90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Syrian Aid, NSA Leaks, Colorado Fires

NSA leaks and Edward Snowden. Immigration moves. Colorado on fire. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Black Forest Fire Dept. officers burn off natural ground fuel in an evacuated neighborhood, prepping the area for the encroachment of the wildfire in the Black Forest area north of Colorado Springs, Colo., on Wednesday, June 12, 2013. (Brennan Linsley/AP)

Black Forest Fire Dept. officers burn off natural ground fuel in an evacuated neighborhood, prepping the area for the encroachment of the wildfire in the Black Forest area north of Colorado Springs, Colo., on Wednesday, June 12, 2013. (Brennan Linsley/AP)

It was the NSA surveillance leak week, and then, suddenly, the U.S. arms to Syria week. Outrage over the leak and the surveillance as high school dropout Edward Snowden told his tale from hiding in Hong Kong. Big questions as the White House affirmed chemical weapon use in Syria and said the U.S. will step up military support to the rebels.

At home, more fireworks over military sexual assault and the chain of command. Immigration moves. The high court rules against patenting genes. More fire in Colorado.

Up next On Point: Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Mark Mazzetti, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and national security correspondent for the New York Times. His new book is “The Way Of The Knife: The CIA, A Secret Army, And A War At The Ends Of The Earth.” (@MarkMazzettiNYT)

Susan Davis, chief congressional reporter for USA Today. (@DaviSusan)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst

From Tom’s Reading List

ABC News: Obama Steps up Military Aid to Syrian Rebels – “President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize lethal aid to Syrian rebels marks a deepening of U.S. involvement in the two-year civil war. But U.S. officials are still grappling with what type and how much weaponry to send the opposition forces and how to ensure it stays out of the hands of extremists battling for control of Syria.”

The Guardian: Top 10 Commentaries On The NSA Leaks And Whistleblower Edward Snowden — “Some call Snowden a hero; others label him a traitor. Here’s our compilation of the best of the debate in the US media.”

The Washington Post: Border Security At Issue As Senate Debates Far-Reaching Immigration Bill – “In addition to taking steps to secure the border and begin a legalization process for millions, the White House-backed legislation would increase the number of visas for highly skilled workers, create a new program for the lesser-skilled to work in the United States and overturn a family-based system for legal immigration that has been in place for decades.”

The Denver Post: Live Blog: Coverage Of Colorado’s Wildfires — “Wildfires in Black Forest near Colorado Springs, Royal Gorge Park and Rocky Mountain National Park are all burning as temperatures verging on triple digits and high winds hit Colorado.”

Tweets From During The Show

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • DrewInGeorgia

    US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161

    • GM

      Like a stopped clock, even the Roberts court can be counted on to be right twice a session.

      Now, will all those women who paid $4000 for BRAC gene tests be reimbursed?

      • StilllHere

        Ignoring your lame dig, SCOTUS delivered a unanimous opinion that isolated DNA is not patent eligible, but cDNA is because it is not a “product of nature.” SCOTUS also stated that Myriad’s method claims are not implicated by its decision, so no reimbursement is necessary.

        • Yar

          When weeds develop resistance to Roundup are they a product of nature or is their DNA the property of Monsanto?  If their DNA is called cDNA then I want Monsanto to get their roundup ready plants off my property!  Who will file this as class action suit?  Companies better control their cDNA, they have a responsibility to keep it out of nature.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Control it? lol

            Profits first, we’ll worry about the irreversible unintended consequences later.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            if they find out about your round up ready weeds you are violating their patent and they will sue you. i am sure you have heard about monsanto successfully sueing individuals whose farms were contaminated with monsanto seed

        • Don_B1

          The Supreme Court decision said that some cDNA was patentable, but not necessarily all.

          When the cDNA is no more than a piece of DNA with just the “junk” sections removed, many leading genetic researchers do not consider it a scientific creation/invention and that will lead to a lot more litigation, as it should until what makes cDNA patentable becomes clarified.

    • Yar

      The court said DNA that naturally occurs cannot be patented. Which is interesting, because once DNA become self replicating it occurs naturally.  The court is talking out of both sides of its mouth.  They recently allowed Monsanto to patent seeds, I guess they didn’t want to get into a case where people had to pay a company when they have children.  

  • SteveTheTeacher

    I would like to ask Tom Ashbrook and his On Point guests to reflect on President Obama’s decision to give military aid to the Syrian rebels. 

    The timing of President Obama’s decision seems curious given that it has been announced just as the Syrian government is gaining ground in the war.

    How is this decision justified given the evidence, presented by United Nations officials, that the rebels also used chemical weapons?

    Secretary of State Kerry has criticized Hezbollah and Iran for their intervention in the Syrian war.  Kerry is right.  However, President Obama’s decision to provide military aid to the rebels makes such criticism hypocritical.  In a war which already features many international actors, how will the addition of the US to this list help? 

    How will this help the proposed peace talks that were being planned for July?

    I would also like Tom Ashbrook and his guests to answer another question that I have.  The NSA and FBI have a history of targeting opponents to US military actions (“Getting Away with Torture” and “Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics” by Chris Pyle).  Given the NSA’s domestic surveillance program, what guarantee do I have that the government will not target me for retribution for my anti-war speech/actions?

  • Ed75

    Yesterday they questioned the head of the FBI Mueller. Apparently I know more about the investigations than he does: he kept answering that he didn’t know, though he had been given the questions a week prior. He barely knew where he was.

    The administration is facing three or four real serious scandals. But they will be swamped by the disaster of Obamacare that waits on the horizon.

    Anyone remember Snowden in Catch-22?

    • HonestDebate1

      His testimony was an embarrassment. Is anyone in the administration concerned about all this?

    • Don_B1

      Anyone remember that Robert Mueller was appointed F.B.I. Director by George W. Bush after he had worked in the Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations? His term was extended by Congress when it was clear that confirming a new appointee in the run-up to the 2012 presidential campaign would be a difficult beyond belief.

      This is not the first time that Mr. Mueller has had problems, though he has done some things well, particularly in performing productive interrogations of accused terrorists without using “enhanced methods,” unlike the C.I.A. or the military which showed their inexperience in their attempts.

      • HonestDebate1

        I remember but could not care less who appointed him.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i wrote a paper about how milo is  the devil

  • alsordi

    The economy is still in trouble.   The USA is desperate for another diversionary war.  

    • HonestDebate1

      Nobody wants war.

      • alsordi

        Read WAR IS A RACKET written by General Smedley Butler in 1935.    He was right on the money, and WAR has only gotten more profitable since then.

      • Steve__T

         Nobody, I disagree, we have a Military Industrial Complex and that’s what they do.

        • HonestDebate1

          Do hospitals like cancer? Do prosthetic manufacturers like IEDs? Do prison guards like crime?

          • Steve__T

             You need to change your handle. You call that honest debate?

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes I do, but you can call me HD (high definition works for me too) or Mr. Debate.

          • Steve__T

             Twisted Sister is more like it.

          • HonestDebate1

            Fine, but those are your initials.

          • Steve__T

             Backward

          • HonestDebate1

            Or twisted.

          • Steve__T

             Do tank manufacturers like war?
            Do rocket manufacturers like war?
            Do WMD manufacturers like war?

            Do all the Institutions and people you named above like helping others yeah, that’s what they do

          • HonestDebate1

            To quote Maggie, no no no.

            Did the Civil War help anyone? Or the Revolutionary War? Did WWII help the Jews?

          • Steve__T

             Dishonest twisted wrong jaw flapping nonsense.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            civil war helped Dr. LeMat not to mention sam colt. our revolution helped all of our founders avoid taxes to the crown and was their primary motavation. the jews did get their old country back as a result. WW2 was a huge boon to our economy and lifted us out of the great depression. did you think progressive policies got us out of the depression?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            do people like money?
            yes

          • Mike_Card

            I don’t know about hospitals, but I know that thee ACS and the Komen Foundation, et al, love cancer a lot:  cancer is how they can pay zillions in salaries to people who can persuade us to donate hundreds of millions to “cancer research.”

            I also suspect that prison guards are sort of in favor of court-ordered incarceration, not necessarily crime.

    • northeaster17

      The propaganda machine is starting to crank up over the last week. Here it comes

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      not to mention the cat being out of the bag on the snooping. a distraction is in order

  • 1Brett1

    To those who seem to think Todd Akins comments last year about “legitimate rape” were isolated anomalous gaffes uttered by a “non-player,” that active Republicans don’t try to put forth such nonsense:

    http://www.examiner.com/article/trent-frank-chances-of-pregnancy-from-rape-are-very-low

    Of course, there is also Ted Cruz, Governor Bob McDonnell, Ken Cuccinelli, E.W.Jackson and many, many more active Republicans who ride the crazy train, even the beloved Michele Bachmann, and Jim Demint.

    • MrNutso
    • HonestDebate1

      I don’t see how Trent Frank’s comment was in any way analogous to the nut case Aiken’s. He did not say there were biological shields induced by rape. This effort to paint Republicans as mini-me Aikens is kinda’ silly.

      Trent Frank said: “… the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low” and it was in the context of an amendment for rape and incest. He actually had a good point about the logistics of reporting a rape juxtaposed with an abortion preformed under the rape and incest provision after 20 weeks. I disagree with him but he was making an actuarial point not a biological one. But don’t let your head explode over the context, back to what he said.

      Let’s forget rape for the moment. In very general terms, a woman with a normal 28 day cycle is fertile for two days. Sperm can live (in general) inside about two days as well. So the window of fertility is roughly 3 or 4 days out of 28, let’s say 4. That’s about a 14% chance. But the sperm and egg
      being present together results in pregnancy only 25% of the time. That means a couple having sex every day have a 3.5% chance of getting pregnant on any given day. Add to that not all rape victims are fertile at all for various reasons. It only stands to reason the incidences of pregnancy from rape are low. It has zip, zero, nada to do with any biological anti rape mechanism as Aiken asserted and Frank did not.

      • jefe68

        Do you have any idea how many women are raped in this country every day? Do You?

        The level of idiocy that Trent Frank, who happens to be a GOP Congresman, is apparent in his comments on the crime of rape. That you would back up this man’s idiotic statement is dully noted.

        Do you know any women who have been attacked? Does not sound as if you do.
        Are you aware that over 200,000 women are sexually assaulted each year. That number is most likely higher as there are a lot of women who don’t report attacks, do to knowing the attacker, or other reasons. 

        Trent Frank is right up there with Aiken, Bachmann, Ted Cruz and all the other off the wall right wingers mentioned.

        • nj_v2

          Honest Greggg, defender of the right-wing clown posse.

        • HonestDebate1

          So now I’m an insensitive sexist? I just gave the numbers thats all.

          • 1Brett1

            Dishonest crap. Your point to your reply wasn’t to merely give the probability of how difficult it is to get pregnant…What utter nonsense.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes it was. that’s all I did. Where was I wrong?

          • jefe68

            In being so utterly clueless, that’s where you err. 

          • HonestDebate1

            I’ve said I was clueless many times, I’m right about that not wrong. 

            Don’t lecture me about violence against women, you have no idea.

          • jefe68

            Alas I do.
            I live with someone has been the victim of spouse abuse and more.
             
            You should stop before you look more foolish than you already do.

          • HonestDebate1

            Meaning, you have no idea about my experience with, views about or assistance to raped or otherwise abused women. Certainly not enough to lecture me. I made no assertions about your views or experience. Smarty pants.

          • jefe68

            Grow up.

          • jefe68

            I’m not lecturing.
            Your support of Trent Frank says it all.
            You are one of the most puerile regressive people I’ve ever come across. 

            You seem bilgirant in most topics but this one, on a woman’s right to control her health, is beyond the pale buddy.

            I don’t care about your personal experience. It means nothing to me. That you support Trent Frank and any other right wing anti-abortion zealot sends the message.

            As I said, you are clueless.

          • jefe68

            Well i would say clueless is more like it.

      • 1Brett1

        Again , you look for something that you can argue and satisfy your frothing…I didn’t say Trent said the exact same thing that Akin said. I’m just trying to say that Republicans are riding a crazy train in the things they say, the legislation they introduce, the legislation they try to block, etc. But keep playing your high school debate routine.

        Ah, I see, so you believe pregnancy doesn’t happen that much, therefore any language within abortion legislation should not include “unless by rape or incest” because the chances are so low of pregnancy under those conditions anyway…further evidence that you are a bigoted man with a bigoted view. 

        • HonestDebate1

          I’m just saying Frank’s comment was most likely accurate so it can’t be crazy. You also ignored the context.

          Your second paragraph is bizarre projection even for you. Where do you get this stuff? More importantly why do you go to such lengths to ignore what I actually say and tell me what I think then ridicule me for thinking it just for arguments sake? I said I disagree with Frank. You manufactured my entire thought process.

          But again, look at the context. Frank offered a bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks. The democrats offered an amendment for an exception for rape and incest. Frank pointed out, “”When you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours”. I assume that is true but I don’t know. If it is, that would make the point moot after 20 weeks in this particular bill. Would it not? Personally, I think the incidence of pregnancy from rape or incest is totally, utterly and completely irrelevant. I don’t care if it’s one in a trillion. But that does not mean Franks was incorrect with his assertion.

          Why you think I want to argue with you is beyond me. I’d rather avoid you like the plague but I can’t ignore the nasty, shallow, illogical premises you put forth every time I see them. 

          • 1Brett1

            Frank’s point was to remove any language about rape and incest, but hey if you wish to support him…

          • HonestDebate1

            No, it was his bill, it did not contain the language to remove. He was speaking against the language being added. I explained the kernel of logistical logic. I already said I don’t support him even though some Democrats do.

            The bill passed the House committee and the Amendments failed. It goes to the floor.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/12/house-committee-approves-ban-on-abortions-after-20-weeks/

          • 1Brett1

            The language is already there with regard to any abortion laws…the Hyde Amendment for example. His bill, which is what this whole thing is about, serves to remove such language.

            Bur argue away. If I missed spelling something out in this comment, feel free to explain it and behave as if you are correcting me just to make yourself feel like you’ve won something.

            Fact is, Republicans are trying to undermine Roe v. Wade in every way they can and you are pretending as if they aren’t. Trent is trying to restrict current abortion laws and language (with his bill, including getting RID of language that accommodates abortion for  RAPE AND INCEST) and you are pretending he isn’t.

          • HonestDebate1

            Alrighty then.

      • Don_B1

        @1Brett1:disqus @jefe68:disqus @nj_v2:disqus 

        @HonestDebate1:disqus :

        Just read this, Gregg:

        http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/why-trent-franks-is-worse-than-todd-akin.html?utm_source=cheetah&utm_medium=email

        then put your tail between your legs and go home. You, and other anti-abortionists, just pick some minor point to emphasize and then totally miss the major points, which are just about always against your position.

      • hennorama

        Gregg Smith – Wrong. Please STFU.

        (Stick To Foaling Ungulates).

        Of course, you’d be WRONG about horses, too.

        According to virtually ANY source, human females have 5 to 6 fertile days per a typical 28 day menstrual cycle. You can look it up.

        Same thing with horses, except the equine cycle is shorter, averaging about 21 days.

        So, “It only stands to reason” that you should STFU.

  • jimino

    Re: Syria and the increasing sectarian violence, isn’t having militant Sunnis and militant Shiites kill as many of each other, without us having to risk our own blood and money, exactly what would be in our best interests and, in the long term, the only realistic solution to settling the long-standing (over a thousand years!) disputes in the area?   I realize we can’t publicly encourage such activity, but do we really support either side?  Why would or should we? 

