There's no spin-o-rama there. If you watch the news or other shows where situations are taken out of context, it's easy to see that could happen.

And I did say that if they truly did intend to manipulate it, that they got what they deserve, which is exactly what Flasch and you believed. We're no different in that assessment assuming it's correct.

Missed your last sentence. Still...not sure how there needs to be anymore context to it. There is audio so you can hear what is being said...if it was truly something as convoluted as "well bachman talked too much so they couldn't get in there that it was pictures from a different rally that they were showing" then the production folks ought to all be fired for doing such a shitty job of time-managing and not making sure to find the time in the program to make taht clear. but i think that's probably a one-in-a-million shot that that is what happened, don't you?

they had plenty of time to talk and lay graphics over the video clips...in fact they did. and now they've been called out on it i fully expect them to come out with some lameass excuse about technical errors or something like that, but i 100% believe they were trying to put one over on people

Edit that to 4 guys.

For the record, this clip was aired in the 'non-news' hours as noted by the current administration, so you shouldn't take it seriously anyway. :)

You think if states were open to compete with each other for health insurance plans, the federal law requiring ERs to treat people would go away? That's a pretty big leap.

I'm guessing that any move to open up health insurance to state-to-state competition wouldn't impact the current law requiring ERs to treat patients independent of insurances. The outcry if that got repealed would be worse than anything this government has seen in a long time. Plus, it doesn't make sense.

There's no reason to think that law will go away. You can have a federal oversight law for ER treatment and still have state-to-state competition for insurance plans. Why do you think that law would go away? Seems like a pretty big scarecrow argument to me.

BTW Flasch, here's is Hannity's response. Basically states that they made an honest mistake splicing in the wrong footage and thanks Jon Stewart for keeping him honest and watching the show. Thought he handled it well.

Hannity: Jon Stewart Was Right About Protest Footage (VIDEO)

dola

Interesting new article up over at the Huffington Post. It details how the mortgage bailout created by Obama has spent $27B so far and had very little effect on slowing the mortgage crisis. Also notes that an economist had laid out early on why Obama's plan would fail and accurately predicted why it was a ill-conceived approach to solving the problem.

The Economist The Obama Administration Should Have Listened To

right like when they throw the D up instead of the R....OFTEN when a congressman is caught cheating on their wife or being investigated? Sometimes there is a trend.

except that the mortgage crisis has been slowed. Whether for good, bad, turned around for good or not, Im in it and it has been slowed. Now if you want to argue that that is temporary you can but the facts are again facts.

Whether it has slowed or not is immaterial. As is noted in the story, the mortgage bailout orchestrated by the Obama administration has done little to create a slowing effect.

wow.

immaterial.

wow.

Sorry to interject this...again...but why are we even talking about things like Universal Health Care when we have fundamental economic sustainability problems in this country? I think I know the answer...but, well...crap it doesn't make me feel any better.

From what the polls have shown of late, most Americans agree with you, myself included. The exit polls from the latest elections showed that health care was a pretty distant concern compared to things like unemployment and the rising deficit.

A report today noted that the federal deficit for October 2009 was $187B.........for just one month.

Your second sentence makes me scared and the irony of the end of your last sentence will be lost on you, but go ahead and keep believing that government spending is the way to solve economic problems. Wow! (I know this will come off as really arrogant and even rude but please PLEASE read a book on economics!!!!!)

Possible topics to study: debasing the currency, malinvestment, tanstaafl, Austrian business cycle.

Spitting into the wind, Mr. panerd.

The wacky goldbug stuff is one of the reasons libertarians won't ever be more than a fringe. From Wiki:

JPhillips, you keep bringing up that strawman as if it means something. libertarian-minded economic, social and governance policies and actions can work well within the existing political structure, it just takes courage and common sense, which are lacking.

The Austrian Theory has been so thoroughly discredited that believing getting rid of the Fed and going to a gold standard is the key to prosperity is akin to believing in Santa Claus.

