SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: denizen48 who wrote (85819)8/20/2011 8:20:40 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 89467
 
Gutfield: Garawfulo prepping for a role as 'obnoxious, bitter, lonely, narrow-minded idiot'


Earlier this week on Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” program on Current TV, comedienne Janeane Garofalo made some disparaging remarks about Herman Cain and the reasons behind his bid for the Republican Party’s nomination for president.

This didn’t go unnoticed. Even Cain’s campaign sent it around in a fundraising plea.

Greg Gutfeld, a co-host of the Fox News Channel’s “The Five” and the host of the late-night show “Red Eye” offered a unique reaction to Garofalo’s statement.

“Well, some people might say she is a racist because she can’t believe a black man can think for himself,” Gutfeld said on the Friday broadcast of “The Five.” “But I want to defend her and say she is just a skilled method actress. She is actually preparing for a role as obnoxious, bitter, lonely, narrow-minded idiot.”

“Don’t forget paranoid,” Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros added.

Gutfeld’s co-host Bob Beckel, the lone liberal on “The Five” panel, immediately denounced Garofalo’s comments.

“I suppose I should know her because she is a liberal, right?” Beckel said. “But I want to dissociate myself from this right away. I mean, I would have paid Herman Cain to get him in. The left should have paid to get him in. I mean, what is she kidding me? And by the way, is that woman married?”

But Tantaros added that is a quality of the mindset of liberals — that when a minority isn’t a Democrat, it threatens the premise behind their ideology.

“[T]his is how liberals think,” Tantaros said. “Whenever they see a woman like Sarah Palin or Bachmann or an African-American, or someone they don’t claim — should be a Democrat, it makes them go crazy because they are so deeply threatening to all of their ideals.”

Read more: dailycaller.com



To: denizen48 who wrote (85819)8/20/2011 11:51:04 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 89467
 
Wild Bill, a U.S. marshall, on the Secret Service

youtube.com



To: denizen48 who wrote (85819)8/24/2011 5:25:15 PM
From: T L Comiskey  Respond to of 89467
 
McCain Pledged to Help Qaddafi Secure US Military Hardware

By Ali Gharib, ThinkProgress

24 August 11



View the full text of the leaked cable here:http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/09TRIPOLI677.html. -- JPS/RSN



or all the braying by the Senate's top three hawks about how the US wasn't doing enough to oust Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Qaddafi from power, one might be surprised to learn that exactly two years ago, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were in Tripoli meeting with the erratic leader and giving him assurances that relations between the nations were on the mend.

According to a leaked August 2009 US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks recounting the Senators' junket, the neoconservative Connecticut Senator captured the dynamic of aligning with a brutal dictator:

Lieberman called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting that common enemies sometimes make better friends.Qaddafi's history as a top enemy of the US stretched back decades, but his change of heart came quickly after the US invaded Iraq under the pretense of Saddam Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction. Hawks seized on Libya's détente with the West as a sign that Bush's tough actions in Iraq were having a ripple effect, though patently not, as Iraq War boosters had predicted, with regard to democratic reforms. "We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qaddafi," said Lieberman, according to the leaked cable.

The three Senate hawks discussed in detail the Qaddafi regime's security needs with Libyas National Security Adviser, Qaddafi's son Muatassim. According to the cable:

5.(C) Senator McCain assured Muatassim that the United States wanted to provide Libya with the equipment it needs for its [a Libyan security program]. He stated that he understood Libya's requests regarding the rehabilitation of its eight C130s [a transport plane] andpledged to see what he could do to move things forward in Congress. He encouraged Muatassim to keep in mind the long-term perspective of bilateral security engagement and toremember that small obstacles will emerge from time to time that can be overcome.At another point, McCain and Graham reiterated pledges to push to fulfill the Qaddafi regime requests at the Pentagon and on the Hill:

Senators McCain and Graham conveyed the US interest in continuing the progress of the bilateral relationship and pledged to try to resolve the C130 issue with Congress and Defense Secretary Gates.But 18 months later, Qaddafi reacted to mass protests by mobilizing his military, bringing down international condemnation and, in just a few short weeks, a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force. The US and it's allies in NATO and elsewhere rained down bombs to hold Qaddafi's forces at bay as rebels organized a coherent opposition council. As the rebels went on the offensive, Western and allied bombers lent them air support with surveillance and tactical bombings.

