-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Consider the Implications
Author: BobR
Date: 12/14/2011 13:59:54
I've been intensely active in politics for years now. I've had my share of discussions with people of various stripes. I've learned that keeping it cordial and sticking to the facts is the best approach. Sometimes snark is unavoidable, but trying to keep it level-headed will often reveal surprising things about the other person's viewpoint.
Sometimes those surprises can be scary. In particular, a small segment of those on the Left have a peculiar notion about how to bring about a Progressive Utopia. Their "plan" (such as it is) is not to beat Republicans and work to replace moderate Democrats with more progressive ones - it's to let the Republicans win, so that they'll drive the country into such a deep hole (in all respects) that revolution will be unavoidable.
In other words - they think we need to burn the village to save it.
In their eyes, Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same (which begs the question - why would Republicans create the aforementioned apocalypse, and not Democrats?), so they just can't bring themselves to vote for "the lesser of two evils", even though one is not really lesser, even though that puts a hitch in their Master Plan, blah blah blah...
Yet, the constant battles in Congress, and - especially - the battles between House Republicans and President Obama paint quite a different picture, vis-a-vis their differences. I imagine the nihilists will claim it's all politcal theatre, but I know of political theatre and this is not it.
Consider the bill to extend the "payroll" tax cuts (the FICA taxes): House Republicans finally agreed to them yesterday, but deliberately put a poison pill in it. Along with the extensions, is a completely unrelated requirement to build the oil pipeline that has been hugely contentious, due to its running through native-American lands:
Essentially, the House Majority leader is toying with the lives of people struggling to make ends meet, in an effort to antagonize the president. That is immature, despicable, and completely out of touch. What an asshole.
But Republicans didn't stop there. Despite the repeal of DADT, it is still illegal for those in the military to engage in homosexual sex. In fact - it's illegal for ANY couples to engage in what is termed "sodomy", which includes oral sex between a married man and woman.
The Senate repealed Article 125 of the Military Code with the latest military authorization act. The Republicans put it back in (to be accurate - the congressional committee charged with reconciling differences between House and Senate bills removed it; they went with the Republican House version). Oddly, the bill is allowing gay couples in the military to get married. So - they can get married, they just can't "consumate" their marriages? This makes no sense at all.
It is, however, another example of how the Republicans will push their ideological agenda. We already know about the bills redefining rape and trying to destroy Planned Parenthood. Imagine if they had a Senate and President that would rubber-stamp their bills... We could end up with laws like Saudi Arabia where a woman could get the death penalty for practicing witchcraft (oh that's right - we used to have those...).
Imagine a President Newt Gingrich (*shudder*) - child labor laws would disappear (or not be enforced) and there would be more cases like Chuck E. Cheese - except that they wouldn't be prosecuted.
It would indeed be a dark ugly world. Would it be enough to drive people to revolution? Even if it did, who has all the guns?
Sorry - sitting back and allowing the country to go into the toilet under the misguided notion that we could start over is absurd, misguided, and unrealistic to anyone that's been paying attention. We are already at war with an ideology that is antithetical to what most Americans believe in. What we need are leaders to push the mindset in the direction it needs to go, and the people in power to make it happen. This will only occur if people get involved and VOTE.
Occupy the voting booth!
Sometimes those surprises can be scary. In particular, a small segment of those on the Left have a peculiar notion about how to bring about a Progressive Utopia. Their "plan" (such as it is) is not to beat Republicans and work to replace moderate Democrats with more progressive ones - it's to let the Republicans win, so that they'll drive the country into such a deep hole (in all respects) that revolution will be unavoidable.
In other words - they think we need to burn the village to save it.
In their eyes, Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same (which begs the question - why would Republicans create the aforementioned apocalypse, and not Democrats?), so they just can't bring themselves to vote for "the lesser of two evils", even though one is not really lesser, even though that puts a hitch in their Master Plan, blah blah blah...
