reason. But this is such utter bullshit I don't even know where to start.

to be honest, i have no clue how some of this shit works, so what they are saying is that the money is coming back straight up, but if the treasury gives the same exact deal to every other bank (even though the example used was pennies in comparison to others, which makes this article pretty thinly stretched) they would screw the taxpayer (in reality, the country, since the taxpayer wont ever see it) out of an additional $10 billion in profit from the bailouts?

my only contention is that the article is making a few HUGE leaps from a single turn in on a very local and minor bank

 

[Skiptastic]

That's what everone says, until 200 people die.

He's a man of his word.

 

[GhaleonEB]

to be honest, i have no clue how some of this shit works, so what they are saying is that the money is coming back straight up, but if the treasury gives the same exact deal to every other bank (even though the example used was pennies in comparison to others, which makes this article pretty thinly stretched) they would screw the taxpayer (in reality, the country, since the taxpayer wont ever see it) out of an additional $10 billion in profit from the bailouts?

my only contention is that the article is making a few HUGE leaps from a single turn in on a very local and minor bank

The actual number is the most speculative part of the article. The basic idea is the Treasury seems predisposed to cash out of our stakes early, rather than wait the mid to long term which premised the investment, thus giving up potential gains. Given the deficit, I don't see a rationale for this. You'd think they would be scrapping for dollars.

 

[BobTheFork]

That's what everone says, until 200 people die.

What that these kind of guys are harmless?
Fair enough, but I'm not happy that a situation like this was escalated by some OTHER criminal trying to save their ass. These guys had a somewhat this reason for trying to 'do something to America' but now maybe they have a better reason and will kill more people than that in the future. Who knows, getting into arguing maybe's is pointless. You are correct, but that is the same logic that brings us torture.

 

[mckmas8808]

On a different note: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOQPmbrh1ZrA&refer=home

Let me get this straight. A major justification for TARP was that tax payers were taking a big risk, but would share on the upside. And now that the bet seems to be paying off, banks want - and may get - off the hook before tax payers see any of the benefit?

I generally didn't get angry about the bailouts partly for this reason. But this is such utter bullshit I don't even know where to start.

It really depends on how the law was written.
Don't forget that they are also paying interest on the money that they are paying back too. So the "tax payers" are getting that money back.

 

[mckmas8808]

The actual number is the most speculative part of the article. The basic idea is the Treasury seems predisposed to cash out of our stakes early, rather than wait the mid to long term which premised the investment, thus giving up potential gains. Given the deficit, I don't see a rationale for this. You'd think they would be scrapping for dollars.

To get the money + interest NOW! That's the only reason. When people are screaming that the banks want to return billions of dollars but the government doesn't want to take it, that could cause some problems.

 

[Tamanon]

STEELE: The problem that we have with this president is that we don’t know [Obama]. He was not vetted, folks. … He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office. “Oh gee, wouldn’t it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn’t it make all of our liberal guilt just go away? We can continue to ride around in our limousines and feel so lucky to live in an America with a black president.” Okay that’s wonderful, great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for? What does he believe? … So we don’t know. We just don’t know.

:lol :lol

Man, if there's one man I knew way too much about from the press it's Obama. I mean, I don't remember ever hearing so much about someone's pastor, college roommate, grandmother or anything else. And that's on top of Obama's public biography too.

 

[GhaleonEB]

It really depends on how the law was written.
Don't forget that they are also paying interest on the money that they are paying back too. So the "tax payers" are getting that money back.

To get the money + interest NOW! That's the only reason. When people are screaming that the banks want to return billions of dollars but the government doesn't want to take it, that could cause some problems.

Basic finance: risk/reward inverse relationship. The government took a HUGE level of risk with these investments, and will make back what amounts to a decent Treasury bond return if we settle for the interest, while the banks make out.

Again, the entire premise was that the government/taxpayers would see potentially large upsides from TARP. And now the banks want out because they don't want the additional scrutiny holding the TARP funds comes with - and we may be willing to give up billions to let them. The government is reneging on a deal, giving up money, because it's convenient for the banks.

You are okay with this?

 

[empty vessel]

Fair enough, but I'm not happy that a situation like this was escalated by some OTHER criminal trying to save their ass.

It's unfortunate; these guys will probably go to prison for a long, long time for something that never would have happened had a government agent not stepped into the picture, encouraged--more likely, led--them, and then provided the means (albeit not real) to carry it out. What's sad is that they were acting out of sympathy for the victims of an unjustified and brutal military campaign--albeit acting stupidly.

 

[Tamanon]

Basic finance: risk/reward inverse relationship. The government took a HUGE level of risk with these investments, and will make back what amounts to a decent Treasury bond return if we settle for the interest, while the banks make out.

Again, the entire premise was that the government/taxpayers would see potentially large upsides from TARP. And now the banks want out because they don't want the additional scrutiny holding the TARP funds comes with - and we may be willing to give up billions to let them.

You are okay with this?

