The new defense spending bill includes $120 million for tanks that the Army has repeatedly said it doesn't want.

For three years, the Army in numerous Congressional hearings has pushed a plan that essentially would have suspended tank building and upgrades in the U.S. for the first time since World War II. The Army suggested that production lines could be kept open through foreign sales.

Each time, Congress has pushed back. Last week, Congress won again in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015.

In a statement, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said that Congress "recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio,……

You going to CPAC?
Prepare for Covid.
So many got covid from the last two when they denied it was a thing that now you must sign a waiver waiving your rights to sue them if you get Covid and die, and stating that you 100% accept the risk of exposure, contracting, and spreading covid…and include your children in that waiver so when you bring home covid and they die, CPAC isn’t liable.

CPAC, where cons go to share memes and rant now, is SO important it’s worth your children dying or being severely disabled for life, and yourself, and your wife, and your workplace, and your community. That’s the right for ya. “Our right to party outweighs your right to live”.

You must be proud.

Er mer gerd the Elon move is hilarious. Couldn’t stand that Biden’s tweets were more popular so he rewrote the algorithm to force/push his tweets to everyone, followers or not, by bypassing all the filters that personalize recommendations and raising his ranking by a factor of 1000 artificially….because he’s a little baby who can’t stand that he’s not liked! ROTFLMFAHS!!
This has resulted in #blockelon trending.
So much for caring if Twitter plays favorites, right? Doesn’t matter one bit if they favor right wing stupidity, but call a congressional hearing if they follow their own terms of service in favor of a liberal. You people are not serious people, you’re infants.
🤦‍♂️

Edit: it sounds like Trump was just subpoenaed in criminal court….BY THE PROUD BOYS as a co-conspirator! LOL! Not good for him, they have the pictures and texts from Trump and Co both at the White House Residence (where no one goes without personal invitation from POTUS) and the coup headquarters at the Willard hotel with other administration officials (like Stone, Giuliani, Flynn).

D’oh. Tesla fired dozens of workers who were organizing a union. These were people who code the autopilot system….a system just recalled and badly in need of an update. Multiple deaths and dozens of serious crashes. Not good when unemployment is this low and you’ve already turned off any and all workers by treating them as easily replaceable or worthless.

It's been well known since January if not before that asymptomatic people can transmit Coronavirus. This has been widely reported and warned about publicly in congressional hearings by CDC officials for months.

Whether or not the governor of Georgia really just erased his inexplicable ignorance yesterday, not ordering citizens to stay home is arguably criminal negligence (Criminal negligence refers to a mental state of disregarding known or obvious risks to human life and safety.) and he should go to prison along with any governor that denies the obvious dangers of not issuing a shelter in place order. Remember, the 100000-250000 expected American deaths are the prediction only if the entire country takes social distancing/shelter in place seriously, if just one state refuses and becomes a viral hot zone that number could reach 6000000 or higher.
*quality

Only in your Trump addled mind.
It came from congressional hearings, not reporters.
This story has just begun.

You might note that none of the investigations Trump (and so you) call fake news have ended without finding evidence of improper behaviour with his people and the Russians during the transition.
Not one. That's because the only fake news is coming directly from the white house now, with 7 different, contradictory explanations for their actions every time they're caught, which is a few times a week. That's what happens when an idiot failure of a businessman doesn't understand that governing is different from owning a company that the board runs, or that public service isn't done in secret for your own financial gains.

Congratulations! Your comment on Meyers looks at Congressional "hearing" on Planned Parenthoo has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

The problem is you're not gonna get an honest investigation because it will be a Congressional hearing, where the "prosecutors" are already saying it's the worst political scandal ever without any real evidence yet.

And it's not being done to determine what we can do to do better. It's being done to make Obama look bad. There isn't enough evidence.

Keep linking to videos of hard right extremists. You're really not making an honest case. You're making a partisan case.

? The video was congressional hearing where Kathleen Selibus gave testimony concerning the contraceptive mandate. How is that "hard right extremists?" Did someone program her answers for her?

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.

Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.

Imagine a religion that believes you should not attempt to prevent someone from accidentally dying because you're interfering with God's will. Therefore, seat belts are against their religion. The Church then goes out to buy vehicles. Of course, the federal gov't regulates the automobile industry, and requires every vehicle to have seat belts. So federal regulations requiring seat belts are against the 1st Amendment?!

That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.

Um, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since the constitution says the purpose of gov't, among other reasons, is to promote the general welfare, it has passed laws to provide minimum quality guidelines for meat in the Meat Inspection Act, food and medicine with the Pure Food and Drug Act, cars, building codes, I could go on and on. This provision in Obamacare is intended to mandate minimum socially acceptable health insurance coverage for various things. You can't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, etc. Included in this is to say medical insurance must provide coverage for these kinds of contraception. This has nothing to do with favoring certain religions over others. In fact, the use of these types of birth control can be for reasons that haven't a thing to do with preventing pregnancy, and therefore can have absolutely zero religious implications. Everyone can still practice their religions as they want. This isn't the portion of Obamacare that will get declared unconstitutional, or else the legal precedent it would establish would imply that much of the transformational and positive laws we've passed over the last 100 years would also be unconstitutional.

