blzrul

Here is a prime example of why extreme punishment such as the death penalty is problematic. A man was convicted of horrible crimes. He asked for DNA analysis that he believed would prove his innocence. The DA objected. The guy couldn't pay for his own. He sat in jail for 7 years while the perp walked free. In TX, people rarely sit on death row for 7 years. Fortunately this guy was not on death row. Every day it seems like we hear about more and more of these cases. When these guys are released after 10, 20, 25 years everyone says "well that just proves the system WORKS". Yea verily but it doesn't help the victim - who typically wants the guilty person to be punished - or the poor slob who lost his life figuratively, or even literally. I think the death penalty is stupid. It costs taxpayers more, and the bad guy suffers less. Life without parole, particularly if you're in the teens or twenties, is pretty damn bad.

So be a man and turn off the AC.

If by granting "human rights" you mean the right of the animal to live as it was meant to live, outside a cage and off-limits for medical (and other) experimentation, what's wrong with that? I don't see the need for lawyers myself, but our western society in particular seems to think that everything God put on earth was here for us to use or exploit as we see fit. So-called "primitive" people like native Americans killed what they needed, and wasted very little. The West seems to take the opposite approach. So given that, I suppose that the only way to make people change from an entitlement perspective to one more reconciled to a more reasonable co-existence, is to scare them with something proven to work: litigation. Regarding your attempt to make this another "us versus them" Liberal/Conservative issue, I'll wager there are plenty of Conservatives who believe in...well, conservation, not just in the fiduciary sense but in terms of the overall philosphy of "waste not, want not".

I don't like the idea of having children testify so I definitely hate the idea that they'll be ripped up on the stand (hint: it's been happening to grown female victims forever). But, the problem is the same as with an adult victim - there's a chance the accused could be innocent. Remember that nursery school in CA which, by the time the police and courts were done, was sounding more like "The Crucible" than "The Crucible"? What was the name, McMertry or something? Basically a parent was convinced their child had been molested, next thing the school knew virtually the entire staff was either charged and/or jailed on various related charges which, after all, proved to be totally unfounded and had their roots in hysteria, and suggestivity when it came to interviewing the children? The worst is, the children BELIEVED what they were saying ... obviously they were convincing enough to get convictions. I certainly wouldn't want my brother or his wife, teachers of children, to get the death penalty because some kid was confused, or even angry. I'm not a fan of the death penalty anyway. I don't think it deters anyone and it's certainly not fair punishment. It costs the taxpayers less to have the creeps in general population for life without parole....a long time for them to learn EXACTLY what a rape victim feels like. THAT is a punishment that fits the crime.

Maybe they'll give away those "wide stance bobbleheads" or "bobblefeet" as the case may be...

Bloomberg is being considered as a Democratic candidate - he's a RINO.

Whoop de freaking do. He's about as scary as Fidel Castro. Yes, the guy who DID have Russian weapon on his soil and was, oh by the way, faced down by one-a those candy-ass liberal Democrats (war hero? Can't be, he was a Democrat). Since then we pee our collective pants at the thought of Fidel...why I cannot imagine. It's ludicrous. Ridiculous. And really, sort of embarrassing that the superpower United States of America refuses to normalize relations with a country that's about as dangerous as a horsefly on a horse's ass. Speaking of the latter I wonder if GWB had a nice day today...is he still on his European Vacation, ignoring another disaster in the country he swore to preserve and protect?

And since when do any of you care what these people say? Everything that comes of out their mouths is automatically dismissed by you, unless of course it's something you can jump all over and use against a person or cause you view as "the opposition". This is all meaningless noise, right up there with flag pins and vetoing of all beers.

That was then. This is now. IF you'd worked in marcom or advertising you know once you pay and pull the trigger, it goes. The statement was issued THIS AFTERNOON at 3:40 pm (PST).

Hmm. It looks like PACs are heeding Obama's request and following his lead. Where are the Republicans on this issue? MoveOn.org shutters its 527 Posted: 03:40 PM ET From CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson MoveOn.org is getting out of the 527 business. WASHINGTON (CNN) — The political advocacy group MoveOn.org is getting out of the 527 business. "While MoveOn Political Action has always been funded exclusively by small donors like you, we've held open the MoveOn.org Voter Fund - a separate "527″ organization - which can raise money from big donors. We haven't actually taken any big-money checks since 2004," MoveOn.org Executive Director Eli Pariser wrote in an email to the group's members. "In light of the new politics offered by Barack Obama, I've come to believe it's time to close the 527 forever." The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has said he does not want "527s" and outside, independent groups advertising on his behalf in the general election. A "527″ is an political organization that can raise money in high dollar amounts and launch political advocacy campaigns, including television ads. Past prominent "527s" include the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," a group that in 2004 attacked Sen. John Kerry's war record and arguably contributed to him losing his White House bid. But few had the impact of MoveOn's. The group will retain its political action committee, which can take donations up to $5,000, though the group says the average donation hovers in the $50 range. Even though its 527 is going away, MoveOn.org is not completely heeding Obama's request to stay off the airwaves. Last week, the group teamed up with one of the biggest labor unions, the American Federartion of State, County and Municipal Employees, to go up with a national television ad criticizing Sen. John McCain's position on the Iraq war. The impact of outside groups this cycle is still up for debate. Since Obama's request some Democratic leaning groups have seen their donor base thin, forcing them to abandon paid media plans and instead shift gears to focus more on research and message. Obama referenced the past power of 527 groups as a factor in deciding to opt out of public financing for the general election.

