-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Deep Breath Time
Author: BobR
Date: 06/17/2009 12:39:18
Considering that we are about halfway through Gay Pride month, it seems Obama has gone 1 for 3 in opportunities to put same-sex couples on the same footing as straight couples. The Justice Dept's analysis of DOMA has been reviled; the political football that is "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" has been kicked around. The one bright light in this is that he is extending benefits to same-sex partners for federal employees. Expect bigots' heads to explode with cries of "not with MY tax dollars!".
But are all of these as one-sided as they seem? People have a tendency to simplify anaylsis, and take a pro/con position, where it may require a more nuanced approach. After 8 years of Stupid in the White House, perhaps we've swung the other way, where the President assumes Americans are able to see things in shades of gray, and we're failing.
What about "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"? Can Obama simply rescind that? What happens if he does? To begin with, DADT is a federal law, enacted by Congress. Can the Executive branch remove a federal law enacted by Congress? I sure hope not. How would that effect our system of checks and balances? But - assuming he could - what would that leave us with? Before DADT, soldiers were court-martialed and jailed for being homosexual. Would military policy simply revert back to that? Wouldn't that be worse? It seems that - to use a tired phrase - it will take an Act of Congress to remove DADT and replace it with a law that allows gay military members some dignity.
The Justice Dept's response to the DOMA court challenge has been causing the biggest outrage. It's even sparked a financial backlash by donors to the DNC. The most offensive part is where "it compared gay unions to incestuous ones and that of an underage girl – in the sense that states have the right to not recognize marriages that are legal in other states or countries." The idea is that certain states have different marriage laws (for example: regarding the ages of those allowed to be married) and other states are not required to recognize those marriages if their state requires the partners to be older. This is a classic "states rights" issue, because the Constitution guarantees that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Of course, it also states that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
This is where the marriage argument gets sticky and why the right-wing required DOMA. It essentially gives preference to the 10th amendment over the requirement for states to respect each other's laws. However, the 10th amendment doesn't really allow states to ignore each other's laws for things like marriage, so DOMA seems to clearly be unconstitutional. It seems like it would fail that test in a court challenge, but - given the current court - would it? Is it worth the risk of losing that court battle?
This is another case where the ball is in the "court" of Congress. They need to amend or repeal DOMA for any real change to occur. Again - the DOJ legal brief could've gotten that message across with a lot less hostility. But here's another consideration - remembering how much Bush interfered with the DOJ and the (justified) outrage it created, do we really want Obama to interfere as well?
So it seems that the President really can't do much about DADT, he can't do much about DOMA, but he CAN help out Federal employees - and he has (or - more accurately - will). Unfortunately, medical benefits will not be included:
Once again - the DOMA is a legal problem that requires resolution. That means Congress.
Perhaps time spent blaming Obama for not fixing something over which he has no control would be better spent petitioning Congress to change laws (after all - it IS their job ).
But are all of these as one-sided as they seem? People have a tendency to simplify anaylsis, and take a pro/con position, where it may require a more nuanced approach. After 8 years of Stupid in the White House, perhaps we've swung the other way, where the President assumes Americans are able to see things in shades of gray, and we're failing.
What about "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"? Can Obama simply rescind that? What happens if he does? To begin with, DADT is a federal law, enacted by Congress. Can the Executive branch remove a federal law enacted by Congress? I sure hope not. How would that effect our system of checks and balances? But - assuming he could - what would that leave us with? Before DADT, soldiers were court-martialed and jailed for being homosexual. Would military policy simply revert back to that? Wouldn't that be worse? It seems that - to use a tired phrase - it will take an Act of Congress to remove DADT and replace it with a law that allows gay military members some dignity.