Yet, the constant battles in Congress, and - especially - the battles between House Republicans and President Obama paint quite a different picture, vis-a-vis their differences. I imagine the nihilists will claim it's all politcal theatre, but I know of political theatre and this is not it.
Consider the bill to extend the "payroll" tax cuts (the FICA taxes): House Republicans finally agreed to them yesterday, but deliberately put a poison pill in it. Along with the extensions, is a completely unrelated requirement to build the oil pipeline that has been hugely contentious, due to its running through native-American lands:
...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., derided the GOP-backed pipeline provision as "ideological candy" for the tea party-set.
After the House vote, the White House urged Congress on in finishing work on extending the tax cuts and jobless aid. Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement that didn't mention the pipeline but renewed Obama's insistence that the legislation be paid for, at least in part, by "asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share" in higher tax levies.
Lawmakers "cannot go on vacation before agreeing to prevent a tax hike on 160 million Americans and extending unemployment insurance," he said.
Republicans mocked Obama's objections to their version of the bill.
"Mr. President, we can't wait," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, employing a refrain the White House often uses to criticize Republicans for failing to take steps to improve an economy struggling to recover from the worst recession in decades.
Essentially, the House Majority leader is toying with the lives of people struggling to make ends meet, in an effort to antagonize the president. That is immature, despicable, and completely out of touch. What an asshole.
But Republicans didn't stop there. Despite the repeal of DADT, it is still illegal for those in the military to engage in homosexual sex. In fact - it's illegal for ANY couples to engage in what is termed "sodomy", which includes oral sex between a married man and woman.
The Senate repealed Article 125 of the Military Code with the latest military authorization act. The Republicans put it back in (to be accurate - the congressional committee charged with reconciling differences between House and Senate bills removed it; they went with the Republican House version). Oddly, the bill is allowing gay couples in the military to get married. So - they can get married, they just can't "consumate" their marriages? This makes no sense at all.
It is, however, another example of how the Republicans will push their ideological agenda. We already know about the bills redefining rape and trying to destroy Planned Parenthood. Imagine if they had a Senate and President that would rubber-stamp their bills... We could end up with laws like Saudi Arabia where a woman could get the death penalty for practicing witchcraft (oh that's right - we used to have those...).
Imagine a President Newt Gingrich (*shudder*) - child labor laws would disappear (or not be enforced) and there would be more cases like Chuck E. Cheese - except that they wouldn't be prosecuted.
It would indeed be a dark ugly world. Would it be enough to drive people to revolution? Even if it did, who has all the guns?
Sorry - sitting back and allowing the country to go into the toilet under the misguided notion that we could start over is absurd, misguided, and unrealistic to anyone that's been paying attention. We are already at war with an ideology that is antithetical to what most Americans believe in. What we need are leaders to push the mindset in the direction it needs to go, and the people in power to make it happen. This will only occur if people get involved and VOTE.
Occupy the voting booth!
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
wickedpam on 12/14/2011 14:21:16
wickedpam on 12/14/2011 14:21:16
Morning 
Comment by 
Raine on 12/14/2011 14:33:59
Raine on 12/14/2011 14:33:59
Excellent point today, Bobber.
good morning! I'll be co hosting with Kenny Pick this morning.
good morning! I'll be co hosting with Kenny Pick this morning.
Comment by 
Scoopster on 12/14/2011 14:48:04
Scoopster on 12/14/2011 14:48:04
Morning all.. 
That kind of 'let the world burn to save it' mentality is the same end game that's pushed by Objectivist Libertarians.
That kind of 'let the world burn to save it' mentality is the same end game that's pushed by Objectivist Libertarians.
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 14:51:49
that is quite true, Scoop.
It's so bizarre to me. I sometimes really wonder if they realize that -- or if they are being just plain dishonest when they say they are progressive.
Raine on 12/14/2011 14:51:49
Quote by Scoopster:
Morning all..
That kind of 'let the world burn to save it' mentality is the same end game that's pushed by Objectivist Libertarians.
