A Valentinie's Day Gift For Bill O'Reilly
s sl, w sw dms crvnly xpltng th qt hldy t strt thr prtnsns rthr thn hnr th mrdr vctm nd hs vsn fr mrc.
[Editor: ignore=off]As usual, we saw dems cravenly exploiting the quota holiday to strut their pretensions rather than honor the murder victim and his vision for America.
You have no idea what King's vision for America was, you idiot. He was waaay more liberal than any of the politicians you hate today.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 17, 2006 06:26 AMBendito thought he was channeling MLK but what he really got was a crossed signal with Alan Keyes.
Posted by snark at January 17, 2006 06:38 AMYeah Benito, we are all sure that you just loved MLK and think he should be shown honor and respect. It was your side who spied on him, tried to smear him, and in the end, I believe killed him.
Posted by Judith at January 17, 2006 06:46 AMAlso, his vision for America would have made your head spin, along with the usual list of comrades, i.e., Coulter, Rush, etc.
Posted by Judith at January 17, 2006 06:51 AMNow if she would only go back to what she is good at, whatever that is.
Posted by j swift at January 17, 2006 07:03 AMMore of what George Bush has wrought upon this country.
An electronics technician from Kansas who was one of a dozen people killed when a helicopter crashed in Iraq last week was remembered by friends and colleagues Monday as part ambassador, part soldier and all American.
…
Maj. Bob Arteaga, who commanded Allen's unit during the deployment to Iraq, said Allen donated $4,000 of his own money to start a school for children living near the unit's base in Baghdad.
"Then he organized us to start getting care packages with pencils, pens, markers, anything else that would help these kids," Arteaga said during a service for Allen at Penwell-Gabel Midtown Chapel. "He did it all himself. That's just the way he was."
And how does the lunatic fringe honor such service?
Members of a motorcycle-riding veterans group, Patriot Guard, waved flags during the service in an attempt to shield Allen's family from a picketing by members of the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church.
The church's leader, the Rev. Fred Phelps, contends U.S. soldiers are being killed in Iraq as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors homosexuals. The church is not affiliated with a larger denomination and is made up mostly of Phelps' family members.
Lovely.
Maybe Pat Robertson can get in on that gig.
Maybe O'Lielly should show his Valentine's Day gift to Condi - and she could show him hers!
Posted by pessimist at January 17, 2006 07:07 AMSupreme Court day today!
SC upholds Oregon's Assisted Suicide law
Kennedy wrote for the 6-3 majority. Anyone wanna bet who was in the minority?
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 17, 2006 07:21 AMWould have been 5-4 with Alito. But I seem to remember one of the conservative justices voting in favor of the use of medical marijuana--states rights and all that. What about states rights and deference to elected officials making laws? Where does that come in with these conservatives? I thought that's what they were all about.
Posted by CG at January 17, 2006 07:31 AMWhere Did The $38B Spent By The Coalition Provisional Authority Go?...
WASHINGTON -- More than 18 months after the Pentagon disbanded the Coalition Provisional Authority that ran Iraq, neither the Justice Department nor a special inspector general has moved to recover large sums suspected of disappearing through fraud and price gouging in reconstruction.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113746003186348100-MVb_vrVbUBR8bYsizm1ZB9YuqiA_20070117.html?mod=blogs
Posted by Judith at January 17, 2006 07:38 AMBut I seem to remember one of the conservative justices voting in favor of the use of medical marijuana--states rights and all that.
As I recall, both O'Connor and Thomas sided with California. Alito would surely have gone the other way. States' rights per se don't seem to be a big deal for him.
Interestingly, Roberts dissented in this one. This means he's not really a federalist; he just uses federalist doctrine to achieve the right-wing result (such as ignoring portions of the Endangered Species Act). That's bad news. It's not entirely unexpected, but bad, since we know that's the case with Alito.
Both of the swing votes—Kennedy and O'Connor—sided with Oregon.
This decision is a mixed bag: on the personal liberties/substantive due process side of things, it's good that people's bodily self-determination grew. On the federalism side, though, the right wing now has stronger cases when some backward-ass state blows off a federal regulation.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 17, 2006 07:39 AMYeah, just checked Raich. O'Connor, Renquist, and Thomas dissented. Scalia concurred, but issued his own opinion. It's decisions like these, where I disagree with the more liberal justices, that gives me hope that all is not lost with these conservative appointments. But why one way in Raich (against the state) and the other way in the Oregon case? Seems like everyone flipped on this one. I think Thomas went with the state on Raich, but with the Feds on this one, and his dissent asks why the others aren't following the precedent of Raich.
Posted by CG at January 17, 2006 07:55 AMRNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said: "On a day when Americans are focused on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Hillary Clinton is focused on the legacy of Hillary Clinton."