The Justice Dept's response to the DOMA court challenge has been causing the biggest outrage. It's even sparked a financial backlash by donors to the DNC. The most offensive part is where "it compared gay unions to incestuous ones and that of an underage girl – in the sense that states have the right to not recognize marriages that are legal in other states or countries." The idea is that certain states have different marriage laws (for example: regarding the ages of those allowed to be married) and other states are not required to recognize those marriages if their state requires the partners to be older. This is a classic "states rights" issue, because the Constitution guarantees that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Of course, it also states that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
This is where the marriage argument gets sticky and why the right-wing required DOMA. It essentially gives preference to the 10th amendment over the requirement for states to respect each other's laws. However, the 10th amendment doesn't really allow states to ignore each other's laws for things like marriage, so DOMA seems to clearly be unconstitutional. It seems like it would fail that test in a court challenge, but - given the current court - would it? Is it worth the risk of losing that court battle?
This is another case where the ball is in the "court" of Congress. They need to amend or repeal DOMA for any real change to occur. Again - the DOJ legal brief could've gotten that message across with a lot less hostility. But here's another consideration - remembering how much Bush interfered with the DOJ and the (justified) outrage it created, do we really want Obama to interfere as well?
So it seems that the President really can't do much about DADT, he can't do much about DOMA, but he CAN help out Federal employees - and he has (or - more accurately - will). Unfortunately, medical benefits will not be included:
The White House press office declined to detail which benefits would be included, but people familiar with the legal obstacles posed by the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, said health benefits are not likely to be a part of the package. The Lieberman-Baldwin Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, a bicameral bill that was introduced last month, will still need to be passed by Congress in order for full benefits to be extended to domestic partners of federal workers.
Once again - the DOMA is a legal problem that requires resolution. That means Congress.
Perhaps time spent blaming Obama for not fixing something over which he has no control would be better spent petitioning Congress to change laws (after all - it IS their job ).
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
trojanrabbit on 06/17/2009 12:59:07
trojanrabbit on 06/17/2009 12:59:07
Good morning all
Looks like the DTV switch hasn't gone that well for one Boston broadcaster. WHDH had to file for special permission to fire up their old UHF-DT transmitter yesterday, in response to numerous complaints that the new VHF-DT signal has significantly less coverage. Unlike the other broadcasters who kept their old UHF assignments, because it's not technically wise to transmit ATSC in the lower VHF channels, WHDH chose to go back to channel 7 for DTV. So they had to shut off the old analog transmitter, shut off the old UHF-DT transmitter, reconfigure then power up the new VHF-DT transmitter. Where the initial story was they had not achieved full power yet, the real story is they are at full power and are getting a lot of static from frustrated viewers. It is indeed fortunate for WHDH that no one moved to their old UHF channel assignment last Friday.
Since it's the FCC (in the Bush era) that determined how much power a station was allowed with the goal of ensuring the coverage area did not change during this analog/digital switch, someone obviously did a "heckuva job". This is also not an isolated incident. I suppose if I were WHDH management and were told that I could either stay running 850,000 watts on UHF or only need 30,000 watts if I were to go back to VHF, I might think twice. An alarm bell might go off in my head, OTOH, if I knew I had been transmitting with 300,000 watts on that same VHF channel for decades, even if digital transmission is more efficient.
Let's not also forget the enormous engineering effort that goes into building the best performing Chinese built DTV tuners that are part of each new TV and set top box, a significant cost of each tuner goes to patent holders, not actual parts. And of course, in true Bush era tradition, the American DTV viewer pays far more in patent costs than the Europeans do for their superior system. Even the speculators get in on the act. Almost 40% of the cost of those set-top boxes that we paid to hand out coupons for actually goes to patent holders.
Looks like the DTV switch hasn't gone that well for one Boston broadcaster. WHDH had to file for special permission to fire up their old UHF-DT transmitter yesterday, in response to numerous complaints that the new VHF-DT signal has significantly less coverage. Unlike the other broadcasters who kept their old UHF assignments, because it's not technically wise to transmit ATSC in the lower VHF channels, WHDH chose to go back to channel 7 for DTV. So they had to shut off the old analog transmitter, shut off the old UHF-DT transmitter, reconfigure then power up the new VHF-DT transmitter. Where the initial story was they had not achieved full power yet, the real story is they are at full power and are getting a lot of static from frustrated viewers. It is indeed fortunate for WHDH that no one moved to their old UHF channel assignment last Friday.
