Johnny Coli

Obama, Visiting G.O.P. Lawmakers, Is Open to Some Compromise on Stimulus (NYT Jan 27th) A bunch is listed in here, along with the stuff that was cut out by the Dems the day of the vote. Not a single member of the GOP voted for this package.

Didn't you just post a link to it in a thread you started? Are you saying you linked to it, and continue to deride it, yet you haven't also read it? Are you getting your analysis from Rush, Drudge, or a combination of both?

So, everything that Obama put in the stimulus package that the GOP said had to be in there to get their support, which they then voted "no" on en masse, is the Dems not being bipartisan enough? Tell me, if the administration courted their votes for a week, met with them in the words of a GOP staffer "more times in one week than Bush did in eight years," and they still told him to screw when it was all said and done, then how is that not being absurdly partisan on the part of the GOP. The polls show the American people are behind Obama by a very large majority. The polls show that the American people want this stimulus package. The past election AND recent polls show that the majority of Americans don't trust the GOP with the economy. Yet the GOP votes no on a package with provisions in it that were put in there for them. Your party is so used to owning failure that they are willing to go to the mat for failure. I look forward to the mid-term elections.

Par for the course for your lot. Make an accusation using "facts" that you made up. But anyone with an ounce of brains should just take your word for it, right?

How about some links to back this crap up? Or are you just going by what you heard? What were/are the scope of the studies and how is/was the data accumulated? What is/was the purpose for collecting this data set? Are these clinical surveys of patients? How much money were the grants for? You and others trot this nonsense out there without even looking into any details of what the grants are really for, who they are for, and what the results will be used for. The two studies you suggest are ripping off the taxpayers could actually be very relevent (if they weren't made up to prove your non-point) depending on what, whom and where they were actually measuring to draw those conclusions.

The American Society of Civil Engineers says it would be a five-year investment. There are blue prints already for a lot of projects, and many could be started right away. you're assuming everything is still in the planning stage, and that's just not the case.

The report that came out today said the country's infrastructure is a disaster. Its not like everything will be repaired in a couple months. And the economy isn't going to be in the crapper for decades. These people will be able to get jobs once other industries begin to recover.

I haven't been down there in a few years, but I don't remember Greenwich Village as being a white supremacist hotspot.

Agreed. We don't spend nearly enough money in the sciences and education in this country. As for the person saying the US doesn't reap the benefit, you are entirely wrong. A great deal of government funded academic research leads to the creation of pharma and medical industry jobs. If you have a strong academic research presense with an educated and qualified workforce then industry will want to be near those institutions and employ their graduating scientists.

Stupid argument. You are already paying. Why not use that money to pay people who are out of work to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure, investing in your country and it's citizens. Just rebuilding bridges alone would employ construction, trucking, steel/iron, engineers. You create jobs when you invest in public works, and you end up getting that money back in the future. Public works projects create jobs in US-based industries using US workers. Some of you people see that as throwing money away. I see that as investing in your own country.

Well, I've agonized for two days on this topic, as the question of one's "favorite song" shouldn't be taken lightly. I have tons of music spanning decades, so to pick one song out of hundreds of thousands is quite a task. A person's favorite song should evoke the same feelings from that person no matter how many times one hears it. Whatever lyrical hook, guitar riff, chorus, beat, bridge that made you smile the first time you heard it, made you want to go out and spend any amount of money just to own it, should elicit the same response every single time it hits your ears. That song for me is . Never recorded for a studio album and only played live, showing up as the opening track of the Night of the Living Dead Boys "live" album, Detention Home nails me every single time I hear it. Cheetah Chrome's opening riff and leads, Zero's rhythm guitar, Stiv's tortured vocals of loneliness and abandonment, the part where the band drops out after the bridge for Stiv to say "life ain't so easy in the detention home," the chaos of the ending, everything about that song just hits you right in the chest. I'm glad that this was never recorded in the studio because a song with that much emotion, pain, and intensity behind it should only be played live at night in a trashy dive bar, drunk and barely holding it together, not caring when or how you would end up at home or in what condition. What a great song by a great band. I didn't think it was up on youtube, and lo and behold Johnny Blitz, the Dead Boys' drummer uploaded a vid of it just last week.

Why don't you people just learn how to play the freaking instrument.

