The comments from readers are much more entertaining than even the stupid idea that the govt would try to take over Texas.

There are awesome comments everywhere like these on Joe the Plumber's fb page after he asks if people support the Jade Helm monitoring.

https://www.facebook.com/TheRealJoet...52959833964296

Such as this winner that has 88 likes and it's 2 replies:




It's all low hanging fruit, but really amusing low hanging fruit.

You would think the Feds would know better than start with Texas where gun ownership is (likely) 100%+ of the population.

Look at how 1 cop was able to take down 2 terrorists with assault weapons.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/tex...ero/index.html

BTW, I own weapons, not NRA card carrying type, believe in the right for law abiding citizens to own weapons and willing to undergo background checks etc. If the story is right, that cop deserve huge kudos for what he was able to do against armed assailants.

How about, instead of waiting for them to secede, we just go ahead and kick Texas out of the U.S.?

So are we invading Texas or not? I don't want to be involved in another quagmire in a 3rd world country :mad:

We should take the JiMG approach and nuke 'em into glass. ;)

That story sounds more like a trial run for when that Muslim loving military comes to take away the guns of the real Muricans in Texas. Just wanted to trial different ammo and armor that will be necessary. You think this is Obummer's first rodeo.

Welp, guess I'm done here.

Quit being a muzzie lovin libtard.

Well, it did turn out there were four SWAT team members that just happened to be nearby somehow who also returned fire.

Not to diminish in the least what the one armed officer was willing to face in the first place, just adding that additional detail to the picture fwiw.

Another one bites the dust. Not the #2 but seems like a #4-6 range?

Released from Guantanamo (there are other examples) that went/stayed bad. I think I'm okay with Guantanamo staying open for business for a select group, this is a war. Not sure about the enhanced interrogation techniques though.

Ironically, it probably better for them than some rendition program.


Senior AQAP leader Nasr Ibn Ali al-Ansi killed - CNN.com

No, but Bill Clinton is about to. :)

Lindsey Graham announced his bid. The Republican race is turning into a bad "a {descriptive noun} walks into a bar" joke.

No way... Graham?! You have got to be shitting me. Why does he think he has a chance?

I think its just to sell books.

There may be some inaccuracies in the official story (the 2 SEALs that wrote books contradict each other) but overall think that's how it went down. Why would Obama lie about this?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/11/opinio...lie/index.html

I'm finding this whole story very hard to believe. Why would we need to cover up how we got Bin Laden? To prevent a potential war with Pakistan over American incursions into their country?

I'm also finding the main source to be questionable here too-the former leader of Pakistan's intelligence unit. To me he was embarrassed that they didn't know anything about where Bin Laden was in their country or that the Americans got into their country virtually undetected and wanted to make their country look good and an active participant in the mission to get Bin Laden-something that has never come out in any of the books or congressional investigations into the raid that I can recall. Especially with a Republican party ready and willing to expose and humiliate Obama as often as possible.

Finally, so many people and countries would have to lie as well to keep the cover-up going that I find it hard to believe this is the first we are hearing about this.

Gotta be ego, just wants to say he "ran for President". Or maybe he aspires to "was another beaten comically lackluster nominee".

He's the successor to John McCain's role as a "War Hawk" He pretty much despises anything Obama does in foreign affairs and that he has made the country much weaker than anytime in our history. He'll be the "expert" CNN needs anytime they need to talk about enemies of the US, but no chance in hell of winning the nomination. I see Huckabee is going to run again-I really thought he might be the Rep nominee then-he's the one evangelical conservatives will want to vote for, but seems to have little staying power outside the South

Its common for politicians on talk shows to defer answering "I don't answer to hypotheticals" but Jeb obviously didn't do well. Think this is an opportunity for the Dems to continuing saying and stressing that Obama was cleaning up after Bush's mistake (and that the Reps agree it was a mistake).

To be fair, the next president will be cleaning up after Obama's foreign policy mess also.

