US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

but i think the point is that the 'explanation' wouldnt really matter? all that matters is that democrats are for calorie counts/healthy lunches/local food

I think framing the debate as "we might be trying to tell you what to eat but at least we aren't trying to kill you" should be possible

http://vimeo.com/25237798

unbelievable.

producer of this ad also did the demon sheep and the "i'm not a witch" ad.

I have the right not to be informed of facts by the government. Keep your facts off my body!!!!

i wonder who that mysterious ad paid for by jon huntsman was about

AARP Is Open to Cuts for Social Security Benefits

now Obama has cover if he wants to slash Social Security ...

old motherfuckers be entitled and shit

Obama: smarter than his lawyers.

old motherfuckers be entitled and shit

it's not gonna be the old motherfuckers who will get fucked. it's gonna be you, me, and practically everyone on this listserve (i.e., anyone 45 and under) if SS is "reformed."

the old motherfuckers will be fucked if Medicaid is gutted, though. Medicaid is what pays for long-term care in nursing homes and assisted living facilities for many elderly folks.

can't wait for the Civil War of 2025 fought over Social Security benefits

I've got a few decades before I hit social security age, but I've honestly never expected to receive a single payout.

crucial part of u not caring when it goes

Crucial part of not caring about me, yeah. Does not preclude me from caring about others.

Honest question: how much does SS pay out a month, on average? Is it even enough for someone to live on now?

whether it's enough to live on depends on your payout and standard of living i guess, but social security is primary source of income for elderly women.

i fugured my SS payment would be around 1300 a month

figured

I'm all for smashing the state BAMN if they try to deny us our SS payouts, btw

AARP refuted that article yesterday

http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/press-center/info-06-2011/aarp-has-not-changed-its-position-on-social-security.html

that kind of beats around the bush tbh

Obama: smarter than his lawyers.

― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, June 18, 2011 7:40 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this article is nuts

i mean, not the article, but the events described within

100% not trying to be smart-ass or anything but that's just post-Bush "redefine the terms & proceed as you wish" strategizing, isn't it?

I can't really articulate this point without looking like I agree with Obama's decision, which I don't, but why is it inherently risible for Obama, who has a law degree, to disagree with his counsel on interpretation of the law?

because it happens so rarely, and since it pertains to war it gives a kind of sense of hopelessness wrt constitutional balance of powers - that there's basically nothing that can be done to stop a president whose heart is set on engaging in combat

to be fair to obama, congress seems and has seemed generally uninterested in exercising its powers in this regard

I can't really articulate this point without looking like I agree with Obama's decision, which I don't, but why is it inherently risible for Obama, who has a law degree, to disagree with his counsel on interpretation of the law?

Unlike Lincoln, whom I cite as a wartime president and a good to very good practicing lawyer until inauguration, Obama's response to the Office of Legal Counsel's interpretation of the law isn't particularly novel and in fact sounds a lot like what Jay Bybee, John Woo, and David Addington concluded just seven years ago.

read takeover obv

I love Charlie Savage.

me too

btw I'm reading Harold Koh's National Security Constitution, published after the Iran-Contra hearings farrago. Reading his nuanced ideas to averting the next constitutional crisis between the executive and legislative branches and what he's doing now is a case study in how the ironies of history unfurl.

A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.

But, you see, it is the drones which are engaged in those hostile acts, and not US military personnel, who are merely innocent bystanders. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

ICBMs don't have pilots either.

I guess the main administration argument is more about the SIZE of the hostilities and less about the drone aircraft? Cuz if the drone thing is the core of the argument we're in Orwell territory.

"Honestly, I don't see how a few dozen payloads of high explosives directed at military targets within another sovereign nation could be considered as hostilities. These are what any reasonable person would call friendly hints."

I guess we're long past the point where this would be called Morbius Bait, so I'll just call it Everybody Bait:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-taking-more-active-role-twitter-account-heading-180511257.html

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/THIYbgqWVUDSkvWJNBC.MQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9NTU1O2NyPTE7Y3c9NDE1O2R4PTA7ZHk9MDtmaT11bGNyb3A7aD0yNTU7cT04NTt3PTE5MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_ca/News/Capress/WHCD111-618_2011_101837_high.jpg

Obama has more than 8.69 million followers on Twitter, making him the third most-followed account among Twitter users, according to Twitter statistics website twittercounter.com. Obama trails only entertainers Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber in followers.

Have at it--it made me cringe too.

According to an Obama campaign flak, the prez on Twitter will "connect to the millions of supporters who will be driving this campaign." They hope. (See what I did there?)

our position is now that cyber attacks on security computers is a hostile act of war justifying use of any and all military force, but us bombing the fuck out of another country by remote control is not sufficiently hands on to engage war powers requirements.

sooooo fucked up

So I'm going on local talk radio tomorrow to kinda debate economics with some right-wing economics professor. I don't really have a lot to say except "rising inequality," "raise taxes" and "single-payer-healthcare." And then the professor and however many callers they can squeeze into the hour will call me a communist. Good times.

big ups!!!

I'd you say "increase revenue, end tax break giveaways" instead of "raise taxes" and "expand Medicare" instead of "single payer", you might fool a few of them.

Godspeed, man.

If, not I'd, despite what my autocorrect thinks

Here's how I'd phrase it instead: "take away guns" instead of "increase revenue, end tax break giveaways," "universal gay marriage" instead of "expand Medicare," and "Al Franken and Rachel Maddow are great Americans" instead of "rising inequality." Good luck!