It's so bizarre to me. I sometimes really wonder if they realize that -- or if they are being just plain dishonest when they say they are progressive.
Comment by Scoopster on 12/14/2011 14:54:43
Scoopster on 12/14/2011 14:54:43
Comment by 
TriSec on 12/14/2011 15:01:06
TriSec on 12/14/2011 15:01:06
Morning, comrades.
How about the other side of the coin? Over the last year or so, I've felt that bashing my head against the wall hasn't been doing a whole lot of good.
Like telling a child over and over not to do something, and when they do it anyway, you say "See? Are you going to listen to me now?"
This is where I am with this; I'm tired of arguing and I'd be content to let them try it and see what happens.
But yes, intellectually I know that's not the right approach. I just don't know what to do anymore. It all seems so futile.
How about the other side of the coin? Over the last year or so, I've felt that bashing my head against the wall hasn't been doing a whole lot of good.
Like telling a child over and over not to do something, and when they do it anyway, you say "See? Are you going to listen to me now?"
This is where I am with this; I'm tired of arguing and I'd be content to let them try it and see what happens.
But yes, intellectually I know that's not the right approach. I just don't know what to do anymore. It all seems so futile.
Comment by wickedpam on 12/14/2011 15:03:23
hair chemicals? That's what she's going with? If it were only about that they we all would be banned from pools, I put 3-4 different products in my hair on a daily basis.
wickedpam on 12/14/2011 15:03:23
Quote by Scoopster:
This is the year 2011 right?
Why is this still happening?
hair chemicals? That's what she's going with? If it were only about that they we all would be banned from pools, I put 3-4 different products in my hair on a daily basis.
Comment by TriSec on 12/14/2011 15:17:13
TriSec on 12/14/2011 15:17:13
Now, now. Remember the dead body in the pool here? It was in Fall River, a minority community. I'm sure it was for safety reasons, I mean suppose the pool was all cloudy and somebody drowned?
Comment by TriSec on 12/14/2011 15:46:46
TriSec on 12/14/2011 15:46:46
Dear Office:
I'm tired of making coffee every day. Fuck it. I'm done.
Bringing in my press pot tomorrow; if I have to make coffee every day, I'm only making it for me from here on out.
I'm tired of making coffee every day. Fuck it. I'm done.
Bringing in my press pot tomorrow; if I have to make coffee every day, I'm only making it for me from here on out.
Comment by TriSec on 12/14/2011 15:56:09
TriSec on 12/14/2011 15:56:09
I'll be going outside to shoot myself now; I believe I may be in at least partial agreement with Mr. Cheney.
It's over the drone that "crashed" in Iran. If they won't give it back, even when we asked nicely, maybe we should send in a cruise missile or two and blow it up.
It's over the drone that "crashed" in Iran. If they won't give it back, even when we asked nicely, maybe we should send in a cruise missile or two and blow it up.
Comment by 
livingonli on 12/14/2011 16:38:31
livingonli on 12/14/2011 16:38:31
Good morning everyone. It seems like the grumpy has taken over.
Comment by wickedpam on 12/14/2011 16:47:33
at least they like your coffee, I was asked to stop making the coffee
wickedpam on 12/14/2011 16:47:33
Quote by TriSec:
Dear Office:
I'm tired of making coffee every day. Fuck it. I'm done.
Bringing in my press pot tomorrow; if I have to make coffee every day, I'm only making it for me from here on out.
at least they like your coffee, I was asked to stop making the coffee
Comment by wickedpam on 12/14/2011 16:48:24
dont' know why those things doing come with a self destruct option
wickedpam on 12/14/2011 16:48:24
Quote by TriSec:
I'll be going outside to shoot myself now; I believe I may be in at least partial agreement with Mr. Cheney.
It's over the drone that "crashed" in Iran. If they won't give it back, even when we asked nicely, maybe we should send in a cruise missile or two and blow it up.
dont' know why those things doing come with a self destruct option
Comment by TriSec on 12/14/2011 16:52:27
No, it's not that. I see the same 3 or 4 people making coffee in here every day. Nobody else lifts a finger, as the Office Santorum colony will attest.
