I can't NOT do a run-down of the subtitles. They're just too goddamn funny.

"The justified and has charged up former C_i_a_ officer
are john and tour kalo
steeple player is said that right
arbiter reiterates problems they write me anyway out with a espionage act
now that's a very very serious charge you know that before president obama
theres only been
three instances of the united states government
charging someone with the espionage act
forgiving excessive information
as they claim
this former cia officer there
and
six different tastes
that is special on it because president or bob promise to
i'd be air and friend to whistle blowers
entrance passage
there's something wrong in our government he reported he was going to
help you
doesn't look like he's albania
so whatever sag ideal while he talked about
how we want a quart of people
and how was torture
now he thought it was justified even did an interview on sixty minutes
and said
uh that he thought it worked the underplayed amount of george but we did
but do you happen to call it torture
now they look at that missy i did not like that
furthermore there was a two thousand a new york times story which invade
believe he is the source of the dam
proving at and so they well okay i got past and i jack I guess you're you
know
there was one of the toughest laws we have
and we're company get your are part of the spaces
because it's if
here's a great irony of that
if you actually do the waterboarding if you didn't torture
you got no punishment whatsoever
now present all mama claimed it was torture and ridiculous and he says he
stopped at
as ridiculous in a squabble right
is torture
but he didn't always scot-free
the president will not
look backward euler look for work
if you report the waterboarding the torture
espionage act
when I play with a look back work
all its to protect the C_i_a_'s after this thing
protect that's the bush administration
error and dick cheyney that order that torture well then of course you look
backward and in fact the new uh... looked very deep into you know us info about
charging
the defense lawyers at one time all back
our whole system is based on
an adversarial system
where somebody gets a defects
now one of the press uh.. tactics was to look at that
interrogators
and try and determine who they were so they can bring them into the court
and say eight use them as witnesses
because the guys who aren't going to have a bank
that are face execution
listen when you get an executed we should be able to call the witnesses

That's not even half the video. But I laughed my ass off.

To their credit, Factcheck.org made the correct call, though they added that jobs have yet to fully recover to month Obama first took office and 6 million under the best point in the Bush administration. In other words, the recession made employment fall a long way.

Fair enough, looking forward to your responses.

I honestly think Obama is so fearful of being labeled racially biased that he hasn't stepped up and helped the black community enough. Although he has rolled back alot of the harmful DOJ policies that the Bush folks enacted.

Economically, this recession has hit black americans way harder than other segments. While I think some of the policies Obama has put in place to stem the recession has lifted all ships, I think there are things he could do to have a higher impact on a community that has twice the unemployment of white americans.>> ^quantumushroom:

Fair questions. Answers will require...a little digging. I can tell you right off that while 'workfare' in the 90s was a success, overall Newt was/is a blustery Big Talker, and the Rs barely changed things.
In the meantime, since Obama has been Prez for 4 years and Congress has been controlled by majority liberals (and still is) since 2006, what has been the net gain (or loss) for Black Americans? Hint: it can't ALL be Bush's fault.
>> ^longde:
@quantumushroom So get rid of welfare and food stamps, despite the fact that it helps a shitload of unemployed white people maintain the semblance of "middle class" living. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Every program that helps blacks that white people hate, helps whites many times more; that includes affirmative action. That's why the politicians who have been railing against these programs for your votes will never get rid of them; the backlash would be overwhelming.
QM, please answer this: Can you point to the gains that black Americans made as a result of the policy prescriptions put in place by the republicans when they had power, since the Newt House and the Bush administration? Even if they were race neutral policies. What has compassionate conservatism and the Contract with America yielded for African Americans? Newt's pretty silent about it, given his famous loquacity.
Hell, can you point the gains that white americans made, for that matter (1% excepted of course)?

Fair questions. Answers will require...a little digging. I can tell you right off that while 'workfare' in the 90s was a success, overall Newt was/is a blustery Big Talker, and the Rs barely changed things.

