Jump to content

Usa Thread


Recommended Posts

Will Obama Super PAC Return Misogynist Bill Maher's Million-Dollar Donation?



In response to the media firestorm surrounding Rush Limbaugh's insulting comments about Democratic activist Sandra Fluke (comments for which Limbaugh apologized), Kirsten Powers writes about the liberal men who have used misogynistic rhetoric without facing the same outrage. Powers notes that "the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC." She continues:

Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat†and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs†and “two bimbos.†He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.†He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!†as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!â€


Former White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, the man who runs Obama's super PAC, did not reply when asked if he will be returning Maher's $1 million donation.


My link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be pretty blind to buy an AR design that only shoots .22. They are out there, but they are seriously light and have functional differences!! You would never mistake one for the other unless you had never held either.


That said... the amount of cash you would save in ammo might make it worth it!!!



I have a brother-in-law who got a metal for being a sharpshooter in the Army.


I ambarrassed him with a 12 gauge. Since then he refuses to talk about his metal.


For some reason they forgot to teach him how to shoot - they taught him to fire a gun firing .223 ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


President Barack Obama's supporters waited all of two months after his inauguration to start laying the groundwork here for what has become a re-election machine that is bigger and tougher than his would-be Republican rivals' nightmarish imaginings.

Oh, I'm afraid the Obama campaign will be quite operational when his Republican challenger arrives.

Powerful, the president's re-election effort is: A new NBC News/Marist poll finds Obama trouncing his opponents in hypothetical general-election matchups in this state. He leads Mitt Romney in Ohio by 12 points among registered voters, 50 percent to 38 percent; Ron Paul by 10 points, 48 percent to 38 percent; Rick Santorum by 14 points, 50 percent to 36 percent; and Newt Gingrich by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.

While the seesaw battle for the Republican Party's presidential nomination has grabbed the news media spotlight, the unopposed Democratic incumbent has quietly worked to enlist new supporters and woo back the armies of volunteers and small donors who powered his historic victory in 2008.


Lots of things can happen between now and the election but the general vibe is that Romney will not beat the President. Obama has a great organization. Many dsimissed him as a 'community organizer' but those skills came to fruition in '08 as he ran a much tighter campaign than McCain and his organization is said to be unparralled this time around.


Its the Republicans that have always had the reputation and in practice, been a far better organized machine than the Dems. Obama has changed that.


The problem for Obama would be to get people excited again but he doesn't have to with the infighting happening in the Republican party.


He's pulling away in some important swing states in the polls. Ohio and Virginia specifically. He should also take Wisconsin. Michigan used to be written off for the Dems but could even come in play now.


The Republicans had a star in the making with Paul. Maybe he wouldn't have won the general election but he could have at least created some excitement and enthusiasm in bringing people in but the heiarchy just ignores him no matter what he does. Same with the media who amazingly just ignores him.


Republican overlords do it because they can't control him. They won't support anyone they can't control. The only reason I can see the media ignoring him is because they are in bed with the establishment. Paul is a good story and is good news copy. Its a no brainer as a journalist I would imagine because he asks some hard questions and controversial or interesting questions gets eyes on paper or screens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Under what conditions can or should the United States government target and kill -- without trial -- a U.S. citizen suspected of plotting terrorism?

Attorney General Eric Holder today provided the most detailed terms to date on the legal principals behind the U.S. drone campaign and the U.S. government's legal authority to target and kill U.S. citizens such as Anwar al-Awlaki, a suspected high-profile al Qaeda recruiter.

"Let me be clear: An operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles," Holder said his speech at the Northwestern University Law School. "The evaluation of whether an individual presents an 'imminent threat' incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States."

"Some have called such operations 'assassinations.' They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings," Holder continued in his prepared remarks. "The U.S. government's use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful -- and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes."


I don't lose one iota of sleep for the deaths of the filth and scum who are American citizens but help the terrorist. None at all. However, this is NOT the way.