Since it's the FCC (in the Bush era) that determined how much power a station was allowed with the goal of ensuring the coverage area did not change during this analog/digital switch, someone obviously did a "heckuva job". This is also not an isolated incident. I suppose if I were WHDH management and were told that I could either stay running 850,000 watts on UHF or only need 30,000 watts if I were to go back to VHF, I might think twice. An alarm bell might go off in my head, OTOH, if I knew I had been transmitting with 300,000 watts on that same VHF channel for decades, even if digital transmission is more efficient.
Let's not also forget the enormous engineering effort that goes into building the best performing Chinese built DTV tuners that are part of each new TV and set top box, a significant cost of each tuner goes to patent holders, not actual parts. And of course, in true Bush era tradition, the American DTV viewer pays far more in patent costs than the Europeans do for their superior system. Even the speculators get in on the act. Almost 40% of the cost of those set-top boxes that we paid to hand out coupons for actually goes to patent holders.
Comment by 
TriSec on 06/17/2009 13:06:00
TriSec on 06/17/2009 13:06:00
Morning, folks!
A very prescient observation from our Atlanta press bureau. We castigated the Bush administration for his signing statements and executive priviledge.....now we're looking at Obama the same way because he's not using those powers.
Damned if you do....
In any case, Congress must be the answer, I guess. But whereas the President is only one man, we've got 535 legislators to deal with. Universal gay rights is going to be a longer row to hoe than we all thought.
(And do keep up with this via TRMS; she's been calling the president on being a "fierce advocate for gay rights" recently, and contrasting it with his actions, or lack thereof.)
:peace:
A very prescient observation from our Atlanta press bureau. We castigated the Bush administration for his signing statements and executive priviledge.....now we're looking at Obama the same way because he's not using those powers.
Damned if you do....
In any case, Congress must be the answer, I guess. But whereas the President is only one man, we've got 535 legislators to deal with. Universal gay rights is going to be a longer row to hoe than we all thought.
(And do keep up with this via TRMS; she's been calling the president on being a "fierce advocate for gay rights" recently, and contrasting it with his actions, or lack thereof.)
:peace:
Comment by 
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 13:10:06
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 13:10:06
Morning :hug:
Comment by trojanrabbit on 06/17/2009 13:17:07
Yeah, I guess that when in the past 8 years Bush decidered he could run roughshod over the Constitution (in the few times when Congress wasn't blatantly kissing his backside), one gets used to it and forgets how it's supposed to be done. Some asked how the Rethugs would like it if Hillary had the same power as George if she were to become President (when it was supposedly a no brainer that she would do so). Well, she might also have chosen the same route Obama's taking.
trojanrabbit on 06/17/2009 13:17:07
Quote by TriSec:
Morning, folks!
A very prescient observation from our Atlanta press bureau. We castigated the Bush administration for his signing statements and executive priviledge.....now we're looking at Obama the same way because he's not using those powers.
Damned if you do....
In any case, Congress must be the answer, I guess. But whereas the President is only one man, we've got 535 legislators to deal with. Universal gay rights is going to be a longer row to hoe than we all thought.
(And do keep up with this via TRMS; she's been calling the president on being a "fierce advocate for gay rights" recently, and contrasting it with his actions, or lack thereof.)
:peace:
Yeah, I guess that when in the past 8 years Bush decidered he could run roughshod over the Constitution (in the few times when Congress wasn't blatantly kissing his backside), one gets used to it and forgets how it's supposed to be done. Some asked how the Rethugs would like it if Hillary had the same power as George if she were to become President (when it was supposedly a no brainer that she would do so). Well, she might also have chosen the same route Obama's taking.
Comment by 
Scoopster on 06/17/2009 13:18:49
Scoopster on 06/17/2009 13:18:49
Morning folks! 
:banana:
Okay seriously now.. I've had enough of the crap from the landlord, and I've been wanting to move for a while now anyways because of the ridiculous commute, so I think it's time to get the big move done.
:banana:Okay seriously now.. I've had enough of the crap from the landlord, and I've been wanting to move for a while now anyways because of the ridiculous commute, so I think it's time to get the big move done.