TriSec on 12/14/2011 16:52:27
Quote by wickedpam:
at least they like your coffee, I was asked to stop making the coffee
No, it's not that. I see the same 3 or 4 people making coffee in here every day. Nobody else lifts a finger, as the Office Santorum colony will attest.
Comment by wickedpam on 12/14/2011 17:14:12
aahhhh I see - tell them if they want coffee they need to pull themselves up by the boot straps and learn to make it themselves
wickedpam on 12/14/2011 17:14:12
Quote by TriSec:Quote by wickedpam:
at least they like your coffee, I was asked to stop making the coffee
No, it's not that. I see the same 3 or 4 people making coffee in here every day. Nobody else lifts a finger, as the Office Santorum colony will attest.
aahhhh I see - tell them if they want coffee they need to pull themselves up by the boot straps and learn to make it themselves
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 17:40:24
you know... I am putting my foil hat on here: 
that dronelooks like it is awfully good shape for a crashed drone.
Raine on 12/14/2011 17:40:24
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by TriSec:
I'll be going outside to shoot myself now; I believe I may be in at least partial agreement with Mr. Cheney.
It's over the drone that "crashed" in Iran. If they won't give it back, even when we asked nicely, maybe we should send in a cruise missile or two and blow it up.
dont' know why those things doing come with a self destruct option
that dronelooks like it is awfully good shape for a crashed drone.
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 17:40:57
Raine on 12/14/2011 17:40:57
well that was fun today!
I got on a bit of a rant the last hour.
I got on a bit of a rant the last hour.
Comment by 
BobR on 12/14/2011 17:42:29
Exactly - I am reminded of the story of Troy and a certain wooden horse. I wonder, though, if our intelligence agencies are really that intelligent.
BobR on 12/14/2011 17:42:29
Quote by Raine:you know... I am putting my foil hat on here:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by TriSec:
I'll be going outside to shoot myself now; I believe I may be in at least partial agreement with Mr. Cheney.
It's over the drone that "crashed" in Iran. If they won't give it back, even when we asked nicely, maybe we should send in a cruise missile or two and blow it up.
dont' know why those things doing come with a self destruct option
that dronelooks like it is awfully good shape for a crashed drone.
Exactly - I am reminded of the story of Troy and a certain wooden horse. I wonder, though, if our intelligence agencies are really that intelligent.
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 12/14/2011 17:50:38
:whips out his Occum's Brand Razor:
How about this as option:
1. Drones are made of light weight, high durablity composites
2. Drones don't fly all that fast
3. Drones don't fly very high.
The three these combined with physics (the Newtonian kind, not the weird quantum stuff we were yakking about the other day) mean that the thing doesn't break up on impact if it fails.
Mondobubba on 12/14/2011 17:50:38
Quote by Raine:you know... I am putting my foil hat on here:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by TriSec:
I'll be going outside to shoot myself now; I believe I may be in at least partial agreement with Mr. Cheney.
It's over the drone that "crashed" in Iran. If they won't give it back, even when we asked nicely, maybe we should send in a cruise missile or two and blow it up.
dont' know why those things doing come with a self destruct option
that dronelooks like it is awfully good shape for a crashed drone.
:whips out his Occum's Brand Razor:
How about this as option:
1. Drones are made of light weight, high durablity composites
2. Drones don't fly all that fast
3. Drones don't fly very high.
The three these combined with physics (the Newtonian kind, not the weird quantum stuff we were yakking about the other day) mean that the thing doesn't break up on impact if it fails.
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 18:12:54
Raine on 12/14/2011 18:12:54
this is a picture of the drone: 
These are the drones that I have been under the estimation that are used these days:
These are the drones that I have been under the estimation that are used these days:
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 18:15:15
I think that is a fair assessment -- thus my foil hat.