I hate to admit it, but that very well may be a truthful statement. Where in the hell has Hillary been? Gore speaks the truth and all of a sudden Hillary finds the truth. Wonder if Gore prompted Hillary's speech? Watch out Hillary, Gore just may be the one to take the nomination away from you, I hope.
Posted by Judith at January 17, 2006 08:03 AMBut why one way in Raich (against the state) and the other way in the Oregon case?
Well, I haven't finished reading the opinions, but most of the action in Oregon v. Ashcroft is in the area of statutory interpretation: does the Attorney General's determination that assisted suicide is not "legitimate medical practice" warrant deference from the Court? (Answer: No.)
It's less a federalism question than a strict technical examination of congressionally delegated authority to the Executive. Rather than confront the really big issues head on, the lead opinion is dealing with it in a very limited fashion (as the Court is wont to do), so they don't have to implicate states' rights more than strictly necessary.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 17, 2006 08:18 AMRather than confront the really big issues head on, the lead opinion is dealing with it in a very limited fashion (as the Court is wont to do), so they don't have to implicate states' rights more than strictly necessary.
In essence they were trying not to be activists?
Posted by snark at January 17, 2006 08:21 AMRNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said: "On a day when Americans are focused on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Hillary Clinton is focused on the legacy of Hillary Clinton."
Wow. After Tracey's statement yesterday I wouldn't have guessed that the woman would admit that the sky is blue without 'intensive interrogation' or a note from the RNC to admit the truth in this one instance.
A plantation? Who the FUCK wrote that sounbyte for her? If you're going to call Congress bad names, call it the immoral cesspool it is in plain terms. I'd even go with, "immoral cesspool more resembling a plantation than a House of government."
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 17, 2006 08:23 AMI hate to admit it, but [Hillary talking about Hillary on MLK day] very well may be a truthful statement.
Word. Referring to the current GOP Congress as being run like a "plantation" on MLK day may just be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 17, 2006 08:31 AMWell, the first suit on behalf of the detainees at Gitmo has just been filed. Guess what, the suit says that NSA obtained illegal information through wire tapping of said detainees. Good job Fraud-in-Chief.
Did someone write about this and missed it?
Bush To Criminalize
Protesters Under Patriot Act
By Patriot Daily
News Clearinghouse
1-13-6
George Bush wants to create the new criminal of "disruptor" who can be jailed for the crime of "disruptive behavior." A "little-noticed provision" in the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to charge protesters with a new crime of "disrupting major events including political conventions and the Olympics."
The Secret Service would also be empowered to charge persons with "breaching security" and to charge for "entering a restricted area" which is "where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting." In short, be sure to stay in those wired, fenced containments or free speech zones.
Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse's diary:
Who is the "disruptor"? Bush Team history tells us the disruptor is an American citizen with the audacity to attend Bush events wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush; or a member of civil rights, environmental, anti-war or counter-recruiting groups who protest Bush policies; or a person who invades Bush's bubble by criticizing his policies. A disruptor is also a person who interferes in someone else's activity, such as interrupting Bush when he is speaking at a press conference or during an interview.
http://rense.com/general69/dissent.htm
Posted by Judith at January 17, 2006 08:33 AMIdio, I agree. Bad choice of reference by Hillary.
Posted by Judith at January 17, 2006 08:37 AMQuestion
Alberto Gonzales had this to say on Gore's speech:
McClellan said something similar too. They seem to have gone into all-out attack mode, which means they see Gore's speech as a real threat.
I'm sure their statements are distortions or outright lies, but I don't know the real history.
Anyone know the facts on this?
Posted by Doug at January 17, 2006 09:15 AMThe howling screeches from the GOP are hillarious! Even if the Aldrich Ames story is true it makes the GOP out to be massively stupid. They are comparing average americans to spies. Sounds kinda stalinist doesn't it?
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 17, 2006 09:39 AMI believe the physical warrantless searches were not on American citizens, and that phsysical searches are explicitly defined not to include wiretapping.
Here's a dailykos link that tries to clear it up, but I'm sure there's a right-wing explanation that differes.
Posted by CG at January 17, 2006 09:40 AMmoonbat, do you have links to the opinions. I can't find them.
Posted by CG at January 17, 2006 09:42 AMAnyone know the facts on this?
The matter of physical searches is that they were not covered by FISA until after 1995.
Posted by ann at January 17, 2006 09:42 AMOpen thread detour...I've got a bird flu question.
Riddle me this: why bother culling chickens in [name your favorite asian country]?
Here are my thoughts on why not to cull:
1) wild birds carry and transmit bird flu
2) unless you vaccinate your new domestic bird population, you'll just have to turn around and cull the next generation
3) aside from China's proposal to vaccinate all 50 billion domestic fowl in the country, I haven't heard of large-scale efforts to vaccinate birds
4) you might as well prohibit growing poultry entirely if you insist on culling all your healthy birds (i.e. not just the bird flu equivalent of "downers")
5) Domestic / backyard poultry are of huge food importance in many of the countried with bird-flu exposure. The likelihood of malnourishment or starvation with no poultry is much higher than the likelihood of bird flu.