Wow, need to read up on some history books and learn where FDR got most of his ideas. He took most of them from Hoover. What FDR did was extrapolate it to a large degree.

Plus your previous comment regarding Social Security (which was never supposed to be paid out, it was an added tax), kind of interesting to point to a fund that many think is going to go broke in the near future (15-20 years) as an example of a great government program.

Gold. You quote a Free Market Monetarist (and often times also closely associated with Libertarianism) on why Libertarians are wrong and Obama (his economic policy<-antonym->Monetarism) is right.

And to add a cherry to the top, Friedman was a HUGE opponent of the Federal Reserve and FDR's policies which is where this discussion began with Steve Bollea's post 6 or 7 posts ago.

I don't mean to sound like a dick but try a little better than a wikipedia argument against someone who has studied and read a ton on this particular branch of economics. Am I or the Austrian school necessarily right? Maybe not. But there is a little more to their theory than what Wikipedia says under "criticisms". Try reading the book "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?" by Richard Maybury sometime. It is a great introduction into the world history of government meddling versus free market economies. I will warn you it isn't real dry like most economic books tend to be and it will probably scare the hell out of you how profoundly right it probably is. It concludes there isn’t much history to support the meddling theory ever playing out.

I hear you. My only hope is that I once battled on whether I was a liberal or a conservative and then realized I want people (ie the government) to just stay the fuck out of my life and my business. And then I was pointed to a group of people who support both conservative economic issues and liberal social issues. (Our civics class didn't spend a lot of time on this)

I struggle to understand how anyone can be on the other side!!! I guess they must of really loved being babysat as kids and like that people like Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, and Joe Wilson will fill in as their adult babysitter seeing as they know how to run peoples' lives better than they do.

Just noticed Thomas Jefferson in your signiture. I am sure he would agree that a rapidly out of control, debt accruing, all encompassing federal government is good while a call for free markets and civil liberties is akin believing in Santa Claus.

The argument was about whether the states should control everything. I pointed out that if the states control everything, it would cause major issues since many federal laws make it easier to go state to state for health care. It seems like you are agreeing with me as you are pointing out that the federal law would need to remain in place.

What are we arguing about here? You are making my point for me.

In regards to the insurance talk, I thought I would share this somewhere and this seems like a decent place:

My wife developed a rare illness while she was pregnant with our son and he was born 10-weeks early. He is home and doing pretty well now, but he had to stay in the Newborn ICU for close to 40-days. We had gotten some scattered bills here and there for a few hundred dollars, but we got the big one for the NICU stay today. We had been dreading receiving it because we had no idea how much it would cost or how much our insurance would cover.

It was for a little over $98,000. The insurance company reduced it down to $2,800 and change and our co-pay was $5.00. I'm really glad that it was covered and it isn't going to severely set us back financially, but it is hard to believe that they would accept that little. I'm guessing that would barely cover a few days of salaries for the nurses that took care of him.

I'm not making any type of policy statement about it. I'd just love to know the inner-workings of how insurance reductions work.

What's the cap for FICA earnings? 75K? 100K? So A-rod and LeBron aren't going to get any of this money that you are taxing over this amount when they retire? Somehow in the super liberal world this all makes sense. What would be your reason for like 25% of all households having zero tax liabaility? Isn't that more of a crime than LeBron and A-Rod (your words, substitute Bloomberg or Jobs if it makes your feel better) already shouldering?

Guess what? Teachers don't pay FICA tax. (And I am a teacher so I greatly benefit from this) Wonder if the Democrats would go after teachers where they could EASILY get this money? (Go ahead and answer with some BS about how they don't get any social security either and I will go back to my first question about LeBron and A-Rod. Those two wouldn't benefit from your plan) Nah, let them continue their assault on the rich, won't piss off their voters. (Though I would guess this is just one of your proposals and even the Democrats realize how silly it is)

Obama is expected to drop some programs promised in his campaign and try to emphasize deficit reduction. Story notes that promises of deficit reduction by sitting presidents often end up being unsuccessful.