That said -- they have a predator drone in the A&S museum that we are using now... in Pakistan -- It looks a ALOT different from what IRan is showing off.
Raine on 12/14/2011 18:15:15
Quote by Mondobubba:
:whips out his Occum's Brand Razor:
How about this as option:
1. Drones are made of light weight, high durablity composites
2. Drones don't fly all that fast
3. Drones don't fly very high.
The three these combined with physics (the Newtonian kind, not the weird quantum stuff we were yakking about the other day) mean that the thing doesn't break up on impact if it fails.
I think that is a fair assessment -- thus my foil hat.
That said -- they have a predator drone in the A&S museum that we are using now... in Pakistan -- It looks a ALOT different from what IRan is showing off.
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 18:21:04
Raine on 12/14/2011 18:21:04
Comment by TriSec on 12/14/2011 18:22:56
TriSec on 12/14/2011 18:22:56
Hmm....flying wings are inherently unstable. If something happens to one, it tends to start flying like a brick.
Some of the more aircraft-like ones could theoretically glide to a soft landing.
Like Raine said...I dunno.
Some of the more aircraft-like ones could theoretically glide to a soft landing.
Like Raine said...I dunno.
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 18:24:39
Raine on 12/14/2011 18:24:39
Just a question, would 8,5000 pounds be considered a lightweight flying machine?
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 18:25:15
8,500 -- sorry.
Raine on 12/14/2011 18:25:15
Quote by Raine:
Just a question, would8,5000pounds be considered a lightweight flying machine?
Comment by TriSec on 12/14/2011 18:30:38
TriSec on 12/14/2011 18:30:38
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT CLASSES
a. Heavy. Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of more than 255,000 pounds whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight.
b. Large. Aircraft of more than 41,000 pounds, maximum certificated takeoff weight, up to 255,000?pounds.
c. Small. Aircraft of 41,000 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight.
a. Heavy. Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of more than 255,000 pounds whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight.
b. Large. Aircraft of more than 41,000 pounds, maximum certificated takeoff weight, up to 255,000?pounds.
c. Small. Aircraft of 41,000 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight.
Comment by TriSec on 12/14/2011 18:33:54
TriSec on 12/14/2011 18:33:54
And further clarification....aircraft are classed by maximum takeoff weight, or MTOW. Considering that the airframe itself is usually a monocoque aluminum sheet on an aluminum frame, there's not a lot of weight to an empty aircraft.
Compare the humble Boeing 737 that Southwest flies:
Empty - 62,000 lbs
MTOW - 111,000 lbs
Compare the humble Boeing 737 that Southwest flies:
Empty - 62,000 lbs
MTOW - 111,000 lbs
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 18:35:50
Raine on 12/14/2011 18:35:50
OMG -- I love this:
Christine O'Donnell On Mitt Romney: "He's Been Consistent Since He Changed His Mind"
Christine O'Donnell On Mitt Romney: "He's Been Consistent Since He Changed His Mind"
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 18:36:35
thanks for that info, Tri.
Raine on 12/14/2011 18:36:35
Quote by TriSec:
AIRCRAFT WEIGHT CLASSES
a. Heavy. Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of more than 255,000 pounds whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight.
b. Large. Aircraft of more than 41,000 pounds, maximum certificated takeoff weight, up to 255,000?pounds.
c. Small. Aircraft of 41,000 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight.
Comment by TriSec on 12/14/2011 18:44:49
TriSec on 12/14/2011 18:44:49
Just looking over the Iran photos of the drone - that "thing" is in pristine condition. What, did they repaint it before putting it on display?
And check this picture. That doesn't even look remotely like the other drone photos...more like a kid's grade school papier-mache airplane project.
I believe Bill said it best - "There is something rotten in the State of Denmark."
And check this picture. That doesn't even look remotely like the other drone photos...more like a kid's grade school papier-mache airplane project.
I believe Bill said it best - "There is something rotten in the State of Denmark."
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 18:59:12
check this out.