    • alsordi

      The USA is primarily there to protect Israeli interests, otherwise they should get out of that region and stop agitating and killing people.

    • Don_B1

      Our best interest would be if the various interests in Syria could come to an agreement for some loose form of government which would not break up Syria but would give each party some say in how the government operated. Unfortunately this is unlikely because of the way the Assad government has reacted to the populace’s demands for reform.

  • 1Brett1

    There is agreement on both sides of the “metadata debate” that there are judiciary means available to assist people who see something as unconstitutional. Both sides also agree that there are laws protecting whistleblowers if they go through proper channels. Snowden did not do any of that. If one sees that something is illegal/unconsitutional he/she doesn’t have the right to break the law bringing it to light. 

    Snowden is a lazy patriot, a lazy hero. He took the easy path that would put him straight in the limelight. Greenwald is also a lazy journalist; he took the easy route and waited for a “whistleblower” to fall into his lap. Both men are just lazy glory hounds.

    In listening to the interview with Snowden, he seemed to offer a lot of generalizations and overblown scenarios about how certain information could be used to destroy people’s lives. None of this has happened, however, and his generalizations about what was unconstitutional or “wrong” with the metadata collection in his view and led him to feel his country betrayed him, and led him to leave the country and seek asylum in places like China and Russia, seem flimsy and not well fleshed out a view on his part. 

    He also seems unstable, leaving his job, home, and girlfriend almost a month before he knew the story would break.None of his behaviors suggest that he sought reasonable, legal means to bring forth evidence to authorities using proper channels. Nothing! Seems as though he went straight from suspecting problems to Glen Greenwald in one straight B-line. If the stories are true that he may defect to China or Russia, this is also further evidence that his thinking isn’t very sound.

    • TyroneJ

      What you said in your first paragraph is fundamentally not true. The FISA Court is secret, and even it’s opinions are secret when it declares something unconstitutional. (There’s a lawsuit between the EFF & DOJ over the DOJ refusing to release such an opinion written by the FISA Court.) Furthermore, if you are a target of one of its subpoenas, no one can inform you that the subpoena even exists, so you have no ability to challenge it as is your Constitutional Right. Google ‘FISA court opinion suit EFF’ without the quotes.

      • 1Brett1

        Snowden found something he deemed unconstitutional or he wouldn’t have proceeded (if he even thought about it that far, which remains to be seen). So, using the argument that the whole thing is secret therefore it could not have been known to do anything about it to begin with is moot.

        “Furthermore, if you are a target of one of its subpoenas, no one can inform you that the subpoena even exists, so you have no ability to challenge it as is your Constitutional Right.” 

        I was saying what I said in regard to Snowden’s actions and not just an average citizen who has been subpoenaed/with no so-called evidence/knowledge, etc. Snowden was beyond that example you use. 

    • nj_v2

      [[ …Both sides also agree that there are laws protecting whistleblowers if they go through proper channels.…

      …None of his behaviors suggest that he sought reasonable, legal means to bring forth evidence to authorities using proper channels. ]]

      “Proper channels” Haha!

      http://truth-out.org/news/item/16938-snowden-leak-highlights-few-whistleblower-protections-for-intelligence-contract-employees

      Snowden Leak Highlights Few Whistleblower Protections for Intelligence Contract Employees[[…“Intelligence community contractors have been shut out of all of the recent reforms,” says Angela Canterbury, director of policy at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). “They received no coverage under the WPEA for federal employees, the PPD-19 for IC civil servants, and were carved out of the contractor whistleblower protections in the NDAA—based on objections from the Congressional intelligence committees—leaving them with no specific protections for whistleblowing under the law. If you look at intelligence contractors, they have no protections under any of the laws. It really is an accountability loophole.”The only recourse for conscience-stricken employees classified like Snowden have in these situations is to hope their superiors won’t fire them for reporting abuses.…
      …Not only do intelligent contract employees have fewer whistleblowing protections, but the private corporations that employ them also have fewer legal restrictions when it comes to electronically monitoring and surveilling employees. According to Paul Secunda, a labor law professor at Marquette University, federal workers directly employed by the federal government receive at least some protections from the 4th Amendment against searching their communications, even on federal equipment, without first establishing reasonable cause.… ]]

      (excerpts)

      • 1Brett1

        There is no evidence he even attempted to pursue any legal means. He also has not expressed fear for being jailed or prosecuted for his actions, as far as I know. 

        I didn’t say that he should have gone through “proper channels”  “Haha!” to quote your reduction of what I was saying to a smug straw man type approach. I said he didn’t even try to follow any protocol.  I just find his expressed reasons a little loftier than they may have actually been.I don’t like the idea of the NSA, or law enforcement, or even corporations setting up surveillance systems of this nature any more than anyone else. I am trying to analyze this whole mess to get some idea of what really happened, what the metadata program really is about, what the “oversight” really is, etc., and all of this needs to be looked at. We don’t really know enough yet to make any real judgement about the government was “wrong and Snowden is a hero.” If you or anyone else wish to go about with such facile notions that is fine. I do have opinions,however, about both Snowden and Greenwald; neither men has shown himself to be very impressive. 

    • northeaster17
      • 1Brett1

        My point was that Snowden made no effort. Is he in a better position now having done it his way?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      official channels, that worked great for the guy who tried to stop 911

  • Michiganjf

    Gee, John McCain has successfully seen America through so many military victories… how can we not listen to him now about Syria??!!

    I mean, look how “right” he was about Iraq.

    … and that couple of days he spent in Syria two weeks ago… surely that makes McCain a scholar we should heed.

    President Obama needs to listen to McCain… get more and more involved in the Syrian conflict.

    I mean, the second Assad is deposed, all the killing will end, just like it ended in Iraq after Saddam… right McCain?

    Just jump right in and start blasting… no need to take time studying the issue, as Obama has tried to do.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Where’s Judith Miller when we need her?

  • nj_v2

    Obama administration and Dems lie about role of data mining in foiling “terrorst” plots…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/nsa-surveillance-data-terror-attack

    NSA surveillance played little role in foiling terror plots, experts say
    Obama administration says NSA data helped make arrests in two important cases – but critics say that simply isn’t true

    Lawyers and intelligence experts with direct knowledge of two intercepted terrorist plots that the Obama administration says confirm the value of the NSA’s vast data-mining activities have questioned whether the surveillance sweeps played a significant role, if any, in foiling the attacks.T

    The defence of the controversial data collection operations, highlighted in a series of Guardian disclosures over the past week, has been led by Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, and her equivalent in the House, Mike Rogers. The two politicians have attempted to justify the NSA’s use of vast data sweeps such as Prism and Boundless Informant by pointing to the arrests and convictions of would-be New York subway bomber Najibullah Zazi in 2009 and David Headley, who is serving a 35-year prison sentence for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

    …But court documents lodged in the US and UK, as well as interviews with involved parties, suggest that data-mining through Prism and other NSA programmes played a relatively minor role in the interception of the two plots. Conventional surveillance techniques, in both cases including old-fashioned tip-offs from intelligence services in Britain, appear to have initiated the investigations.…

    (excerpts)

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Why does Obama want to support the al-Queda faction in Syria? The “red line” about chem weapons is a transparent pretext, like Saddam’s WMD. Actually, I’ve seen reports that the rebels have used chem weapons, which has never caused any concern.

    I always say “follow the money” but I don’t see a big arms deal here, don’t see oil, etc. 

    Assad is supported by Iran. Is it Iranophobia? But we just finished installing the pro-Iran group in Iraq.

    Hezbollah and Iran are both enemies of Israel and support Assad. Are we listening to Israel on this?

    What do you think?

  • http://www.facebook.com/luke.held.9 Luke Held

    Please
    do not talk about Snowden. He is a hero, and his personal anything has
    NOTHING to do with the illegality that he uncovered. Any talk of him
    is a distraction from the real point.

  • http://www.facebook.com/whagist Warren H.

    The goal of the US should be to bring peace to Syria, not to overthrow the Assad regime. I think that focus has been lost

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      our goal should be to let the people who live there sort it out

  • Jon

    Getting involved in another war is mistake. The better choice is stop the Russians providing support to the Syrian govt.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      how?

  • nj_v2

    We need a few dozen more Bernie Sanders in the Senate.

    Sanders posted article below on his Senate Web site
    (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=ce874a42-a367-452f-afd0-fe76282426fa)

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-i-don-t-care-about-edward-snowden-20130612

    Why I Don’t Care About Edward Snowden
    Hero or traitor? The White House would love to distract us from its actions.
    By Ron Fournier

    Is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor? I don’t care. You read right: I don’t give a whit about the man who exposed two sweeping U.S. online surveillance programs, nor do I worry much about his verdict in the court of public opinion.

    Why? Because it is the wrong question. The Snowden narrative matters mostly to White House officials trying to deflect attention from government overreach and deception, and to media executives in search of an easy storyline to serve a celebrity-obsessed audience.

    For the rest of us, the questions seem to be:

    • Are the two programs revealed by Snowden legal and constitutional?

    • Are the programs effective? The government says yes, but most Americans don’t trust government. The Obama administration claims National Security Agency spying helped foil a plot in New York, but that claim has been convincingly disputed.

    • What else is the government doing to invade our privacy? Until a few days ago, paranoids were people who claimed Washington had cast a vast electronic net over our communications. Who isn’t a bit paranoid now?

    • Why did the U.S. government for years debunk what they called a myth about the National Security Agency seizing electronic data from millions of Americans?

    • Why did the leader of the U.S. intelligence community mislead Congress in March by answering a question about the program in the “least untruthful manner” — a phrase that would make George Orwell cringe.

    • Why do Democratic lawmakers who criticized President Bush for exploiting the post-9/11 Patriot Act now defend President Obama for curbing civil liberties?

    • Why do Republicans who defended Bush now chastise Obama for ruthlessly fighting terrorists?

    • Rather than fierce oversight, why did the White House and congressional leaders restrict full knowledge of the programs to a few elites, and stage, for the rest of Congress, Potemkin briefings?

    • Why does a secret federal court almost always side with the government’s requests to seize information.

    • Why didn’t the president find a way before the leaks to tell the public in general terms what he was doing and why? Obama ran on a pledge of government transparency, opposed Bush-era surveillance tactics, and denounced the “false choice” between security and liberty.…

    (snipped)

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Do you consider releasing information about US actions against China to the Chinese press the behavior of a ‘hero’ or a ‘traitor’?

      It is possible for Snowden to be both.

      • nj_v2

        Add the WorriedOne to the list (Feinstein, Bolton, Boehner) of people who doesn’t understand what treason is.

    • 1Brett1

      Those are legitimate questions that need answers! 

      I have been finding fault with Snowden because of the “hero” tag and because he seems to be seeking the kind of modern celebrity of Assange, Manning, etc., as if they are heroes, therefore, patriots, therefore models to be held up as great Americans. He could be a complete scumbag and could have uncovered something important, or he could be a really nice guy who has acted very stupidly. 

      The questions remain about whether or not the government is acting unconstitutionally, etc. Am I to believe Glen Greenwald or Snowden? No. Am I to believe the government? Not at this point. Am I to believe someone simply because he/she generally is someone I agree with? No…So I am holding on to a lot of skepticism   toward both sides of the debate.

    • HonestDebate1

      I wonder if they are gathering information on members of radical Mosques.

      • Mike_Card

        We can hope so.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i think they gathered all of that a while ago

  • jerwest

    The United States, despite its recent history, is a wonderful place to live.  However, many of our competitive advantages are based on the principles of liberty, open markets and free speech:
         -Entrepreneurial economy
         -Media and Entertainment
         -Education and research

    Since  many of the current news stories, such as the NSA story, and DOJ source-investigation story involve the loss of the principles of liberty, I wonder how long these competitive advantages can hold up.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Research and education will not survive the starving of the beast, and that’s the end of the technological economy. Maybe the Chinese will site their factories here for the cheap non-Union labor, let unskilled Americans assemble their supercomputers etc.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        if we do not invent things what will the chinese copy?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yup not to mention how our 2nd amendment rights keep us free

  • MCCarson

    The issue of Syria is very serious, but I am continuously frustrated by the more heightened concern for people’s lives overseas when we here in our own country have seen 5,000 deaths – just by gunfire – in the last 6 months since Sandy Hook (an anniversary that should have been acknowledged in the beginning of your show by the way – even just for a moment).  5,000 people!  What is going on in our own country for this to happen? Why do we not seem to care about our own people and the violence that our own society commits on each other every day?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      the six month anniversary? how could they overlook such a milestone?
      if they wanted to stop the violence they would end prohibition. they like prohibition, the violence is a feature not a bug

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Hey caller Chester, if The American People had been paying attention for the past 35-40 years they would have KNOWN what was taking place. But no, we’d rather wait for a glory hound to come along and do a little grandstanding.
    Paul Revere? Give me a fracking break.

  • Karen_in_Omaha

    What is the purpose of your reference to Snowden in your introduction as “high-school drop-out Edward Snowden”? Do you refer to “college drop-out Bill Gates,” or “college drop-out Warren Buffet” when discussing those gentlemen? You could work a little harder to find an accurate introductory description that doesn’t create negative spin.

    • OnPointComments

      Perhaps the “high school dropout” introduction was to give an indication of the standard used by the NSA to give an employee access to classified information.

      • Trond33

        I agree, it raises serious questions about NSA practices.  Who thinks it is a good idea to trust national security matters to someone with a 10th grade education?  I’m sorry, such an individual just does not have the judgement skills.  They might be really nice people, but their skill sets are severely limited by their educational background.  Bottom line, there are a lot of things that cannot be learned in “real life.”  Even in one of his books, Bill Gates admits that not finishing college is something he regrets.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i hear that a lot about gates

  • mhollis

    Ask Mark if, when the President of the United States says “we are happy to have this conversation” Snowdon should be pursued and charged with ANYTHING? It would seem that the President is siding with those who are calling Snowdon a hero—but it is his Department of Justice who would pursue him.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    How about Obama’s $100M tax payer funded family vacation to Africa later this month?

    Can you say Sequester Jester?

    • northeaster17

      Source please

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      More of this crap? Haven’t you had enough of parroting right-wing alarmist junk and being embarrassed?

    • nj_v2

      Clearly the most important issue of the moment. I’m surprised it wasn’t mentioned.

      Keep up the good work, your worry is well placed.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         What’s a $100M amongst friends?  Right?

    • Karen_in_Omaha

      I agree that what presidents spend on vacations is disgusting. But, my disgust is bi-partisan: 
      “George W. Bush spent at least $20 million taxpayer
      dollars just on flights to his ranch in Crawford….During Bush’s two terms, the
      cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush
      used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low
      end cost of $56,800, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost
      taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s ranch flights.”http://www.politicususa.com/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush.html

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Karen, I would submit it’s not about the facts. (Even though the right-wing advocacy media shites their pants with fake numbers for poutrage.)

        It’s about the narrative and infecting the mainstream press.

        For Ronald Reagan, the president is entitled to a vacation, so don’t quibble about the destination, cost, or anything else. He’s worked hard, he’s earned a break.

        (Headlined or subheaded or covered in the first paragraph in the New York TImes, my paraphrase.)

        For Bill Clinton, Martha’s Vineyard, again?  Shouldn’t a Democratic president be vacationing in a swing state?