After spending binge, White House says it will focus on deficits - Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com

It would be great if he started some serious deficit reduction.

No way I can vote for him(or any of my congressmen) if he ignores the issue or puts it on the back burner.

dola, I know Obama has a say, but isn't it up to congress to stop appropriating money and start raising revenue?

Just as an aside, Maybury's books are very interesting reading. He is strong anti-government, but his points and explanations are presented very well. I'd also recommend "Are you Liberal or Conservative? Or Confused?". I think many on this forum would enjoy it (whether or not they agree with each point).

It does sound like we are on the page when it comes to some high-level federal guidelines. However, my point was that fear of not being given out of state care is not a legitimate criticism to opening states to competition on health care insurance.

I don't really see a downside to opening up state-to-state competition (assuming some very basic federal mandates like above).

Kudos to Obama if he does try to reduce the deficit. But like MBBF has said while everyone is whining aobut the government out of control, history shows that those who attempt to fix it fail. They start taking away peoples' free lunches, the people get pissed, and very quickly they go back to their wasteful spending ways. So I am torn. I would love for fiscal responsibility but know the reality of thousands of years of governments and don't expect it to last long.

So KSM is getting a "civilian trial" in New York.

One of two things is true:

1. KSM is a prosecutor screw-up or creative jury decision away from being a free man

Or (much more likely)

2. It's a sham, meaningless trial

Yeah, no matter how you slice, this is a mockery of our judicial system.

I know its been rehashed to death here, but the whole point of a civilian American trial is that we're OK with criminals going free. We have decided that justice requires that, and pretty much everyone is on board and accepts that. So it's just not a place for terrorists and war criminals and national security risks. One, that risk isn't acceptable for them, and two, putting them in there without that risk does make a mockery of our system. I mean, imagine a jury trial where even if the defendant is acquitted, he's still punished for the crime. That's what this is, at best. (At worst, make he could get a fluke aquittal and move down to Greenwich Village, get some roomates, get into the punk scene)

my solution: eat the rich

Yeah, what I meant above is that either he gets convicted in a court where he had no chance of a fair trial (I'm sure this jury will have no biases against him) or he gets off on a technicality and ends up like Molson said. It's just a joke on all fronts.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how KSM and the other accused could possibly get a fair trial in New York City. AG Holder said today they'll be tried "just blocks" from the WTC site.

I remember when Tim McVeigh's trial was moved from Oklahoma City to Denver because the judge thought it was impossible for McVeigh and Nichols to get a fair trial in OKC. I'm afraid if the trial does take place in NYC that it will immediately give KSM an issue to raise on appeal.

Seems like a slippery slope. Are you saying we should not try people who are obviously guilty because they might get off?

Not American civilians, certainly. Domestic criminals who are "obviously" guilty might get off, and that's fine, that's our system. Guilty people are acquitted all the time, we err on the side of doing that/not charging people to begin with.

"Suspected" war criminals/terrorists should be tried too, just not in civilian courts. Military tribunals with a relaxed standard of proof and rules of evidence is more appropriate. An "obviously guilty" terrorist should not be set free, even if a rougue civilian judge makes an adverse evidentiary ruling that compromises a case, for example. Or if a key witnesses is murdered or otherwise is unavailable, or if a jury is tainted, or if a prosecutor/investigator just makes a mistake (accidently or on purpose) that results in the suppression of necessary evidence.

But that's not even really the debate here. If a trial judge excludes all possible evidence against KSM for various reasons (not the least of which would be the torture during his confessions), and the prosecution couldn't proceed, I'm sure the U.S. would still lock him up forever for something. The trial is just a sham, and Obama is gambling on the the extreme likelihood (but not guarantee) that there will be a conviction. Then he can gloat about the civilian trials doing justice in the American way and whatnot. When of course, that civilian justice is just an illusion in this case (as it is in many criminal trials in many other countries, like Russia, - not usually here though).

