*length=3:51
*fear

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Christopher Coons (D-DE)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

This is a list of the clueless idiots and corporate shills who are bringing us this abomination.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Scott McClellan, George W Bush, Dich Cheney, John McCain, Bush Administration' to 'Scott McClellan, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Bush Administration' - edited by garmachi

Susan Lindauer:
...
I got indicted for protesting the War in Iraq. My crime was delivering a warm-hearted letter to my second cousin White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card, which correctly outlined the consequences of War. Suspiciously, I had been one of the very few Assets covering the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for seven years. Thus, I was personally acquainted with the truth about Pre-War Intelligence, which differs remarkably from the story invented by GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.

More dangerously still, my team gave advance warnings about the 9/11 attack and solicited Iraq’s cooperation after 9/11. In August 2001, at the urging of my CIA handler, I phoned Attorney General John Ashcroft’s private staff and the Office of Counter-Terrorism to ask for an “emergency broadcast alert” across all federal agencies, seeking any fragment of intelligence on airplane hijackings. My warning cited the World Trade Center as the identified target. Highly credible independent sources have confirmed that in August, 2001 I described the strike on the World Trade Center as “imminent,” with the potential for “mass casualties, possibly using a miniature thermonuclear device.”

Thanks to the Patriot Act, Americans have zero knowledge of those truths, though the 9/11 Community has zoomed close for years. Republican leaders invoked the Patriot Act to take me down 30 days after I approached the offices of Senator John McCain and Trent Lott, requesting to testify about Iraq’s cooperation with the 9/11 investigation and a comprehensive peace framework that would have achieved every U.S. and British objective without firing a shot. Ironically, because of the Patriot Act, my conversations with Senator Trent Lott’s staff got captured on wire taps, proving my story.

You see, contrary to rhetoric on Capitol Hill, the Patriot Act is first and foremost a weapon to bludgeon whistleblowers and political dissidents. Indeed, it has been singularly crafted for that purpose.

The American people are not nearly as frightened as they should be. Many Americans expect the Patriot Act to limit its surveillance to overseas communications. Yet while I was under indictment, Maryland State Police invoked the Patriot Act to wire tap activists tied to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, an environmental group dedicated to wind power, solar energy and recycling. The DC Anti-War Network was targeted as a “white supremacist group.” Amnesty International and anti-death penalty activists got targeted for alleged “civil rights violations.”
...
I cannot forget. I cannot forget how I was subjected to secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony that denied my right to face my accusers or their accusations in open court, throughout five years of indictment. I cannot forget my imprisonment on a Texas military base for a year without a trial or evidentiary hearing.

I cannot forget how the FBI, the US Attorneys Office, the Bureau of Prisons and the main Justice office in Washington — independently and collectively verified my story— then falsified testimony to Chief Justice Michael Mukasey, denying our 9/11 warnings and my long-time status as a U.S. intelligence Asset, though my witnesses had aggressively confronted them. Apparently the Patriot Act allows the Justice Department to withhold corroborating evidence and testimony from the Court, if it is deemed “classified.”

I cannot forget threats of forcible drugging and indefinite detention up to 10 years, until I could be “cured” of believing what everybody wanted to deny— because it was damn inconvenient to politicians in Washington anxious to hold onto power.
...

this is all about rallying the base. So take consolation in that. Of course they all raise their hand. Once it comes down to the general election, They'll change their tune.

One of the many reasons John McCain lost is because he doubled down on the whole "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" nonsense.

Sucking Grover's cock may win you the GOP nod, but that won't win you the general.

Bill Maher said it best, GOP primaries are all about who is the biggest wife-fucker, anti-tax, pro-Christian Nation pundit.

Democratic primaries are not immune to this mentality either.

So John McCain has his principals (if not his marbles) back now that he's not running for President.

I forgot how annoying it was to listen to John McCain... if he'd won I think I'd have turned the TV off for four years

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Thanks net, but it still seems like the idea of "progressive" isn't a real idea. I think the word is dead, it conveys no true meaning. If you ponder on someone is who is a Calvinist, you know where they stand on the issue of predestination. If you ponder about someone who is a "progressive" about their view on government censorship or immigration, you don't get the necessarily same answer.