        For George W. Bush, there was no end of knob-slobbering optic of George W. Bush weaing the manlyman clothing he learned to wear after prep school was born to, clearin’ brush on the ranch.

        Everything is unquestioned if the President is a Republican. Only when a Dem is in the White House does our press corpse (no sic) consider vacation destinations and activities a test to be failed.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        thats cheaper than one of obomas trips to hawaii
        i am still pissed about the 20million a year the govt spends sponsoring nascar

    • OnPointComments

      I wonder if they considered lessening the impact of the sequester by furloughing those government union employees who spent 3,395,187 hours on union work at a cost of $155 million, instead of employees who are doing the work they were hired to do.  $155 million might be enough to pay for the Africa vacation and Michelle’s summer in Martha’s Vineyard.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        More relayed shite on ersatz “penny pinching” (sic) and right-wing media’s OhNoesYoursAndMayTaxDolerz screaming.

    • StilllHere

      Sequester is for the little people.

      $100M isn’t real money for the sheep.

  • OnPointComments

    What a surprise — an unaccountable government agency with a dominant union presence.  The chance that there is corruption increases exponentially when a union is involved.
     
    “FOIA: 201 IRS EMPLOYEES WORK FULL-TIME ON UNION BUSINESS”
     http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/foia-201-irs-employees-work-full-time-on-union-business/ 
     
    Excerpt:
    “In a response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Americans for Limited Government, the Internal Revenue Service revealed this month that 201 of its employees work full-time on union activities.  Some boast six-figure salaries, with the highest paid employee on the list earning $138,092.
     
    “The Office of Personnel Management revealed that in 2011 — the most recent report available — bargaining employees at all federal agencies spent a total of 3,395,187 hours performing representational work, at a cost of approximately $155 million.”

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Attacking Unions, LOL, class warfare never sleeps.

      • OnPointComments

        The rote support of unions no matter what, LOL, no wonder the corruption is pervasive and enduring.

        • TomK_in_Boston

          Funny how Union bashing continues no matter how weak they become, with no notice of the perfect correlation with rising inequality.

          Good job turning a serious matter into class warfare. Whenever I think I understand the zombie mind, I’m reminded that it’s beyond the comprehension of ordinary human beings.

    • OnPointComments

      “THE ‘VERY SERIOUS’ TRADITION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE”
       “Our tax-collecting agency has been called “an invitation to corruption” for decades.”
       
      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350906/very-serious-tradition-internal-revenue-service-jim-geraghty

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Daily Caller and Natty Review.

        The fun never stops.

        • pete18

          The real fun must be never having to address or debate difficult facts that disagree with your world view by dismissing sources.

          Can you point out something inaccurate in either article (start cricket sounds here)?

  • canvirginia

    NSA Surveillance:The Government knows that our Constitution doesn’t allow this and that it is illegal.  That is why they did it in SECRET.  Wake up people…

  • Jostrenz

    Trust?

    It seems that the government does not trust its people.

    • Steve__T

       With good reason. “Trust begets trust”.

  • nj_v2

    http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/no_one_understands_what_treason_is/

    No one understands what treason is
    Has anyone accusing Snowden of treason actually read the Constitution?

    The word “treason” has been thrown around a lot lately in relation to alleged leakers Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, but it turns out that no one accusing them of the crime actually seems to understands what it means.

    Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein called Snowden’s leak an “act of treason,” as did Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, while House Speaker John Boehner called the leaker a “traitor.” And they were only the most prominent of a slew of columnists and officials. For instance, former UN Ambassador and Fox News regular John Bolton called the leak “the worst form of treason.”

    Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution, and considering how much people in Washington say they love the founding document, one would think they would have read it a bit more closely, because experts say that among Snowden’s potential crimes — and they are crimes, in all likelihood — treason is almost definitely not one of them.

    “It’s a narrow and specific definition,” New York Law School professor and constitutional historian R. B. Bernsteintold Salon. As described in Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Bernstein says this means that “you need to show specific intent to make war” against the U.S., or aid the enemy. “There’s just none of that here,” he said.

    Other experts agree, Politico reports, noting that prosecutors charged Manning with “aiding the enemy,” but not treason.

    To make matters worse for those who label Snowden a traitor, treason generally only applies when a suspect colludes with a country against whom the United States has declared war. But Washington hasn’t officially declared war on anyone since World War II. Even during the Cold War, prosecutors did not use the charge against people like CIA agent Aldrich Ames, who sold secrets to the Soviets, because the U.S. was not technically at war with the USSR. In reality, treason has been invoked rarely in history — just 30 times since the founding.…

    (snipped)

    • 1Brett1

      I find the shouts of “treason” to be unwarranted. Snowden may have committed some crimes, but even if he hasn’t, and even if he is not charged with anything, he was fired and will never get a job having access to any files or sensitive information. He has paid for his actions already in my view.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Re: The idea of trust in the government is slipping lately, as Susan Davis is saying.

    That’s someone’s “Mission Accomplished”, don’tcha think? It may do the press corps to remember that when it comes to “trust”.

    Why, back when I was the opposition, all I wanted was a conversation about things without being called a traitor, a treasonous friend to the enemy.

    Now it’s “conclusion first, hearings afterwards” (from idiots like Darrell Issa, no less), and take have the conversation now we should have been having then.

    And the next mainstream press member who points out John McCain’s soreloserness creating a permanent platform to say whatever he wants and be treated, amazingly, as never wrong, will be the first. They’ve never stopped tire-swinging.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      lately?

  • http://www.facebook.com/karen.lavallee.56 Karen Lavallee

    Why are we spending so much of our resources on terrorism and and so little on protecting Americans from gun violence.  How do we explain bias.  Billions of dollars spent to prevent threats from terrorist where only a few thousand lives were lost compared to the millions of lives affected by gun violence.  Why does the idea of a firearms registry not compare?

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

      Agrred: my very rought estimate is that handgun homicides have killed roughtly 100,000 people (8k/yr) since 2001. 30 times more that sadly died on 9/11. Then how many soldiers died in the middle east and how many were horrifically wounded to come back here to suffer for the rest of their lives? And how many innocents have been killed by the US in these excursions as collateral damage? Tragic!!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        not to mention the police kill 8x as many americans as terrorists

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      how does a firearms registry do anything to “protect americans from gun violence”? they have such a registry in Hawaii. it has not helped to solve any crimes and certialy not reduced deaths from people shooting people.  seems more like a precursor to confiscation to me. if you did manage to take everyones gun away do you think less people would be killed by other people or themselves?
      the answer to your question is the military industrial complex

  • terry7

      Re government surveillance: Tom, I would appreciate in future programs your bringing into the discussion –
      First, Dana Priest, author of Top Secret America, which is based upon two years research on this subject, and
       Second, a representative of the European perspective, since Europeans’ recent experience with government surveillance informs their strong opposition to it.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Why are we supporting the al-Queda rebel faction in Syria? What is the real reason? Surely nobody here believes that “Assad’s WMD” nonsense. 

    C’mon, what do you think?

    • HonestDebate1

      Are you asserting that Assad did not use chemical weapons?

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Are you telling me that you think the “WMD” are the real reason? 

        • HonestDebate1

          Well they were the red line Obama warned of. So, I’m just trying to understand, it’s not the fact that he used WMD that you question just that it is the reason cited for action? If so, then I misunderstood. That’s at least is plausible. What do you think the reason is?

          • TomK_in_Boston

            It was stupid of him to say “red line” but it’s still a flimsy pretext and I’ve read that the AQ rebels have used chem weapons also. Why the one-way concern if it’s such a big deal? 

            To answer your question, I’m not sure if he used chem weapons – it wd be incredibly stupid after all our posturing – and if he did I think it’s just a fig leaf for another reason to get involved. Aren’t you one who has absolutely no trust in government? Are you gonna do a 180 and trust them now? Can’t you think of other possible reasons? I already speculated below. 

          • HonestDebate1

            I have some trust in government but no trust in Obama at all. I have not said this was good or bad. It’s seems to me if Putin is arming Assad and we are arming the rebels then we are approaching war with Russia. That’s can’t be good but neither can arming Al Qaeda affiliates. Doing nothing also has consequences that can bite.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Sounds reasonable.

            I don’t trust Obama either- a “liberal” who proposes to cut SS, and goes beyond bush on surveillance – bah.

             Seems to me that this is resolving into shiite vs sunni yet again, with Assad, Iran and Hezbollah on one side and sunni extremists like AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood with the rebels. There was a recent case of the rebels executing a boy for blasphemy.

            If we’re gonna pick sides it will be based on our or Israel’s perceived interest. I don’t believe it will be because either side used chem weapons, but it provides a nice pretext. We’re fine with chem weapons. We supplied them to Saddam when he attacked iran. All we cared about was that he was attacking our enemy.

          • HonestDebate1

            I agree about Israel but Obama hasn’t been their best friend so I’m a little dubious. But history is on the side of us choosing sides based on their best interest. I just don’t think that part is clear right now. I’d also add the chemical weapons weigh heavily in Israel’s decision so they are a factor even if indirectly. 

            And speaking of  supplying WMD, do you think some of Hussein’s WMD ended up in Syria?

      • Steve__T

         Are you asserting that the rebels haven’t? Why would we stick out 2 cents er billions and our American lives, again into something we have no business getting into? We are not the worlds peace keeper and shouldn’t try to be. It’s time to pay attention to home, we’ve got our own problems that need to be addressed.

        • HonestDebate1

          I’m not asserting anything. I’m asking TomK what he meant by, ” Surely nobody here believes that “Assad’s WMD” nonsense”.

      • StilllHere

        Wasn’t that the red line back when we were trying to be all presidential?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      we invented alqueada in the first place so we could fight proxy wars with the russians. what could go wrong?

      • TomK_in_Boston

        RR FF of AQ :)

  • J__o__h__n

    Why do I have to scroll through 13 Twitterings to get to the comments? 

    • J__o__h__n

      Any they are all from On Point.  Not much audience participation in that medium no matter how much you are trying to gin it up. 

    • Trond33

      I agree, it is distracting. 

  • OnPointComments

    Gee, the reporter who covered Fast and Furious and Benghazi has her computer hacked.  I wonder who could have done it.
     
    “CBS NEWS CONFIRMS MULTIPLE BREACHES OF SHARYL ATTKISSON’S COMPUTER”
     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/14/cbs-news-confirms-multiple-breaches-of-sharyl-attkissons-computer/ 
     
    “A cyber security firm hired by CBS News has determined through forensic analysis that Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions late in 2012. Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data.

      “This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion.

      “CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access.”

    • HonestDebate1

      Kudos to CBS. When the reports first came out a few weeks ago DOJ denied it. Maybe it was someone else. I’m glad CBS is singing a different tune now that they are on the receiving end. Hopefully they will seek the truth with more effort than they used in finding out who forged Dan Rather’s documents. Did they ever find him?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i am sure the media will work things out for themselves and not do any good for our liberty

    • StilllHere

      Who would stand to look bad by her reporting?  Thinking…

  • TomK_in_Boston

    We hate Iran.
    Israel hates Hezbollah.
    Both support Assad, ie the shiite faction.

    Is that it? Maybe those associations are more clear than the AQ and other sunni islamic extremists on the rebel side, and so carry more weight?

  • Trond33

    I suspect, in light of the NSA fiasco, it was a rather easy political decision to arm the Syrian rebels.  I say this as mostly a supporter of the Obama Administration.  

    I don’t know what good will come out of arming the rebels, other than letting lose even more weapons in a region that is saturated in weapons.  No, surgical strikes to take out Syrian government arms depots or enforcement of a no fly zone would be more prudent.  

    Or, be really radical, put troops on the ground in neighboring countries to assist in building, maintaining and guarding refugee camps.  Even reward the rebels for assisting civilians to escape the worse affected areas.  

    No, throwing more wood on the fire is just going to heat up the situation and further soil the already damaged worldwide reputation of the United States.  

    • TomK_in_Boston

      That makes sense. Distraction from the NSA fiasco is a lot more significant to BHO than whichever side dabbled in chem weapons.

  • Trond33

    That’s the process that is underway – war is more-or-less the only way nations redraw borders.  Unfortunately, the entire Middle Eastern region is saddled with arbitrary borders drawn up by colonial powers.  Redrawing Syria would not solve the overarching problem.  Redrawing the entire region would work.  Or a regional political and economic union.  Neither stands any chance of happening.  Which leaves us with war.  When the sides are tired of killing each other and the global arms suppliers (U.S. and Russia included) are tired of supplying weapons, we might see a new Middle East emerge.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so never then

  • Steve__T

    Disqus

  • OnPointComments

    Another city under the control of Democrats edges closer to bankruptcy.
     
    “DETROIT ON BRINK OF BANKRUPTCY SUSPENDS SOME DEBT PAYMENTS”
     http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/detroit-on-bankruptcy-s-brink-stops-paying-some-debts-orr-says.html 
     
    “Detroit, on the brink of bankruptcy with $17 billion in liabilities, will suspend payments on $2 billion of unsecured debt, beginning with an installment due today, Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr said.  With today’s missed $39.7 million payment on debt issued to fund pensions, Detroit becomes the most populous U.S. city to default since Cleveland in 1978.”
     
    “DETROIT GAVE UNIONS KEYS TO THE CITY, AND NOW NOTHING IS LEFT”
     http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2013/02/21/detroit-gave-unions-keys-to-the-city-and-now-nothing-is-left/ 
     
    Excerpt:
    How did one of America’s most storied cities land in this predicament? While the city population has shrunk (from a peak population of 1.8 million in 1950 to 714,000 in the last census), it has hardly reduced the government that serves it. All you really need to know about Detroit, which is facing a $327 million budget gap, is that last year it was discovered to still be paying for  a “horseshoer” (or farrier) on the Detroit Water & Sewer Department (DWSD) payroll. This individual costs some $56,000 in pay and benefits, despite the city not having any horses to shoe in his department.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      LOL, that’s it, OPC. Is this “Union Bashing Day” on the official voodoo econ calendar?

      All you really need to know about Detroit, and large parts of the rest of the USA, is that the corporate elite broke the social contract, diverted profits that used to go to wages and benefits and R&D to their own pockets, shipped America’s jobs overseas, and evaded the taxes that support our infrastructure.

      • pete18

         And I’m sure you have some specific evidence that you can point us to show how this blanket list of assertions is true and how it relates to Detroit’s bankruptcy?

      • JONBOSTON

        Each week I read your comments and am reminded of what President Reagan once said ” the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant but that they know so much that isn’t so”. Your problem isn’t with corporate elites–it’s with free market capitalism and the existence of a global economy. You demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the private sector profit-driven economy. Only a union organizer or a member of AFSCME could be so clueless as to American business and how it operates in the real world.

        The list of causes for Detroit’s problems are virtually endless but can be summed up as rampant political corruption, incredible overspending and mismanagement, a complete breakdown of the inner city black culture, excessive taxation, white flight due to excessive crime, and the decline of the big three car manufacturers. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        detroit is also a casualty of the war on drugs

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      a good farrier is hard to find, 56k seems like a low salery for one

  • TomK_in_Boston

    From ABC News, ROTFL:

    ….“If Edward Snowden was Chinese and worked for the Chinese National Security Agency, Obama probably would already have had him to dinner at the White House and nominated him for the next Nobel Peace Prize.”Major Chinese news websites ran special “front page” sections on Snowden. Xinhua’s special page on Snowden touted how he “exposed the truth” about America being the “Hacker Empire”

    • 1Brett1

      I couldn’t help but notice “HonestDebate1″ “like[ing]” this comment…Again, HD1, I don’t think you see the sarcastic nature of Tom’s comment, even with his “ROTFL”  tip at the beginning.  

