McCain Plans Terror Attacks in Key Swing States to Secure Presidency

After critics questioned the appropriateness of John McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black, saying a terrorist attack on American soil would benefit his candidate, yesterday Black took that notion one step farther.

Appearing on Today, Black told co-host Matt Lauer, "With Wednesday's Quinnipiac University poll showing Senator Obama leading in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, we've redoubled our efforts regarding terror attacks here at home, from mere wishful thinking to targeted planning."

Lauer asked, "Just to be clear, you're not suggesting you're involved in orchestrating attacks on these states?"

"No, I'm not suggesting that, Matt. I'm telling you flat-out, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida can expect to be hit by the McCain campaign sometime between now and Election Day.

You're drinking Bud so this asshole can alzheimer his way around the globe advocating WW3?

Fuck you.

Court: Texas churches can physically hurt people with imunity.

Sodimize, rape, injure it's all OK if your are religous and the court won't do any thing because it would unconstitutionally entangle the court in church doctrine. What about the rights of this 17 year old girl? What about her doctrine?
A divided Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former Colleyville church Friday, saying church members who were involved in a traumatic exorcism that ultimately injured a young woman are protected by the First Amendment.

SCALIA: Well, the press unanimously -- and there were a number of different organizations involved -- they unanimously came to that conclusion.

Scalia is a sick fuck. Facts be dammed. Onward with conserviative failure.

In fact, according to the Post -- one of NORC's clients for the study -- the NORC data show that in a statewide recount, Gore would likely have emerged the winner under four criteria for determining a voter's intent. The Post reported that researchers in the study "examined all ballots that were initially rejected by voting machines. This included those that contained no discernible vote for president, known as 'undervotes,' and those that registered votes for more than one candidate, the 'overvotes.' " The study then applied "different standards for determining voter intent and tallied results based on several scenarios that sought to approximate conditions on the ground in Florida." The Post reported that the NORC data show:

* When the recount tallied ballots in which "at least one corner of a chad was detached from punch-card ballots," Gore won Florida by 60 votes.
* "[U]nder the least-restrictive standard for interpreting voter intent, which counted all dimpled chads and any discernible optical mark (which in the case of optical ballots Florida's new election law now requires to be counted as votes)," Gore won Florida by 107 votes.
* Using a "more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a valid mark on optical scan ballots" -- and in which chads had to be "fully punched" -- Gore won by 115 votes.
* Replicating "the standards established by each of the counties in their recounts" gave Gore 171 more votes than Bush.

Moreover, by stating "[s]even-two" in response to Scalia's claim that the Bush v. Gore decision "was not close," Rose falsely suggested that the court voted 7-2 against allowing a recount to go forward. In fact, four of the nine justices dissented from the majority decision ending the recount, meaning that the decision was actually 5-4. Scalia responded to Rose's assertion by stating, "It was seven to two on the principal issue of whether there had been a constitutional violation. It wasn't close." In fact, while two of the dissenting justices -- David Souter and Stephen Breyer -- agreed that the procedures for the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection Clause, their position was not that the recount should be halted, but that Florida should be allowed to conduct a recount under different procedures. So, contrary to Scalia and Rose's suggestion, four justices -- not two -- took the position that a recount should go forward.

So this is what Harry was so pissed off about on his "Le Show"

mccain light jacket

What's on John McCains GramaPhone?

The difference between oBama and oSama is just a little BS

This racist is a personal aquantnance of mine.

there must have been tremendous reporter cleavage involved

or a small glass of alcohol.

Mentally ill homeless man sentenced in Fla. to nearly 5 years for threatening President Bush

Staff
AP News

Jun 25, 2008 12:40 EST

A mentally ill homeless man will serve 57 months in federal prison for threats he made against President Bush.

Timothy Wade Pinkston threatened in August to go to Washington and shoot Bush. At the time, the 48-year-old was committed to a hospital psychiatric unit.

“Yeah, I don’t do cowering.”

Mr. Obama replied

The top ten recipients of Telco money-from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint

This is taking money to screw America. Absolutely No Question. This money was left on and removed from the nightstand.
1 $29,500 Clyburn, James SC-6
2 $29,000 Hoyer, Steny MD-5
3 $28,000 Emanuel, Rahm IL-5
4 $27,500 Boucher, Fred VA-9
5 $26,000 Meeks, Gregory NY-6
6 $24,500 Crowley, Joseph NY-7
7 $24,500 Pelosi, Nancy CA-8
8 $24,000 Bean, Melissa IL-8
9 $22,500 Edwards, Thomas TX-17
10 $22,100 Baca, Joe CA-43

I’m convinced of my views, just as you are convinced of yours. So who’s to say who is right or wrong?”

Political arguments are not created equal, and do not all have equal merit. Even less so, political rants and diatribes. There are many objective criteria with which an unbiased spectator might judge whether or not an argument is strong or weak, and whether a position is well or poorly defended. Here, briefly, are just a few such criteria. Having taught numerous courses in Critical Thinking, I can testify that this list merely scratches the surface of a vast topic.

ibid:

And while you are at it, ask yourself: (1) Which side is more willing to own up to its past positions, predictions, and assurances? (2) Which side examines the broader field of source material? (3) Which side looks for the most relevant information, even if that information is absent from the corporate media? (4) Which side is more tolerant of dissent, both within and outside of its ranks? (5) Which side uses the more cogent arguments? And (6) which side relies less on fallacious reasoning?

And two from the comments:

In short, using reason on people who have abandoned reason is about as useful as bringing a catcher's mit to a game of tennis.

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot

Perfect for the filibuster fan in your life

Ahh, democracy.

Feingold, Dodd, Boxer and Wyden are heroes to the Republic!

Wyden, who we had to google, appears to be a Senator The PoorMan is right. Obama needs to get on board or risk losing the moral imperative.