Its extremely scary when the government can justify murder of American citizens. There is no other word to describe it when you are denied due process.

Holder says 'they determine' the person to be a threat. Its NOT his say or the justice departments say, its the court of law. Its a judge and jury of his peers. Its the worse precedence to set. So sad its coming from a Democratic administration. Shame on them. I'd expect that from a Republican administration but its sad to see it from the Dems as well.


The constitution is really no more than a piece of paper now.


I was discussing politics with some people last week and I said, and said it sadly, that I don't think we can come back as a nation. Not just economically but also in terms of civil liberties. Its too late. We're done. Another person at the table said they still had faith.


The only thing I will not do is not do anything. What's that saying about 'good men doing nothing'? Not that I'm good. Far from it. I'll join any organization, sign any petition, etc. but I'll do so thinking silently that its going to be all for nought in a generation or two, maybe less. When it all goes sh*t, I don't want to die knowing I didn't do anything anyway. I was always the kind of nut case that would still play hard in a blowout and losing. For pride sake.


I've said this before. American history has shown that we come together and do what is right when faced with some great event. That event may be military/war, economic, even social. We ended up doing what is right. The Civil War, World War II, the vote and Equal rights for Blacks and Women. The Great Depression.


However, this century has had two great events and both times we failed miserably.


9/11 we used to not only go into two wars, with one being purely fabricated, we also used it as an opportunity to strip the citizens of civil liberties (Patriots Act, Homeland Security).


The second great event, was the '08 financial meltdown. Insted of correcting the problem we ended up rewarding the companies that created it and give them a free hand to keep bleeding the people. Furthermore, the ones who we relied the most, the Fed Reserve chairman and Tresury secretary at the time, originally presented to Congress a document asking for an amount of money that whose figure was taken out of their ass and not based on anything concrete on a document that said they should be able to do with it whatever they wanted without any legal repurcussions whatsoever. Technically they could put in their back accounts with no recourse from the courts. It was arrogant and it showed just how far we've gone as a nation where they felt they could get away with it. I'm not seeing the fact it was rejected as any hope either.


We're done. It hurts me like hell to say it. Its defeatest maybe. I hope I'm wrong in the worst way but to say that I think there is some hope would be lying to myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently all polls show that Obama is doing well against the GOP candidates. But in the end the current status doesn't mean anything. A lot of things can happen until November...


I wonder what effect this will have (if any) on the Hispanic vote. Hispanics are probably over 90% Roman Catholics.



Obama leads six-to-one among Latinos


3/5/12 5:07 PM EST

President Obama leads all his Republican rivals among Latino voters, according to a new poll

released Monday.


According to the latest national Fox News Latino survey, none of the Republican contenders for the presidential nomination poll above 14 percent in a head-to-head matchup against Obama. That's a 17 point drop in support from John McCain's 2008 share of the Hispanic vote — with McCain garnering 31 percent of that group four years ago.


Obama has a six-to-one advantage among Hispanics, leading Mitt Romney 70 percent to 14 percent among likely Latino voters. Obama also beats Newt Gingrich 72 to 14 percent. And Obama is also drawing a significant well of his Hispanic support from former John McCain voters. According to the poll, 40 percent of John McCain voters are now supporting Obama over Gingrich or Romney, while 38 percent are supporting Obama over Rick Santorum.


Obama's approval rating among Hispanics stands at 73 percent — with 66 percent approving of his handling of the economy.


The poll is more evidence that Republican rhetoric on immigration is alienating a group of voters that was competitive for Republicans just a few cycles ago. In 2004, George W. Bush captured 44 percent of the Hispanic vote and tried to push a comprehensive immigration reform bill through Congress after his victory. Since that election and the failure of immigration reform for both parties, Hispanics have abandoned the GOP in record numbers.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hispanic vote is not monolithic. I grew up around latinos (mainly Puerto Rican, Dominicans and some Cubans) on the east coast and Mexicans, Salvadoreans and other central Americans on the west coast. The two coasts are vastly different in mentality and they don't all get along. Lots of rivalry. Cubans from my experience are more likely to vote Republican than any other. They view the Republicans as the most anti Castro. Puerto Ricans the most Democratic I think. Dominicans not far behind.