      • HonestDebate1

        Geez, get me out of your head. It’s not about me. It was a ironic and interesting take by the Chinese. That’s all. TomK is no Obama fan.

        • 1Brett1

          I wouldn’t even respond to your petty and vapid reply, but you replied first so…

          What? I thought it was funny that you don’t recognize sarcasm (just like you didn’t recognize it in a comment I made a few days ago). 

          What Tom’s opinion about Obama is isn’t really that relevant to his comment it seems, although I could be wrong; I mean you could be right that Tom just thinks these quotes were funny because he doesn’t like Obama (somehow I don’t think that was his point, though), which seems a lot more pedestrian than the subtlety of his comment to me; I give Tom more credit than such one dimensional crudeness. I sensed that Tom was remarking about the absurdity of the comments themselves and the humor he saw in them…but I now see why you liked the comments: you will respond to any remote criticism of Obama, even if it is humor. I believe Tom’s humor is a bit more sophisticated than, say, Futo BUddy’s or yours.

          This fits with how you responded to my comment the other day…didn’t you say something like you didn’t think my comment was sarcastic, that you think people speak truth often when they are trying not to? That seems to be more your point to “liking” Tom’s comment. 

          As far as the second comment (about China) it was an “interesting take”? How so? It seemed like the most ridiculous hypocritical statement to me. Is that the “interesting” you referred to?You seem too opinionated to like something because of such an insipidly vague reason as “it was interesting.” That reason seems more of an avoidance explanation.

          • HonestDebate1

            Wait a minute! Are you saying you were being sarcastic the other day? Do you mean you didn’t actually change all your positions as I was so convinced you did? I had no idea, really I didn’t. None at all. I’m blown away. Wow. And yes, it’s me who is impaired at recognizing sarcasm because I’m never sarcastic. You’d recognize it immediately.

            And TomK wasn’t really commenting, it was ABC. As to Tom’s intent, I don’t care nor do I claim to know, I just liked the comment, that’s all. I don’t want to speak for him (feel free), if he wants to clarify it’s up to him.

          • 1Brett1

            Your first paragraph: yeah, no, you can’t pull off the whole sarcasm thing; it just isn’t your forte. Sorry. I’d say keep trying, but it seems you have the proverbial “stubby fingers” when it comes to attempting sarcasm. Maybe try sports jokes instead?

            As for your second paragraph? What did you like about ABC’s comment? What about the Chinese websites’ comment? Were they “interesting”? 

          • HonestDebate1

            I agree sarcasm is not my forte. Especially when it come to answering sarcasm with sarcasm you would never fall for that. I am completely sincere when I say I liked your comment totally clueless that you were being sarcastic. Really, I had no idea, none. I was so sure you had changed. Really, I’m so embarrassed.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, no, see, sarcasm isn’t something one does to make people “fall for” something, quite the opposite. It is done to say one thing but let it be known one intentionally means the opposite. In a verbal expression, tone of voice can be all that is used/needed. In written form, there are other factors, like context to make the point. To “like” a comment as a form of sarcasm offers no context. It just seems odd. 

            But, I say this only to enlighten  others who may read this; I’m sure, as evidenced by how deftly you execute your sarcasm, you needn’t any further study of the finer points of sarcasm. 

            With your sophistication, I’m sure you could teach me a thing or two about sarcasm, satire, irony, AND parody, especially parody. Your penchant for parody is second to none.   

        • jefe68

          It is all about you. It always is, that’s why you post so much BS.

  • OnPointComments

    Why we should be concerned about a trove of data that the government says can only be accessed after judicial review.
     
    “If you’re concerned about national security, the new revelations will probably dismay you; if you appreciate leaking of government secrets, Snowden’s technique is likely encouraging: Theft by thumb drive.”
     
    “HOW EDWARD SNOWDEN STOLE HIS CACHE OF NSA SECRETS”
     The NSA leaker reportedly just walked out of work with some of America’s big secrets on a thumb drive in his pocket
     
    http://theweek.com/article/index/245643/how-edward-snowden-stole-his-cache-of-nsa-secrets 
     
    My employer and some clients disable the USB ports on computers, primarily to stop virus infections.  It’s surprising to me that the NSA doesn’t do the same.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Ohio state lege Republicans introduce new bill that would require doctors to lie to women about anti-choice medical fantasy threats, and force these women to pay for unnecessary medical procedures.

    I guess the brains of the GOP consider the country isn’t yet ready for their real legislative wish: Locking pregnant women up for 9 months so they don’t get any silly ideas about being in charge of their bodies when pregnant.

    http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=130_HB_200

  • http://militarycannonfodder.blogspot.com alicecbrown

    Do the DC rulers realize..Obama, Kerry, Graham….when they say, “Yes, we should have a debate about this (the wholesale betrayal of the American people and the Unconstitutional spying that’s going on), but Snowden is a criminal and must be prosecuted.” what stupid oafs they think we are? Well, guess what.  There’s no way in Hell any of these guys would have ever asked for a debate , as phony as that will be, if it wasn’t for Snowden’s action.  I praise him as a Paul Revere of the 21st Century.  Our forefathers wisely disrespected government, and so do I.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      have you bought your ar15 yet?

  • HonestDebate1

    Currently Drudge has a picture of Jeb Bush up top with the headline “It begins”. The story is about Jeb saying Hillary would be a formidable candidate. The implication seems to be the matchup is inevitable. I remember in 2007 it was a forgone conclusion the election would come down to Hillary and RudyGiuliani. This is all a nutty exercise but I’m curious about your views for 2016. Really, I know it’s nutty.

    I sorta’ understand Jeb. He has a record of success and is obviously qualified as a former (and popular) governor. He has the pedigree but that seems to be a strike against him more than an asset to many. Personally, I’d listen. I would’t rule him out just because of his name. I can’t say I’m a huge fan though.

    But why Hillary. That’s where I’d appreciate some enlightenment. What has she done? As I see it, her record as Secretary of State is awful and not just Benghazi. The Russian “Reset” has been a disaster. As has Iran, N. Korea and the entire Arab Spring. I could go on. Where is her record of success? Am I missing it? What has she ever done besides marry Bill to become his doormat? Hillarycare? Travelgate? Rose Law Firm billing records? Whitewater? Why is she being considered? Or is she? Do you guys think she is the answer. Is there someone else? Who?

    • 1Brett1

      Since you said you were curious, my view is that you have made a homegrown Hillary-bashing comment built from the pretense of asking folks about  the presidential race in 2016. How [pseudo] clever.

      Democrats usually have a frontrunner come out of nowhere and much later than now in the process. Why, it is even too early to look seriously at a possible Republican contender, albeit they come out of the stocks earlier than Democrats.

      Why don’t you extol the virtues of a MIchele Bachmann? Or how ’bout a Sarah Palin? What about your favorite Republican black man, Ben Carson? …Actually, none of those seem plausible. The questions really are: will the Republicans cling to their white male candidate that can “be all things” to all Republicans in their increasingly shrinking “big tent”? Is there enough time for Republicans to completely revamp their Party and remake themselves into something even resembling a Party that embraces the 21st century? Will they make the same mistakes and go with a white male elitist who is perceived as completely removed from the average American? Or will they go with a populist “every man” such as a Chris Christie? Which, he seems like a huge (no pun intended), reasonable compromise/variation on the “white guy” need/desire. (Of course, they may NEVER forgive him for “helping” Obama just before the last election.) Will they go out on a ledge and promote a Marco Rubio? While he might just bring in the “Hispanic vote,” the vote Romney tried so desperately to garner, he would probably alienate many current members of the Republican constituency. And, then there’s the whole immigration issue that has yet to play itself out. It could make or break Rubio’s political career in general. 

      Jeb Bush is known as “the smart Bush son,” but I really think that is because he sometimes wears glasses and is less a gaffe-prone public figure than W…People probably feel there have been enough Bush folk in the White House, but that’s just my opinion; then, again, too, Americans are jealous of the Brits and their “royalty,” and the Bush clan is a kind of royal American family… 

      • HonestDebate1

        Wow.

        • 1Brett1

          What? Out of all that, you build a straw man by reducing my comment to that? Such BS tactics. Have Republicans ever run a woman, or anyone other than a white male (for that matter) as their nominated candidate in a presidential election? Will they this time? 

          Race (and gender) seems to matter more to Republicans than me. They hold up people like Carson or Cain or even Steele or Palin, etc., as tokens to prove they aren’t a bunch of racists/sexists, but they won’t likely make a nominated candidate a woman or a minority of any kind. 

          But, reduce what I was saying to “race is all that matters” so you can “win.” 

          You probably were just wanting to bait someone into defending Hillary so you could argue with them all day; that was probably your point to your comment, or so you could have a Hillary hatefest with a fellow neocon.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yep, I did. Why mention race at all? Race has no place in any decision. I cannot relate to nominating Rubio to get hispanic votes, it’s an insult to hispanics. 

            Obama is the first half black man nominated by either party. They didn’t have a authentic black like the Republicans did. Republican blacks like Herman Cain are savaged by racist Democrats. Women like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann are saved by sexist Democrats. It’s Democrats who are obsessed with race, and it seems they are poised to back Hillary who is a complete failure with zero accomplishments just because she’s a she. 

            All I want is a Conservative with a spine. It can be Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Rush, Jim Demint, or anyone of any ethnic background. I don’t care in the least.

          • 1Brett1

            I was just pointing out that  Republicans ran a white male elitist in the last election and their subsequent obsession with things like “getting the Hispanic vote,” as many Republicans claimed Romney lost because he didn’t get that demographic, etc. 

            When you say “…insulting to Hispanics” do mean Republicans for saying they need to bring more Hispanics into the Party/get more of their votes or me for pointing that out?  

            You seem to be turning what I said into a race thing. One can’t talk about race?

            By the way, your second paragraph is straight up racist, sexist bs. “Authentic black..” Really? You are a racist, like I’ve said before.

          • HonestDebate1

            So Hispanics don’t care about policy that benefits all Americans, just put up any hispanic and that’s enough for the sheep? It’s insulting. Do you recommend Ted Cruz or Geraldo? They’re both Republican Hispanics. 

            And regarding Obama, let’s face it, a few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee.

          • 1Brett1

            Just more of your racist drivel. 

          • HonestDebate1

            You were  the one who suggested Hispanics voted because of race, not me. Look in the mirror.

          • 1Brett1

            No, that Republicansthinkthat…it’sissues that are important to voters and whethertheircontigent is consideredin a given candidatespolicy emphasis.

          • HonestDebate1

            So only, blacks can represent blacks and only hispanics can representhispanics?

          • 1Brett1

            I didn’t say that.HOweveryou havesuggested that blacksvote for blacksbecause of theirrace.

          • HonestDebate1

            If not then what difference does the color of skin make?

          • Steve__T

             Authentic Black, NOW who is being racist, that’s sick to use your words. You are one Twisted demented dishonest ASS.

          • 1Brett1

            It’s just amazing, is it not, that he would reply to my comments, about the GOP’s nonexistent inclusion of anyone in the nominated candidate seat other than a white male, as racist, then say the racist things he said!?!?! Just amazing. 

          • HonestDebate1

            And Democrats have never had anyone nominated but white males (and one half white) either.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, but Obama isn’t an “authentic White” like Romney is; that’s why people like you didn’t vote him.

          • HonestDebate1

            I did vote for the authentically white Romney but his race had nothing to do with it.

          • 1Brett1

            Finally, you pulled off sarcasm! Congrats!

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes I am but I don’t have a racist bone in my body and there isn’t a racist word in my comment. It’s not possible to have an honest debate about race since Obama came on the scene.

            He’s half black and therefore not an authentic black. How is that disputable on the merits without screaming racism? 

          • 1Brett1

            Wow…Is “authentic black” anything like “legitimate rape”?

          • HonestDebate1

            Do you want talk about legitimate rape? I’ll go there.

          • 1Brett1

            Yes, dotell usyouropiniononlegitimate rape. PLeasepout it uptop sowe can havethe full space for you to expoun d yourlearnedopinion.

          • HonestDebate1

            A legitimate rape is one that actually occurred. Duh.

          • Steve__T

            Yes you are.
            Yes you do.
            Yes there is.
            Yes we can but you won’t.
            Thanks for replying and proving my point

          • HonestDebate1

            Magic Negros are not authentic.

            “He’s there to assuage white “guilt” (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.”
            http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story

          • jefe68

            You make comments that are racially charged, as you just did, and you’re not even aware of it.

            It’s quite something, it’s as if you are trying to be a stereotype of a white middle aged male from the South who thinks he’s not a racist, but is.

            “authentic black”…
            You can’t be serious with this kind of comment.

          • HonestDebate1

            How can he be half white and be an authentic black? How?

            Add to that he is light-skined with no negro dialect unless he chooses to have one. He is an exception because he’s articulate and clean.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – you sir are “a authentic” fool.

            Your rock is calling.  Go crawl back under.

      • brettearle

        Brett–

        If you get a chance, take a look at my own analysis, above, of Jeb, in one comment, and Christie in another.

        I think that Rubio simply `feels’ too young to a large GOP tent.  I think the base would be energized by him becoming a running mate.  But I haven’t studied his record as closely, as I would like to, in order to arrive at more considered opinion.

        With regard to Christie having alienated the financial backers of the more tradtional GOP:

        I think that the Republican party is SO desperate to win the White House, in 2016, that they will back THE candidate, whom they think has the best chance to win.

        It is clear–at least to me–that Christie will be, and is, that candidate.

        I predict–to the Democrats’ peril–that the GOP will compromise some of their traditional values, in order to accommodate a different demographic, with an overarching commitment to victory over true conviction….[I do not know Christie's Latino popularity--but I'll bet it is not hemorrhaging.]

        The Republicans have NO choice, but to make the necessary adjustments.

        And I think that the majority of their leaders will come around to this way of thinking–even Cruz or Bachmann.  

    • JONBOSTON

      I couldn’t agree with you more. Hillary’s most “notable ” accomplishment was her never ending travel schedule to far off places nobody really cared about. I’m still trying to discern what Obama’s foreign policy is all about other than “leading from behind”. 

      • HonestDebate1

        I suppose if she wanted to sully the reputation of State with sex scandals, dead diplomats, deteriorating relations all around and a more dangerous world then she has accomplished a lot.

    • brettearle

      HD–

      Regarding some of your criticisms, of the former First Lady: Some of them may very well be valid; but, very likely, not all of them:

      The ex-Senator is too polarizing a figure to be popular enough, to be President.

      What’s more, the “What Difference Does It Make?” comment will sink her much more than Bush I looking at his watch, during the debate, with Clinton, in 1991.

      Especially, if Christie runs–which I think he will and I also think he will be the nominee–the following is likely, I believe:

      There are, and there will be, many Christie Democrats.  Especially after Sandy.

      The country is still, basically, Center Right.  And Christie will be able to sell himself, successfully, in this way–even though he is probably less moderate than that.

      The ex-Secretary of State’s popularity will likely diminish to the point, where she will only garner, for the most part, the pro-choice crowd.

      Christie is a shoo-in.  Rubio’s his running mate. 