George W. Bush's Iraq War Hawks Dismayed By Jeb's Dithering - BuzzFeed News

Jeb Bush doesn't know what the fuck he would've done. Obama didn't either. Nobody really does. I'll give credit to Obama, when he came into office and was briefed by military leaders, he changed his stance and tone pretty quickly, he stated...and I'm paraphrasing a bit, "I simply didn't have the information while running for office that I do now as President". The bottom line is that Presidents are like Quarterbacks, maybe they called their own shots back in the day, but now they have Offensive and Defensive Coordinators and are heavily consulted and guided (in many cases) to a decision. Jeb Bush says this, Obama says that, GWB says that...blah, blah, blah...sometimes it's all a bit more involved than a couple of sound-bites and some clickable word-smithing.


Depends what you mean. My end-state has always been to have no presence in the Middle East unless we need to protect ourselves or our interests...in which case I support our military 100% for being there. Unfortunately, "protect ourselves and interests" is left of to interpretation and the Iraqi's had made it all to easy to define "use of force required". It is very refreshing to see that Iraq is more ally than enemy after living a good portion of my life seeing the reverse. Who helped make that happen? George Bush, Bill Clinton, GWB, Obama? Probably a little of all, but the one guy we continually going back to for "fucking things up" was the guy who spearheaded change. Make no mistake about that.


In 1989, the US Military Presence in Iraq (and much of the middle east) was basically non-existent.
In 1990, the US Military Surge (Desert Shield/Desert Storm) on behalf of Iraq (for invading Iran and then Kuwait) was 543,000 troops.
From 1991-2003, the US security presence was roughly 10,000-30,000 troops on any given day.
In 2001, Al Qaeda bombed US civilian targets for having a sustained presence in Saudi Arabia with no plan to ever withdrawal from the Middle East.
In 2003, the Invasion of Iraq (which happened only after repeated failures of the US, international and regional attempts to resolve the "Iraq Problem") was around 250,000 troops.
In 2007, the 'surge' increase US troop presence in Iraq from 80,000 to 110,000 troops. Within 4 months, that surge was withdrawn.
In 2011, all major US security forces were removed.
In 2015, the US military only keeps a small contingent to very actively hunt and kill insurgents in the region.

On the flip-side.

In 1990, the Iraqi Army was a hostile force and it's strength was 1,000,000 strong (which is typical for a warring dictatorship's troop's strengths to be excessively high)
In 1991, Iraq lost a war to the US and surrendered Kuwait.
In 1992, US/UK/French military established "No-Fly Zones" to prevent the continued killing of Kurds and Shia's and give those people "safe zones" which was continually manned by tens of thousands of foreign soldiers until 2003 (that wasn't cheap and certainly wasn't free, btw)
By 2003, the Iraq Military was STILL a hostile force
In 2007, the Iraq Military did not exist on it's own, but the US Army trainers were working tirelessly and around the clock to professionalizing an army that would be accepted globally as a standard defense force.
In 2011, Iraqi Military units were conducting their own operations against Insurgents and the US Military security forces were becoming quite redundant.
In 2015, remnants of the Insurgency are all that's left and dealing with the terrorists in ISIS, are a joint US/Iraqi/Arab operation.

US Forces no longer are required to protect the Iraqi people that was necessary following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi military is responsible and fairly capable of it now.

Our presence has finally returned to pre-1990 levels. (Or at least more similarly to those levels than anytime between) Did the Iraq War make it possible to finally bring our boys home? I think it did. Was it a mistake to bring them home? No it wasn't.

How do people around here feel that the new Iraqi government is more closely aligned to Iran as opposed to hostile as Hussein's regime was?

Not a trick question, I'm interested in thoughts and really don't have an opinion on it either way.

Given the Shia majority in Iraq it is not all that surprising, not to mention that Iran is interested in fighting ISIS.