Comment by Scoopster on 06/17/2009 13:24:23
Scoopster on 06/17/2009 13:24:23
And 
to Obama.. I realize some of this stuff takes an act of Congress to change, but that legal brief filed by his DOJ in the federal lawsuit that will become the test case for Gay Marriage vs. DOMA at the SCOTUS was way beyond disappointing. And the big press conference later in the day where he announces benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees was a slap in the face.
to Obama.. I realize some of this stuff takes an act of Congress to change, but that legal brief filed by his DOJ in the federal lawsuit that will become the test case for Gay Marriage vs. DOMA at the SCOTUS was way beyond disappointing. And the big press conference later in the day where he announces benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees was a slap in the face.
Comment by wickedpam on 06/17/2009 13:25:36
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 13:25:36
Shark Monkey? 
:rofl:
:rofl:
Comment by 
m-hadley on 06/17/2009 13:30:41
m-hadley on 06/17/2009 13:30:41
Monring Everybody :wave:
I off to a liberrians' retreat this morning - contrary to popular belief, a liberrian retreat does not involve all of us hanging out in a remote corner of the stacks drinking Cuervo and eating bon-bons. We are instead meeting at a loverly museum (The Glicrease - check it out Raine - it is amazing :D) followed by lunch in the museum restaurant, then it's back to work.
Catch you all later on today.
Cheers,
mfaye
& :peace:
I off to a liberrians' retreat this morning - contrary to popular belief, a liberrian retreat does not involve all of us hanging out in a remote corner of the stacks drinking Cuervo and eating bon-bons. We are instead meeting at a loverly museum (The Glicrease - check it out Raine - it is amazing :D) followed by lunch in the museum restaurant, then it's back to work.
Catch you all later on today.
Cheers,
mfaye
& :peace:
Comment by 
Raine on 06/17/2009 13:44:16
Raine on 06/17/2009 13:44:16
Good Morning!
Faye... have fun at the Museum! (I heard Librarians KNOW how to party!!!) Looks like when Bob and I finally get out there you will have to go there WITH US!
That damn brief, as I have said went WAY too far. Yes -- the president NEEDS to take a stronger lead on this issue, but forfucksake, Where the hell is congress on this?
Faye... have fun at the Museum! (I heard Librarians KNOW how to party!!!) Looks like when Bob and I finally get out there you will have to go there WITH US!
That damn brief, as I have said went WAY too far. Yes -- the president NEEDS to take a stronger lead on this issue, but forfucksake, Where the hell is congress on this?
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 13:52:42
Raine on 06/17/2009 13:52:42
This is not tienamen Square, and I am still getting very good information on twitter re Iran
Comment by 
BobR on 06/17/2009 13:53:46
I can criticize Obama for picking the person that wrote that brief, but - once again - I would hope that Obama is not meddling in the affairs of the DoJ.
BobR on 06/17/2009 13:53:46
Quote by Scoopster:
And
I can criticize Obama for picking the person that wrote that brief, but - once again - I would hope that Obama is not meddling in the affairs of the DoJ.
Comment by wickedpam on 06/17/2009 13:54:39
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 13:54:39
um sean here's the thing - The Constitution is OUR founding document not Iran's.
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 13:56:09
Raine on 06/17/2009 13:56:09
:rolleyes2: Sean-- STFU.
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 13:56:39
you and your silly facts, Mala...
Raine on 06/17/2009 13:56:39
Quote by wickedpam:
um sean here's the thing - The Constitution is OUR founding document not Iran's.
Comment by Scoopster on 06/17/2009 13:56:56
Scoopster on 06/17/2009 13:56:56
Big news in regard to the Iran kefluffle..
Scroll down a bit to the part headed 2:01AM - Aslan: Rafsanjani calls "emergency" meeting of Assembly of Experts.
Scroll down a bit to the part headed 2:01AM - Aslan: Rafsanjani calls "emergency" meeting of Assembly of Experts.
Comment by wickedpam on 06/17/2009 14:01:40
I know where do I get these notions
:p
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 14:01:40
Quote by Raine:you and your silly facts, Mala...Quote by wickedpam:
um sean here's the thing - The Constitution is OUR founding document not Iran's.