Mexicans? Hmmm...from my limited experience, it depends on the generation. Older generations who have been Americans for decades are conservative. New arrivals, first generation are Dems since they view immigration as a more personal issue than older families.

One fast growing niche that the Republicans would be very smart to grab on to are the fundamental latinos on the west coast. Droves of them are leaving the Catholic church and are joining fundamental Christian churches. They are dotting south central and east LA and the atmosphere is similar to Black churches. Immigration is important but not as important some might think. Social conservatism is extremely important to them. They have the same ani abortion/pro life, anti pop culture, anti gay marriage and pro Israel/end of days/biblical armageddon stance as the white fundamental church members.

7th day adventists and even Mormons have made great inroads in attracting latino members as well. I know of a few Latino 7th day adventist churches in LA with Kingdom Hall in spanish on the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By most accounts and on the 'street' the feeling is the American economy is improving. Slowly but surely. Not a good thing for Republicans. Oh, they'll argue the economy is in the crapper but voters in some regions can see the improvement and its a tough sell teling someone something different than what they are seeing and feeling.


The one thing that the Republicans thought Obama would be vulnerable on due to lack of experience is foreign policy but its the one shining achievement of the Obama administration. I'm surprised they aren't touting it more. Probably will once the nominees are set.


Obama is expected to look better in the debate than Romeny. Romney isn't expected to do well so I think if he does decently it will look like a victory of sorts. Obama isn't as good in a debate as he is in prepared speech I think. I've seen both and he's an excellent orator in a prepared speech. The randomness of a question sometimes catches him off balance in a debate. Being known as a good public speaker may hurt him a little as the expectations are very high so if doesn't deliver he can look a little bad even if he is the consensus winner. He is expected to win debates against Romney by a wide margin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaked: Bin Laden not buried at sea, body moved on CIA plane to US


The body of Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden was not buried at sea, according to leaked emails of intelligence firm Stratfor, as revealed by WikiLeaks.


Stratfor’s vice-president for intelligence, Fred Burton, believes the body was “bound for Dover, [Delaware] on [a] CIA plane†and then “onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda [Maryland],†an email says.


The official version is that the body of Al-Qaeda’s top man, who was killed by a US raid in Pakistan on May 2, 2011, was buried at an undisclosed location at sea in a proper Muslim ceremony.


"If body dumped at sea, which I doubt, the touch is very Adolph Eichman like. The Tribe did the same thing with the Nazi's ashes," Burton commented in another email. Eichman was one of the masterminds of the Holocaust by Nazi Germany. He was captured by Mossad agents in Argentina and, tried in Israel, found guilty and executed in 1962. His body was cremated and his ashes were scattered at sea over the Mediterranean.


"Eichmann was seen alive for many months on trial before being sentenced to death and executed. No one wanted a monument to him so they cremated him. But i don't know anyone who claimed he wasnt eicjhman [sic]. No comparison with suddenly burying him at sea without any chance to view him which i doubt happened [sic]," Stratfor CEO George Friedman replied.


"The US Govt needs to make body pics available like the MX's do, with OBL's pants pulled down, to shout down the lunatics like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck," Burton says in another message.


In another missive Burton says Osama’s body “is a crime scene and I don’t see the FBI nor DOJ letting that happen.â€


WikiLeaks began publishing Stratfor emails in late February. The archive was obtained by the hacker group Anonymous, which successfully attacked one of the firm’s servers. More than 5 million emails were apparently stolen.


Stratfor is a US-based intelligence firm called the “shadow CIA†by some media. Among its clients are several US agencies and many big companies. The company relies on paid tips from informants placed in high circles of business, government and security all around the world.


Stratfor is great! :up:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...