U.S. troops kill top ISIL commander in raid inside Syria




YOUR United States Army Delta Forces at work. Great job, boys.

I wonder why they took the wife?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/middle...aid/index.html

Great job. Hope we got a bunch of actionable intel.

The CBS or NBC article said she was also an ISIS operative...so I'm guessing Intel.

I think this raid was also done to show ISIS that America is not afraid of them and will go anywhere to capture them, no matter how deep in their territory. In response to the recent Texas incident with cartoon writers that was supposedly ISIS sponsored. Just glad none of our guys got hurt.

Russia's Putin plays with NHL veterans, scoring 8 goals

WHY CANT BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA PLAY HOCKEY LIKE THAT! THIS JUST SHOWS HOW MUCH BETTER A LEADER PUTIN IS!

what more fixed Putin hockey or Romney v Holyfield?

In a thread about Obama...you missed. :)

They don't have hockey rinks in Kenya.

Let's see Putin on a basketball court with Obama!

There it is! Nice work, Edward.

So Putin, Obama and Kim Jong Un walk onto a basketball court.......

Not to mention that the last man to make Putin look bad glowed in the dark before he died.

In Russia, hoops shoot you.

Putin, "Shit, let me invade Lithuania first so I can get some quality basketball players on my team."

Kim Jung Un, "Shit, I just shot my basketball team into outerspace on the back of a SCUD missile."

Obama, "Shit, the world is about to find out I really am from Hawaii..."

I don't really understand TPP and why its so secretive. However, if it helps counter China, I'm willing to give Obama some leeway.

Let the Public Read the Completed Parts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership*|*Dave Johnson

The fact that the US isn't allowed to put country of origin labels on meat packages anymore gives me pause in giving up any more sovereignty to trade pacts.

The big picture is that TPP is a way to help US stay economically relevant in Asia as China's influence inevitably increases (or at least slow down China's progression).

I really don't know if its too little, too late (which is what the article states) but at least its doing something vs status quo. TPP won't be perfect, it'll hurt (low skilled?) and help (big corporations?) different segments in the US.

China Liked TPP—Until U.S. Officials Opened Their Mouths | ChinaFile

Back to the top, so where did we get, Edward? I'm guessing the answer is "still more work to do" which is fair considering that truly is the answer to all political questions, but did we make good in-roads the last 8 years into your expectation? Does the reality line up with the expectations from 2008?

Based on that list, I actually think Obama did very well in most of it. Granted more work to do was always going to be part of the equation, but did plenty of good stuff there.

Oh, FWIW, I don't get the big deal about the TPP either. While I'm on the left, I think free trade is something that helps consumers and workers in other countries. I think NAFTA was a complete success and I believe the TPP will be as well. I'm not that pleased over some of the provisions (however, with all the bleating about the international tribunal overruling laws by some countries, US companies probably benefit more than not), but overall, it's a good thing.

I think #1 is taken care of. Is it perfect, no but better than old status quo.

On #2, I think Obama lucked out. He did not champion fracking but happened on his watch so I guess he gets some credit. There are more and more hybrids out there but don't know how much of that is attributable to him.

#3 Iraq - pretty much a failure.

#3 Afghanistan - still a chance to learn from Iraq so think its still tbd.

On #4, I do think its better but probably not by much

Obama can still pull it off but the global situation is a mess. Not all of it was under his control but it happened on his watch

-- China rising. I would have wanted to slow it
-- Middle-east. 'nuff said
-- Eastern Europe. Russia doesn't worry me on the world stage, only in Europe
-- Libya, Egypt etc.

Coming along but still not quite sure what it says or does. I am good with the up or down vote. Now to the House.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/22/politi...ity/index.html

Obama unfazed as toddler unleashes White House tantrum

I'm guessing from the headline that John Boehner visited the White House.

Little more info on TPP and Chinese reaction.

This makes me think the future/now will be economic and intelligence war with China. A real estate bubble crash would be nice.