I know where do I get these notions
:p
Comment by wickedpam on 06/17/2009 14:03:40
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 14:03:40
Question - who is Raffsanjani? I thought it was supports of Moussvari that were protesting?
Comment by Scoopster on 06/17/2009 14:25:39
(Grand?) Ayatollah Raffsanjani is one of the leading clerics in the country and is the current leader of the Assembly of Experts, which is the clerical council that appoints the Supreme Leader and the only governmental body in Iran that can sack the Supreme Leader. He's also a supporter of democratic reforms, I think..
I have a feeling he's doing this to keep the pressure on Khameni on the election results/recount.. a sort of "we're watching you buddy" move.
Scoopster on 06/17/2009 14:25:39
Quote by wickedpam:
Question - who is Raffsanjani? I thought it was supports of Moussvari that were protesting?
(Grand?) Ayatollah Raffsanjani is one of the leading clerics in the country and is the current leader of the Assembly of Experts, which is the clerical council that appoints the Supreme Leader and the only governmental body in Iran that can sack the Supreme Leader. He's also a supporter of democratic reforms, I think..
I have a feeling he's doing this to keep the pressure on Khameni on the election results/recount.. a sort of "we're watching you buddy" move.
Comment by TriSec on 06/17/2009 14:28:41
TriSec on 06/17/2009 14:28:41
Ya know, just once, and I don't care what party they're from, I want to see a politician have an affair and get into a fistfight and/or shouting match with his soon-to-be ex-wife at the de rigeur press conference....
Comment by wickedpam on 06/17/2009 14:30:51
okay now I know who that is, thanks :)
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 14:30:51
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by wickedpam:
Question - who is Raffsanjani? I thought it was supports of Moussvari that were protesting?
(Grand?) Ayatollah Raffsanjani is one of the leading clerics in the country and is the current leader of the Assembly of Experts, which is the clerical council that appoints the Supreme Leader and the only governmental body in Iran that can sack the Supreme Leader. He's also a supporter of democratic reforms, I think..
I have a feeling he's doing this to keep the pressure on Khameni on the election results/recount.. a sort of "we're watching you buddy" move.
okay now I know who that is, thanks :)
Comment by wickedpam on 06/17/2009 14:31:23
God, that would be a show, wouldn't it
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 14:31:23
Quote by TriSec:
Ya know, just once, and I don't care what party they're from, I want to see a politician have an affair and get into a fistfight and/or shouting match with his soon-to-be ex-wife at the de rigeur press conference....
God, that would be a show, wouldn't it
Comment by 
livingonli on 06/17/2009 15:10:55
livingonli on 06/17/2009 15:10:55
Good morning everyone. 
It looks like I have to wake up the blog.
It looks like I have to wake up the blog.
Comment by wickedpam on 06/17/2009 15:12:38
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 15:12:38
damn why do I never get the party MRI?
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 15:16:49
Raine on 06/17/2009 15:16:49
Keyboard Cat! I love KEYBOARD CAT!
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 15:17:26
Raine on 06/17/2009 15:17:26
Whew much chit chat on das phone this morning. I hate talking on the phone sometimes....
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 15:19:40
Raine on 06/17/2009 15:19:40
BTW, From CNN:
President Obama will sign a memorandum Wednesday granting health care and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, two senior administration officials said.
President Obama has been criticized by gay rights activists for not doing more since taking office.
The signing will take place in the Oval Office and follows sharp criticism of the president over a Justice Department motion filed last week in support of the Defense of Marriage Act -- which opposes same-sex marriage -- that used the government's interest in opposing incestuous marriages to support its position against same-sex marriage.
Comment by wickedpam on 06/17/2009 15:29:13
me too thanks to my past life as a telemarketer (ducks any flying fruit) and a CSR
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 15:29:13
Quote by Raine:
Whew much chit chat on das phone this morning. I hate talking on the phone sometimes....
me too thanks to my past life as a telemarketer (ducks any flying fruit) and a CSR
Comment by TriSec on 06/17/2009 15:32:16
Oog. I used to manage a call center; I got all the *best* phone calls!