      Off the top of my head, the only contenders, that I can think of, are Evan Bayh or Andrew Cuomo.

                                 ********

      In so far as all the incidents you bring up, about Hillary Clinton….

      First, I have always disliked her, personally. 

      [Unfortunately, I am more enamored, personally, of female Republican politicians, such as Kay Bailey Hutchinson.  I just don't former senator Hutchinson's politics.]

      Secondly, it is impossible to say how much REAL blame Hillary Clinton should actually receive for some of those items that you bring up.   You could certainly say, “On Her Watch”.  But we really don’t know.

      You certainly deserve praise for not including Vince Foster.

      • HonestDebate1

        Thanks Brettearle, that makes sense. I’m glad to hear Hillary isn’t a shoo in for all Democrats. I also forgot to mention Algore. I wonder if he’s in the mix.

        It has been posited that Christie may run as a Democrat. That would not surprise me. 

        • brettearle

          5-2 Odds that Christie takes it all (and I don’t mean everyone else’s meals).

          • brettearle

            And….Al Gore has as much chance of running as Bob Dole has.

    • brettearle

      I have the strong feeling that Bush III would easily eclipse Bush II, as President….in terms of being Presidential timber.

      But I’ll bet the offhanded comment, by the former First Lady, at the Bush II Library christening, pretty much typifies the way the family, and the potential candidate, are viewing it.

      I wouldn’t say that she was speaking for Jeb, directly–but in the spirit of the matter, she probably was.

      If she knew her son had actively strong ambitions, in that direction, then I think that she would have held her tongue.

      To think that the former Governor from Florida, and his mother, don’t talk future politics is unrealistic.

      So, in order to protect her son from not appearing as a quitter, or a wimp, or a loser–or otherwise undignified as a serious candidate–she comes out with a comment that only seems gratuitous, but isn’t. 

      • HonestDebate1

        I hear ya’ but it seems to be a widespread sentiment among Republicans. 

    • Mike_Card

      Personally, I’m tired of both  the Bushes and the Clintons, and wouldn’t go for either.

      We voters just don’t seem to care much for qualifications–I think it’s more of the American Idol mindset.  Marketing and PR sculpting prevails.

      Presidential politics don’t–and maybe haven’t, for decades–been based in capabilities.  Seems to me that they’ve been mostly based on resume building:  prove your ability to collect votes.  I would prefer being able to choose among other attributes, but those candidates never get beyond primaries.

      There was a trend of the voter preference for governors, but I think that pendulum swung away, after Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 2.

      All the Dem names–Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, et al–will just be too old to be considered for 2016; a new one will emerge soon, probably a governor.

      The GOP has so many front-runners, but all are fringe issue-candidates in a fringe party.  It’s hard to foresee Rubio or Cruz or Palin or Bachmann thrashing thru the primaries, then garnering more than 45% of the popular vote.

      Changed your handle?

      • HonestDebate1

        I think you are all over it, I agree. I always liked Harold Ford Jr. and wonder how much different thing would have turned out if he had beaten  Pelosi for Speaker.

        Yea, I changed my handle. I’m no longer as brave as you under this regime.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          changing your name wont keep you off the list

          • HonestDebate1

            What’s your name?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i am sure the nsa knows

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        You’re an honest broker, but I’d like to relay my observation that meme in the press corps of “fatigue over the BushAndClintonDynasties” only took hold when Hillary started gearing up for 2008.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        its even simpler than that. whoever spends the most wins the election. oboma is a great fundraiser

    • brettearle

      I do not understand the debate, below, on both sides.

      Elections are neither color blind, nor gender blind, nor religion blind.

      Period.  Whether we like it or not.

      People can frequently vote for candidates–with whom they most identify.  And I would argue that sometimes this sort of identification. for personal reasons, can become a priority over ideological reasons.

      How many women might have voted for Hillary Clinton over Obama–even though, when you came right down to it, these voters might have agreed more with Obama’s politics?

      [I do not believe that the 2 candidates' platforms were completely the same.]

      Is it not possible that people would have voted for Santorum over Herman Cain–even though their politics might have sided more with Cain?

      I think so.

      [Of course, in Cain's case, he might not have been preferred, because he was not viewed as a presumptive favorite, in any case.]

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      “Currently Drudge…”

      Hahaha.

      • HonestDebate1

        You don’t like Drudge either? Who do you trust?

        Update: Currently the headline on Drudge is about the murderous weekend bloodbath in the Democrat run, highly gun-controlled Chicago.

        Seriously TF, you can be as nasty as anyone especially when you get into the beastiality stuff. I can’t say I like you much. But you are smart and do have a basis for your comments. You can articulate it. I appreciate that, not that it matters. 

        I also am quite sure you are not a racist but you don’t realize you lay with them.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      didnt jeb just make soe sort of comment about immegrants being more fertile?

      • HonestDebate1

        I think I saw that, someone did.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          in his defense if you walk around on south beach you can see some very fertile looking immigrants

  • HonestDebate1

    Happy days are here again:

    “The power of Fox News is unparalleled. The role of Fox News in the important debates in our world is indispensable. I am pleased and proud to be rejoining Roger Ailes and the great people at Fox.” – Sarah Palin

    • brettearle

      HD–

      Palin can’t hold Rich Lowry’s briefcase.  And you know it.

      She’s is often an Embarrassment.

      Why showcase her or her quotes?

      It only hurts your cause.

      • HonestDebate1

        I like her and am not in the least bit embarrassed to say it. I would have taken her over the last two nominees in a heartbeat.

        I “showcased” her because of all the nasty comments when she decided not to resign with Fox. Now that she has it will drive libs nuts. I agree with Greta (a Democrat):

        http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/greta-van-susteren-sarah-palin-will-drive-critics-crazy-92752.html

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – perhaps a well-placed dash would help.

          “…she decided not to resign with Fox.” Try “re-sign” next time.

          Palin is a joke, who “resigned” FROM Fox in January, when they “offered” her an huge pay reduction. It’s all about money for Palin, isn’t it? Why else would she have quit elective office, if not to cash in?

          She’s a media hustler and little else. Ailes did some bargain shopping and she bit. There’s little downside risk for the Freaking Opinionated Xenophobe Network as Palin no doubt comes very cheap.

        • nj_v2

          Of course you like her. You both operate at the same level of intellectual rigor and sophistication.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’ll take that. You can operate at the same level of intellectual rigor and sophistication as Jill Stein.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i have seen her haul in a huge halibut i but i dont know what he has in his briefcase so i dont know if she could manage but i know she seems so have no trouble hauling around tons of baggage.
        http://notsomebody.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/sarah-palin-halibut-.jpg

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Certainly happy days for Sat Night Live and all comics.

      • Steve__T

         John Stewart is probably writing and looking through old footage and giggling already.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          if he was working at the daily show

          • Steve__T

             What do you mean if?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            he is not hosting the show for the next three months because he is directing a film

      • HonestDebate1

        They never quit.

        • jefe68

          And you never stop.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s always worthwhile but this is a particularly good time for folks to look at your profile to see what you add to the debate.

    • hennorama

      Gregg
      Smith – that is such nonsense. Allow me to “refudiate”:

      Palin
      is a lightweight and a quitter. She’ll just be another Freaking
      Opinionated Xenophobe talking head.

    • nj_v2

      Greggg, tireless defender and cheerleader for the idiot wing of the GOP.

    • JONBOSTON

      Gregg, 

      Although we agree on many (but not all) issues , I do not share your opinion of sarah palin. I happen to think she’s an idiot. She rarely has anything worthwhile to offer the listener. I’d prefer listening to Newt Gingrich any day –articulate, insightful, and thinks outside the box.

      • HonestDebate1

        Palin’s story is quite impressive but the  thing I respect most about her is her ability to handle the unrelenting nastiness she endures with so much grace. It take a strong sense of self to do that. I disagree that she’s an idiot but that’s cool. I disagree with conservatives here on various issues. That’s what we do, think independently. 

        I am sincere about Palin but I’ll be honest, I get a kick out of the reaction I get so I play it up. I do the same to Rush. I also realize many Conservatives may cringe at some of my comments regarding these two and other topics I provoke with.

        Here’s the thing, the context is Obama. I was not a big McCain fan until he picked Palin. I still think her speech at the 2008 convention was a classic. I know a little about delivering under extreme pressure in front of large crowds. She did that. She got me excited about McCain. And really in 2008 while everybody was bashing her the more valid comparison was with Biden. IMHO Biden hasn’t half the guts, clarity and integrity of Palin. I also think it’s pretty funny that she gets called  quitter, some idiot did that earlier. I don’t think it was possible for her to remain governor given the politics at the time. It’s irrelevant now and I guess the case can be made that she should have stayed but that case can only be taken seriously from Obama opposers. I don’t see any purpose in debating that issue but Obama supporters are the ones who levy the charge and that is just hypocritically dumb. Obama quit the Senate after two years.

        So again, to me, looking at Palin must be done in the context of the Obama disaster.

        Newt was my first choice and in fact I did vote for him in the primary even though it was mostly settled by the time they reached NC. So to come full circle let’s hear Newt compare Obama to Palin:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjGhy8LVwAo

        • JONBOSTON

          Even though I’d never vote for her, I do admire Palin’s ability to ignore her critics and march on. And I do very much enjoy listening to Rush even though I disagree with him on some (but very few) issues (climate change and abortion). I can’t believe his critics have ever really listened to him. If they did and were willing to listen to him without any pre-conceived bias, they’d find him to be logical, exuding much common sense, and  most importantly accurate in his statements of fact.  And persuasive –which is why the left spreads such lies about him. He’s very good at demonstrating the sheer hypocrisy of the left and its triumph of emotion over reason.  Have you ever listened to Mark Levin?–brilliant guy and very interesting… And I think the world of  Charles Krauthammer–another brilliant insightful analyst…

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        interesting those two are in the same party. too bad newt did not win we might be halfway done the moonbase by now

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      This is an attempt at satire, right?

      • HonestDebate1

        I don’t know her intent. Here’s what Ailes said:

        “I have great confidence in her and am pleased that she will once again add her commentary to our programming … I hope she continues to speak her mind.”

        I’ll bet she got a raise.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          her fox job was the cushyist job in the world. once a day wander out to the garage/studio and blather for a few minutes for a few mil a year. if she quits again i would take her job

          • HonestDebate1

            Me too. Right now, I’m trying to get a job going to my mailbox to get royalty checks. It’s good work too… if you can get it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            maybe WBUR could just pay me to never tell people these things I know. i can do this job from home

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Analysis from thenewamerican: “President Obama OKs Shipment of Arms to Al-Qaeda in Syria”

    quoted from the National Defense Authorization Act:

    “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C.1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

    A covered person under this section is any person as follows: 

    A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners…”

    So, BHO is authorized to detain himself for authorizing aid to the AQ forces in Syria. 

    • brettearle

      McCain, a staunch Hawk, would be doing the same thing–had he become President and had he been reelected.

      And he would have done it, months ago.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        True – McCain never saw a fight he didn’t want to get into. But so what? I didn’t vote for McCain lite.

        • brettearle

          I’m interested to know:

          Do you not believe that Presidents move to the Left or to the Right–based on information that come across their desks, day after day?

          This is information that, if you saw it, might explain a President’s decision, better than we think.

          We are not privy to the same information that is accessible to the President.

          It may also be that the President acts in accordance with information that he does not know about–that he is either shielded from or else is otherwise deflected away from his desk.

          A mistake that is made is that we think that we can reconcile our expectations with our vote.

          I don’t think it works that way.  Maybe it does.  But I don’t think it does.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            I wonder of you realize that is the identical argument I’ve seen to justify every disastrous intervention?

  • ExcellentNews

    I think someone needs to explain to John Boehner (speaking about Mr. Snowden) what’s the difference between a traitor and a hero.

      Traitor – covertly engages in actions that are detrimental to his people for the sake of personal gain.

       Hero – sacrifices wealth and/or life selflessly so that his fellows can have a better life.

    While heroic actions may sometimes look foolish and not work as intended, please be assured that Mr. Snowden IS A HERO. The guy gave away much to warn us, with nothing to gain.

    On the other hand, Boehner and his pals in Congress have been shilling for the oligarchy, quietly selling out America to job exporters, predatory lenders, Saudi princes, and Chinese industrialists. You want to know who are the TRAITORS? Look no further than Mr. Boehner and his paymasters.

    • brettearle

      Before you say, officially, for yourself, that Snowden is a Hero, it might make some sense to contemplate why Boehner is saying what he is saying.

      Is it possible that Boehner is not SIMPLY championing the cause of the Patriot Act and PRISM?

      But, in fact, is it possible that Boehner may have information that points DIRECTLY to how, or whether, Snowden has ACTUALLY compromised National Security.

      It is, of course, true that Boehner has much better access to private information, than you or I.

      The question, to me, is whether Boehner is playing fast and loose with what he knows.  That may be another matter.       

      • Steve__T

         It looks more like a B movie. Where the guy in power calls the ex-poser a lie and a traitor, catch him and lock him up. I would think that more evidence, on this needs to come forward, but… nasty little secrets may remain hidden til it’s to late. Or the truth may be WYSIWYG. Either way, spying on the American people and getting caught or told on, is really embarrassing in so many ways.

        • brettearle

          Embarrassing? Certainly.

          Destructive?  Very possibly.

          Necessary, anyway?  Maybe.

          Security vs Liberty
          Liberty vs Security

          There’s too much that we don’t know.

      • ExcellentNews

        Yeah, John Boehner is staying up late at night parsing military intelligence and organizing the defense of the Homeland. That is after a hard day of work fighting for tax cuts for our “job creators”… LOL. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      not to mention robots

  • HonestDebate1

    Given the comments below, I think it’s time to hear from the official EIB Obama criticizer. He is certified black enough to criticize with 100% American organic slave blood:

    http://therightscoop.com/audio-bo-snerdleys-latest-official-obama-criticizer-monologue/

    • Steve__T

       So was Uncle Tom.

      • HonestDebate1

        Thank you.

        • Steve__T

           Watch the movie Django you’ll know better what I mean. You won’t say thank you.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Hey, we all know that the Official Righty Party Line on the fact that scientists agree that we are in deep doo-doo from warming the earth with fossil fuel emissions is “science isn’t done by consensus”. (What do you think their bosses in the fossil fuel industry would say about “consensus” if all the scientists said global warming was not a problem? :))

    Putting aside that the pols and dupes parroting the Party Line have no clue about how science is done, it is a great talking point, in that it makes the near-unanimous opinion of those who actually understand climate into a negative. If you agree with the scientists, you’re just a crowd follower with no independent thought, right?

    Good news is that new Sec of Energy Moniz from MIT is much more forceful than former Sec Chu and will not hesitate to call the pols on this nonsense. Have a look at this:

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/14/2148391/energy-secretary-explains-to-gop-member-how-he-knows-humans-are-warming-the-planet-i-know-how-to-count/

    MONIZ: If I may say — and I’d be happy to have a longer discussion — but a few facts: first of all the rise in CO2 emissions in the last half century is clearly tracked to our global increased energy use. Secondly, I know how to count. I can count how many CO2 molecules have gone out from fossil fuel combustion and I know how many additional CO2 molecules are in the atmosphere

    Counting! What a concept!