Raine on 12/14/2011 18:59:12
Quote by TriSec:
Just looking over the Iran photos of the drone - that "thing" is in pristine condition. What, did they repaint it before putting it on display?
And check this picture. That doesn't even look remotely like the other drone photos...more like a kid's grade school papier-mache airplane project.
I believe Bill said it best - "There is something rotten in the State of Denmark."
Comment by BobR on 12/14/2011 20:07:59
BobR on 12/14/2011 20:07:59
If I recall correctly, the official story from both the U.S. and Iran was that Iran was able to "take control" of the drone and land it. Being familiar with electronics, and the state of military remote control technology from the early 80s, I have to call bullshit on that story.
The Iranians would have to know the frequency on which the drone was communicating, and the various digital signals required to operate the control surfaces on the drone. It's not like some off-the-shelf Radio Shack model airplane controller is going to work.
The Iranians would have to know the frequency on which the drone was communicating, and the various digital signals required to operate the control surfaces on the drone. It's not like some off-the-shelf Radio Shack model airplane controller is going to work.
Comment by BobR on 12/14/2011 20:11:14
BobR on 12/14/2011 20:11:14
ZOMBIE POTATOES!
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 20:12:36
I sense an impending ditch, here.
Raine on 12/14/2011 20:12:36
I sense an impending ditch, here.
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/14/2011 20:35:24
Colliflower! I smell colliflower
Mondobubba on 12/14/2011 20:35:24
Quote by BobR:
ZOMBIE POTATOES!
Colliflower! I smell colliflower
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 20:40:20
Raine on 12/14/2011 20:40:20
Around 1:15 in, I got on a little roll.
Please pardon the squeak in my voice. My allergies were kicking my ass this morning.
Please pardon the squeak in my voice. My allergies were kicking my ass this morning.
Comment by BobR on 12/14/2011 21:32:57
BobR on 12/14/2011 21:32:57
Apropos of today's blog, here's another Republican gem tucked into the payroll-tax bill:
Mandatory piss tests for unemployment benefit recipients:
Mandatory piss tests for unemployment benefit recipients:
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said McConnell blocked a vote on the bill because Republican senators did not want to take a stance on controversial provisions in the bill, such as requiring the recipients of unemployment benefits to take drug tests.
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 21:41:43
So, let me get this right -- this is the house version of the bill that the senate republicans are blocking because the house GOP let slip in a piss test?
am I reading this right?
Raine on 12/14/2011 21:41:43
Quote by BobR:
Apropos of today's blog, here's another Republican gem tucked into the payroll-tax bill:
Mandatory piss tests for unemployment benefit recipients:Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said McConnell blocked a vote on the bill because Republican senators did not want to take a stance on controversial provisions in the bill, such as requiring the recipients of unemployment benefits to take drug tests.
So, let me get this right -- this is the house version of the bill that the senate republicans are blocking because the house GOP let slip in a piss test?
am I reading this right?
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 21:43:01
Raine on 12/14/2011 21:43:01
This bill is an absolute flucking mess.
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/14/2011 21:46:45
Speaking of piss testing for benefits, RIck Scott's bill to piss test welfare applicants recently got the boot. Don't these assholes learn???
Mondobubba on 12/14/2011 21:46:45
Quote by Raine:Quote by BobR:
Apropos of today's blog, here's another Republican gem tucked into the payroll-tax bill:
Mandatory piss tests for unemployment benefit recipients:Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said McConnell blocked a vote on the bill because Republican senators did not want to take a stance on controversial provisions in the bill, such as requiring the recipients of unemployment benefits to take drug tests.
So, let me get this right -- this is the house version of the bill that the senate republicans are blocking because the house GOP let slip in a piss test?
am I reading this right?
Speaking of piss testing for benefits, RIck Scott's bill to piss test welfare applicants recently got the boot. Don't these assholes learn???
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 22:10:30
I thought of that as well.
Thinkprogress has another POV about this clusterfluck.