Yeah, I get the political game (and that's always a shame). That being said, wasn't there the same urgency for Timothy Mc Veigh's conviction? Both were horrific terrorist acts on American soil. I understand 9/11 being an act of war, but where do we draw the line? should suspected terrorist robbing a home depot be tried in a military court?

this does not seem to be about the rights of an individual, but rather about the incompetence, negligence and ingornace of the American justice system. and that should not be the reasons for more relaxed standards.

this way thinking puts terrorist in the arena as child molesters. both are presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.

Is it more of a sham to put him on trial knowing you'll get a conviction or never giving him a trial in the first place?

It's more of sham to put him on a civilian trial where you know the outcome is pre-determined by the government (and not by the jury, judge, statutes, rules of evidence, or anything else that's a part of our criminal justice system) than it is to give him a fair military tribunal with processes and rules of evidence more appropriate for international terrorists and war criminals (not because they're "obviously" guilty, but because there's unique evidentiary concerns and risk that come with those "crimes", and these people are NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS)

The former is just like the Soviet Union. It's just sad to see.

I mean, we have the president and the AG coming out and saying, out loud, that he'll get "justice" in the U.S. system, just "blocks from the scene of the crime". If they said that, pre-trial about ANY other domestically-tried murderer, that would be a clear ground for appeal, and probably a bar to future prosecution. They're utilizing the prestige of their office to encourage potential jurors to vote guilty on something other than then evidence, of which we know little. But this is a special defendant. They're calling it a civilian trial, but its clearly not.

Wait, so a trial where he will certainly be found guilty but will have full ability to defend himself is MORE shameful than a trial where he will certainly be found guilty but have even less of a chance to defend himself?

Which one is which? You can design a military tribunal where he can defend himself. You can let him call witnesses, cross-examine government witnesses, present evidence.

They shameful thing is using a "civilian" trial, which means something in America, for a fraudulent trial where the outcome is pre-determined by the state. He is not a civilian. He is not an American citizen. The constitution does not apply to him.

If you want to give him a civilian trial, get behind it. Don't make it a mockery. Charge him criminally, and if the evidence is tainted, if the prosecutor commits error during closing argument, if the jury misundertands the jury instructions, if comments by the president and AG would prevent a fair trial, set him free and bar future prosecution, just like we would an American citizen. If you're not willing to do that (which I don't believe they are), it's a sham.

It was my understanding that under a military tribunal the defendant would have significantly less access to the evidence against him.

I thought they were designing new tribunals at one point for these terrorists -the rules aren't set in stone.

I wouldn't apply full United States evidentiary caselaw, like Crawford v. Washington, but there should be some kind of process, some kind of ability to defend oneself. But ultimately the military needs to decide if he's "guilty" or not (and/or a threat to national security), and what the punishment should be. (And I don't even really think we should be in the business of "punishing" foreign terrorists in a criminal law sense - if he's dangerous, execute him or imprison him for life for that reason, and if he's not, set him free).

Fair enough. I'm not really concerned with the military vs. civilian trial, but I do feel its important that the defendant gets to defend themselves as they see fit (within historical reason, of course). I think that any trial that these guys have is bound to be a show trial, anyway.

It's a little over $100k. However, you still pay the Medicare portion (2.9%) on everything you make.

Why bother with a trial at all though? As you said, a civilian case in the United States is already pre-determined. And a military tribunal is going to be the same way.

I don't really know what way to go with this. But wouldn't a military tribunal cause issues? I mean if the case is that they are not citizens and don't have the same rights, does that mean a foreign person who shoplifts while on vacation in the U.S. has to sit before a military tribunal?

I think it depends on the severity. But, if a foreign person is charged with a terrorism-related offense - then I see no reason to afford them a civilian trial.

This.