    MCKINLEY (R-WVA): Let me just close with saying, in terms of consensus, I think consensus has a place in politics, but consensus doesn’t have a place in science.Wow, a perfect parrot!MONIZ: …Again, sir, I just want to clarify: my judgment is based on numbers, on data, and not on the consensus…

    Exactly. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       TomK, a fine job a cherry picking.  There isn’t any controversy or debate about the CO2 levels and the primary source of the increase.

  • 1Brett1

    HonestDebate1, 

    Eres un racista y un hombre blanco malvado que tiene la arrogancia de un amo de esclavos. Y su coche huele a estiércol de cabra! Mantenga palear sus propios escondite personal de estiércol de caballo!

    • HonestDebate1

      El sicko.

  • HonestDebate1

    IMHO the shallowest and most dishonest form of debate is to accuse racism in lieu of honest rebuttal. I said Obama was not an authentic black and look at the howls. He’s half white, it’s like calling Johnny Cash’s Cadillac an authentic 1953 car.

    I then sprinkled my comments with vile racism from the left but no one complained. That says it all.

    Today racism is about politics not skin. The NAACP doesn’t’ give a damn about blacks, they care about Democrats. Bill Clinton was given the title of the first black President and Herman Cain was called a monkey in a window. Michael Steele was depicted as Sambo, Condi as Aunt Jemima. Colin Powell was an Uncle Tom. Death was wished upon Clarence Thomas. No problem.

    Time Magazine ran a piece about Obama entitled “Is he black enough”. ESPN accused RG3 of not being authentic because he’s a Republican. No problem.

    That is why it’s cool for Bill Clinton to tell Ted Kennedy Obama should be serving them coffee. Or for Joe Biden to say a clean articulate black man is the exception. Or for Harry Reid to think a light-skinned black with no negro dialect was a good thing. It’s the same mentality that says blacks are not capable of getting a valid ID to vote, or standards should be lowered for blacks entering college, or we should have 50 some odd classifications for race on the census. Newt called Obama the Food Stamp President and he was savaged as a racist. Never mind the fact that more whites are on food stamps, it’s the assumption that counts. The assumption of liberals is blacks are too inept to take care of themselves without whites. And then there’s Obama, a complete and total disgrace. A failure. It must be racism. It’s sick.Get over it Liberals. No decision should be made based on race but that’s your number one criteria. No one should be judged by the color of skin but that’s all you guys see. Why should govern meant ever ask anyone’s race on any document? Why? there is no reason. If you think there is then you are the racist.

    • 1Brett1

      Insensitive, racially derogatory things politicians say or have said will not and can not be defended, and are to be condemned whether or not you enumerate those things, so to speak, and attribute them to a specific politician. By the same token, insensitive, racially derogatory nonsense that you say will not and can not be debated or defended. They are commented on by others how they have been commented on. It is their business how they wish to respond or if they wish to respond. Because they don’t say the words you want them to say, it doesn’t mean whatever you say it means; you aren’t a mind reader, nor are you the ultimate authority on knowing what people mean or how their replies or non-replies should be interpreted. Presenting your stupid comments the way you do just so you can spend the day trying to rook someone else into spending the day arguing with you, then beating your chest and trying to imply the commentators on this forum are just as racially insensitive as politicians for not spending the day arguing with you about such crap, or that they are just as racially insensitive as you, or that Democrats say racially derogatory things too, or whatever other stupid point you are trying to make, is just another childish display on your part. 

      Honest rebuttal is not lacking just because people don’t wish to get into some long-winded, stupid debate with you about your derogatory phrase “not an authentic black.” Jeesh, you clearly have a problem. Your wish to fritter your time baiting people into silly arguments because your life is empty, or for whatever reason you do that, is your business, sure, but all of the things you’ve said in your comments are the same things you’ve said in the past, over and over, ad nauseam…I guess you have nothing new to say so you recycle old material to re-argue old arguments that people tired of arguing with you about long ago? You’re like a child who feels he hasn’t been paid enough attention so he acts out and does bad things to get attention. 

      • HonestDebate1

        That’s bizarre. You’re a vile bomb thrower with no substance, screw you.

        • jefe68

          Because it’s al about you and your childish ego.

          • HonestDebate1

            Exactly! You get it, that’s what his reply is about. It’s childish.

          • jefe68

            No, I was thinking of you sunshine.

          • HonestDebate1

            Really? I had no idea.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, no, see, you, you, you just really don’t get the whole sarcasm thing. 

        • 1Brett1

          There was no substance to your commentary, just how much you hate Hillary, then in subsequent comments how you were trying to race bait.

    • 1Brett1

      All you are doing is race baiting. You think you are clever because you already know your “authentic black” phrase is racially charged and have braced yourself to counter anyone who tells you that you sound racist. 

      So, you start out armed with some stupid argument that states genetically, technically Obama isn’t 100% African-American so you then get to use the statement, “Obama isn’t an authentic black,” knowing someone will call you a racist. You then lay down your stupid argument card and go, “haha! Gotcha! I’m technically correct because Obama isn’t 100% black, so it is you who is racist for calling me a racist when I am just stating a fact! I win!!” What childish nonsense. Are you that in need to argue with others? 

      • HonestDebate1

        Get me out of your head.

        • jefe68

          You sound like a minime version of Glenn Beck…

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s cute.

          • 1Brett1

            That’s exactly how I have always imagined HD1 looks. And he looks almost a dead ringer for that guy who used to comment on here…what was his name, Craig Smyth or something like that?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            thats funny you should send it to glenn beck he would get a kick out of it

    • Steve__T

      Can say your ancestry is pure as the driven snow?
      Are you a mongrel or 100% white?

      IMHO you are one racist twisted demented dishonest ASS. But I repete myself.

      • HonestDebate1

        I’m a mongrel. That’s the point, we all are so let’s forget the whole thing and judge people by the content of their character.

        Call me what you want. No one has even attempted to say what is authentically black about the half-white, struggle-free, coddled ivy leaguer Obama other than the color of his skin. that’s it.  And they sure get huffy when asked to defend their attacks. I said what I said but I defended it and made my case. 

        My comment above was an extension of the debate below. I wasn’t the one who even injected race at all. That would be this guy:

        http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/14/week-nsa-immigration-fires#comment-931498108

        I didn’t start this but I’m happy to finish it.

        • Steve__T

           Thru your statements, the content of your character is what is in question. You cannot deliberately incite people and call it honest, or debate.

          Now it’s finished!

          • HonestDebate1

            Inciting honest debate is what I do.

          • hennorama

            Conjuring cavalry crapola is what you do, Gregg Smith.

        • jefe68

          Yeah you did start it. You don’t get to chose when anything ends on a forum such as this. You want to stop be my guest.
          Quite frankly if you stopped posting I doubt anyone would notice or care. You comments are a kind of theater of the absurd, and not in a good way. 

          You come across as a very silly little man with a huge chip on his shoulder.

          • 1Brett1

            Unbelievable, isn’t it? He initiated a conversation about how horrible a person Hillary Clinton is, under the guise of asking what people see as coming up in the next presidential election in terms of candidates. I point out something about Republican political strategy and how they are not inclusive, and he replies with “Obama is not an authentic black” then implies I started an argument about race?!?!?! 

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s just silly, it’s all there for anyone to read. You own it.

            BTW, I don’t need a “guise” to say what a horrible person and lousy role model for women Hillary is. I do it all the time. I wondered what the appeal was and no one, no one, could say. No one could list an accomplishment. Yet she’s the assumed front runner. That view into the liberal mind is interesting to me that’s all. Brettearle, JonBoston, Mike Card and TF (indirectly) offered some interesting thoughts. The rest was just BS about me.

          • 1Brett1

            Wait…what? Your comment was about Hillary as a role model for women? What nonsense.

            Also, it’s funny how no reply listing Hillary’s accomplishments translated (in your mind) into: “no one, no one, could say. No one could list an accomplishment.”

          • HonestDebate1

            After reading (and replying to) your last comment on probable cause, etc. on another board I should’t be surprised at the 180 degree conclusions you draw having zero to do with anything I wrote butI still am amazed. I didn’t say my original comment was about Hillary being a role model. I just took the opportunity to bash her gratuitously and buttress the point you missed.

            My comment was about Jeb’s statement that she was formidable and I asked commenters why. Is it by default. Listing accomplishments (even one) would put me in my place, wouldn’t it? Everybody wants to do that. Calling me a racist, bigot or villain does not do it. The method is honest debate.

            Change “could” to “would” if it makes you feel better.

          • 1Brett1

            No, listing even one of Hillary’s accomplishments would just give you a reason to prattle on with more of your “debate.”

            One accomplsihment? You would say, “no, she ruined this, she was terrible at that, she, blah, blah, blah,” and so on. 

            No, you are never “put in your place.” It doesn’t really matter anyway; you prattle on whether anyone talks about Hillary or not, or indulges you by addressing your point or not. You attack from so many angles and try to keep so many arguments going, I forget what you are arguing about, frankly. I think that is because you scan comments for a point that you think you can argue against, whether that is an actual point is irrelevant; you make up one if you can. A reply of yours can go anywhere, e.g., even if race is mentioned in a comment about Republicans not being inclusive (which is why they don’t get support from minorities, even if there is a candidate,eg., Cain, Rubio, etc., as a choice), you decide that I am  “injecting race” (when I am pointing something out about Republicans and politics). All of this is so you can pull out your pat argument that race issues shouldn’t exist and only do so because of liberals, etc. It’s really tiresome.

          • HonestDebate1

            Then don’t reply, don’t keep calling my name out of the blue. I got replies from liberals on this thread that were insightful. We’re fine without you.

          • 1Brett1

            Don’t reply to me, then, if you think that is a solution to your nonsensical presence. You seem to want to tell me what I should and shouldn’t do, yet you could do those things yourself that you suggest I do (and one has more control over one’s own behavior, after all). Further evidence of your arrogance and controlling nature.

          • HonestDebate1

            From below:

            Dude, I’m not the one complaining about you, your tactics and your mindset off topic on your thread. 
            I have never brought up your name to others out of the blue after stewing for days on the meaning of unalienable. I still have no idea what you were even arguing about. I don’t know what your arguing about now. You just like to fight.

            Hillary is the deft frontrunner and has no accomplishments. No one here has cited one, no one on the MSM has cited one, no one in the DNC has cited one even Obama is in that group. And you want to talk about me and race. It’s bizarre.

          • 1Brett1

            blah, blah, blah. You are such a hypocriteand so unaware of your own arrogance. I’ve said all I’m going to say about your comments on “authentic blacks” and Hillary, and Jeb, and I’ve heard more of your crap on the matter than I would like. How about if you take your own command toward me and just “shut up!” HOw about that?

          • jefe68

            No you own your own loaded racist comments. For someone who thinks he’s engaged in an honest debate you must be aware that you are doing anything but that. 

          • HonestDebate1

            Nope, read my comment:

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/14/week-nsa-immigration-fires#comment-931311580

            It had nothing to do with race at all. Race was injected on a reply by a race baiter looking for a fight. 

          • 1Brett1

            Because Republicans nominate white guys as their presidential candidates? Because Republicans talk about the need to garner the Hispanic vote? That makes me a race baiter?

            Let’s go with your warped mind for a minute, for the sake of examining your twisted logic. Let’s say I said the most “vile” racist thing imaginable…does that make your “Obama is not an authentic black” statement reasonable or not race baiting?

            All any of this proves is that you will argue any stupid point you make all day long if you can….oh, and that you are a bigot.

            This is just another tactic: it’s a “because my initial comment was about one thing, the rest of my comments I am not responsible for!” Or, “because I was replying to something, I am not responsible for my comment…” kind of tactic. how weasely of you.

          • HonestDebate1

            No, injecting race does. You are responsible for that.

            Either either give me something besides the color of his skin that makes him an authentic black, admit it is all about the color of his skin and not his heritage or experiences… or shut up…. or agree with me.

          • 1Brett1

            “Shut up”? 

            Basically, your comment here is like classic Gregggg. Remember that guy? You’re telling me to answer you the way you want or don’t answer you at all. 

            Let me ask you something, if color of skin plays no role in society, except for liberal political purposes, would you say your experiences as a white guy living in rural North Carolina shape your views at all or are perhaps a slightly different set of experiences than if you were a 50-something black man? Would your experiences (which, experiences  shape at least part of our views) be at all different as an over 50 year old black man in rural North Carolina?

          • HonestDebate1

            No, I’m just telling you to answer or quit wasting my time.  Either he is an authentic black or he is not. Either it’s based on nothing but skin color or it’s not.   

            The color of skin plays a huge role in society. Where do you get this stuff? 

            I used to think you were just to blind with ideology to keep telling me what I think. Now I’m beginning to question your intelligence.

          • 1Brett1

            You waste yourown time, oh, “Mongrel One.”

            “authentic blcak”is a stupid phrasethat is racist. Obama   has livedasa black manhis whole life, and rightly so. Enoughof your”half-breed”bigotry.

          • jefe68

            You admitted in this very same forum that some of your comments were racially charged. Now you try to back track. Well, you are one piece of work

          • HonestDebate1

            No, the comment in question was not racially charged in any way shape or for. My subsequent replies (after race was injected) were but they were not racist and truer words have never been spoken.

            I have not backtracked, I own my comments and stand by them.

          • jefe68

            That’s good.
            They are racially charged and I guess now you agree with what you have already posted before. Hence backtracking…

          • HonestDebate1

            I am well aware some of my comments are racially charged. That one was not. This one isn’t either.

        • 1Brett1

          Lindsay Graham said the very same thing about Republicans needing to get “the Hispanic vote” on Face the Nation this morning. My point was how Republicans view their strategy, how they do or do not except candidates (and citizens, for that matter) into their “big tent.” All you are trying to do is to twist my words into that I say racist things/I am being racist. No, I was pointing something out about Republican political strategy. 

          You sound like some punk kid on a playground: “I didn’t start this thing but I’m happy to finish it.” Jeesh…

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i think we need to stop using the racist term “marijuana” when cannibis is being discussed

      • HonestDebate1

        Indica or Sativa?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          both are cannabis species. under the letter of the law only sativa is illegal(good luck making that argument in court or the side of the road). or were you offering? i will have to decline as drugs are bad m’kay?
          unless npr wants to start calling beer cerveza  then they are complacent in perpetuating racist propaganda from the ’30s

          • Steve__T

             No all cannabis species are illegal, federally to possess, unless you have a tax stamp issued by the gov you cant grow it or sell it. no matter what strain.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            21 USC 802(d) (16)
            unless you can find C. indica or C. ruderalis mentioned in federal law anywhere they are not illegal

          • HonestDebate1

            I do know about some bad things but I’ve never heard of ruderalis. I learned something, thanks.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            nether has the federal govt. pure ruderalis is garbage but they are using it to produce hybrids with determinate flowering periods which some people find convienient. i must have seen that on tv somewhere

          • Steve__T

             It’s called ditch weed.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            thats most likely the sativa variety. feral industrialhemp is sativa. ruderalis is native to eastern europe

          • HonestDebate1

            I wasn’t offering, I’m dry. Actually, I have no idea where you are trying to go with this. I just thought it was funny. Indica (AKA skunk) is illegal.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            The term “marihuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa
            L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part
            of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or
            preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the
            mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made
            from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
            mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted
            therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is
            incapable of germination. 21 USC 802(d) (16)

            like i said good luck using this tactic in court and god bless you if you try to make this argumant on the side of the road. a really savvy prosecutor if they were motavated enough could get a dna test and prove some sativa content as most strains are in fact hybrids. some skunk if it were a pure enough strain might be 100% indica. but i dont know much about those illegal drugs because drugs are bad

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s just a definition of marijuana. I think the Controlled substance act of 1970 just says the cannabis plant and its cannabinoids. I still don’t get the racist thing but that’s cool.

