Bitsy

I think there is some confusion in this thread about who is dreaming and spinning

Hah, keep dreaming, keep searching and keep listening to Fox News...enough misinformation and misdirection there to keep a Republican heart a’twitter.

Party switching in state houses is very common, especially when redistricting maps are redrawn, which they will be after the 2010 census, I‘m just saying………

What a a perfect example of ignorance about our system of government…state representatives switching parties is no biggie…only a greenie would consider it deserving of a mention. Oh, silly me, this thread was started because a county commisioner switched parties , and now this sounds like an attempt to save face.

The thread title was quite provocative and attention grabbing, the article was a ho-hum event; I agree a big “yawn”.

Isn't that the purpose of foreign embassies

Sorry, I did misread you. Mea culpa.

If it is anything like Fox News, I know some will like it.

And you think that will shut down the site or the leaks? Do you really want to make a martyr of the guy?

This is what I have read about the rape charges. http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/09/06/can-wikileaks-afford-to-back-the-undiplomatic-julian-assange/

Hope this helps explains my ramblings of last night. I think this is a straightforward explanation minus the legalese. The latest figures that I saw on corporate contributions for the midterm elections was almost $120 million dollars. This means that special interest groups and various industry groups now have their hands in the pocket of many of our elected representatives, and the public has no idea which groups. http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/10/19/citizens-united-before-after-what%E2%80%99s-next/

He was charged 5 years ago; a person is tried under the existing guideline at the time the crime was committed and charges leveled. Our prisons could see many convicted under the drug possession laws released today due to the decriminalization of certain amounts of drugs but that is not the way it works here. DeLay laundered corporate lobbyist money through the Republican National Committee, who in turned donated the money to support candidates in Texas. With the new ruling, this corporate lobbyist can now fund a campaign against/for a candidate of their choice. They have never had First Amendment Rights, namely the protection of political speech. I fear I have not done a good job of explaining this ruling; tomorrow I will find an article that explains it better than I am doing off the top of my head.

Maybe this word salad will make it clearer for you, as well as my above post in response to Shady. http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article/940694-tom-delay-convicted-of-doing-something-the-supreme-court-now-considers-legal-

He was charged 5 years ago, the case finally came to trial this month. In January '10, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Citizens United that corporation may now spend unlimited amounts of money advocating for or against politicians. It granted corporations First Amendment protections when making campaign contributions,effectively granting them personhood. corporations as persons.

Tom DeLay will never spend a day in a federal prison and the irony is that the charges against him are now legal after the Supreme Court granted corporation personhood

Sorry to disappoint but the court rejected the case without comment. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/29/scotus.birther.appeal/

This is an excellent synopsis of the reality facing our country; Republicans have yet to offer any policy plans that support their campaign rhetoric of 'real change'. http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/106732398.html

Sound like regurgitated pabulum to me. Talk is cheap, interesting to see what he tries to deliver, especially since the Republican’s Pledge to America made no mention of earmarks. Where is their plan to add jobs? Where is their plan to reduce the deficient?

I agree, Pliny, that is exactly what should be done; nothing like a bit of inflation to get money circulating. Now, I shall sit and wait for the slings and arrows of the anti-inflationary ideologues.

He’s baaack.... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/business/media/08olbermann.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=keith%20olbermann&st=cse

I liken it to crying fire in a crowded theater. After 9/11, Bush and his administration cautioned the public about judging Muslims; he encouraged people to fly….go to Disneyworld or whatever. Now almost 10 years later, on national television we hear a respected journalist preface his pronouncing with I am not a bigot tell the public that people in Muslim garb on an airplane worry him and make him nervous. And dont give me that crap that he has a right to be fearful because of the past since it has been pointed out several times here that the ones who did us harm were dressed as every day Americans... no Muslim garb for them. While Juan is worried about his Muslim garbed seat mate; a Timothy McVeigh or an Eric Rudolph or Ted Kaczynski seated across the aisle would go unnoticed. I do not see any malaise in the states but I do so much anger and, though people say they are losing their freedoms, but I have yet to have one tell me which of their freedoms they have lost. The loss of freedom is fear mongering and the teabaggers have taken the bait; they parrot it without even knowing which freedoms they have lost or are in the process of losing

Yep, yep, and yep. As I stated previously, if I felt as your wife does, I would certainly stop supporting NPR with my contribution, and I would certainly stop listening to them on the radio. Choice is a great thing.

Of course, not. A man of his brilliance, I have to assume he knows of what he speaks; even if his Gulf War anecdote was more than 20 years ago, Much has changed in 20 years at NPR. It is my understanding that they have added conservative voices to their opinion/analysis programming. As for their news reporting, their reputation is still stellar I believe. In polls that measure the public’s knowledge of events, PBS/NPR has the most informed viewers.

I am so glad that you ignored my response to Shady after he brought up the “Move-On video”. Reposting the punking of Republicans is fun. Shady, Shady, Shady, I cannot believe you fell for the Move-On video. Obviously, you were not paying attention when this first appeared on the conservative outrage screen. In 2004, Move-On ran a contest, Bush in 30 Seconds, the winning video would be featured in a national ad. They received over 1500 amateur videos, and the one you posted was among them. All the videos were posted on their website for members to vote on and when this ad was discovered, it was immediately removed from their website. Move-On apologized for this video and another one they discovered that they deemed to be offensive. Well, not exactly, But last week at Davos, Soros made folks like Gwyneth Paltrow and Sean Penn look downright patriotic. After asserting that the United States is recognizing the error it made in Iraq, Soros said, "To what extent it recognizes the mistake will determine its future." He went on to say that Turkey and Japan are still hurt by a reluctance to admit to dark parts of their history, and contrasted that reluctance to Germany's rejection of its Nazi-era past. "America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany," Soros said. "We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process." Soros spokesman Michael Vachon told Page Six: "There is nothing unpatriotic about demanding accountability from the president. Those responsible for taking America into this needless war should do us all a favor and retire from public office." Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_oAn9HehDSq8cHYS3PElKlL;jsessionid=7FC1D8A5606B94D2403E7A12D50F6C87#ixzz13NDhbD7e What Gore actually said was in reference to the media/bloggers not “Bush’ teams”. "The present executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations: from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. They placed a former male escort in the White House press pool to pose as a reporter - and then called upon him to give the president a hand at crucial moments. They paid actors to make phony video press releases and paid cash to some reporters who were willing to take it in return for positive stories. And every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President."

After retiring, I am not in my car often enough or long enough to listen to NPR so I no longer make the contributions I did when I traveled and listed to NPR daily. PBS now gets my full contribution but I may reconsider and split my contribution as I have done in the past. I understand your wife’s anger and frustration and agree that cancelling her sustaining subscriber contribution is an effective way to register her displeasure with NPR. I trust that she will also no longer listen to any of their broadcasting. As you know, unlike an actual subscriber service, cable TV, newspapers, magazines, etc., her local radio station is still available for her listening pleasure. I have acquaintances who listen to our NPR station without ever contributing.