Tweedling Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Bush tax cuts?........... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted November 26, 2008 Author Share Posted November 26, 2008 LET SANTA LIGHT THE MENORAHWHITE HOUSE IN HANUKKAH TREE GAFFELast updated: 1:59 pmNovember 26, 2008Posted: 2:47 amNovember 26, 2008 Merry Hanukkah from the White House! The president and the first lady invited leaders of America's Jewish community for a Hanukkah reception at the White House next month - but raised more than a few eyebrows by putting a picture of a Christmas tree on the invitation. The message reads that the couple "requests the pleasure of your company at a Hanukkah reception," written beneath an image of a Clydesdale horse hauling a Christmas fir along the snow-dappled drive to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. And, no, it is not a Hanukkah bush. A close look at the wagon reveals the message "White House Christmas Tree 2008." In the background, the White House windows are festooned with Christmas wreaths. The incongruity of the message did not go unnoticed. "It's absolutely bizarre to receive an invite to the White House for Hanukkah in a Christmas format," said one person who was invited. "They should have consulted with their chief of protocol before sending this out. This belongs right in the 'Weird But True' column." Jewish community leader Isaac Abraham of Brooklyn had a simpler explanation. "It's obvious what's going on here: The Christmas tree is being taken out of the White House and the menorah is being brought in the back," he quipped. When reached for comment, Laura Bush's spokeswoman, Sally McDonough, said the White House usually prints separate cards, but in the waning days of the presidency, there had been an oversight. "Mrs. Bush is apologetic," she said. "It is something that just slipped through the cracks." Charles Hurt in DC contributed to this report. nypost.com Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted December 1, 2008 Author Share Posted December 1, 2008 Yahoo News Palin, Ludacris campaign in Ga.'s US Senate runoff AUGUSTA, Ga. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
okp greg Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Yahoo News Haha. I'd love to see Luda & Palin debate. Reminds me of a Sage Francis line "Presidential candidates can't debate over this instrumental. Let'em freestyle, winner takes all, when the music's dead I'll have Ted Nugent's head hanging on my wall." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Glen Greenwald describing yet another example of the porousness of certain borders (the borders being those that separate democrats and republicans) - from Salon: Why do Feinstein and Wyden sound much different on the torture issue now? http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/04/feinstein/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 while I would *love* to see "fresh faces", the cold, stark reality is that the democratic bench so to speak, IS the Clinton era. These are the experienced folks who can get shit done. And if there is anything we need, it's to get shit done -- and fast. Things are too dire right now for them to spend too much time just figuring out the logistics of the job. Haha, yeah, this is why I initially supported Clinton though!! So funny how things come full circle. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 But I feel better that Barack is the one who will lead them -- I trust his instincts. Also, do you think that H would have put O in her cabinet, had the tables been turned? hmmm not sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Why do Feinstein and Wyden sound much different on the torture issue now? Maybe some Senate Democrats aren't as dumb as they sometimes seem. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Or maybe they're dumber. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Maybe some Senate Democrats aren't as dumb as they sometimes seem. It Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 But I feel better that Barack is the one who will lead them -- I trust his instincts. Also, do you think that H would have put O in her cabinet, had the tables been turned? hmmm not sure. Oh I know what you mean. I fully trust his instincts too. It's just a bit odd the way this is all coming full circule. As for her bringing him into her cabinet, honestly, I think if she had won the primary that she would have picked him as her VP. Of course no way to know, though. It would have been much easier for her to pick him as her VP (politically) than for him to pick her as his VP. And if she didn't do that, I dont know if she would have him in the cabinet. To be honest, he probably wouldn't have wanted it. But lots of bad things were levelled at her and I have been impressed and happy that she has continued to do the right thing by him after losing the primary. Cemented reputation notwithstanding. So given that fact, it's hard to see why she'd hold a grudge against him if she had won. Unless she feared being overshadowed by him in her administration. She's a strong woman though and has done pretty well with her husbands shadow. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 It Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Explain. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 For terrorists it is a necessary evil. Explain.I am guessing he means that terror is torture. LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I'm betting you're wrong Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Caganers: figurines of defecating world leaders in Catalan nativity scenes The 'caganer' (literally 'defecator') is a feature of Catalan nativity scenes. The figure is usually tucked away in a corner of the model, far away from the manger itself, for children to find. The caganer represents fertility and equality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Explain. Do you seriously fail to see the rationale for the use of coercive measures in certain instances? Or are you merely being cute? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Do you seriously fail to see the rationale for the use of coercive measures in certain instances? Or are you merely being cute? I think most people can argee that there are certain instances. But for me, those certain instances are more theoretical than actual. The ticking bomb scenario is a myth. That is held up as an example every time and it just doesnt happen like that. But its an easy way to rationalize ripping up our constitution. EDIT: also, "coercive measures"? That's a cute euphemism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Do you seriously fail to see the rationale for the use of coercive measures in certain instances? Or are you merely being cute? I'm glad you think I'm cute, but no, I do not see the rationale for using inhumane techniques that produce unreliable information and help terrorists recruit. It achieves exactly nothing other than to denigrate our standing in the world, dismantle our own constitution, and to aid the enemy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Whenever I invariably end up in a discussion about torture the discussion always seems to turn to the proponent asking me if I'd be willing to lose my life as the result of a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if torture had been used. To which I always respond, yes. I will put my money where my mouth is for the exact reason that MrRain gives -- on the whole it's unreliable and hurts our country. Also because there are some things that I believe are worth living and dying for. And due process of law is one of those things (IMO). Not that I am looking to jinx myself or anything. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 bleedorange, you should read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8112802242.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I don't see where we owe a terrorist from another country due process. I also think thwarting or preventing terrorist attacks is more important that someone's perception of our standing in the world. As for the reliability of the information, there are certainly many methods that probably have varying degrees of success. I just don't think you need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Do you seriously fail to see the rationale for the use of coercive measures in certain instances? Or are you merely being cute?Certain instances? Like USA Today Coach's Poll voters? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Certain instances? Like USA Today Coach's Poll voters? I can think of no better instance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I don't see where we owe a terrorist from another country due process. from another country? or in another country? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.