China getting panicky over U.S.-led Pacific trade deal - MarketWatch

The amusing part of that is that the list of things China is worried about the TPP doing is the same stuff that the left is saying the TPP isn't doing (setting high bars for... labor rules and environmental protection). I guess how one defines 'high' is the sticking point ;).

I guess Obama is trying to shame and hold the Iraqi's military accountable. Interesting politics, effectively call the Iraqi military cowards.

Haven't heard much from the Kurds in the North.

Iraqi Military Vows to Recapture Ramadi After Carter Criticism - NBC News

Going to be a tough battle for the DACA (which I thought was the same/subset as the Dream Act but apparently not). I think likely to extend past Obama which means the supporters would be more likely to support a Dem than GOP.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/26/politi...urt/index.html

It seems Denny Hastert has decided to dive headlong into the old dead hooker/live boy conundrum.

The Hastert story is shocking, both for the details and that it didn't come out sooner.

#familyvalues

Full story isn't out yet but yup, sounds like another hypocrite.

It's funny, Illinois politicians usually just go for straight-up corruption. The hooker thing must have been Washington's influence on him.

I found this funny.

If I understand the history correctly… - The Washington Post


:D

I never got this line of thinking. Is it better for Democrats to molest kids because they don't preach as much about family values? So molesting kids is more consistent with the Democrat way of thinking and thus it's less hypocritical for them to engage in it?

No, I think if you're molesting a kid that's a pretty vile act all on its own. It's not worse for Republicans and somehow not as bad for Democrats because of their political and social views.

Its just a dig. And yes, he's a hypocrite and deserves the ridicule. The entire party does not. If a Democrat did it, I would of course make a similar dig, but its not blaming everybody. I'll gladly get in line to fry this dude.

Every child molester is a hypocrite. Unless they're in NAMBLA. Unless I missed something in the Democrat party platform about being pro-molestation.

It does make his handling of the Foley page scandal interesting. Perhaps he was quiet because he knew what could come out if he spoke out.

So if Martin O Malley jumps into the primary race on the Democratic side and nobody listens, does it make a sound?

Fuck cancer.

R.I.P. Beau Biden.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/us...ies-at-46.html

In a way I think we are still in a war and so we should keep it. In another way, I think of how much is too much and how long is too long.

Still confused and don't have a strong opinion but am glad that Rand Paul is bringing it to the forefront for at least a discussion again.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/31/politi...nsa/index.html

Has the Patriot Act affected my life? Yes, it has. It's a pain in the ass to go to the Airport now. Will removal of the Patriot Act remove some of these heavy-handed security measures that we now have in place? Maybe. Do we want that? I'm not so sure.

The Patriot Act has wire-tapped, recorded, and dissolved dozens of terror plots in the USA. What will happen if we stop?

The Patriot Act has also recorded millions of citizens conversations (I believe that's true) and that will stop if we get rid of the Patriot Act. Is it worth it?

The Patriot Act goes against everything that we consider a right to privacy.

But at the same time, the enemies of America live in a brave new world where they are closer than ever and have achieved "Global Strike" capabilities (to steal a modern US military phrase) and they exploit our very principles to achieve results. How do we continue to defend against that?

Ultimately, it's not a decision to be taken lightly, there are ramifications either way.

The question is at what cost (both financially and to privacy) is it worth it? The results are completely immeasurable right? For all we know it could have stopped 5 more 9-11 type events or it hasn't stopped anything. So it usually seems to be framed as a liberty vs security things but how about liberty vs security vs waste of money? People say all the time why should panerd care if they are listening in on his conversations if he has nothing to hide... well what if panerd doesn't care about his privacy as much as he cares about his tax money being wasted or at least misallocated.

I agree.

I do think they have said that "dozens" of plots have been uncovered and arrests made, I don't believe it's all shrouded in secrecy. It can't be much of a secret once people are arrested afterall. Not sure if a correlation between "plots uncovered" and Patriot Act "wins" is truly there though.