            Cannibus Indica is just smaller with wider leaves. It matures faster and is more potent… so I’ve heard.

            Thai Sticks are Cannibus Indica, so is Afghani pot… so they say. 

            It smells like a skunk… so they tell me.

            I’m not arguing just passing on what I’ve heard.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            not “a” definition its the legal definition under federal law, the law that is cited there. i was unable to find any other defintion that includes the other species.if you can find where it says what you said that would be interesting. not that i know anything about such a subject

          • HonestDebate1

            Obviously we both our out of our league as far as experience goes. Maybe we should ask a choomer.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            barry should have won the noble prize for weed smoking what with the his development of TA or total abosorbtion he is a shoe in and he could say he deserved it

          • 1Brett1

            “Thai sticks”? Now you’re dating yourself! Er, I mean the person you heard that from…

      • Steve__T

         Yes unfortunately they threw hemp into the same category, altho you can’t really get high off of it. And we are missing out on an estimated 50 B dollar  crop yearly. They say it would upset the apple cart, corporations like Dow, Monsanto, IP, Georgia Pacific and warehouser are afraid of the competition, As you may know a tree takes tens of years to grow to size. A hemp plant takes a year. But because production is so low it has become more costly and it is not as profitable as it could be.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Location_and_crop_rotation

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          the dea  and justice department fight every effort to legalise hemp. it is the real threat to the powers that be.  all hemp is cannabis although not all cannabis is hemp

          • Steve__T

             But ALL Cannabis is Illegal.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i dont know about state law but federal law says this:
            The term “marihuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. 21 USC 802(d) (16)
            does not say anything about indica or ruderalis but who knows maybe its part of the secret laws we have now

          • Steve__T

             I know of what you are saying you are trying to point out the differences between two species. one NOT being classified as illegal ie. cannabis Indica.
             I have more research to do but as far as I can say at this time, take you advice and don’t try it in a court of law or on the side of the road. I know we are supposed to go by the letter of the law…. but since when did that stop anything, or anyone from going to jail?   Agreed.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i had to look it up i heard an old hippy on tv say that but it looks like its true. there is some statute on analogues that they could use but that might get tricky. it does not matter to me because
            i dont mess with drugs because drugs are bad.if one were to get tangled up and they did not have anything better it might be worth a shot

    • jefe68

      Get over yourself. This dribble is nothing more than sanctimonious BS. Who do you think you are? Glenn Beck jr?

    • JONBOSTON

      I very much agree with your comments. Not so long ago , criticizing a president was regarded as an admirable expression of political dissent and the highest form of patriotism. Now almost any untoward reference to Obama can be justification for labeling one a racist. The real racists are liberal whites who cannot tolerate independent blacks who stray from the liberal plantation and abandon the traditional liberal party line.

  • 1Brett1

  • HonestDebate1

    I have seen more than one commenter here write we should just let them fight it out in Syria. Evidently they agree with Sarah Palin who said “Let Allah sort it out”. I don’t have the answer but I disagree with hers.

    • brettearle

      To me, it’s a benefits/risk issue–as it, clearly, should be.

      Is NOT doing something riskier than doing something?:

      Does Intelligence suggest that it’s worth risking greater chance of running up against Russia, China, or, by proxy, with Iran–in order to save lives and to answer to the crimes against humanity charge, leveled against Syria, for its use of sarin?

      Does Intelligence suggest that our current initiative will not run the risk of eventually putting troops on the ground?

      Or that, by our current initiative, it will reduce an eventual border/weapons transfer conflict between Israel and Hezbollah?

      Are we doing it, only–because more rebels are getting killed and that these rebels are losing the war?

      That implies that the US has reasonable confidence that overthrowing the Syrian Government is better than not doing so.

      But if that’s true, it doesn’t seem as if that is possible unless we increase our commitment, substantially.

      It seems to me that if the President is only doing this because he doesn’t want to look like a wimp, after his earlier promise (use of gas), then that is certainly not enough of a justification.

      • HonestDebate1

        “Is NOT doing something riskier than doing something?”

        Bingo. That’s the question rarely asked. There seems to be an assumption doing nothing is always better. It is also assumed doing something means war. That’s the way it seems to me anyway.

        I think your questions, as well as your observations, are good ones but I’m looking at a bigger picture in the context of the Arab Spring; in the context of the rise of radical Islam. Radical Islam wants to rule the planet and I don’t think we should allow that to happen. I think civilization as we know it is at stake. I may catch hell for the drama but that’s my honest opinion.

        I’m not smart enough to know the solution or how it all ties in to Syria.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          like they say “everybody wants to rule the world” the radical islamists have trouble lighting their underwear on fire i dont think there is really much of a chance of them taking over the word compare them to real threats we defeated like the soviets and the nazies and its seems even more insane how we have allowed our rights to be shredded to confront such a pathetic threat.

          • HonestDebate1

            Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think the Soviets or Nazi’s killed civilians on our soil. Imperial Japan did  though.

            Jihadist killed 3000 with box cutters and plane tickets. I don’t think the threat is pathetic but I agree about our rights being shredded.

          • brettearle

            HD–

            The problem with the way Futo is thinking, I think, is that in this Asymmetric War, we do NOT always KNOW our enemy; where our enemy is coming from; and what sort of WMD portability the enemy is slipping by customs, border patrol, or is concocting, here, on our own soil, aka Tsarnaev

            And so, while I do not like to take the Devil’s Advocate, the fact is we knew that we had to take out the Luftwaffe and where they were.

            We have been aware–for the most part I believe–where the Soviet Silos have been, for example.

            But this current enemy can be elusive, by comparison.  And it can also be emboldened by the development of elusive technology.   

          • HonestDebate1

            Okay Brettearle, you are not helping. We are not supposed to agree like this. And I’m not sucking up, the day is coming and we will once again think our respective selves are plum nuts but not this time.

            One of my big problems with Obama is I don’t believe he has been honest about the threat we face. I think that is why the Benghazi meme was propagated. I think that’s the difference, at this point, it makes. You know what, if he would level with us I could disagree with respect. Now I just flat out don’t trust him and It gives me no pleasure to say that.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the bengazi thing was a cia action gone wrong one in a long line. whats funny is glenn beck said that months ago then the mainstream media said it for a minute but now they are on to something else

          • brettearle

            HD–

            It’s not nice to disrespect your elders.

            But if you need to, at least be an equal- opportunity `disrespector’: 

            When has ANY President, Executive Branch, etc. ever been brutally honest with the country?

            This Benghazi thing pales in comparison to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the secret bombing of Laos/Cambodia.

            Will you puhhhhleeassse stop with the Benghazi obsession.  Your political bias is showing….

            ************

            sidebar:

            “You are not helping”

            Funny line.

            Keep up the good work

            PS…

            Why aren’t you going after the others for outing you?

            Why am I being singled out?

          • HonestDebate1

            You are not being singled out. I have had the “talk” with several. There is the one belligerent person who chimes in with nothing but hate and at this point  all I can do is ignore her. Responding would be an acknowledgement and there is nothing of substance to respond to. Your comments are worth engaging. However, my faith is restored as to our disagreeing.

            I’ll go up a few notches to address the meat of you response.

          • HonestDebate1

            From below:

            In reading your comments,it occurs to me GWB could have written them. You are describing the asymetric threat just as he did. I think he was up front about the threat of radical Islam. I also think he was up front about the threat of WMD but that is an entirely different discussion I’m tired of debating, so if you can note the distinction. GWB was honest about the big picture and threat that Radical Islam poses to the world. 

            When GHWB told the world after Sadaam invaded Kuwait, “this will not stand” people were shocked. America did not support war but he led with clarity. The people came around.

            FDR described Pearl Harbor as a day that would live in infamy.

            It’s not that Obama didn’t level with us, he went to incredible lengths to avoid making clear the threat of Radical Islam. He lied. His message is Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is decimated. So forget it, I’m not letting up on Benghazi. It does matter, despite Hillary’s admonition.

            And finally look at the debates you’ve been having with others. You are not some wacko hawk you are just assessing the threat soberly. Do you get the feeling those you are debating understand anything but, war is bad and Syria doesn’t affect us?

          • brettearle

            I have some responses that, hopefully, will interest you.

            But I don’t know where to put them.

            Want me to put them, way at the top of this thread?

          • HonestDebate1

            Sure, that’ll be good. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            it took 400,000 american lives to defeat the axis. that was a real threat. these people are clowns. they are not even good muslims.  its as if they did not exist the cia would have to create them. the solution is for us to restore our freedoms. if there were a hundred americans exercising their 2nd amendment rights they could never hijack anyone with boxcutters

        • brettearle

          The problem with your assessment–if it’s true–is that our effort to squelch global Jihad may destroy, or help to destroy, our own country, in the process. 

          The Blood and Treasure could turn into an apocalyptic disaster.  In many ways, already, our financial and manpower efforts have been Legion–perhaps to the point of protracted Hemorrhage. 

          You see the malignancy a bit more systemic than I do:

          To wit:

          Many nations and groups would probably like to take America on, would like to do America in.

          They may join forces, loosely, in spirit with Islamic Fundamentalism.

          But many countries also consider Islam Fundamentalism to be a threat.

          It’s really the unstable countries–and there are many of them–where Islam Fundamentalism is much more of a threat than, obviously, Marxism has been.

          I need to believe that I am not sacrificing my country’s future existence for refusing to fall into a stalwart belief in modern McCarthyism.

          McCarthyism, all over again, is much too Right Wing, for me.

          Irresponsibly, perhaps, I am prepared to take the risk that there is not–this time around, either–A Red under Every Bed.

          I’ll have to live with the consequences.

          OBL wanted us to suffer like this.

          He said, “America is vulnerable”.

          And it is the resoluteness in OUR OWN FEAR that he may, ultimately have been referring to.

          While he likely will never win, I certainly would not like him to win that way.

          • HonestDebate1

            I understand all that, duly noted.

            But again, there are lots of things short of war. And if civilization as we know it really is at stake the it may be worth the risk, certainly it would be if they are capable. It’s like trying an experimental drug that  may or may not save you as opposed to doing nothing and surely dying. 

            Maybe that’s not a good analogy but all I’m really saying is IMHO it’s bigger than Syria. But I do realize Syria is what’s in our face and what you are addressing. I can’t argue with your logic.

          • 1Brett1

            excellent comment, brettearle.

          • brettearle

            Thanks

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i have not heard that speech but i saw an article that she said that. out of context, i have to agree. on its face its a civil war. below the surface the russians and iranians have interests with supporting the regime why the eff should we be getting into a proxy war with russia or involved with picking sides in a civil war? do we really want that? have we learned nothing from arming osoma bin laden and iraq?

      • HonestDebate1

        It’s a mess for sure, those are my fears too. But it’s hard to compare to past conflicts. We did alright siding with Stalin.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          did we send him weapons? if you are going to choose a past conflict to compare it to i dont think thats really a good one. arming bin laden and hussain are much more similar. this also has a lot in common with Vietnam which was also a proxy war with the russians, we start with a little “support for the rebels” then the next thing you know we are knee deep in a quagmire and the military industrial complex rejoices

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m just saying we should’t compare it to any past conflicts. I don’t argue the crux of your point.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i agree but then you did so, and you picked such an odd one to compare. oboma should go read the art of war

  • Steve__T

    Happy Fathers Day!!! to all the Fathers I hope it’s a great day for you.

  • 1Brett1

    The word in the news this morning is that Snowden has been giving China all manner of US secrets. He also has been telling them that the US has been spying on them using various media surveillance…if this turns out to be true, his self-professed concern for the civil liberties of Americans doesn’t quite square with his behavior. He also runs the risk of starting an international incident. 

    I have not seen him as a “hero” in any sense of the word or stretch of the imagination, but by the same token I have thought that seeing him as a traitor and that he has committed treason are way overblown characterizations and fairly unfounded. However, if the current news turns out to be true, then…

    • HonestDebate1

      Then you and Cheney agree.

      • 1Brett1

        No, Cheney is a lot more cocksure in his opinions (as are you) than I. But, this is typical of your “debate” style…Cheney actually says Snowden’s a traitor and should be tried for treason, which is not what I said. The news I related is new (within a couple of hours). I will give more of a defined opinion if it proves to be true.

        Weren’t you prattling on about how you missed Cheney the other day? And how he would be critical of this metadata program? When I pointed out that he has always been a paranoid and was gung-ho about the Patriot Act, so he probably wouldn’t be opposed to this type of surveillance, you lashed back with some nonsense about how I was wrong? 

        Whatever, chump. You are so transparently dishonest in your intentions. You just want to argue with me or otherwise make attempts to make comments of what you think would embarrass me, e.g., to say that my opinion is in agreement with Cheney, etc. Keep playing your kid games.

        You tell me to stop arguing with you but you just can’t resist keeping it going. 

        • HonestDebate1

          I saw Cheney on Fox news Sunday but I missed him saying Snowden should be tried for treason. Maybe he did but I don’t know how I missed it. Are you cocksure about that? I taped it too, maybe I’ll recheck it.

          And where did this new news come from? Cheney did talk about China and secrets on FNS but said he didn’t know. He said it was a question to be asked. I was not aware that he gave another interview since then. Are you reading what others are reporting Cheney said and then interpreting it in your jackhammer nuanced infamous way? Or did you see it yourself?… and interpret it in your infamous jackhammer nuanced way?

          Yes I miss Cheney. And no I didn’t say he would be critical of the program, you made that up. It’s his program I would expect him to defend it and he did. And no, I didn’t say you were wrong about Cheney the other day. You were wrong about the Patriot Act though. That’s why I question whether he said Treason, you make stuff up. 

          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/13/privacy-liberty-surveillance#comment-929286252

          Why are you picking fight? I have no idea what you are even arguing about. You and Cheney largely agree on this, that’s all. Embrace it, he’s a good man.

          • 1Brett1

            I may not be “cocksure” but I do know you’re just a dick.

          • HonestDebate1

            I win!

      • 1Brett1

        In what way do Cheney and I agree?

    • jefe68

      If this story turns out to be true, than he’s a playing a very dangerous game.
      If he’s caught he can be charged with espionage.  

      • HonestDebate1

        Alan Dershowitz thinks he should be charged as a thief then the Chinese government would not have an excuse not to extradite him. I’m not sure about that. 

        • jefe68

          If he is a whistle blower he’s not a thief.
          If he’s trying to sell or use the info to gain some kind of leverage with the Chinese it seems more akin to selling state secrets.
          Which in my view is espionage. 

          • 1Brett1

            That’s is a very reasonable assessment in my view. You also used of the word “if,” which is key in casting any judgment about Showden. 

  • 1Brett1

    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is being allowed to wear paramilitary attire (over his traditional Muslim garb) in military court…yeah, military tribunals do such a good job with al-Qaeda terrorists. [This is sarcasm, by the way, Futo Buddy and Horny "I'm Just a Mongrel Boy" MasterdeBaiter] 

  • HonestDebate1

    “My brothers and sisters of the American community, please join me in abandoning the Government plantation and the party of disappointment.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_YQ8560E1w&feature=player_embedded

    • 1Brett1

      Still working for the team, I see…undercover, I might add…but, no, you are not a Republican…perhaps a NRINO? (Non-Republican in name only)

      I didn’t watch the whole thing but there were a couple of disingenuous or ignorant statements he made. (More on that in a minute.) So what if people switch parties; they do all the time? Why do you single him out because he’s black and has changed Parties? Why inject race into your comment unnecessarily. Oh, HornyforMasterdeBating1? 