But then again, I know how the system works, which I've found useful when I need my own issues resolved....
TriSec on 06/17/2009 15:32:16
Quote by wickedpam:
me too thanks to my past life as a telemarketer (ducks any flying fruit) and a CSR
Oog. I used to manage a call center; I got all the *best* phone calls!
But then again, I know how the system works, which I've found useful when I need my own issues resolved....
Comment by TriSec on 06/17/2009 15:36:59
TriSec on 06/17/2009 15:36:59
"Gay Bias" killings highest since 1999...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/06/16/group_gay_bias_killings_highest_since_1999/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Massachusetts+news
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/06/16/group_gay_bias_killings_highest_since_1999/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Massachusetts+news
Comment by livingonli on 06/17/2009 15:47:14
livingonli on 06/17/2009 15:47:14
It sounds like the increase in anti-gay attacks is a product of the BS in right-wing talk radio and the rising activities of the neo-Nazis that are floating around today.
Comment by Scoopster on 06/17/2009 15:48:16
Don't usually give props to a mainstream media outfit, but props to CNN for highlighting the dual standards of the administration in regards to gay rights here.
Scoopster on 06/17/2009 15:48:16
Quote by Raine:
BTW, From CNN:President Obama will sign a memorandum Wednesday granting health care and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, two senior administration officials said.
President Obama has been criticized by gay rights activists for not doing more since taking office.
The signing will take place in the Oval Office and follows sharp criticism of the president over a Justice Department motion filed last week in support of the Defense of Marriage Act -- which opposes same-sex marriage -- that used the government's interest in opposing incestuous marriages to support its position against same-sex marriage.
Don't usually give props to a mainstream media outfit, but props to CNN for highlighting the dual standards of the administration in regards to gay rights here.
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 15:54:58
It is gonna be a problem that is for sure. I look forward to seeing how this is going to play out.
Raine on 06/17/2009 15:54:58
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:
BTW, From CNN:President Obama will sign a memorandum Wednesday granting health care and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, two senior administration officials said.
President Obama has been criticized by gay rights activists for not doing more since taking office.
The signing will take place in the Oval Office and follows sharp criticism of the president over a Justice Department motion filed last week in support of the Defense of Marriage Act -- which opposes same-sex marriage -- that used the government's interest in opposing incestuous marriages to support its position against same-sex marriage.
Don't usually give props to a mainstream media outfit, but props to CNN for highlighting the dual standards of the administration in regards to gay rights here.
Comment by wickedpam on 06/17/2009 15:55:15
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 15:55:15
OMG - I just got a mental flash of a cartoon type turtle hitting a windsheild - so not funny!
:spit: I just couldn't help laughing though
:spit: I just couldn't help laughing though
Comment by Scoopster on 06/17/2009 15:56:05
:rofl:
:rofl: :rofl:
Scoopster on 06/17/2009 15:56:05
:rofl:
:rofl: :rofl:
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 15:57:06
Raine on 06/17/2009 15:57:06
From Jesus' Generals Twitter:
:rofl:
Norm Coleman confident recount will give him Iranian presidency
:rofl:
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 15:57:52
:spit:
Raine on 06/17/2009 15:57:52
Quote by Scoopster:
:rofl:
:spit:
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 16:03:08
Raine on 06/17/2009 16:03:08
A tranlated Version of how the Joan Walsh interview really went...
Comment by wickedpam on 06/17/2009 16:05:04
:rofl:
I'm the Queen of putting Ikea stuff together bet that's the only way I could build a car :p
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 16:05:04
Quote by Scoopster:
:rofl:
:rofl:
I'm the Queen of putting Ikea stuff together bet that's the only way I could build a car :p
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 16:08:18
Raine on 06/17/2009 16:08:18
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 16:12:33
Yeah, Pete it's JUST like that... :rolleyes2:
Raine on 06/17/2009 16:12:33
petehoekstra: Iranian twitter activity similar 2 what we did in House last yr when Repubs were shut down
Yeah, Pete it's JUST like that... :rolleyes2:
Comment by Scoopster on 06/17/2009 16:15:58
Scoopster on 06/17/2009 16:15:58
Quote by Raine:petehoekstra: Iranian twitter activity similar 2 what we did in House last yr when Repubs were shut down
Yeah, Pete it's JUST like that... :rolleyes2:
Comment by TriSec on 06/17/2009 16:18:28
TriSec on 06/17/2009 16:18:28
Say, I just saw a story over at Global Post speculating on what's going to happen to the world oil market with all the turmoil in Iran right now...