Yeah, I hate the idea of the Patriot Act, but I suppose in this day and age any & all governments are spying on their citizens as part of necessary internet security, and it could be argued that at least we have some sort of implied 'contract', or something.

That said, even if it just starts as rhetoric, I'd like to see a cultural/governmental shift towards respecting individual privacy, and/or take just a couple baby steps away from fear based governing.

And he's officially in and already calling for more war in Iraq, since our previous wars have turned out so well.

Does anyone actually believe that the Patriot Act provisions expiring will actually stop the wire taps and other things the NSA has been doing?

I guess we'll find out.

That's kind of key, I think. The last time I looked at the data, it appeared that the vast majority of arrests were made through well-executed "traditional" law enforcement, mainly by the FBI.

What you're missing is that it's 20-year GOP tactic to attack liberal values as a slippery slope to depravity. For example the idea that homosexuality leads to pedophilia or bestiality. The message being that if you let the morally upstanding conservatives win elections, you'll be saved from all that.

Except that it turns out that moral depravity knows no political boundaries, and in fact on the evidence it would appear it's actually more common among GOP politicians.

So again, if it's a Democrat that's a child molester, then that's better because they're less of a hypocrite, and you don't have that "20-year GOP tactic", because the Dem view of morals is more compatible with child molestation?

It just shows where our priorities are when child molestation is politicized like that. Child molestation is a great opportunity for people whose personal worth is wrapped up in their political party being the superior one. It's almost like some people are excited about it. Which is another kind of weird moral depravity.

You are the only one here trying to make the point about it being "better".

If someone is accused of molesting kids, and the response is that the behavior is hypocritical and and contrary to their stance on family values (which people ARE arguing), then they're also necessarily arguing that it's somehow better if you take away those elements. I think the focus on politics and scoring political points minimizes the gravity of child abuse. It is "hypocritical" for either a liberal or a conservative to abuse kids, unless their stated position is that such behavior is OK - which to my knowledge no politician has done.

Edit: I also think the #family values/hypocrite stuff basically equates homosexuality to child abuse. Like when conservative pastors or politicians speak out on homosexuality and then turn out to be homosexuals. That's the tone of this, but this isn't that. This was child abuse, which is contrary to ALL mainstream views on family values. Child abuse isn't more inconsistent with Republican views than Democratic views, its terrible a crime inconsistent with all mainstream views.

It isn't better, it is less just less hypocritical. As you say, you don't see people saying that abusing kids is ok. But when some people make it their focus to say that abuse is very bad, but then go and commit abuse, that is just hypocritical. Not any better or worse than the person who thinks abuse is bad, but doesn't make it their focus, and abuses a kid. Both are very bad, but one is more hypocritical.

Democrats aren't more tolerant of child abuse than Republicans. I think they're all universally against it.

So when someone uses their status as an decorated teacher and high school coach to win election, then serve on the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families in the House, because they are a politician it somehow exempts them from being called a hypocrite when it is later found out that they apparently molested a kid?

This does put how he handled the Mark Foley page scandal while he was Speaker in a new light.

I don't know how he handled the Foley thing but JPhilips mentioned earlier that he was "quiet" during it. So rather than being this huge crusader against child abuse, he apparently wasn't actually that vocal against it. So I think the family values stuff/hypocrite stuff is more about his party membership than any specific aggressive role he took against child abuse. It's just the standard stuff you see when a conservative value guy is exposed as a homosexual. Except this was alleged criminal and predatory behavior, which is contrary to everyone's family values, not just Republicans. I get the joy and delight people express when a gay-hating guy is exposed as gay, but I think it's different when it's a crime, and when there's a victim. (A now very rich victim, apparently, but a victim nonetheless).

Except for the whole being a school teacher and coach. That is kind of assumed that they are in a protective relationship regarding minors. Add in that he also served on that Select Committee, and that kind of dampens any charges that he is being called a hypocrite just for being Republican.

