To sum it up, you made an uninformed post about the bill, and now you're trying to cover up your ignorance by arguing that this post is really about the fact that Joe Lieberman doesn't know what's in the bill.
My point is that you're being ridiculous by parsing a quick interview answer like it's statutory language, and you're being about 10 times as ridiculous when you claim that this bill is "designed for things like shutting down wikileaks."
Not just that it might incidentally give the President that type of power through unnecessarily broad language, mind you, but that the motivating reason for the bill is "things like shutting down wikileaks." It's non-falsifiable, I guess, but it's also typical tin-foil stuff where bad people like Joe Lieberman are always assumed to have the most evil of intentions and only a waterboy would disagree.
I don't know if Lieberman knows what's in his bill. I'm very confident that you don't, though.
Because the bill does not say that any time there is a "war" the government has unlimited authority to shut down "parts of the Internet." You would have to read it to know that, however. You're trying to do a word-by-word parse of an unscripted interview answer where the guy is trying to offer a common-sense explanation of what's in the bill.
It's pretty childish of you to call me a "Lieberman waterboy" because I'm trying to correct your misinterpretation, but that's par for the course, sadly. I remember there used to be commentors at Daily Kos who would insist that Bush just signed an executive order which authorized him to declare martial law and cancel the elections and blah blah blah, and when I would point out they were referencing a totally innocuous executive order that didn't say any of that stuff, they'd call me a Bush lackey. The thing is that those people were clowns, but at least they didn't have front-page privileges.
I am saying it is pretty silly of you to claim this bill is about "shutting down wikileaks" or whatever. You obviously haven't read the bill, and you're trying to deflect this fairly important fact by saying "I have this difficult-to-parse statement Joe Lieberman gave during a TV interview, so there's no need for me to read the bill." You're spreading disinformation here.
Yes, there is a bipartisan consensus on many issues, between crazy conservatives who spout anti-government conspiracy theories on the one side, and gullible liberals who believe them on the other side.
It's not impressive for people who have not even read the bill to go around proclaiming that this will allow the President to censor the Internet like China, or whatever. One man's brilliant cynic is another man's tiresome know-nothing.
There were several prominent Democrats who supported Lieberman, even after he lost the primary, much to the dismay of us netroots folks of course. Others (including a certain President) went through the motions of endorsing Lamont but conspicuously refrained from doing anything real to elect him.
That stands in sharp contrast to Crist, who seems to have been disowned and labeled as a traitor by the ENTIRE GOP, even those who had previously endorsed him. Maybe I'm wrong and the prominent Republicans are only paying lip service to Rubio, but I think this makes a big difference in terms of the respective candidates' desire to return to their old party's caucus.
And of course, let's not ignore the fact that it makes a difference whether your caucus is in the majority or the minority.
I never believe Rasmussen, but I suspect Angle has very low name recognition at this point, which makes the race Unpopular Majority Leader vs. Generic Republican. Hopefully as people become more familiar with her kooky views Reid's standing will improve.
You are basically using online progressives as a stalking horse when the Halter challenge was really about unions from beginning to end. If you want to say the unions have no idea what they're doing and they're helping Republicans when they oppose anti-union Democrats, go ahead and say it, but it's possible the unions aren't complete idiots when it comes to politics.
It is not wise to attach too much significance to a swing of a few thousand votes either way. It's not like if Halter wins with 51% the netroots are all-powerful and if Lincoln wins with 51% the netroots are utterly impotent. At the end of the day I think Halter's candidacy was a lot more about the unions than it was about the awesome power of the progressive community.
The result of this particular primary is less important than most because the GOP is very likely to win the seat either way. I personally think Halter had the better shot in the general election, I could be wrong, but either way our candidate rated to be a big underdog.
So the real takeaway is the message that gets sent, and I don't think the message is much different regardless of which candidate ends up wtih 51%. Let's say you're a conservative Democrat, thinking about voting against select items of the Obama agenda to gain cred, maybe thinking about opposing card check. Are you going to think "well, Lincoln won her primary, so I guess I can get away with all that?" I think it's more likely you'll think "Lincoln was a maverick and ended up fighting a really really tough primary, so maybe I should think twice about alienating my base." The important part is showing incumbents that votes have consequences, and I think that's been accomplished either way.
I am no expert, but I have read Reich's proposals and I have read the criticisms of them, and I find the criticisms more persuasive. I would be happy (not TOO happy) for someone to tell me something Obama could be doing that he isn't doing yet, but no one has come up with anything yet. The giveaway is that even Obama critics who are very familiar with the workings of the U.S. Government (like Karl Rove) cannot come up with anything specific. Everyone is a critic, but no one can actually suggest anything beyond McCain-style "tell the Sunnis and Shias to cut out the bullshit" rhetoric. Maybe someone will persuade me that receivership will suddenly cause the exact same BP employees to suddenly reorient their incentives and start doing things differently, but I have my doubts.
I didn't like Skocpol's response because it prioritizes the politics too highly. If there was something Obama could do to speed up a solution - even if it would take months and make the government look marginally less effective in the interim - I would want him to do it. This is a major crisis and I honestly wouldn't care about reinforcing right-wing talking points if it would mean actually solving the crisis.
Wow, from Sarah Palin's lips to your ears. Amazing.
We've discussed previously your inability to apply critical thought processes to these talking points you hear. I've given up on trying to change that about you. Right, if we opened up ANWR then no one would be interested in deepwater drilling, good point dude.
I don't think the fact that you cite a supposed eyewitness who was actually hiding in the bathroom is a trivial detail. Basically, your narrative style is to write off every Israeli statement as propaganda, assume that every anti-Israeli statement is the gospel truth, and present the sum total as a clear and indisputable version of "what really happened."
The end result is that even when "what really happened" is a very sympathetic story for the side with which you sympathize, you end up presenting a propagandistic storyline (a ship full of Gandhilike figures who would never dream of resorting to violence, brutally massacred with no provocation whatsoever!) that is nothing more than a mirror image of the tales the other side tells. It's persuasive only to the true believers. To everyone else it simply looks like another "he said, she said" story where neither side is believable, a bad outcome when you could win plenty of sympathy just by telling the truth.
It is impossible to claim, in light of the massive amount of video available, that the passengers on the sixth ship were engaged in nothing other than unarmed nonviolent resistance. But you just can't help but tell the story that way. It doesn't speak well of you.
It's a nice touch that you made a point of mentioning in that last comment that the baby was one and a half, not just one. That does make a difference.