|
Post by Paul Magno on Sept 12, 2009 5:11:12 GMT -5
but it's ridiculous that prostitution hasn't been legalized... I agree with that It would sure help the economy ;D Unless, of course, it was government run ;D
|
|
|
Post by PHONETOOL on Sept 12, 2009 5:21:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by greenmachine on Sept 12, 2009 14:17:23 GMT -5
By the way I like the Libertarian party So do I, but it seems the "big two" are afraid of them. If they could generate the cash, they'd make a few ripples in the water. I stopped listening Hannity and Rush ages ago because they were too far slanted for my tastes. Beck is just out of his mind, which makes him entertaining: not right, just entertaining. I prefer O'Reilly because he tells it like it is and always has BOTH sides represented on the issues. He can be a d*** sometimes, but that's his job. Glad there's no hard feelings, unless you're a Red Sox fan then stay away from me ;D Now, I need to get back to the hot chicks thread.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Magno on Sept 12, 2009 15:24:56 GMT -5
By the way I like the Libertarian party So do I, but it seems the "big two" are afraid of them. If they could generate the cash, they'd make a few ripples in the water. I stopped listening Hannity and Rush ages ago because they were too far slanted for my tastes. Beck is just out of his mind, which makes him entertaining: not right, just entertaining. I prefer O'Reilly because he tells it like it is and always has BOTH sides represented on the issues. He can be a d*** sometimes, but that's his job. Glad there's no hard feelings, unless you're a Red Sox fan then stay away from me ;D Now, I need to get back to the hot chicks thread. I save my outrage for things I'm 100% sure about...otherwise, everything is just varying degrees of an educated guess... O'Reilly is entertaining and, sad to say, probably the voice of reason on FOX right now...but the guy is not fair and balanced either...Sure, he invites guests with opposing viewpoints on the show, but he just shouts them down and tries to get them to affirm his own position. They never really get a chance to speak. I think most people are really on the same side and want the same things...the people who separate us are professional sh*t-stirrers who have a personal, selfish agenda to push...and too many people get caught up in the Us vs. Them mentality... but I agree that, here in the BTBC, the Hot Chicks thread is always common ground ;D
|
|
|
Post by Damon on Sept 12, 2009 15:57:01 GMT -5
Damon...Eat Lead, You Commie Bastard! ;D I got a left hook so sweet, it'd knock that gat sideways before you got it unholstered. The only lead this commie eats is in that poisonous-ass candy they make down there in Mexico. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Paul Magno on Sept 12, 2009 16:42:05 GMT -5
The only lead this commie eats is in that poisonous-ass candy they make down there in Mexico. ;D Thank God I never developed a taste for the lead-based candy treat...Otherwise, I'd be wearing a "Margarito was Innocent" T-shirt and sporting a replica WBC Diamond Belt... ;D I just have to say...Mexican Candy is the most god-awful garbage on the planet...horrendous...like liking the crusty bottom of a pepper shaker...
|
|
|
Post by PHONETOOL on Sept 16, 2009 22:34:55 GMT -5
White House Storing Comments Posted to Its Web Pages The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users. The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet, the Washington Times reported. Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information. "The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said. Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to "crawl and archive" all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost. Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to "social media" and to public comments "received by the president or immediate staff."
|
|
|
Post by PHONETOOL on Sept 16, 2009 22:47:39 GMT -5
Obama seeks Patriot Act extensions The Obama administration has asked Congress to extend three contentious provisions of the USA Patriot Act - a bill once described by President Obama as "shoddy" - and urged an appeals court to deny access to U.S. courts for detainees at a military prison in Afghanistan. Civil liberties groups immediately criticized both moves, which would extend Bush-era terrorism policies that have long been unpopular with Democrats. In a letter made public Tuesday, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asking Congress to reauthorize three portions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire at the end of the year. The three portions permit roving wiretaps, the seizure of certain business records and the monitoring of suspected "lone wolf" terrorists. Mr. Weich said the administration is willing to consider modifications that provide additional privacy protections provided they do not undermine the effectiveness of the provisions. The American Civil Liberties Union said it is "disappointed" that the administration wants "the reauthorization of the three expiring provisions." The group said, however, that it is "encouraged" by the administration's willingness to discuss reforms to the Patriot Act, which President Obama in 2004 called "a shoddy piece of legislation." "Though there may be some value to these provisions, they - like many other Patriot Act provisions - are written much too broadly and have already proven themselves to be problematic in the hands of law enforcement," said Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. "The privacy rights of all Americans will continue to be at risk if we continue to let these statutes remain as they are." The ACLU blasted the Obama administration Tuesday for a court filing that argued that the roughly 600 prisoners at Bagram air base in Afghanistan should not have access to courts in the United States. A landmark Supreme Court decision gave detainees at the naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, such access to the courts. In its 85-page filing, the Obama administration said Bagram detainees should not have access to U.S. courts because the situations at that prison and Guantanamo are not similar for many reasons, such as the Bagram prison location in a war zone in Afghanistan. The filing is part of an appeal from a lower court's ruling that Bagram prisoners can challenge their detention in U.S. courts through habeas corpus, the process of seeking relief from unlawful detention. "Guantanamo was the Bush administration's effort to do an end run around the Constitution, and the Obama administration is now essentially using Bagram as a way to do an end run around Guantanamo and the constitutional right of habeas corpus found to apply there," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the ACLU. "Simply shipping detainees from around the world to an alternative destination is not a solution and flouts the principles laid down by the Supreme Court." The criticisms of the administration come months after it indicated it would continue the Bush administration's policy of holding some suspected terrorists indefinitely without bringing them to trial. That stance also has been attacked by human rights groups. But the administration also has taken steps to distance itself from many other Bush-era terrorism policies, including closing Guantanamo, stopping aggressive interrogation tactics that some consider torture and prosecuting some suspected terrorists in federal court. In regard to the Patriot Act, Mr. Leahy said he is "pleased that the Justice Department has signaled its willingness to work with Congress in addressing the expiring provisions." "It is important that Congress and the executive branch work together to ensure that we protect both our national security and our civil liberties," Mr. Leahy said. The committee has scheduled a hearing on Sept. 23 to discuss the expiring provisions. The provision related to roving wiretaps allows authorities to monitor an individual instead of a particular phone number, which is the common practice in wiretap investigations. The letter said that authorities apply for roving wiretaps in about 22 cases a year, and can do so only when the suspect is engaged in countersurveillance techniques such as frequently changing phone numbers. The business record provision allows investigators to seize financial, medical, library and other records of a suspected terrorists. "The absence of such an authority could force the FBI to sacrifice key intelligence opportunities," Mr. Weich, the assistant attorney general, wrote. The "lone wolf" provision allows authorities to monitor a person suspected of engaging in terrorism, but who may not be linked to a specific terrorist organization.