When suddenly - as if Qaddafi's repression had emerged from out of the blue - McCain and his clique returned to their perches as the staunchest advocates of US military action in Liyba, taking to the airwaves to lament the US's mere three-week delay to build international consensus and calling for arming the Libyan rebels.

Just as the political winds around Qaddafi seemed to determine the senators' stand - for him when it was convenient as a win for the Bush administration, and against him when the uprising began and in the month it took to rally the Security Council - McCain and Graham took a curious political shot at Obama just as Qaddafi's regime crumbled. In a statement, they thanked everyone but the US. Starting with the Libyans themselves, they went on to

also commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict. Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.One wonders if August 2009 was too soon to press Qaddafi on the well-being of his people: there's no hint of democratic reforms, or indeed the Libyan people, in the WikiLeaks cable.




To: denizen48 who wrote (85819)8/25/2011 10:05:38 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 89467
 
Is Rick Perry a Dope?

August 25, 2011 - 12:01 am - by Roger L Simon

Despite being the longest serving governor of one of our most populous states, a state currently generating more jobs than the rest of the country combined (or close), Rick Perry is supposed to be a dummy. At least, that’s what some of the lefty blogs and pundits would have us believe — you know, brainy types like Ed Schultz.

I am a graduate of two so-called elite Ivy League universities and I never noticed this problem when I met Perry. But never mind. Maybe an intellectually-challenged reputation is good to have from a stealth point of view. Remember Tom Sawyer and that fence?

Unfortunately, however, the jig is up. As of the last few days “Rick Perry and His Eggheads: Inside the Brainiest Political Operation in America” has been making the rapid rounds on Kindle (#2 in “politics and current events”). This download is actually a longish chapter excerpted from a work-in-progress by Sasha Issenberg — “The Victory Lab” — about new, scientifically-based campaign techniques said to be transforming the American electoral process.

The chief architect of Perry’s strategies — and central figure in the chapter — is Dave Carney, a hulking three hundred pound, six foot four political pro from New Hampshire who once worked for George H. W. Bush. Said to be camera shy, if Perry wins, or even if he is nominated, Carney is likely to become as much of a household political name as Karl Rove or David Axelrod.

Indeed, if I were Axelrod, I would have been up last night poring over “Rick Perry and His Eggheads.”
It’s filled with radical ideas about campaigning. Carney abjures such staples as lawn signs, targeted mailings, robocalls (Thank God!) and even, to a large extent, TV ads. He advocates instead personal appearances and flesh-pressing by the candidate, taking it to the people, as it were, something for which Perry clearly has a gift. This, in turn, generates a constant flow of media coverage on old and, perhaps more importantly, new media (Twitter, Facebook, even ye olde PJM).

Indeed, the MSM is almost purposefully disdained (up to a point, anyway). In his recent campaign for governor, Perry refused even to meet with the editorial boards of leading Texas newspapers, preferring to spend time with actual voters.

This strategy — which is counter to decades of conventional political wisdom — comes from research undertaken for Perry and detailed by Issenberg in the chapter. Several years ago Carney brought in a pair of liberal Yalie academics to test the efficacy of various traditional campaign techniques and came up with the surprising findings. This resulted in changes in tactics and the supposedly-dumb Texas governor won re-election big, twice.

Will these tactics work well on the national stage? Time, as that hoariest of cliches reminds us, will tell. But it is worth noting that the three first — and highly significant — primary states respond well to Perry-style retail politicking. And as the stage expands, the media entourage that success engenders will only grow, following the victorious candidates like you-know-who trailing soldiers in war time.