You don't necessarily get the same answer from a "conservative" on those topics either. Conservatives loves themselves some censorship, and I can find self-identified conservatives who are both pro-immigration reform (George W. Bush, pre-2008 John McCain), and those who are rabidly anti-immigrant who want them all deported.

Different interpretations of the philosophy doesn't mean the word "conservative" is meaningless, it just means there's no comprehensive dogma associated with it that takes a definite position on every debated question in human civilization.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
If the only justification that a progressive is, is happiness, that is a very poor standard. Happiness is completely subjective. If there is no other justification for the progressive position, then the position is completely irrational. If so, there is no reason for me to accept the progressive position as a position, but a feeling guided with post-rationalizations.

How is happiness subjective? It's hard to quantify, but there's nothing subjective about saying "the suffering caused by denying marriage to gay people outweighs the discomfort you feel when you see them get married".

It's not some dogmatic list of absolutes, if that's what you're getting at. But it seems to me like that's a strength of the philosophy, not a weakness.

I mean, to really invalidate the philosophy, you have to explain to me how it could be "right" to take an action that literally has no positive net benefit to humanity, and more specifically, to make the argument for its righteousness without ever appealing to positive outcomes from taking the action.

In any case, the liberal/progressive viewpoint is more narrowly defined than utilitarianism or consequentialism. I'm just saying the philosophical underpinnings are generally consequentialist, IMO.

While I don't really care for it when people use the word "progressive" to describe an ideology, and not a person or a political movement, Cenk is using it correctly in his above rant. He cites example after example of things Obama has done that conflict with what I think are defining beliefs of a progressive.

If you're looking for some sort of definitive policy platform, I can probably find one for you, but it's not going to be all that much more specific than the "conservative" policy platform.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why not answer some tough questions?

@blankfist, since you seem to be too chicken to take up DFT's challenge, how about I try to play devil's advocate and try to argue the libertarian position for you.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

We wouldn't return to those days. To take on each in turn:

1. Slavery
   
   No one would be compelled by violence to do anything they like. People may choose to sell their entire lifetime worth of labor voluntarily if they so choose, but they will not be coerced to do so with violence.
   
   
2. Child labor
   
   Again, no one would be compelled by violence to do (or not do) things. If children don't want to work, they may choose not to. But if you're 9 years old and want to work 80 hours a week to help your family, what right does the government have to coerce people not to?
   
   
3. Monopolies
   
   Natural monopolies, where the cost of entering a sector of the market outweighs the expected return, are just part of market economics, and should be tolerated. Market leaders that become a de facto monopoly, but do not actually enjoy 100% market share (such as Microsoft Windows), are not monopolies, and also a natural result of the free market, so government must not interfere.
   
   Government sponsored monopolies, like the USPS, are evil in ways the others are not because their existence is based on violent coercion, not natural market choice.
   
   
4. Labor abuse
   
   Everyone is free to quit and seek employment elsewhere. It isn't abuse if you voluntarily subject yourself to it.
   
   
5. The Great Depression
   
   This was caused by government interference in the market, an no amount of historical or economic facts will ever convince me otherwise.
   

Of course there's no guarantee that none of these dark things will come back, I'm just saying it's totally legitimate for them to come back provided no violence is used to coerce people. Coercion in the form of economic desperation is totally okay though.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

Deregulation in Chile is a huge success story. Ditto for China, Ireland, southeast Asia, etc.

On the other hand, the economies of Cuba and North Korea have remained depressingly stagnant. Everyone's equally poor.

To use John McCain's turn of phrase "I'm not worried about who's getting a bigger slice of the pie, I'm trying to grow the pie!"

Just...don't ask me about Sweeden, they give me a rash with their high equality, high tax, high growth model. Must be something unique and exceptional about Scandinavians that's superior to us Americans.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

It's about doing what's right. When Lincoln tried to free the slaves, no one knew how the economy could function without slave labor. They did it anyway, because you have to do what's morally right!

In this case, we're talking about ending violent coercion, because everyone knows that only people who work for the government ever use violent coercion. Eliminate government, and it'll be gone forever!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

Good question, it must be patriotism, or altruism. Rich people are actually really nice, and very generous!