There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/7-states-sue-to-block-contraception-mandate/

There are provisions of the bill that there is honest debate about the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate is an interesting constitutional question. But this? Please. And this isn't far left by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe prescription birth control is amoral, and most believe that it's a basic drug that should be covered by health insurance. Not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike 1...

Not according to this poll:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/poll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/

Repeal of DOMA? Not far left. All DOMA does is say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, and the federal government does not consider a gay couple married. Obama's stance is states should decide if gay marriage is illegal.

Let's look at what the Obama administration has a problem with in DOMA. It's Section 3, which is what states the US gov't won't recognize a gay marriage, legal in the state where those people live and in which it was performed, as legal for the purposes of federal taxes, insurance benefits, and the like. IE, Obama wants it to be that if a state says it's legal, the federal gov't will recognize it the same. If it's considered illegal by the state, the US gov't will not supercede it either.

That's far left?! NO! Far left would be supporting legalization of gay marriage via federal legislation or otherwise against states' wills if necessary. That is NOT what Obama has proposed in any shape or form.

Strike 2...

Repealing DOMA has been on the far left agenda since it was enacted. Whatever Obama says his position is, which has switched three times, is irrelevant to the point.

Supporting FOCA is far left? FOCA attempts to codify Roe v. Wade. It declares a woman has the right to get an abortion up to the point the fetus is deemed viable, or in the case that the fetus is a threat to the health of the mother.

That's far left?! Dude, it's what's already pretty much the law!!! Far left would be unrestricted abortions for any reason all the way up to birth. That's not what FOCA is.

In other words, anyone who thinks abortions should be protected even in limited cases, you consider extreme. I submit FOCA isn't extreme; clearly, you are.

Strike 3, thanks for playing.

Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.

That's just scratching the surface.

So, you pretty much said it yourself. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe Obama is someone apparently from the hard left, and you have nothing to base this on other than your warped ideology. This is a guy who is criticized by the very far left of his party for not being to the left enough.

I'm sorry, but your views are absurd.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.

>> ^heropsycho:

I didn't realize that 8.5 pounds of pot qualified as performance enhancing drugs.

>> ^ReverendTed:

>> ^rabidness:
Watching this incredible athletic play, we clearly need a congressional hearing on steroid use in the NFL! It is America's sport, after all.
I agree. It's a serious problem. Several of those other players were clearly NOT using steroids.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephen colbert, congressional hearing, illegal immigration, house committee' to 'migrant, farm, workers, congressional hearing, illegal immigration, house committee' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephen colbert, congressional hearing, illegal immigration' to 'stephen colbert, congressional hearing, illegal immigration, house committee' - edited by calvados

I wouldn't call Colbert a fucktard or anything harsh like people did above, but I understand the sentiment a little. I sorta feel like since he plays the character so much, it would've been more meaningful if he had dropped it for a congressional hearing. That way, people couldn't dismiss it as him just trying to get laughs.

I hear people dismiss Colbert/Stuart as simple comedians, but they're both really smart guys from what I've seen when they're not on their respective shows. They're great even when they're not delivering pre-written material. I think it's important for these people to see that these shows aren't just made 100% for laughs...they're made because some really smart people have some really smart commentary which just so happens is funny as hell.

Guess I'm just saying it's more helpful when people see the two guys being really smart/eloquent outside of their shows/characters. Jon Stewart/Bill O'Reilly interview, for example.

My only thought on this is that if they admit it now, after months, when people get ill later....there will be proof to go back on and say they knew it was dangerous and didn't alert people soon enough. If they play the game you see all the CEOs playing "I don't recall" "I wasn't aware" "Im deaf dumb and blind" during Congressional hearings, they stand a chance of being able to blame it on the very people they are denying access to study the side effects and such of this. It almost sounds like a conspiracy nut explanation, but I can't see the point in not telling people that this stuff can give them cancer 10 years down the line and that they shouldn't be letting their kids play in the water where the oil may be present.


>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^Porksandwich:
And they still aren't telling people that exposure to this shit can make them sick, 65 foot rule sounds like a way to deny people treatment when they get sick from exposure. Because damn near everyone has a cell phone with a camera...so if you end up exposed, you had photographic equipment on you when it happened. So you broke the law, and since you became injured/ill because you broke the law...you can only blame yourself.

Now that's an argument I can get behind. The argument that the 65 foot rule is because there are hazardous chemicals, oil and or corexit, being used. Not because they arbitrarily need to create safe zones, and media personnel are simply hampering their efforts.
But, Proksandwich, that would require BP and Government officials admit that there are hazardous chemicals in use; which are a direct danger to living things.

>> ^quantumushroom:

A soviet-style show trial by no-class thugverment nobodies. Oh well, marxist dopes aren't going to be swayed either by more regs OR less regs.


Those look like American style congressional hearings to me. You know we have a long history of that don't you? Or do you think it would help democracy if they were done behind closed doors?

I'd like to argue against your point but I can't figure out what the hell it's supposed to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_hearings#Investigative_hearings