      Elbert Guillory (as do many Republicans who wish to align themselves with measures brought forth well over a century ago), brought up legislation during Lincoln’s time. In Lincoln’s time the Parties’ functional roles/platforms were almost the diametric opposite of what they are today. Republicans functioned like modern-day Democrats, and Democrats functioned like modern-day Republicans. Also, he brought up JIm Crow laws. He neglected to mention anything about the Dixiecrats, their history, their loyalties, etc.

      This video amounts to propaganda. A half-truth is as good as a lie; A good lie has a kernel of truth, but of course you know all about such things.

      • HonestDebate1

        He singing my song. He’s saying all the things I get called a racist over. Skip to 1:45, he sounds just like me. He even called it despicabe. It’s awesome. 

        • jefe68

          Except for one thing, he’s African American. He’s also mixing up history to back up his agenda. The GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln anymore than the Democrats are the party of the South.
          In case you have not noticed the majority party in the South these days is the GOP.
          Why? Well, maybe you should sit down for this one. Almost all the Southern Democrats switched parities in the 60′s and the GOP went after them. It was a national strategy of the GOP in that period. 

          Brett get’s more into the nitty gritty of how Elbert Guillory is skewing history, which is fine and dandy. He’s a politician, they lie all the time. 

          • HonestDebate1

            “Except for one thing, he’s African American.”

            I reject in the strongest terms the notion of different rules for different races.

          • jefe68

            Well that’s an interesting notion and one that speaks of ignorance of language, culture and history. 

            There are things African Americans can say about themselves that have a different context then when a white middle aged white guy from the South says it. Just as there are things Jews can say about being Jews that in the words of others can have different connotations.

            That said one can talk about race without being indifferent to others. Unfortunately I don’t see that in the way you conduct yourself.

            You can’t just say that race and difference is over in this country. As if hundreds of years of race relations did not matter. As if slavery was some kind of distant thing that happened in the 19th century. Not when there were Jim Crow laws in the South and blatant race exclusion in the North. 

            I’m not black, but my mother is from a generation of Jews who remember having to deal with signs that said No Dogs, Jews, Negros Allowed in stores and hotels, in that order. This was in the North. In the South it was worse. You can’t just wish history away by clicking your Ruby slippers like some white guy version of Dorothy. 

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m not talking about history, I’m agreeing with Mr. Guillory’s assessment that the Democrat party is a plantation-like foot on the neck of blacks today. Now. I loved his line about control disguised as charity. 

            I don’t care if I say it (and I have said as much many times), if Mr. Guillory says it, IfAl sharp ton says it or if David Duke says it, it needs to be said.

          • jefe68

            So in one sentence you dismis history, and in the next you reference it. 

            That last comment, the one with David Duke mentioned, is classic. It’s amazing you just make these racially charged comments and then make erroneous claims that you are not talking about race. 

            Are you aware that you sound very childish?

          • HonestDebate1

            I never dismiss history. The Democrats have a history of racism and are destroying black families in the present.

            If it’s not racist when Al Sharpton says it then it’s not racist when Duke says the same exact thing.

          • jefe68

            You just did .

  • 1Brett1

    It turns out that the IRS “scandal” wasn’t at all what necocons have claimed…Issa also had information that he suppressed just to keep the scandal going. It turns out that most of this nonsense is nothing more than dirty rotten Republican politics, no, to be fair, they are dirty rotten stinking Republican politics.

    http://occupydemocrats.com/down-goes-scandal-irss-tea-party-scrutiny-initiated-by-conservative-republican/

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/republican-irs-official-began-targeting-of-conservative-groups

    http://aattp.org/bombshell-tea-party-targeting-initiated-by-a-conservative-at-irs-video/

    http://thecontributor.com/inside-washington/irs-manager-who-initiated-tea-party-audits-conservative-republican

    • hennorama

      [Rep. Elijah Cummings releases a full IRS interview transcript] from the Washington Post:

      “The House Oversight Committee’s top Democrat on Tuesday released the full transcript of a congressional interview that he said “debunks conspiracy theories” about the IRS targeting controversy.

      “Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member of the committee, produced a complete interview transcript in which an IRS manager in Cincinnati said he elevated the first tea party case that led the agency to begin singling out conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

      AND

      “The Cincinnati [IRS office] manager in the transcript revealed Tuesday is a self-described “conservative Republican” who told congressional investigators that he asked Washington for guidance on a tea party case on Feb. 25, 2010, the same date listed in an inspector general’s report as the genesis of the IRS’s targeting efforts.

      “The Cincinnati supervisor also confirmed that an IRS screener from his office developed the controversial search criteria that the agency used to identify groups for extra scrutiny.

      “These facts are a far cry from accusations of a conspiracy orchestrated by the White House to target the president’s political enemies,” Cummings said in a letter to [committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)] on Tuesday.”

      See:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/06/18/rep-elijah-cummings-releases-a-full-irs-interview-transcript/

      And here are the transcripts:

      http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/IRS_Screening_Manager_Part_I.pdf

      http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/IRS_Screening_Manager_Part_II.pdf

    • HonestDebate1

      Lois Lerner admitted it and apologized. So there’s that.

      • 1Brett1

        Did my comment (or hennorama’s, for that matter) say anything that would indicate anything to give your reply any relevancy? Did you read any of the links or transcripts about Rep. Elijah Cummings’ findings?

        Again, you are a partisan hack who argues his ideology for the sake of arguing. 

        Of course I could just take your nuance-with-a- bulldozer approach and just claim that Lois Lerner LIED!!! (And if you come back with, “what part did Lois Lerner lie about?”  you will have totally missed my point.) There was scrutiny of conservative groups; it was initiated and maintained by a ‘conservative Republican’ at the Cincinnati office. But argue irrelevant, trivial, incidental and made up points all day to defend yourself all you want.

        • HonestDebate1

          “The Republican manufactured IRS “scandal”… “ 
          All I had to read was the first half of the first sentence in the first link to know that Lerner’s apology negates the premise, so I posted. But I did read the whole thing, it’s an embarrassing attempt at journalism.

          The entire premise is whacked. It is not a  partisan issue. Democrats are pissed too. Ellijah Cummings has been for the most part great. Have you watched any of the hearings? He’s outraged. And yes, I had read about his statements just not your links. He’s trying to distance the President but Issa hasn’t accused the President of being directly involved. Fox hasn’t, Rush hasn’t, I haven’t…. but I will. 

          So because some low-level Cincinnati agent is a Republican there’s nothing to see? Is that it? Who cares if he’s a Republican? So if Lerner lied then she created this huge brouhaha out of thin air?

          You liberals have a bizarre thought process. 

          Defend this all you want, you are a loyal soldier in the Obama army, I’ll give you that.

          • 1Brett1

            Your quote is wrong; I didn’t say “manufactured.”

            I haven’t argued any of the points you say I am arguing. I have never said there wasn’t scrutiny of conservative groups trying to get tax-exempt status, for example.

            But keep making everything black and white and trying to manipulate my comment into something you can argue against. Your moniker reveals that you are a liar; you are into anything but honest debate. 

            By the way, I didn’t post those links to marvel at any journalistic style, but the content is accurate. I suppose since you couldn’t argue with that you went with “embarrassing attempt at journalism” as some lame argument. 

            Also, I figured you’d try to say that I said Lerner lied, which I didn’t (I just that if I were you trying to argue my position I would say that). Those simplistic, one-dimensional kinds of statements are more your tactic than my approach. 

          • HonestDebate1

            It was the first half of the first sentence in YOUR first link…. as I said. Do you read your own links? Pay attention.

            It was Cummings who acted as if Republicans were accusing Obama:

            ““He is a conservative Republican working for the IRS. I think this interview and these statements go a long way toward showing that the White House was not involved in this,”

            And the content is not accurate. This was not manufactured by Republicans. Lois Lerner planted the question so she could admit it and apologize. Gee Wiz. the article is a shameless hit piece not journalism.

            Just never mind, I don’t even know what your point is other than defending your ideology. The next thing you’ll say Cheney wants her tried for treason.

          • 1Brett1

            When I said that there was news linking the IRS scrutiny to a conservative Republican, why would you counter with, “Lois Lerner admitted it and apologized. So there’s that” if your point wasn’t to try implying I was wrong or that I was denying there was any scrutiny? 

            Besides, do I have to defend every sentence of every link I post? Are you going to continue arguing about the shoddy journalism of the first link? Was that my point, once again, that I was championing the journalism of the first link? Jeesh.

            By the way, Cheney saying someone is the worst kind of traitor imaginable (paraphrasing), do you think his implication is that the person should NOT be tried for treason?  

          • HonestDebate1

            I replied, you asked for clarification, I clarified, that’s all. I was implying the notion the whole thing was a Republican manufactured witch hunt was wrong. Your links used those words. All you said was: 

            “It turns out that most of this nonsense is nothing more than dirty rotten Republican politics”

            No, that case cannot be made. 

            Regarding Cheney, he did not say what you said he said. He just didn’t. You inferred it. And he just said “traitor” not anything to imply Snowden was the worst kind imaginable. You made it all up.

  • 1Brett1

    Trent Franks’ anti-abortion bill has been amended. While it now includes language that covers rape, it doesn’t cover the health of the pregnant woman. It also leaves the door open for a woman to get humiliated and denied access to an abortion if she doesn’t have enough proper documentation proving she was raped.

    Also, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R. Tennessee) has replaced Franks to manage the debate of the bill. This is significant, and it exemplifies Republicans’ tone deafness, so to speak. Their way of being “inclusive” is to have a woman be the face of the bill instead of Franks. They have a history of this. Don’t change the message, change the messenger…and to Republicans this represents “change” and inclusiveness when it’s just a parlor trick. By the way, just two weeks ago, Rep. Blackburn said that equal pay doesn’t matter to women.

    The Republicans’ war on women and their efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade continue. This isn’t an isolated issue perpetuated from a few insignificant bad actors in the Republican Party as some less intelligent neocons have suggested.

    • HonestDebate1

      As I understand, it is not an anti-abortion bill. It is a bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks. It allows abortion for 20 weeks. That makes me wonder if the language Dems want is adopted, would they support it?

      This legislation is in reaction to Gosnell. 20 weeks is about the halfway point, I don’t think the PBA’s are necessary until the 3rd trimester but they are the target of this bill. I support the rape and incest language although the logistics make it redundant. I’ve already tried to explain that to you. I oppose the “health of the mother” language if it’s similar to the language they used during the partial birth abortion ban attempts. It’s just a meaningless, emotional loophole.

      BTW, Roe V Wade is not going anywhere.

      • 1Brett1

        This bill is in response to the Arizona 20-week abortion law being struck down, no matter what the Republicans can come with as an excuse that sounds more noble. They didn’t like how state laws have been struck down/their anti-abortion campaign hasn’t been going their way on the state level, so they decided to make a Federal law.

        How is the rape and incest language “redundant”? How is “health of the mother” language “just a meaningless, emotional loophole?

        • HonestDebate1

          It is redundant (maybe not the best choice of words) because in most states a rape must be reported within 48 hours to be legit for the exception. So to add the language for after 20 weeks after the point is moot seems a bit redundant to me. This was all in the first link you posted on this a week or so ago. As I said then, this assumes what Franks said was true.

          The language about the health of the mother concerns me with partial birth abortion only. I’m not smart enough to know about abortions at 20 or 21 weeks. Partial Birth Abortion cannot possibly benefit the health of the mother. If anything it puts the mother at more risk. Even C. Everett Coop said so but it’s not rocket science. Turning the baby breech inside the womb, delivering it all but the head and then sucking the brains out cannot possible benefit the health of the mother.

          • 1Brett1

            I understand what you are saying about “redundancy,” but in current laws the “rape and incest” phrase pertains to access to Federal funds and not whether a woman can actually get an abortion itself. I could see a woman properly report a rape, for example, yet delay getting an abortion. It wouldn’t be wise, but I feel that is a private matter. 

            Why leave a law vague and open to a snag in interpretation if legislators don’t have to or can simply add “for rape and incest”?

            As far as the woman’s health issue…again, why entangle a woman in a legal battle who may be in the midst of a health emergency, a potential life and death emergency? I, like you, do not have enough of a medical background to describe the possible medical issues which may arise putting a woman at risk during pregnancy, but I don’t think it is too difficult to imagine that, whatever those possible emergencies might be, a woman could have those emergencies at 18 weeks, 20 weeks, 24 weeks, etc. So, again, why prevent a woman from making a decision at, say, 24 weeks that could save her own life? 

      • jefe68

        This is a clear strategic attempt to chip away at Roe V Wade. Period. This is how the GOP works, it chips away at legislation it does not like. They will end up being a marginalized party in the next decade due to regressive extremist such as Trent Franks. 

        Obtuse as always. 

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 21, 2014
In this November 2012, file photo, posted on the website freejamesfoley.org, shows American journalist James Foley while covering the civil war in Aleppo, Syria. In a horrifying act of revenge for U.S. airstrikes in northern Iraq, militants with the Islamic State extremist group have beheaded Foley — and are threatening to kill another hostage, U.S. officials say. (AP)

An American is beheaded. We’ll look at the ferocity of ISIS, and what to do about it.

Aug 21, 2014
Jen Joyce, a community manager for the Uber rideshare service, works on a laptop before a meeting of the Seattle City Council, Monday, March 17, 2014, at City Hall in Seattle. (AP)

We’ll look at workers trying to live and make a living in the age of TaskRabbit and computer-driven work schedules.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 20, 2014
In this Oct. 21, 2013 file photo, a monarch butterfly lands on a confetti lantana plant in San Antonio. A half-century ago Monarch butterflies, tired, hungry and bursting to lay eggs, found plenty of nourishment flying across Texas. Native white-flowering balls of antelope milkweed covered grasslands, growing alongside nectar-filled wildflowers. But now, these orange-and-black winged butterflies find mostly buildings, manicured lawns and toxic, pesticide-filled plants. (AP)

This year’s monarch butterfly migration is the smallest ever recorded. We’ll ask why. It’s a big story. Plus: how climate change is creating new hybridized species.

 
Aug 20, 2014
A man holds his hands up in the street after a standoff with police Monday, Aug. 18, 2014, during a protest for Michael Brown, who was killed by a police officer Aug. 9 in Ferguson, Mo. (AP)

A deep read on Ferguson, Missouri and what we’re seeing about race, class, hope and fear in America.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Your (Weird? Wonderful? Wacky?) Roommate Stories
Tuesday, Aug 19, 2014

We asked, and you delivered: some of the best roommate stories from across our many listener input channels.

More »
1 Comment
 
Our Week In The Web (August 15, 2014)
Friday, Aug 15, 2014

On Pinterest, Thomas the Tank Engine and surprising population trends from around the country. Also, words on why we respond to your words, tweets and Facebook posts.

More »
Comment
 
Nickel Creek Plays Three Songs LIVE For On Point
Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014

Nickel Creek shares three live (well, mostly) tracks from their interview with On Point Radio.

More »
Comment