But let’s examine the larger question of political leadership and intellect, at least as reflected in academic achievement. Many of our recent presidents and presidential candidates were Ivy Leaguers. Interestingly, however, only Clinton was much of a student. Bush was so-so. John Kerry was worse and Gore was a disaster. For some reason we don’t know how Obama did at Columbia, Harvard or even the less prestigious Occidental College, this even with the 1939-1940 JFK Harvard records readily available online. Is somebody hiding something? Whatever the case, the popular wisdom that liberals are smarter academically than conservatives is silly. As one who attended those institutions (as a liberal), I can attest to that.

I can also attest to the fact that an Ivy League education isn’t all that it is cracked up to be. Whatever small accomplishments I have in life are not easily traceable to my academic achievements (even though I was considerably closer to Clinton than Gore in class ranking). Arguably, the most successful president of the post-war period, Ronald Reagan, attended the ultra-obscure Eureka College. I don’t know what his grades were and I don’t much care. All I know is he got Gorbachev to “tear down that wall.” (Not exactly, but you know what I mean.)

Turning to Perry, he was a mediocre student at Texas A & M, a school that emphasizes a more practical form of education than Yale. What does this mean? Don’t know, but these days going to an Ivy no longer appears to be the royal road to career success it once was. This study of Top 10 Job Placement Colleges only shows one Ivy, Cornell, in the tenth position. Number one, not surprisingly, is The University of Texas at Austin.

Perhaps more importantly… and amusingly… this study from the Wall Street Journal shows Perry’s Texas A & M the number two choice of corporate job recruiters with nary an Ivy in sight until Cornell (again) at fourteen. Harvard, Princeton and Yale did not make the top twenty-five.


So if Rick Perry is a dope, he’s the kind of dope we need. But obviously, he’s not. It’s all projection and wish fulfillment.

pajamasmedia.com



To: denizen48 who wrote (85819)8/26/2011 3:36:56 PM
From: T L Comiskey  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Rick Parry's ..
Cartoon Comedy.... Prayera-palooza...








yeilds..some very gross input
from...'over there...'

youtube.com



To: denizen48 who wrote (85819)8/27/2011 2:58:35 PM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 89467
 



To: denizen48 who wrote (85819)9/6/2011 1:45:14 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
He Who Gets Slapped: The Progressive Perpetuation of Past and Present Evil

WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD SUNDAY, 04 SEPTEMBER 2011 15:23Five years ago, I wrote several articles about a horrific massacre of Iraqi civilians in Ishaqi. Credible evidence and eyewitness testimony indicated that American soldiers, in the course of a raid, had executed unarmed civilians -- including several small children -- then called in an airstrike to destroy the house, and the evidence of these murders.

At the time, these articles were criticized by some for putting the "worst case" construction on the evidence. After all, in the "fog of war" -- that clapped-out rhetorical trope which has hidden a multitude of sins down through the years -- who could know what really happened? Yeah, some mistakes might or might not have been made -- crossfire, collateral damage, etc. -- but surely no one could believe that American soldiers would deliberately do such a thing. My take -- and that of this blog's co-founder, Rich Kastelein, who put together a devastating flash film on the incident -- was just the usual overblown, knee-jerk, anti-war hissy fit, etc.

But thanks to a recent WikiLeaks revelation, we now know that at least two other groups of knee-jerk, anti-war freaks were also pursuing the "worst-case" interpretation of the massacre: UN investigators, who delivered a detailed report on the evidence to the American occupation forces -- and the invaders themselves. It turns out that American authorities regarded the UN evidence very seriously; so seriously that they took immediate, decisive action .... to cover it all up.

Publicly, of course, the invaders had solemnly promised to investigate the "allegations" with all due speed and diligence; this promise was, of course, an outright lie -- as has been the case countless times with similar "allegations" in America's decade-long war on the world. The atrocity was never investigated by the Americans, who simply tossed aside not only the work of the UN investigators, but also the mountain of first-hand evidence gathered by the US-trained, pro-American Iraqi officials on the scene.

