bmags

dems don't really need a majority that big in the House, it's the senate where a big majority is necessary for real function.

the conversation has passed, but I'd like to say that a democrat taking 90% of the black vote ain't exactly a new thing.

dems picked up a Congressional seat in MS today.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 13, 2008 -> 10:07 PM) That's fair. And regarding everyone's comments about CA, that's also fair. I still think, though, that there's a lot of people in this country ignorant to vote against Obama PURELY because of race to where he ends up losing. We'll see. I agree with you kapkomet, I still think that he can overcome this, but the story in the WaPo today confirms some ugly realities.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 13, 2008 -> 09:49 PM) I'm trying to think of a disaster where the relief effort could not have been any better. It can always be better. No two are exactly alike and we learn more and more from each one. but this is acting as if the effort is there, and whether I can take offense to a government putting their public image before saving lives and helping their people. Calling what Myanmar's doing a rescue effort at all is a slight to the definition of effort. This is straight evil. You can't convince me of anything less. Their people are having to throw dead people in the rivers and are starving, and what are they doing? Hawking the aid and selling it for profit, giving the people rotten rice, and re labeling. What can I do? Yes I will continue raising aid. But what can I do? As an American, I will raise my voice to say that this is unacceptable. Whether or not it does anything, it's better than staying silent and saying, yeah, well they could do better but tough situation they are in!

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 13, 2008 -> 06:08 PM) Are you also suggesting to keep giving them more stuff? They are an independent nation and overthrowing the government would be interesting. Sorry you do not like the Katrina reference. Two nations react to a natural disaster, seems like a fair comparison. Aid equipment was staged too far away or not at all. Aid was refused. The Red Cross does not accept donations of clothing and supplies, only cash, and then misused the money collected. We responded waaaaay better then this government, but again, we could have done better. And we will. We almost always learn from our mistakes and improve round two. well, Tex,a much better comparison here would be chernobyl probably.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 13, 2008 -> 03:12 PM) Either they are flat-out lying, or they just plain don't understand how America should conduct its foreign policy and they aren't taking it seriously. I think it's a little of both actually. I think what happened was they didn't actually see the interview, had a second hand source tell them, and got on the GOP email service to spray out that Obama considers Israel a sore.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 13, 2008 -> 11:45 AM) I'm confused. New York does border Canada. that's addressed in the paragraph by Sen. Clinton.

I'm studying for my Congress and Legislature class, and I'll give Senator Clinton her due for making me laugh at 1:30 a.m. (though, this was the definition of an alley-oop from the wyoming sen) From All Roads lead to Congress by Joshua Shanck and Costas Pofahsdfiasflnsl: "It is remarkable how far one can progress in the U.S. government without even knowing what the United States looks like. At one point Senator Clinton of NY offered an amendment that would change the funding allocation formula for international border crossings. Border crossings were given money under the bill to improve roads or entrances at international borders, thus improving the flow of international commerce. When Clinton offered her amendment, Republican Craig Thomas of Wyoming was confused. What possible reason, he asked incredulously, does New York have to care about borders? With what "country", he pressed, does New York share a border? Clinton politely informed him that New York, in fact, borders Canada. Perhaps, she added, he should come and see it sometime." I suppose this is funnier more for Craig Thomas anyways.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 12, 2008 -> 08:57 PM) To respond in kind if this was for my benefit, my whole point is it always matters to those on the other side of (insert name here)'s political persuasion. I've seen post after post after post knocking (mocking) both parties dirty underwear and even the infighting on the Democrat side ad naseum here. To say "it doesn't matter" or whatever blowoff you want to make, to someone, it's always significant enough to merit some sort of poitical s***ball heaving. But, of course, that point all gets missed because we're all too busy looking out to defend "our guy" (or gal, as the case may be). Gotta love politics. I wasn't defending Obama, I was taking odds with this claim that comes up every election when a senate member is involved, where they bring up present and missed votes as a negative that they are skipping out on their job. People in the Senate would say it doesn't matter they aren't there, and political scientists would reiterate that. It's not the same as not showing up for a 9-5 job over and over again. So your response "Oh whatever Obama can do no wrong blah blah" is overly simplistic and responding to an argument I wasn't making.