They're willing to adopt a radically unregulated, untaxed world, knowing that it's somehow against their interests. Much more altruistic than agreeing to let their taxes go up so the government can waste it on children's education, helping the poor, the sick, the elderly, maintaining roads...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

No, you must adopt my narrow conception of liberty! Government telling you that you have to serve black people = tyranny, businesses telling you that you have to submit to a drug test as a condition of employment = liberty.

Once properly understood, it's about fealty to nonviolence, at least government-based nonviolence. Corporations using violence to enforce their rules on the use of their property is self-defense, and therefore totally morally justifiable. Duh.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?

Only governments do those things! Wealthy businessmen would never go along with that, because they're all paragons of moral virtue. They'd never let a thing like considerable personal gain motivate them to call for these things in the first place...

Do tell. I am open to actually changing my points of view (I have done so since I was born on things like race, sexual orientation and such) but I must know reason.

In the cut throat world, I simply bring up "don't complain in the big boy/girl ring." If you do, then stay out of the ring.

Is the catcall right, mature, a positive? Of course not. It is fucking childish. But neither is half the shit thrown at Obama, or Bill Clinton or John McCain. Obama was basically accused of trying to teach really underage children sex. That, I would assume, is worse than a catcall.

Again, is it wrong of them to do so? Of course--and yet people are face palming this statement just because I attach the fact that politicans are scum, and expect this behavior, and stop complainig... I want to hear why.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Wait? So because Wong can't handle the big girl world of politics we make a fuss about this??? Booho,o he was sexist. And? That's real world when people get off the playground. You fight dirty, you use all the tools to crush the weak---it's probably how Wong got to where she got in politics. Dirty shit...
God forbid she live in Africa (Where women are raped and mutilated every day) or combat (Where their limits are tested) or even women's baseball (Where she could be hit by a ball...)

For shame.

Why? See the comment above to understand why I said what I said. If you still stand up for someone who sensationalizes in politics, then go for it. Also, if you can tell me that the male lawmaker isn't scum to everyone (Men and women) then that makes him sexist. Otherwise, it just makes him a "politician."

raise palm to forehead, close eyes, sigh, lower head. Begin shaking head

Now THAT is true.

Seriously though - I can't think of a single person in the GOP of any note that is a "birther" in the sense that they don't think Obama was born in Hawaii. So far it seems to me that the cuckoo far-left fringe and their media shills (MSNBC) are far more obsessed with this issue than anyone on the right. MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NTY, AP, et al are running 'birther' stories at a 4 to 1 ratio compared to FOX News. People that are whining "Let it go!" should be directing their venom at the left wing media complex, not the birthers.

But of course the neo-lib media won't let it go because it gives them a way to do what they do best... That is to deliberately screw up terminology, perception, and language in order to paint the sins of a tiny fringe with a big fat brush onto anyone they don't like. Now all the liberally biased media outlets are literally screaming like frothing lunatics that anyone who wants to see 'records' is a racist/bigot.

Bullcrap. There are people who want to see Obama's records. There is NOTHING WRONG with that. Any person who runs for ANY public office from Dogcatcher to President should be willing and able to supply any and all records on request. That is not a big deal. Just because people want to see Obama's records doesn't make them either 'birthers' or racists. That's just a load of garbage that neo-lib left wing propogandists are screaming loudly and often in the plaintive, desperate hope that the stupid and inattentive will believe it.

But reality check time. Obama isn't the first President who had this issue swirling around him. Chester Arthur, Barry Goldwater, and John McCain just a few who have had to produce records about thier births to settle controversies. And they're all WHITE guys. So please - none of this BULLCRAP that Obama is some sort of innocent, unique victim of racism over this birth certificate issue. Give me a break. What a steaming pile of hotspur. The whole issue wasn't even STARTED by the GOP. Hillary Clinton's campaign was the first group to bring this all up.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's interesting, because there is almost a perfect "control" case to test against. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal region. It would be very easy to raise a huge stink about him not being a "natural born citizen" and yet ... there has been very little.

I hypothesize this is because his "Americaness" is physically obvious. He's lily white, has a great "American" name like McCain and served his country as a fighter pilot in his youth. (instead of a community organizer in the ghettos of Chicago).

It's very difficult to prove racist subtext and motives - mainly because people know they are wrong and will not own up to them.