So here we are: we now know that the Americans themselves strongly suspected that the "allegations" were true, that U.S. soldiers had entered a house in an Iraqi village and executed five children under the age of five -- including a five-month old -- and four women, including a grandmother, and the children's father, a young man in this 20s. They had credible evidence for this, they took the evidence seriously -- and they bent all their efforts toward burying the case and protecting the perpetrators (and their commanders). They have sat on this evidence for five years, beyond the end of the Bush Regime and deep into the reign of the Nobel Peace Laureate.

This would be the same Nobel Peace Laureate whose forces, along with their local proxies, carried out yet another mass killing of civilians in Ishaqi last month, as we noted here. Barack Obama has never repudiated the War Machine that routinely produces such atrocities; on the contrary, he has embraced it, praised it, identified himself with it at every opportunity. He has never repudiated the criminal occupation of Iraq, but has instead sought frantically, for months, to extend it, in any way possible, with tens of thousands of "advisers," "trainers," and mercenaries disguised at "State Department security personnel." Along with his favorite general -- now his spymaster -- David Petraeus, he has intensified the Ishaqi-style "home invasion" system in the other war of domination and profiteering that he has not only embraced but boldly escalated, in Afghanistan. He has taken deadly home invasions to new heights -- literally -- with his cowardly drone missile campaign against homes and neighborhoods in undefended villages in Pakistan. And in Yemen. And in Somalia. (And in who knows what other countries in the secret wars and covert ops that his security apparatchiks boast of conducting all over the world?)

Yet it is this figure -- this xerox copy of the despised Dubya -- whom all good liberals and progressives are being urged to support. His election is far more important than the mounds of dead children piling up under his command. His personal political fortunes are far more important than the national bankruptcy engineered by the War Machine he proudly leads and the Money Power he faithfully serves -- a bankruptcy that has opened the door to the destruction of programs, hopes and ideals that liberals and progressives have nurtured for generations. His electoral fate is more important than the generations of hate, extremism, violence and instability being bred by his policies. Indeed, Barack Obama's re-election is even more important than the well-being and dignity of one's own child.

So we are told by the Big Progressive Kahuna himself, Markos Moulitsas. In a recent, super-savyy analysis of the Obama Administration's manifest failures to promote its image properly and thus secure the president's re-election, Moulitsas produces this remarkable passage:

Bottom line, if Obama's approach to governing was proving popular, then there'd be little fault. If triangulating against liberals bolstered his numbers with independents, then that'd be cool! Heck, if slapping my first-born in the face bumped his numbers up with independents, I'd tolerate it. But it's not. His current approach isn't working.

"If slapping my first-born in the face bumped his numbers up with independents, I'd tolerate it." I realize this is offered as a deliberately over-the-top rhetorical flourish (perhaps even as a cack-handed, piles-producing strain toward humor), but it bespeaks a partisan obsequiousness -- and a moral blindness -- that staggers the mind. After all, Obama has actually been killing, not just slapping, first-borns (and other children) at a steady clip for more than two years now. And this certainly hasn't hurt "his numbers" with serious, savvy progressives like Kos.

It is just possible, of course, that these on-going atrocities have in themselves kept Obama from "bumping his numbers up with independents," some of whom might object to seeing mass murder committed by their government. But this is not a factor in our progressives' earnest cogitations. No, it's all about the process, the PR framing, finding the "popular approach" and "not looking weak."

These vast outpourings of innocent blood literally do not matter to our serious, savvy progressives. The only thing that really matters is Obama's re-election, his chance to continue grinding up bones and bodies with his beloved War Machine and his runaway Security Organs for another four years.

This is what it's come to: "Take my child, slap her in the face, if it will help you keep on killing." This is all that's left of the "professional left."