Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Now I shall commence experimentation...
This would be a good line of inquiry during confirmation hearings...
That will be must-see TV.
-------
On a completely different subject, please check out the following, with apologies for any wasted time.
www.sockandawe.com
Kitt said:
"Exactly like that, except you use these< > instead of these[ ].And then always use preview before clicking publish."
And then Arne said:
“[…] if you want them to persist through or beyond a blockquote, you should terminate them and then reinstate them past the blockquote.”
By Jove, I think I've got it!" :-)
Or, like all Conservatives, are you gearing up to point fingers at Barak Obama for everything that happens, even before he taks office (giving the usual Conservative Free Pass to George W. Bush, of course)?-- Philadelphia Steve
You're new here, huh?
Let's talk about this late tonight when the thread becomes stale and I'll bring you up to speed.
That's the best thing Obama's done in a long time.
Yes, it’s very brave for a partisan in one party to insist on the other party’s president to obey the law (check out today’s John Yoo Op-Ed in the NYTimes today for example).
What did she do to curtail the lawlessness of Bill Clinton (and I’m not talking about oral sex)? Was she a stickler for enforcing the law back then? Or was she ok with non-enforcement of statutes she (and Bill) found objectionable?
one of my chief concern about senator obama as president was whether he would strongly attack the bush admin's unconstitutional ballooning of presidential power or prefer to "move forward".
this appointment answers my doubts. i am greatly relieved.
i hope that johnsen will be bold and persistent in reestablishing constitutionally intended boundaries for the authority of the executive branch of our tripartite federal governing arrangement.
my doubts and concerns about repealing the cheney-bush power grab now lie wholly with the behavior of our very conservative federal judiciary - appointments to which have long been manipulated by the Federalist Society.
I think its great that she recognizes that there are times when outrage is appropriate -- unlike all the passive aggressive concern trolls who always come crawling out of the woodwork complaining that those who are outraged by the outrageous are somehow emotionally unhinged.
discussing Obama's legal priorities at a forum held by the Center for American Progress Action Fund on 11/12/08, shortly after the election, to discuss a book just published by Mark Green and Michele Jolin, "Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JogwzOPe2Q
The entire program can be seen here:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=282369-2
Note that the audio cuts out for the last few seconds. Here's what was said:
We need comprehensive criminal justice reform, an effort that includes addressing our appallingly and unnecessarily high rate of incarceration, and we need a more just and humane criminal justice system that better protects our people. Thank you.
Hear hear.
I hope this appointment, assuming it goes through, is a sign that Obama really intends to keep himself and his administration honest. There is good reason for disappointment with some of his appointments, but I still have a respect for the PE's levelheadedness.
Perhaps I have not been paying attention, but has anything happened with the CIA head?
Yes, it’s very brave for a partisan in one party to insist on the other party’s president to obey the law (check out today’s John Yoo Op-Ed in the NYTimes today for example).What did she do to curtail the lawlessness of Bill Clinton (and I’m not talking about oral sex)? Was she a stickler for enforcing the law back then? Or was she ok with non-enforcement of statutes she (and Bill) found objectionable?
-- Hankest
Do you have a source for your assertion that Johnsen is a "partisan"? If so, please state it.
Do you also have a source for your assertion that there was "lawlessness" during the Clinton administration? If so, please state it.
That's Kitt, I didn't know how y'all did them either. Hopefully, I'll get to use them here before too long.
It was just announced by Chuck Todd on MSNBC. He was Clinton's formet Chief of Staff.
Tpyos.
What did she do to curtail the lawlessness of Bill Clinton (and I’m not talking about oral sex)? Was she a stickler for enforcing the law back then? Or was she ok with non-enforcement of statutes she (and Bill) found objectionable? -- Hankest
Do you also have a source for your assertion that there was "lawlessness" during the Clinton administration? If so, please state it. -- Jebbie
More to the point, she would not have been an ultimate authority or arbiter of what Bill Clinton could or could not legally do during his tenure in office. She didn't lead the OLC at that time. Possibly she wrote some opinions on these matters that was made public under her name during or after her tenure at the Clinton White House, and before Bush ran amok with power. An opinion from that time would shed light on how she viewed the powers of the President when he was "one of hers".
You may want to look to the publications list on her CV. An academic usually has a complete or nearly complete list of her written work available online at her university's website.
...hopefully your conversation with Philadelphia Steve won't be too late, as I think it should be entertaining and I don't want to miss it.
Thanks for uploading the Johnsen video. It's a good one and she just keeps looking better and better.
But....
Panetta?
Really?
I see no intelligence work in his bio. This one worries me if true. I'd been hoping for Jami Miscik.
'It's the logic that leads Al Qaeda to fly civilian-filled airplanes into civilian-filled office buildings.'
This is off topic to this thread, but when I saw this in your previous column, I felt the need to comment. By making this statement, you are helping to perpetuate the myth that the events of 911 were dictated by Al-Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Since there is no evidence that you have done your own research on this topic, you should not assume that since it is 'conventional thought', it is correct.
Even superficial research shows that the official story can not be true. The official explanation of the collpase of WTC 7 does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, nor does it fit with known theories of physics.
You are a logical fellow, and a good writer, and you rarely assume anything. Don't assume that 911 was perpetrated by Al-Queda. If you have evidence, lets see it and have a real discussion. Otherwise, use a different analogy.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