In the meantime, since Obama has been Prez for 4 years and Congress has been controlled by majority liberals (and still is) since 2006, what has been the net gain (or loss) for Black Americans? Hint: it can't ALL be Bush's fault.

>> ^longde:

@quantumushroom So get rid of welfare and food stamps, despite the fact that it helps a shitload of unemployed white people maintain the semblance of "middle class" living. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Every program that helps blacks that white people hate, helps whites many times more; that includes affirmative action. That's why the politicians who have been railing against these programs for your votes will never get rid of them; the backlash would be overwhelming.
QM, please answer this: Can you point to the gains that black Americans made as a result of the policy prescriptions put in place by the republicans when they had power, since the Newt House and the Bush administration? Even if they were race neutral policies. What has compassionate conservatism and the Contract with America yielded for African Americans? Newt's pretty silent about it, given his famous loquacity.
Hell, can you point the gains that white americans made, for that matter (1% excepted of course)?

@quantumushroom So get rid of welfare and food stamps, despite the fact that it helps a shitload of unemployed white people maintain the semblance of "middle class" living. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Every program that helps blacks that white people hate, helps whites many times more; that includes affirmative action. That's why the politicians who have been railing against these programs for your votes will never get rid of them; the backlash would be overwhelming.

QM, please answer this: Can you point to the gains that black Americans made as a result of the policy prescriptions put in place by the republicans when they had power, since the Newt House and the Bush administration? Even if they were race neutral policies. What has compassionate conservatism and the Contract with America yielded for African Americans? Newt's pretty silent about it, given his famous loquacity.

Hell, can you point the gains that white americans made, for that matter (1% excepted of course)?
>> ^eric3579:

Dont you think maybe these results may be more closely tied to money (poverty) and or education then your statistics which seem to infer that it has something to do with the color of your skin. ...or maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
>> ^quantumushroom:
68.7% of Blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm [archived]
Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments. Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/race.htm#fig1
Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg/statedata96/descript.htm

What percentage of these stats are the direct result of the welfare state acting as a morality-free surrogate for Black fathers and husbands? A near-70% illegitimacy rate is unsustainable, and Whites are 'catching up' with a present illegitimacy rate of 40%.
How has being loyal Democrats "helped" Black Americans?

@marbles, the most powerful psychological weapon being deployed on us right now is the simplistic idea that you can classify an entire category as universally "bad" or "good".

Signing statements are not all bad, nor are they all good.

Similarly, "targeted killing" is a pretty icky concept. But Obama's trying to emphasize that as an alternative to the full scale war the Bushites preferred. I'm not sure where you come down on war these days, but IMO I'd have preferred just drone strikes on Al Qaeda's hideouts to the full scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I wish both would stop, and moreover I wish that military force was never necessary in the first place, but since this is still the real world, I'm willing to settle for our military reaction to national security threats returning to being somewhat proportional to the actual threat being presented.

Where we fit this into our concepts of rights and laws is an important question, but the present law passed by our duly-elected representatives in 2001 in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force is what codified this as being a "war" where the President could kill people whenever the fuck he felt like it, in accordance with the Constitution's definition of war.

Keeping people in prison is a similar matter. Technically, the people in Gitmo are "prisoners of war" and not really charged with any sort of crime, beyond being combatants for the other side in this "war".

Now, to your specific comments about "section 1031" -- that section (in the original Senate draft of the bill) is titled "DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO". Originally it specifically excluded U.S. Citizens from being legally classified a detainee at Guantanamo.

Now, IANAL, but I looked at the rest of the bill for references to "individuals detained at Guantanamo", and it doesn't say anything about how people become detainees at Gitmo, just a long list of restrictions on the President's ability to release those detainees (like, you can't turn them over to non-military personnel, you can't move them onto U.S. soil, you can't let them go to their country of origin, and there's a list of conditions countries must meet before they can receive custody of them).

But the God's honest truth is that ever since Bush insisted on this being legally defined as a war, it hasn't mattered what the fucking laws say, because in a war there isn't any real rule of law. There's the Geneva conventions, but that's international law, and seriously, which country out there is gonna try to enforce those against us?