Yeah, but didn't the iniitial TARP involve a lot of money being given to banks that didn't need it? Isn't it a little weird to make the "healthy" banks pay for not having to be bailed out?

 

[PantherLotus]

:lol :lol

Man, if there's one man I knew way too much about from the press it's Obama. I mean, I don't remember ever hearing so much about someone's pastor, college roommate, grandmother or anything else. And that's on top of Obama's public biography too.

good GOD. Steele is an embarassment.

 

[mckmas8808]

Basic finance: risk/reward inverse relationship. The government took a HUGE level of risk with these investments, and will make back what amounts to a decent Treasury bond return if we settle for the interest, while the banks make out.

Again, the entire premise was that the government/taxpayers would see potentially large upsides from TARP. And now the banks want out because they don't want the additional scrutiny holding the TARP funds comes with - and we may be willing to give up billions to let them. The government is reneging on a deal, giving up money, because it's convenient for the banks.

You are okay with this?

I'm half way okay with it. And it was not the ENTIRE premise. Hell most people believed that we wouldn't see half the money back. You're talking about the Gov't making something like 30% profit on the $700 Billion.

That was NEVER going to happen. I'm halfway okay with it because at this point I'll just like to get say 85% or more of the money back. That'll be at least $600 Billion back. I'm just being real.

And at the end of the day I realize that the banks need to be healthy and functional. And I don't want the gov't in their business longer than need be. So if the banks want out now, but pay $1 Billion less to tax payers, then I'm okay with that.

As long as they pay the built in interest that they agreed to.

 

[APF]

What's sad is that they were acting out of sympathy for the victims of an unjustified and brutal military campaign--albeit acting stupidly.

I get you, it's totally unfortunate that these guys were just trying to bomb Jews for good reasons until the evil FBI stepped into the picture, intercepted them, and made sure they weren't able to follow-through on those plans. What a fucking world we live in.

 

[mckmas8808]

:lol :lol

Man, if there's one man I knew way too much about from the press it's Obama. I mean, I don't remember ever hearing so much about someone's pastor, college roommate, grandmother or anything else. And that's on top of Obama's public biography too.

Link?

And if Micheal really said that..........he's just a dumbass. Is he living in August 2008?

 

[Karma Kramer]

Robert freaking Gibbs said that there will be legal ramifications that will be used in those small instances. And Obama said the samething too!

Please elaborate... what legal ramifications? It is against the law to hold someone indefinitely without a trial and for crimes they have yet to commit.

Your justifying something that is essentially the same thing as Gitmo, but just called something different.

I don't hate Obama, I voted for him ffs.

 

[gcubed]

:lol :lol

Man, if there's one man I knew way too much about from the press it's Obama. I mean, I don't remember ever hearing so much about someone's pastor, college roommate, grandmother or anything else. And that's on top of Obama's public biography too.

That tact worked SOOO well in the election cycle too. Normal people look at mistakes in the past to avoid them in the future, the GOP is looking at mistakes in the past to try them again in the future.

 

[PantherLotus]

You guys want the full text of yesterday's speech in here? Reading it again, after hearing it, I can't overemphasize how significant of a speech this is.

 

[mckmas8808]

It's unfortunate; these guys will probably go to prison for a long, long time for something that never would have happened had a government agent not stepped into the picture, encouraged--more likely, led--them, and then provided the means (albeit not real) to carry it out. What's sad is that they were acting out of sympathy for the victims of an unjustified and brutal military campaign--albeit acting stupidly.

So what do you want our governement to do when someone finds out that some people are talking about killing innocent people and blowing up planes?

 

[APF]

So what do you want our governement to do when someone finds out that some people are talking about killing innocent people and blowing up planes?

Well obviously if they have a good reason to kill those people they should be allowed to.

 

[mckmas8808]

Please elaborate... what legal ramifications? It is against the law to hold someone indefinitely without a trial and for crimes they have yet to commit.

Your justifying something that is essentially the same thing as Gitmo, but just called something different.

I don't hate Obama, I voted for him ffs.

They were saying before they are jail in this country, a legal construct will be created/used in order to have a long term plan for something to happen to them.

But they said whatever happens with those people it will be legal and not just a Gitmo North.

 

[gcubed]

So what do you want our governement to do when someone finds out that some people are talking about killing innocent people and blowing up planes?

we cant go around arresting people that an officer of the law or informant convinced to do a deed.

Arresting people that can be encouraged and cajoled into committing a crime is a VERY slippery slope

 

[Tamanon]

I think we're all jumping to a lot of conclusions on this "terror plot". It was a year-long operation, it'll be tried in court and all evidence, including anything that could be construed as entrapment, will be brought up.

 

[Karma Kramer]

They were saying before they are jail in this country, a legal construct will be created/used in order to have a long term plan for something to happen to them.

But they said whatever happens with those people it will be legal and not just a Gitmo North.

Saying its legal is just like Cheney saying its not torture... I don't buy it... what Obama said yesterday was a continuation of Gitmo... even the New York Times reported this.