Speaking of media, yesterday CNN had two articles posted in its political thread. One where Cindy McCain was discussing families being off limits...scroll down a bit and there was an article about Cindy McCain slamming Michelle Obama (again). I mighta sorta woulda expected that they'd follow up a bit, since it is somewhat ironic and contradictory. But if not it's odd that they posted them both. duh

What about Presidents who meet with leaders of other countries, sneak up behind them and start rubbing their shoulders? Sometimes you don't have to say a word to screw up.

Uh I don't think so. It is what it is. In addition the candidates also have access to the national party funding. So saying "I am only going to take $85m, how nice I am!" is pure unadulterated bull sh--. I can't answer what EITHER of them was thinking. Since McCain has a snowball's chance in hell of outraising Obama, of course he was going to take the $85m. And the PAC money. And the RNC money. Better that than continually being made to look bad because Obama is outraising him by exponential amounts. I would imagine if the candidates could agree on what they'd take, and spend, and had trust in each other that the agreement would be adhered to, they might have gone down that road. Frankly people don't give a rat's ass about campaign finance. They know the system is rotten. McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists and he takes money from lobbyists. Obama's does not. And even so he's outraising McCain. So there is no reason why Obama should not risk it all on his ability to raise money from the people. If the source of funding dries up, then it dries up. He's willing to take that risk and the money that goes into his campaign will all be able to be traced and accounted for - no temptation to take advantage of the loopholes that the GOP loves so dearly.

Apparently the system allows a candidate to take the money, which limits public fundraising. However what happens is that PACs and other groups then become extensions of the campaign (example Swift Boaters, Move-on, etc.) effectively circumventing the rules. It's not illegal but it's a loophole to exploit and set aside the system and spirit of fairness. Obama has decided to raise his own money out in the open. And he's not taking corporate money so it's all coming from citizens, all with the limit of $2500 per person. Obama stated last fall that if he were the candidate he'd talk it over with McCain and see if they could agree on this situation - either use the public money and follow the rules, or not. His campaign says they talked with McCain's, and they couldn't agree. McCain's campaign says no-one talked to them. It's a pretty easy thing to confirm or refute. Reading between the lines it sounds like McCain gambled that Obama would take the public money and forfeit public fundraising, and lost.

"1) A politician is a person who holds a political office. They may or may not have been elected." George W who?

Which is why my brother is working 7 days a week, 12 hours a day. He's got 10 people on his team and could use 10 more.

Well DUH who else is going to run for public office but a politician? That's like saying you want a banker to do your brain surgery because you need a ground-breaking procedure and don't want an "insider" doing the work. Here are some definitions of "politician". Obama is all of those. What he's NOT is a "typical" politician in the way most of us have come to understand it, i.e. a sellout who puts self-preservation and power in front of the interests of the people he/she is elected to serve. 1) A politician is a person who holds a political office. They may or may not have been elected. 2) A politician is an individual who is a formally recognized and active member of a government, or a person who influences the way a society is governed through an understanding of political power and group dynamics. ... 3) a leader engaged in civil administration 4) a person active in party politics

And how unusual is that? I remember the GOP beating the bushes in 2000 to find the handful of black Republicans and get them all on the stage together. Welcome to politics.

Ahhh well now we're just back to boring. That's what I get for doing this at work, haha. Thanks for setting the record straight.

Not acceptable. But considering that Dunkin Donuts freaked out over Rachel Ray's wearing a scarf around her shoulders that could have been misconstrued as a Muslim head scarf, I guess I'm not surprised that someone was worried about the image. To presume that Obama himself dictated this action is ridiculous. I would expect that a man who turns down $80m in public funding for his campaign, because the system is so f-ed up and he felt he couldn't complain about it AND take the money, will do the right thing. Sorry wingnuts. Nothing to see here. Move on.

Surprise, surprise. There is was in black and white: per the RFP, vendors would not get "extra credit" for exceeding the USAF's requirements. Yet, the USAF committee awarded extra points to EADS (Northrup/Airbus) that result in them winning the contract. Not - according to GAO. Story. Now the question becomes whether they have to re-issue the RFP. This should get interesting, particularly since John McCain is pretty much "anti-Boeing" and pro-EADS. I guess the Obama campaign won't make a huge political issue of it, but wingnuts will be quite torn (poor things). -- Sen. John McCain, who played a key role in exposing a 2003 procurement scandal that scuttled Boeing's previous tanker bid: "While this is a most disappointing decision, the competition is not over. I am confident the merits of the Northrop Grumman/EADS tanker will be acknowledged. It is important to note that this was a decision based on errors in process, not on the relative merits of the aircraft."

As the son raised by a mother who was abandoned by the father, he is in a position to know. Come to think of it, my father abandoned my mother too - with five kids. Cut off the money to spite her not caring how we'd suffer.

The company has now apologized (a sign of the times) and the money will be donated to a cause as of yet unidentified. A visit to these bozos' website will just make your day, they have all kinds of nasty stuff there, often with a cross (as in "the symbol of Christianity") superimposed. Talk about blasphemy.

I believe it was the game versus the Patsies where Roland Hooks (?) caught the game winner at the tail end of the game. Naturally I missed it because my husband's best friend brought his whiny wife who complained the whole game how cold she was, so we left early to shut her up. In fact, we didn't know the Bills had won till we got home and stopped at a friend's house and he yelled WOW WHATTA GAME! OOOOOO I was mad. UGH. Thanks for making me remember.

We are coming from Seattle for the season opener (in red, white and blue of course!). Once I get my air travel booked I'll know if we can make the tailgate and will send $$ if so.