I don't think Obama likes any of this. It's another fucking mess the Bush administration made, and Congress is definitely not helping him out in trying to fix things. Moreover, Congress is responsible for passing the AUMF, and allowing something like Gitmo to exist (and now essentially refusing to give Obama any legal avenue to close it down, either), and now apparently they want to make sure to enshrine in law the legality of keeping something like Gitmo in operation indefinitely.

Nothing about what Obama's done makes me think he's changed his mind about this all being awful. But I think he's trying to do the best he can given that there seems to be no appetite in Congress for repealing the AUMF, or even allowing the detainees at Gitmo trials in Federal court.

As with many things, I think Obama could and should be making a big principled stand on the issue, but as I've come to accept, Obama just doesn't do that kind of thing. I think that's a pretty big flaw, and ultimately it's the only reason why he's not gonna cake-walk to re-election, but I don't think that's the same thing as actively supporting the things Congress is foisting on him.

Obama...just another suave politician, saving his own ass while still doing the same old shit Bush Administration was doing. And that's why he was elected in the first place, to undo the damage Bush Administration has done. But nothing has changed. Only thing that's different is that he's a much better orator and he 'SOUNDS SMART', and that he's the first minority elected as president, which we've all mistaken for 'SYMBOL OF CHANGE AND HOPE'.

This is just too much irony I can handle for a day.... I gotta sit down... FUCK.

>> ^Barbar:

Dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm not looking to debate anything here, I'm just curious as to your reasoning for considering Hitchens as an (at least) one time neo-con. What information led you to this opinion? As it seems distinctly opposed to what I've read in his memoirs and other writings.


ill answer for ya @Barber
hitchens was all for the iraq war and went even as far as to say waterboarding was not only NOT torture but necessary.
in his defense he did step down from both those positions.it should also be noted that hitchens actually allowed himself to be waterboarded and immediately (and i do mean immediately) changed his position that waterboarding was most certainly torture.which to me was a tribute to this mans intelligence.a true believer would never change his ideology but the intelligent person,when confronted with incontrovertible evidence,will change.

one final note @Enzoblue
neo-conservatism was anything BUT conservative.the neo-conservative philosophy began in the 1940's by leon strauss from the university of chicago.the basic premise is to use america's military might to secure american interests globally.this small fringe group of intellectuals had very little influence until the late 70's when they co-opted the christian right for their cause.

and so began the conflation of the christian right and american nationalism in the form of the republican party.
oh the delicious irony.

so when you say "old school neoconservative" what you are really referring to is the time the neo-cons had minimal influence (still there though) rumsfeld and cheney being big players during the reagan administration.which of course was made possible by the christian rights entering the political sphere (up till then most churches stayed out of politics).these same players brought in their fellow neo-cons during the bush administration and that administration read like a who's-who of prominent neocons:rumsfeld,cheny,pearl,wolfowitz,amratige,addington,woo.the list is massive.
so it wasnt so much about a change in philosophy but rather this fringe group (catapulted by the naive christian right) as having come into their own in terms of power and influence.

and all i have to say to that merry bunch of fucks is: THANKS DICKHEADS.

@dystopianfuturetoday I respect this guy too, he's definitely a heavyweight in the field, that's why this threw me back so much. I would argue that Harris and Hitchens were merely attacking the faith of the Muslims as much as they attack the faith at home. Faith being so ingrained in the Muslim community I can see how this would be racist in a sense, it almost has to be. To say they are religious illiterates though... that smacks of saying they're illiterate only because they refuse to drink the kool-aid.
As far as Hitchens being a neocon, if he is an old school neocon a la Wolfowitz, I could kinda see why though I still don't like it. Since then the neocon doctrine was highjacked by the Bush administration and now is far less palatable obviously.

Edit: I also believe that no one of Hedges intellect can defend religion without 'vehement dishonesty'.