>> ^blankfist:

You mind if I play devil's advocate? I don't know much about his birth certificate issue aside from what I've heard from you guys on the Sift and a couple videos online, but if the rules of this so-called "social contract" dictates that the POTUS must be a naturalized citizen, is it fair to call those challenging it racist?
I don't care one way or another, mind you, but it seems a bit charged to assume it's racist. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

>> ^jimnms:

So Donald says you can't be president if you're not born in the US. John McCain was born in Panama, not the US. Why was McCain eligible to be president? Because his parents were US citizens. Obama's mother was born in Kansas. You are born a US citizen if at least one parent is a citizen and has lived in the US prior to birth. He's a US citizen no matter where he was born, so why would he need to lie about where he was born?


While I don't want to lend any credibility to the birthers, this is not true.

McCain was declared a natural born citizen by SR511 in 2008.

You are automatically a citizen if both of your parents are citizens, are married, and at least one of them has lived here prior to your birth, no matter where you are born. This, however, does not seem to have always been the case and I'm having a hard time finding specifics on when the laws were changed. Remember, McCain was born in 1936 and many of the changes to citizenship laws have not been retroactive.

But nowhere does the law say this makes you a natural born citizen. I don't believe natural born citizen actually has a clear, legal definition in the US, actually, and that's the biggest problem with these arguments. It's often held to refer to jus soli ("right of soil", born within US territory) only. By that definition, neither McCain or a Kenya-born Obama would qualify.

So Donald says you can't be president if you're not born in the US. John McCain was born in Panama, not the US. Why was McCain eligible to be president? Because his parents were US citizens. Obama's mother was born in Kansas. You are born a US citizen if at least one parent is a citizen and has lived in the US prior to birth. He's a US citizen no matter where he was born, so why would he need to lie about where he was born?

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001258

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/22/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV CA
SUBJECT: THE U.S. IN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION -- NOT!

REF: OTTAWA 1216

Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reason 1.4 (d)

¶1. (C) Summary. Despite the overwhelming importance of the
U.S. to Canada for its economy and security, bilateral
relations remain the proverbial 900 pound gorilla that no one
wants to talk about in the 2008 Canadian federal election
campaigns. This likely reflects an almost inherent
inferiority complex of Canadians vis-a-vis their sole
neighbor as well as an underlying assumption that the
fundamentals of the relationship are strong and unchanging
and uncertainty about the outcome of the U.S. Presidential
election. End Summary.

¶2. (C) The United States is overwhelmingly important to
Canada in ways that are unimaginable to Americans. With over
$500 billion in annual trade, the longest unsecured border in
the world, over 200 million border crossings each year, total
investment in each other's countries of almost $400 billion,
and the unique North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD)
partnership to ensure continental security, excellent
bilateral relations are essential to Canada's well being.
Canadians are, by and large, obsessed with U.S. politics --
especially in the 2008 Presidential race -- and follow them
minutely (with many Canadians even wishing they could vote in
this U.S. election rather than their own, according to a
recent poll). U.S. culture infiltrates Canadian life on
every level. 80 pct of Canadians live within 100 miles of
the border, and Canadians tend to visit the U.S. much more
regularly than their American neighbors come here.

¶3. (C) Logically, the ability of a candidate, or a party,
or most notably the leader of a party successfully to manage
this essential relationship should be a key factor for voters
to judge in casting their ballots. At least so far in the
2008 Canadian federal election campaign, it is not. There
has been almost a deafening silence so far about foreign
affairs in general, apart from Prime Minister Stephen
Harper's pledge on September 10 that Canadian troops would
indeed leave Afghanistan in 2011 according to the terms of
the March 2008 House of Commons motion, commenting that "you
have to put an end on these things." The Liberals -- and
many media commentators -- seized on this as a major
Conservative "flip flop," with Liberal Party leader Stephane
Dion noting on September 10 that "I have been calling for a
firm end date since February 2007" and that "the
Conservatives can't be trusted on Afghanistan; they can't be
trusted on the climate change crisis; they can't be trusted
on the economy." He has returned in subsequent days to the
Conservative record on the environment and the economy, but
has not pursued the Afghan issue further. All three
opposition party leaders joined in calling for the government
to release a Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the
full costs of the Afghan mission, which PM Harper agreed to
do, with some apparent hesitation. However, no other foreign
policy issues have yet risen to the surface in the campaigns,
apart from New Democrat Party leader Jack Layton opining on
September 7 that "I believe we can say good-bye to the George
Bush era in our own conduct overseas."