Anyone know of good reasons why we should cull healthy birds, and how to avoid aforesaid cull and re-cull problems?
Posted by Kaleefornian at January 17, 2006 10:04 AMmoonbat, do you have links to the opinions. I can't find them.
Majority (Kennedy)
Dissent 1 (Scalia, Roberts, Thomas)
Dissent 2 (Thomas)
Anyone know of good reasons why we should cull healthy birds, and how to avoid aforesaid cull and re-cull problems?
It has to do with reducing the available population to contain the spread of the disease. You can get more info reading this article, which deals with genetic engineering reducing the population available to a papaya virus.
The only way to deal with the bird virus would be to innoculate the birds - and that would likely prove to be too expensive. Much cheaper to kill off your flocks and rebuild them later.
Posted by pessimist at January 17, 2006 10:30 AMMajority (Kennedy)
Dissent 1 (Scalia, Roberts, Thomas)
Dissent 2 (Thomas)
How come Uncle Thomas gets to express himself twice????
Posted by pesimist at January 17, 2006 10:32 AMPlantation? Could that be construed as a "chocolate" remark? She could have compared congress to a 7-11. That worked well for her last time. Sounds like she still has the same lame writer.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 17, 2006 11:09 AMPessimist -- my point is that even if you cull and re-build your flocks, you will still have the very same problem with the virus sooner or later. Culling only temporarily reduces the available population for transmission.
Re-building of the flocks just re-creates the population and density problems. That is, unless you a) re-stock with genetically engineered immune birds (currently not in existence, and likely more expensive than just vaccinating), or b) just kill every wild bird around. (I'm assuming wild birds are the main vector for sudden appearance of the virus in a new geographic locale.)
The other option, I suppose, is to keep all birds indoors. Not very feasible, either.
Posted by Kaleefornian at January 17, 2006 11:48 AMThanks for the links, moonbat. For some reason, I can't open them.
Posted by CG at January 17, 2006 11:58 AMKaleefornian:
You are correct with your observations. But the difference between your wisdom and what a business will be doing has to do with a serious difference in time frame. Long-term action on the part of businesses is not something that many devote time to when there is money to be made on the short-term. I wish that business would adopt a longer-term outlook like you suggest. It just might make things a lot better for more of us than it does now.
Posted by Pessimist at January 17, 2006 12:49 PMI think Hillary was trying to "whip" up support for herself!
Posted by bbtb at January 17, 2006 01:10 PMThanks for the links, moonbat. For some reason, I can't open them.
Do you have Acrobat Reader—or some other .pdf viewer—installed on your system? (Can you read OTHER .pdf files?)
Posted by dj moonbat at January 17, 2006 01:32 PMAll Scotus opinion files available here.
Posted by pessimist at January 17, 2006 01:56 PMI dont know whether to laugh or cry when I read all the "tributes" from the right to MLK - safely in the ground 40 yrs - just how f'ing stupid and amnesiac do these people think we are? If King were alive today and still politically active, there would be a "swift civil rights vets for Truth" group whipped together by those grotesquely rich bottomfeeders in Texas and freepers - you know who you are - would be filling thread after thread with the kind of slime and smears - via Ms.Loretta Hoover - that would repel a bacterial colony.
Posted by jondee at January 17, 2006 03:00 PMJordee, it's called hypocrisy. The Republicans do it so well, because it is second nature.
Posted by Judith at January 17, 2006 03:54 PMSorry, "JONDEE"
Posted by Judith at January 17, 2006 03:56 PMDo you have Acrobat Reader—or some other .pdf viewer—installed on your system? (Can you read OTHER .pdf files?)
Finally got it to work. Yes, I can normally read pdf files, but for some reason they were hosing my computer earlier. Seems to be working now. Thanks.
Posted by at January 17, 2006 04:28 PMThat was me, above.
Posted by CG at January 17, 2006 04:29 PMbbtb: Does Hillary "slave" away all day trying to "whip" up support for herself? Keith Olberman reported tonight that Newt made the same plantation AND slave remark in 94 about the dem congress. Much ado about P.C. NADA. How about Scottie not answering Dick Gregory as to what staff meetings Jackoff attended in the white house? Seems there were several, plus parties.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 17, 2006 06:50 PMI missed most of what MSM was doing, I was feeding the family over at Low and Left.
I'll try and catch Olberman's rerun tonight.
I didn't put much into the purported PC remarks either. I still don't like her chances much. She is just fodder for the right. Better used as a shield. Let her take the heat and let somebody else get in.
bbtb: I agree, last senator elected was J.F.K. Hillory,a.k.a. lightning rod has little chance to pull it off. David Gregory, not Dick? The question was shown on "Countdown", regarding Jackoff white house clearance.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 18, 2006 01:57 AM