Raine on 12/14/2011 22:10:30
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Raine:Quote by BobR:
Apropos of today's blog, here's another Republican gem tucked into the payroll-tax bill:
Mandatory piss tests for unemployment benefit recipients:Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said McConnell blocked a vote on the bill because Republican senators did not want to take a stance on controversial provisions in the bill, such as requiring the recipients of unemployment benefits to take drug tests.
So, let me get this right -- this is the house version of the bill that the senate republicans are blocking because the house GOP let slip in a piss test?
am I reading this right?
Speaking of piss testing for benefits, RIck Scott's bill to piss test welfare applicants recently got the boot. Don't these assholes learn???
Thinkprogress has another POV about this clusterfluck.
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 22:20:58
that is all.
I miss chatting with y'all during the day!
Raine on 12/14/2011 22:20:58
that is all. I miss chatting with y'all during the day!
Comment by Raine on 12/14/2011 22:25:25
Raine on 12/14/2011 22:25:25
this happened last Saturday -- how come this is a news flash from ThinkProgress today?
Better yet --- how come I had to learn about this FROM TP on a Wednesday? Did ANYONE else know this?????
I don;t watch Maddow every night -- or MSNBC or even Current -- was this reported there?
Better yet --- how come I had to learn about this FROM TP on a Wednesday? Did ANYONE else know this?????
TENS OF THOUSANDS MARCH ON KOCH INDUSTRIES FOR SUPPRESSING VOTING RIGHTS | This past Saturday, tens of thousands of civil rights activists marched on the New York offices of Koch Industries to protest the Koch brothers’ support of restrictive voting laws that disenfranchise millions. In dozens of states, Republican politicians have pushed laws that disproportionately keep Democratic voters, including blacks, Latinos, students, and the poor, from the polls. U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) was among the lawmakers and labor leaders who locked arms and led the march on Madison Avenue. The billionaire Koch brothers help fund the shadowy corporate front group ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) that has modeled restrictive voting legislation.
I don;t watch Maddow every night -- or MSNBC or even Current -- was this reported there?
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/14/2011 22:48:14
I think this have been on Der KO on Mondee.
Mondobubba on 12/14/2011 22:48:14
Quote by Raine:
this happened last Saturday -- how come this is a news flash from ThinkProgress today?
Better yet --- how come I had to learn about this FROM TP on a Wednesday? Did ANYONE else know this?????TENS OF THOUSANDS MARCH ON KOCH INDUSTRIES FOR SUPPRESSING VOTING RIGHTS | This past Saturday, tens of thousands of civil rights activists marched on the New York offices of Koch Industries to protest the Koch brothers’ support of restrictive voting laws that disenfranchise millions. In dozens of states, Republican politicians have pushed laws that disproportionately keep Democratic voters, including blacks, Latinos, students, and the poor, from the polls. U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) was among the lawmakers and labor leaders who locked arms and led the march on Madison Avenue. The billionaire Koch brothers help fund the shadowy corporate front group ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) that has modeled restrictive voting legislation.
I don;t watch Maddow every night -- or MSNBC or even Current -- was this reported there?
I think this have been on Der KO on Mondee.
Comment by Raine on 12/15/2011 01:57:24
Raine on 12/15/2011 01:57:24
May I please clarify this? Right now a lot of people are losing minds over the President saying he won't veto the NDAA bill. Why? because the wording was changed... From the bill:
REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS. In cases such as the Christmas Day Bomber, where a foreign terrorist is caught in a plot to attack the United States, establishes a new requirement for military custody. This provision only applies to individuals who are part of, or substantially supporting, Al Qaeda or associated forces AND have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. It is vital that terrorists bent on waging war against American freedom are treated according to the laws of war, not treated like simple criminals.
-Provides a waiver for the Secretary of Defense when such a requirement is not in the national security interests of the United States.
-Facilitates greater intelligence gathering from foreign terrorists.
-Explicitly exempts U.S. citizens from the requirement.