¶4. (C) The U.S. market meltdown has provided some fodder
for campaign rhetoric, with the Conservatives claiming their
earlier fiscal and monetary actions had insulated Canada from
much of the economic problems seen across the border.
(Comment: there is probably more truth in the fact that the
Canadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
QCanadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
U.S. and other foreign markets, and instead concentrates on
the domestic market. The Canadian financial sector has also
been quite conservative in its lending and investment
choices. End comment.) PM Harper has insisted that the
"core" Canadian economy and institutions were sound, while
promising to work closely with "other international players"
(i.e., not specifically the U.S.) to deal with the current
problems. He warned on September 19 that "voters will have
to decide who is best to govern in this period of economic
uncertainty -- do you want to pay the new Liberal tax? Do
you want the Liberals to bring the GST back to 7%?" The
Liberals have counter-claimed that Canada is now the "worst
performing economy in the G8," while noting earlier Liberal
governments had produced eight consecutive balanced budgets
and created about 300,000 new jobs annually between 1993 and
¶2005. The NDP's Layton argued on September 16 that these
economic woes are "the clearest possible warning that North
American economies under conservative governments, in both
Canada and the United States, are on the wrong track," but
promised only that an NDP government would institute a
"top-to-bottom" review of Canada's regulatory system -- not
delving into bilateral policy territory.

¶5. (C) On the environment, Liberal leader Dion, in
defending his "Green Shift" plan on September 11, noted that

OTTAWA 00001258 002 OF 002

"both Barack Obama and John McCain are in favor of putting a
price on carbon. Our biggest trading partner is moving
toward a greener future and we need to do so too." PM Harper
has stuck to the standard Conservative references to the
Liberal plan as a "carbon tax, which will hit every consumer
in every sector" and claimed on September 16 that, under
earlier Liberal governments, "greenhouse gas emissions
increased by more than 30 percent, one of the worst records
of industrialized countries." NDP leader Layton argued
that, on the environment, PM Harper "has no plan" while
"Dion's plan is wrong and won't work," unlike the NDP plan to
reward polluters who "clean up their act and imposing
penalties on those that don't," which he said had also been
"proposed by both U.S. Presidential candidates, Barack Obama
and John McCain."

¶6. (C) NAFTA? Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?
Border crossing times? The future of NORAD? Canada's role
in NATO? Protection of Canadian water reserves? Canadian
sovereignty in the Arctic and the Northwest Passage? At
least among the leaders of the major parties, these issues
have not come up so far in the campaigns, although they seize
much public attention in normal times. Even in Ontario and
Quebec, with their long and important borders with the U.S.,
the leadership candidates apparently so far have not ventured
to make promises to woo voters who might be disgruntled with
U.S. policies and practices. However, these may still emerge
as more salient issues at the riding level as individual
candidates press the flesh door to door, and may also then
percolate up to the leadership formal debates on October 1
and 2.

¶7. (C) Why the U.S. relationship appears off the table, at
least so far, is probably be due to several key factors. An
almost inherent Canadian inferiority complex may disincline
Canadian political leaders from making this election about
the U.S. (unlike in the 1988 free trade campaigns) instead of
sticking to domestic topics of bread-and-butter interest to
voters. The leaders may also recognize that bilateral
relations are simply too important -- and successful -- to
turn into political campaign fodder that could backfire.
They may also be viewing the poll numbers in the U.S. and
recognizing that the results are too close to call. Had the
Canadian campaign taken place after the U.S. election, the
Conservatives might have been tempted to claim they could
work more effectively with a President McCain, or the
Liberals with a President Obama. Even this could be a risky
strategy, as perceptions of being too close to the U.S.
leader are often distasteful to Canadian voters; one
recurrent jibe about PM Harper is that he is a "clone of
George W. Bush." Ultimately, the U.S. is like the proverbial
900 pound gorilla in the midst of the Canadian federal
election: overwhelming but too potentially menacing to
acknowledge.

Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada

WILKINS

Tags for this video have been changed from 'John, Cindy, McCain, PSA, dont ask dont tell, troops, civil rights' to 'John McCain, Cindy McCain, PSA, dont ask dont tell, troops, civil rights' - edited by xxovercastxx