Maybe if he said that what screws everything up is government colluding with banks and corporations, when they should have been saying no, that's a bad idea, he'd be right. Isn't that what it all basically comes down to?

Walsh uses the example of the post office going bankrupt to prove how useless big government is, but if you get specific, it was the Bush administration changing the retirement fund rules to something obviously unsustainable that may kill it.

Sabotaging government programs, and then claiming they weren't working in the first place is sick.

Oh, and here's Bush saying everybody should own a home, and how he's gonna make that happen:
http://videosift.com/video/President-Bushs-American-Dream-of-Everybody-Owning-a-Home

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

>> ^Boise_Lib:

With Obama's record of broken promises you should probably put the date of this speech in the description.
This may not be the last time we hear it.


February 27, 2009 -- President Obama said Friday he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by August 2010 and all remaining troops by December 2011. ... The deadline set under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year.



Here is what I am wondering... Didn't we spend like $3 BILLION building like the world's largest military base in Iraq? And now we are going to leave the country with not even enough people to run it?

Did you miss the part where I said I'm against assassination by presidential fiat?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you must have.

"ring of hate and evil"? Seriously?


You insinuated that partisanship is affecting my ability to reason, then link to a video that has jack shit to do with anything I said about the hypocrisy in news coverage. I point out how way off you are, and you call me a shithead.

You're the one who down voted me, douche, and clearly without even reading what I wrote.

"I guarantee you watch more Fox News than I do"

"so stop being a judgmental douche"

Jesus Christ, do you even read what you write?

Everything you accuse me of is exactly what you're doing. You're going to guarantee how much Fox News I watch?

I don't need the fucking Nielsen ratings to your house to see what you're typing.

"Also, this is a local affiliate which has no real connection to the bullshit politics of the network"

Hey, one last defense of the hard hitting local news team!

Your side of this conversation is a parody of itself.




>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Taint:
Who are you referring to with "we"?
Since you didn't comment on the video you linked, nor did you post it, I assume by "we" you mean Arlen Spector and the republican party?
Is that the "we" you're a part of?
Since that would mean you're identifying yourself with the Republican party while accusing me of partisanship?
Is that the "we" you were referring to? You and Arlen? Or you and your fellow republicans? Or perhaps you and the organization of News Corp who you seem intent on defending for some reason.
I pointed out the obvious selective outrage of Fox News and its affiliates because it's relevant to this video in particular, and is beyond evident to anyone not under a rock during the Bush Administration.
You respond with a link from C-Span.
So you either think that my comment was directed toward you and your buddy Arlen Spector, or you have your head so far up Rupert Murdoch's ass that you don't even realize that you're defending Fox News, declaring yourself a Republican, and missing the point entirely.


>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Taint:
Smell the hypocrisy.
Don't even fool yourself and think that Fox news and its local affiliates would have said a word if this guy was assassinated by a President Bush or Romney...
Nor would they raise their voice with even a hint of protest at any previous presidential assassinations, or the lack of due process in confining any one of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay like José Padilla, another American citizen.
But now that President Obama is in charge, this douche bag Anwar Al-Awlaki becomes one of Sarah Palin's "real Americans" deserving his day in a civilian court defended by Gregory fuckin Peck.
I don't like that our president can assassinate at will either, but this selective outrage is so phony it's retarded.
The president assassinated someone and violated the constitution? Oh my god, welcome to fifty fucking years ago!

That's what you think this is about? Partisanship? Man, I'm so sick of this two party system. It's a cancer to reason. I wish both of them would rot on the vine of tyranny.
We complained about this under Bush too. http://videosift.com/video/Americans-have-no-right-to-Habeas-Corpus




No need to be a shithead. I'm anti anyone being assassinated. If you can't agree with that, then fine, go on being someone in favor of murder and assassinations, and stop looping the rest of us into your ring of hate and evil. I guarantee you watch more Fox News than I do. I watch zero of it unless it comes across the occasional internet video here and there, so stop being a judgmental douche, thanks.
Also, this is a local affiliate which has no real connection to the bullshit politics of the network.