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/arc...m_and_hamas.php

Myanmar was in the news quite a bit, as I alluded to earlier. Their government is just absurd. I can't imagine being in a position of power over there with so many dead or dying, and not doing everything possible to help.

AP would be considered more official anyways.

I don't understand how you can type something like that and think it's at all constructive to any type of entertaining debate.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 12, 2008 -> 07:01 PM) I'm not making that point. That's your point, right? I think if we all dug enough, we could find instances of where things mattered to certain people. It's a tactic they all use, but the tag of "it doesn't matter" doesn't fly with me, because if it was important enough for a vote, it mattered to SOMEONE, regardless of party. what are you talking about? It didn't AFFECT THE PASSAGE OR NON PASSAGE of the bill. NOt whether how he voted mattered to someone of the millions in IL. If it mattered look at the party.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 12, 2008 -> 06:58 PM) It only matters if it's against your guy (or gal), right? No, it doesn't matter if the whip is worth a damn. If there is going to be a close vote everyone will come and vote. BUt for all these present votes they don't matter. Criticism against three senators missing all this time in the Senate campaigning is silly, as any political scientist will tell you it doesn't matter. A large majority of bills, after everything is final, pass with smoothly after the minority party shows they fought against it a little bit.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ May 12, 2008 -> 05:42 PM) More on the military's corruption: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/world/asia/12myanmar.html high five, jackie.

Well texsox, myanmar has been in the news a lot after the monks started protesting their military regime last september or so and the gov't cracked down hard. With that bit said, I was surprised about how un-cynical you were about the whole thing. From today's times: He twitched with rage as he described the rice the military gave him. “They gave us four bags,” he said. “The rice is rotten — even the pigs and dogs wouldn’t eat it.” He said the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had delivered good rice to the local military leaders last week but they kept it for themselves and distributed the waterlogged, musty rice. “I’m very angry,” he said, adding an expletive to describe the military.

Kids are fat nowadays, though.

QUOTE (shipps @ May 9, 2008 -> 01:34 PM) Its funny because I hear so many people saying how much they like them (including myself) and its hard to find their stuff.They have a bad manager or no manager. they just signed their deal on chocolate records or whatever, so their album on a decent label hasn't dropped yet. I don't think it's bad managing, getting as much buzz as they have without a real record deal is good managing imo. btw this is a great album cover. isobel is pretty. http://a6.vox.com/6a00d414202ce43c7f00e398ed6d560004-500pi

it made me uncomfortable.

I find it fascinating that the democratic nominee is always the most liberal member of congress. Especially when his policies are less liberal than his democratic adversary at the moment, and less populist than John Edwards. It's all so very convenient how every election people just happen to pick the most liberal member!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 11, 2008 -> 03:49 AM) My question is this, did they know he had done this when he was hired? That makes all the difference to me. I can understand uf they never knew. for real though, how do you NOT know, when the media picks up on it about 5 minutes after he's hired.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 8, 2008 -> 10:59 PM) the MSM was brutal towards Bush I. They even dropped a 'scandal' on him 4 days before an election to help out Clinton. Also, the economic boom had began, as there were large economic gains beginning which the MSM ignored. But yea, I guess the media has an evening factor in the pro-GOP FOX news. And, yes, the MSM totally played up him being sick in Japan. The NY Times and everyone else in the media were in a frenzy. They claimed it showed he shouldn't be president. Time magazine called him a wimp on their cover, which they now acknowledge was a poor journalistic move. So bs journalism has been around way before FOX news. Now there are right wing crappy journalists on tv, not just left wing crappy journalists. this is no way defending media against what you are saying, but more explaining as I see it. One of the reasons Reagan was so successful was the image he created, and one of the reasons that image continued was because of how controlling his administration was of the media. They were not very open to them. From my study of George H.W. Bush, he had problems with how they dealt with the media and when he became president he opened things up a lot more. Unfortunately, as opposed to when FDR opened up the presidency to the media for the first real time in history with a modern mass media, they felt obliged to cover positively, and the presidency basically punished them for bad coverage by not letting them have the same priveledges anymore. So when Bush opened up the presidency, it worked against him as they press, cynical after 8 years of being so reactionary under Reagan, attacked. As far as the economic gains, that can simply be explained as not many journalists understand the economy.

You know, I have serious questions on the validity of this claim that Hamas wants Obama considering the source it came from.