If I had to write two paragraphs explaining misogyny it would probably go something like that. What century do some of you people live in?

What? How can rebuilding the Nation's infrastructure and employing hundreds of thousands cause future economic problems? Bridges, roads, public works...these create jobs in US-exclusive industries using a US workforce.

I'll even go one further and say that the only times I've ever been discriminated against, or was purposfully made to feel uncomfortable, was by other whites. You choose to believe what you want to believe, but in my experience, and I have not lived a sheltered life by any stretch, I have never been made to feel uncomfortable, denied service, or had any outright hostility directed towards me by persons of another skin color than I. And I didn't say discrimination in this country didn't exist. I was informing another poster who was trying to make the point that racism today is directed against whites is wrong. I have never felt any racism directed towards me at all. The idea that the racism tables have turned and now point towards whites is stupid. But then you'd have to consider the poster who made the stupid claim to begin with.

Certainly intolerant of racism, bigotry and homophobia. And you're confused. As far as getting under my skin, you don't exist if I'm not logged in. But I will call you out for your views when I am, because to allow you to transmit them on the internet without calling them for what they are would be to condone them.

Sure it was. From Oyez

I don't see that at all. Rasul v Bush gives them a right to habeas corpus, Hamdan v Rumsfeld says the Military Commisions are bogus and illegal because they don't offer them protection under the Geneva Conventions. I don't see how applying either one would violate the other.

I'm a white male. I can say in all honesty that in my entire lifetime, living in both rural, suburban and urban America that I have never been descriminated against based on the color of my skin, nor have I even felt descriminated against. Nor do I know anyone else who is white that feels that way. Maybe you're just an a-hole. Your posting history suggests a-hole, bigot and homophobe. Way to go.

The issue isn't what to do with the new detainees going forward, it is what to do with the Gitmo detainees right now. I think the body of the rulings by SCOTUS suggests they have to be treated as prisoners under the Geneva Convention guidelines until at which time they see their day in a US Court to determine the legality of their incarceration. Personally, I agree that moving forward International Law has to be redefined with respect to these types of detainees that aren't fighting under the flag of a specific nation, but retooling existing International Law doesn't fall exclusively into the hands of the US. It will require actual international legal cooperation, unlike the approach taken by the previous admin that couldn't care less about International Law and made crap up as they went along depending on whatever set of laws they didn't feel like adhering to.

Racism and ignorance walking hand-in-hand. Occasionally a "Racism doesn't exist in America" thread pops up on this board. I doubt we'll see one with that title again, because you and your ilk have proven that idea to be entirely false.

wow

I don't think the SCOTUS is confused, as they've ruled twice now in Rasul v Bush and Boumediene v. Bush that the detainees at Gitmo have the right to petition the US courts for habeas corpus under the US Constitution's Suspension Clause, AND they are afforded the rights set out by the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ as they held in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, clearly suggesting that the detainees have rights under both US and International Law. There is only confusion because the previous administration kept redefining the detainees' status to skirt around existing laws and/or whenever the administration lost in court, as has often been the case. I think we're getting past that confusion, as most (sane) people agree we are a nation of laws and civil rights that shouldn't be pushed aside, even in the gravest of circumstances, and in fact it is during the gravest of circumstances that those laws and rights should be upheld. These men should and eventually will be tried in a US court of law, found guilty for their acts, and sent to prison (obviously the place and form of imprisonment still TBD). Of the twenty seven so far who have petitioned the US Courts for habeas corpus, only three have been deemed as legally detained. That's not a good track record for an administration that just tried to sell the American people that the 245 that were still there were the baddest of the bad. Clearly, some are, but they should be tried in a transparent enough manner that should leave no doubt as to their guilt.

Actually, there's a better than average chance that many in Gitmo aren't guilty of anything. In June of this past year the Supreme Court ruled that detainees had the right to habeas corpus hearings. The majority of the hearings so far ended up concluding many of these men have been illegally detained. Rulings of Improper Detentions as the Bush Era Closes Absolutely there are terrorists in Gitmo that should remain behind bars. However, their detention must be legitimized by trying them in a court of law. Close it. Try them and show the world that they are in fact guilty of terrorism. Liberty and justice for all isn't a hard concept to grasp.

Are you more afraid of getting hit on, or that you might be into it?