>> ^Taint:

Who are you referring to with "we"?
Since you didn't comment on the video you linked, nor did you post it, I assume by "we" you mean Arlen Spector and the republican party?
Is that the "we" you're a part of?
Since that would mean you're identifying yourself with the Republican party while accusing me of partisanship?
Is that the "we" you were referring to? You and Arlen? Or you and your fellow republicans? Or perhaps you and the organization of News Corp who you seem intent on defending for some reason.
I pointed out the obvious selective outrage of Fox News and its affiliates because it's relevant to this video in particular, and is beyond evident to anyone not under a rock during the Bush Administration.
You respond with a link from C-Span.
So you either think that my comment was directed toward you and your buddy Arlen Spector, or you have your head so far up Rupert Murdoch's ass that you don't even realize that you're defending Fox News, declaring yourself a Republican, and missing the point entirely.


>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Taint:
Smell the hypocrisy.
Don't even fool yourself and think that Fox news and its local affiliates would have said a word if this guy was assassinated by a President Bush or Romney...
Nor would they raise their voice with even a hint of protest at any previous presidential assassinations, or the lack of due process in confining any one of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay like José Padilla, another American citizen.
But now that President Obama is in charge, this douche bag Anwar Al-Awlaki becomes one of Sarah Palin's "real Americans" deserving his day in a civilian court defended by Gregory fuckin Peck.
I don't like that our president can assassinate at will either, but this selective outrage is so phony it's retarded.
The president assassinated someone and violated the constitution? Oh my god, welcome to fifty fucking years ago!

That's what you think this is about? Partisanship? Man, I'm so sick of this two party system. It's a cancer to reason. I wish both of them would rot on the vine of tyranny.
We complained about this under Bush too. http://videosift.com/video/Americans-have-no-right-to-Habeas-Corpus





No need to be a shithead. I'm anti anyone being assassinated. If you can't agree with that, then fine, go on being someone in favor of murder and assassinations, and stop looping the rest of us into your ring of hate and evil. I guarantee you watch more Fox News than I do. I watch zero of it unless it comes across the occasional internet video here and there, so stop being a judgmental douche, thanks.

Also, this is a local affiliate which has no real connection to the bullshit politics of the network.

Who are you referring to with "we"?

Since you didn't comment on the video you linked, nor did you post it, I assume by "we" you mean Arlen Spector and the republican party?

Is that the "we" you're a part of?

Since that would mean you're identifying yourself with the Republican party while accusing me of partisanship?

Is that the "we" you were referring to? You and Arlen? Or you and your fellow republicans? Or perhaps you and the organization of News Corp who you seem intent on defending for some reason.

I pointed out the obvious selective outrage of Fox News and its affiliates because it's relevant to this video in particular, and is beyond evident to anyone not under a rock during the Bush Administration.

You respond with a link from C-Span.

So you either think that my comment was directed toward you and your buddy Arlen Spector, or you've ironically managed to not even realize that you're defending Fox News, declaring yourself a Republican, and missing the point entirely.




>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Taint:
Smell the hypocrisy.
Don't even fool yourself and think that Fox news and its local affiliates would have said a word if this guy was assassinated by a President Bush or Romney...
Nor would they raise their voice with even a hint of protest at any previous presidential assassinations, or the lack of due process in confining any one of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay like José Padilla, another American citizen.
But now that President Obama is in charge, this douche bag Anwar Al-Awlaki becomes one of Sarah Palin's "real Americans" deserving his day in a civilian court defended by Gregory fuckin Peck.
I don't like that our president can assassinate at will either, but this selective outrage is so phony it's retarded.
The president assassinated someone and violated the constitution? Oh my god, welcome to fifty fucking years ago!

That's what you think this is about? Partisanship? Man, I'm so sick of this two party system. It's a cancer to reason. I wish both of them would rot on the vine of tyranny.
We complained about this under Bush too. http://videosift.com/video/Americans-have-no-right-to-Habeas-Corpus