In the GOP foreign policy debate Sunday in South Carolina, candidates were asked
whether they believed the U.S. should waterboard terror detainees.

This question did two things totally unique to this year's debates.
It resurrected the ghost of Dick Cheney on the issue of water boarding, and
it brought emphatic, yet matching responses from President Obama and Senator McCain.

Michele Bachmann explicitly endorsed waterboarding:
Cain told the debate moderators:
Ron Paul, in contrast, upset a portion of the partisan crowd by declaring:
Huntsman, agreed, saying, Reactions from McCain and Obama were:

John McCain said:
President Obama responded: Let me just say this:
And besides all that:

Today Herman Cain showed that he is a manly man, with a link back
to Red Skelton's skits about the "Mean 'ittle Kid":

"Manly" men like more pizza toppings
.

Calling Pelosi 'Princess Nancy' really pissed me off.



Why? How? WTf is this man doing at the forefront of politics? I mean....I am assuming he isn't as thick as he appears to be (roughly the thickness of two short planks) ... because that really would be scary. But if he isn't as thick as he appears to be then he has no fucking excuse for his unreconstructed, macho, sexist, homophobic dickery.

You can't go wrong in the Republican party when insulting Nancy Pelosi.

After this weekend's 60 Minutes, hating Pelosi should be some sort of bipartisan thing.

While I still really admire Pelosi, she was a deer in the headlights in that show.

I'm shocked just shocked... that 60 Minutes is still on television.

It looks to me like Pelosi and Boehner were added to pad the guy's book with big names, when he really only found a smoking gun with the unknown guy from Alaska.

Well I'll say it, since I find it unlikely anyone else will: Cain is in the forefront at this exact moment in time because he is black. It's the same reason John McCain chose a female running mate back in 2008. Because you have to have something to counter the people who vote purely on idealism--both the racists who would vote against him no matter what, as well as the symbolists who would vote for him no matter what in order to ensure we finally got our first African-American president.

If the Republicans run a black guy, maybe they can head off at the pass all the people who would vote for the black guy over the white guy no matter what. If the Republicans run a black guy, then the marginally racist members of the base can make the effort to vote for him to prove that 'some of their best friends (candidates) are black.' The best way for everyone to show that race has nothing to do with anything, is to run a candidate of a matching race. If Hilary Clinton had won the democratic primary and then the presidency, then Bachmann or Palin or someone else with a uterus would be polling with undeservedly high numbers right now instead.

I can has explanation plz?

60 Minutes TV show had a segment on how members of congress are exempt from "insider information trading laws" because they are privy to information about upcoming Bills in committees, etc.

The reporter started with Pelosi in what looked like a large press conference, asking if she thought it was ethical for the Speaker to invest in stocks based on such insider information.

Pelosi looked (to me) as though she was caught completely unawares, and tried a couple of times to divert the question.
Finally, she denied she or her husband made such investments.
This was my "deer in the headlights"

Next, the reporter confronted Boehner with the same question, and Boehner gave a similar denial.

Then the reporter talked about several other Congressmen (heads of committees, etc) doing the same thing.

Never admired her, this just gave me more reason to dislike her ... and the rest of them all the more.

Thanks LL.

So, she poorly handled a loaded question, but there's no evidence (yet) that she was doing insider trading, is that it?

Oh I wasn't objecting to him hating Pelosi. But referring to her as 'Princess' in that context was dodgy as fuck. particularly coming from a man who is desparately trying to make people think he has respect for women.

The equivalent, in my view would be if one of the Democrats referred to Cain as Uncle Tom.



@ Clod: thanks for the explanation. When you spell it out like that it makes more sense.

Well, you know how accurately you can read someone's facial expressions ?
She looked guilty as all h;;;. :rolleyes:
Boehner had one of Sandy's painted stone faces.

I would say the reporter was on to something that probably involves all of Congress.
But then, sometimes I'm just can't help being cynical.

Yeah, I'm sure it's a problem for all of Congress. Fuckers are getting rich playing games. Pelosi is one of the worst examples, to sum up:

Through her husband, in 2008, Pelosi bought at least $1.3M, maybe a much greater amount, of Visa stock.

Some of it was bought during Visa's IPO, and it's not clear whether this was an invite-only party, or an excellent investment decision on behalf of Mr. Pelosi.

Shortly thereafter, the legislation that led to the BoA $5 surcharge was debated and passed through committee. (Here's our thread discussing it.) We found that it had a $19B impact on banks in 2009 (a much greater amount in 2008) but apparently it would have a similar impact on Visa.

It failed to come up for a vote in the House. Pelosi is roughly the person who decides which bills will go to a vote.

A year later in 2009, similar legislation was introduced, passed committee again, gained additional support, and again failed to come up for a vote.

Finally in 2010 it gained more support and was passed.

In her defense, Pelosi offers that a Cardholders Bill of Rights passed in 2009 and the card companies didn't like it. But that didn't hurt Visa as much as the interchange fees matter, and in the meantime, the IPO shares doubled in price.

Hastert's example is also particularly obvious. He bought a bunch of worthless land. Then he got earmarked money to build a highway next to it. Then he sold the land for $2M.

Can it be proven that they intended to make money from these deals, probably not. They merely did. But since we are stuck in the false dichotomy of left-right politics, it can all be written off as partisan attack, and there will always be people to defend them.