|
|
|
Post by greenmachine on Sept 20, 2009 8:54:02 GMT -5
Land of the free? You be the judge...
Judge removes hundreds from Conservative Party rolls
September 18, 2009 By RICK BRAND rick.brand@newsday.com
A State Supreme Court judge Friday ordered the Suffolk Board of Elections to remove 1,417 new voters from the Suffolk Conservative Party who were part of "an attempted takeover" of the minor party by county police unions.
Justice Thomas Whelan's decision, which came after a nearly three-week trial, is the largest removal of voters from a party as a result of party raiding in state history, according to lawyers for both sides. Until now, the largest cases affected a few hundred voters.
"The cumulative evidence is overwhelming and the conclusion reached is inescapable," Whelan wrote. "This court cannot countenance the attempted destruction of a minor party for ulterior gain."
But an attorney for the police unions said they are reviewing a possible appeal. "It's a sad day for democracy in Suffolk County," said Louis Petrizzo, who represented 220 of the voters removed from the party's roll. "Fifteen hundred voters lost their First Amendment right of freedom of association."
Whelan's ruling comes after Suffolk police unions organized a campaign last fall to enroll union members, their families and police union members from New York City into the minor party.
Their aim, according to letters and e-mails, was to block the renomination of Conservative Sheriff Vincent DeMarco, who agreed to have deputies take over patrols on the Long Island Expressway and Sunrise Highway a year ago. Conservative leaders later protected DeMarco with a four-way cross-endorsement deal that virtually guarantees his re-election.
"We have the best policing in the country here in Suffolk," said Edward Walsh, Suffolk Conservative chairman. "But for the union to get involved in the Conservative Party to settle their dispute with the sheriff and county executive is just plain wrong."
DeMarco said he was pleased with the ruling, but "disappointed people who took an oath to uphold the law violated the law."
Richard Johannesen, who headed the nearly yearlong process that included 1,504 individual voter hearings, said many enrolled might be conservative, but "they didn't join out of sympathy with the party, they wanted to further the union's political power." connections
In his ruling, Whelan urged state lawmakers to simplify the process to remove party raiders so the cost does not become "prohibitive to a minor party." Conservative officials say they spent $200,000 on the hearings.
|
|
|
Post by PHONETOOL on Oct 8, 2009 20:28:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by PHONETOOL on Oct 9, 2009 4:19:42 GMT -5
US President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize 2009 The Associated Press Oct. 9, 2009, 4:03AM The Norwegian Nobel Committee says U.S. President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
|
|
|
Post by PHONETOOL on Oct 9, 2009 15:33:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Paul Magno on Oct 10, 2009 1:49:42 GMT -5
Obama sure was an odd pick for a Nobel Peace Prize...
|
|
|
Post by PHONETOOL on Oct 10, 2009 1:58:03 GMT -5
Obama sure was an odd pick for a Nobel Peace Prize... You can say that again ;D
|
|
|
Post by PHONETOOL on Oct 10, 2009 4:29:18 GMT -5
How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize In 12 Days
Let’s take a look at the president’s first 12 days in the White House according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. Editor's Note: Although President Obama had only been in office for 12 days before the nominations for this year's Nobel Peace prize closed the entire process actually takes a full year. According to the official Nobel Prize Web site invitation letters are sent out in September. Every year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee sends out thousands of letters inviting a qualified and select number of people to submit their nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The deadline to submit nominations is February 1. -- Two hundred five names were submitted for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, 33 of which are organizations. A short list of nominees is prepared in February and March. The short list is subject to adviser review from March until August. At the beginning of October, the Nobel Committee chooses the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates through a majority vote. The decision is final and without appeal. The names of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates are then announced." Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. Over the last decade the only requirement to win the prize was that the nominee had to be critical of George W. Bush (see Al Gore, Mohamed El Baradei and Jimmy Carter). President Obama has broken new ground here. Nominations for potential winners of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ended on February 1. The president took office only 12 days earlier on January 20. Let’s take a look at the president’s first 12 days in the White House according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize: January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied. January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House. January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?) January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner. January 24: Budget meeting with economic team. January 25: Skipped church. January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner's swearing in ceremony. January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio. January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon. January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden. January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials. January 31: Took the day off. February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party. So there you have it. The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize: Party, go to meetings, skip church, release federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries, party some more. Good grief.
|
|