'course, given the intrinsic greed of Big Oil, I'm sure they've already started jacking the price at the pumps.
'course, given the intrinsic greed of Big Oil, I'm sure they've already started jacking the price at the pumps.
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 16:24:10
I saw a tweet this morning that said intrade speculation of Ahmadinijad staying in office have dropped from 96.5% down to 88%...
Raine on 06/17/2009 16:24:10
Quote by TriSec:
Say, I just saw a story over at Global Post speculating on what's going to happen to the world oil market with all the turmoil in Iran right now...
'course, given the intrinsic greed of Big Oil, I'm sure they've already started jacking the price at the pumps.
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 16:25:43
I love how suddenly the ®'s are Oppressed minorities ... and need to use social media to get the message out because the Dems are evill tyrants...
Cry me a River.
Raine on 06/17/2009 16:25:43
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:petehoekstra: Iranian twitter activity similar 2 what we did in House last yr when Repubs were shut down
Yeah, Pete it's JUST like that... :rolleyes2:
Cry me a River.
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 16:47:09
Raine on 06/17/2009 16:47:09
Caller looking for the Fair Tax---
tsk, tsk...:bad:
tsk, tsk...:bad:
Comment by Raine on 06/17/2009 16:50:37
Raine on 06/17/2009 16:50:37
I have a little information from the Obama Brief that he is going toalk about this evening. From MArk Knoeller at CBS:
WH releases more details on memorandum Obama to sign at 545p extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal empoyees (more).
Domestic partners of federal employeess can be added to the long-term care insurance pgm. & sick lv can be used to take care of dom. ptnrs.
In the foreign service: medical facilities at foreign posts can be used by domestic partners. also eligible for housing allocations.
Determination of domestic partners will be made by OPM - Office of Personnel Management - to whom Obama's memo will be addressed.
................................
Interesting that he is using the term Domestic Partners. That would go beyond Same Sex couples.
WH releases more details on memorandum Obama to sign at 545p extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal empoyees (more).
Domestic partners of federal employeess can be added to the long-term care insurance pgm. & sick lv can be used to take care of dom. ptnrs.
In the foreign service: medical facilities at foreign posts can be used by domestic partners. also eligible for housing allocations.
Determination of domestic partners will be made by OPM - Office of Personnel Management - to whom Obama's memo will be addressed.
................................
Interesting that he is using the term Domestic Partners. That would go beyond Same Sex couples.
Comment by wickedpam on 06/17/2009 16:51:21
:spit:
wickedpam on 06/17/2009 16:51:21
Quote by Raine:
A tranlated Version of how the Joan Walsh interview really went...
:spit:
Comment by trojanrabbit on 06/17/2009 17:13:45
Considering what the Rethugs have done to this country, I don't think they are oppressed enough.
trojanrabbit on 06/17/2009 17:13:45
Quote by Raine:I love how suddenly the ®'s are Oppressed minorities ... and need to use social media to get the message out because the Dems are evill tyrants...Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:petehoekstra: Iranian twitter activity similar 2 what we did in House last yr when Repubs were shut down
Yeah, Pete it's JUST like that... :rolleyes2:
Cry me a River.
Considering what the Rethugs have done to this country, I don't think they are oppressed enough.
Comment by TriSec on 06/17/2009 17:15:43
TriSec on 06/17/2009 17:15:43
Look for a blog about this Saturday, but can anyone tell me why today's date is important to the Republic?
(Anyone in the New England media market, please hold your tongue for the moment.)
(Anyone in the New England media market, please hold your tongue for the moment.)