Well, there was flere-imsaho saying that "what I was missing" is that this was all about a "20-year GOP tactic to attack liberal values" and that child abuse is more common among around GOP politicians.

I think the fact that he was a teacher gave him access to kids, it doesn't make things worse or make him more of a hypocrite - if he didn't have that, he would have found some other access, like youth sports or through a family member. Almost every child molester exploits a position of trust. But if you're horrified that a teacher and coach, of all people, would do that, I can't disagree with you, but I don't think that's what flere and others are expressing.

To be fair, you were the first one to bring up parties, and Flere responded directly to that. All the other posts were comments about Hasert himself, not Republicans. I'm the only other person to reply, so I'm not sure what you mean by others.

I was responding to the #family values/hypocritical stuff. I just think those are weird attacks to throw at an alleged child molester. Again, if it was a gay hater exposed as gay, I get it. But this is criminal child abuse, it's an objectively bad thing that EVERYONE is against, at least openly. Child abuse has nothing to do with different views on family values, it is contrary to every mainstream family value. I think its weird to lump those things together. "You claim to be against child molestation but then you go and do it!" What the hell? Aren't we all against child molestation regardless of our political views? I don't think child abuse is worse or "more hypocritical" if its perpetrated by someone who preaches family values v. if its perpetrated by someone who is more socially tolerant. If the more socially tolerant child molester is really somehow "less hypocritical" that means that their views are more compatible with child molestation, and I don't think that's true. Since that makes no sense to me, I tend to think that those kinds of attacks are really just political. It's just a knee-jerk reaction to the conservative who gets into some kind of moral trouble, or has some kind of sex scandal. A way to score some points and give yourself some affirmation. Which is just a weird need in the context of child molestation.

The one thing I can think of that would get me to vote for Hillary.

How about Bernie Sanders? Does Rand Paul get you to go that far?

Ted Cruz.

Hrm. Doubt it. I mean, if I was forced to vote in a Dem primary then sure.

But I can't really picture a Sanders v Hillary November race. Not nearly as hypothetically possible as Hillary v Nutjob.

Well, except for the somewhat suspicious numbers of GOP politicians who have, you know, actually committed child abuse.

Like the number of anti-gay GOP politicians who turned out to be gay.

Or the number of GOP politicians who railed against adultery (and, for instance, impeached the president over it) but did it themselves.

Or the number of GOP politicians who are against abortion, but force their mistresses into having one.

This isn't about child abuse somehow being more in line with Democratic party values, or whatever ridiculous claim you're making. It's about the GOP making themselves out to be the party of family values and then consistently being shown not to live up to those values themselves.

It's about saying one thing and doing another. Not about not saying something and then not doing it. These are two very different things.

But you seem bound and determined to make some big false equivalence out of the whole thing, as usual, so please don't let me get in your way there.

Rick Perry redux.

I'm making the opposite claim. I'm claiming that Democrats and Republicans are both against child abuse. Meaning that it's not more hypocritical when a Republican does it. All child molesters are hypocrites - unless they're members of NAMBLA or otherwise outspoken in favor of child abuse.


Child abuse is a CRIME. It's against EVERYONE'S family values, not just Republicans. Democrats oppose child abuse also. It's not the same thing as being gay or having an abortion or cheating on your wife. You're grouping all those things together, which is incredibly bizarre for a claimed liberal.


Both Republicans and Democrats generally will say they're against child abuse

I'm just annoyed by the politicizing of child abuse. I was wondering in the other thread if you were going to ask Todzilla what the political affiliation of the alleged child abuser was. It seems like in your world, that's the important thing. If it was a Republican, it'd be a great day for you, and an opportunity to affirm your political beliefs.

You don't see the hypocrisy in railing on the other party (especially those damn LIBERALS!) for not having family values while you're secretly abusing a child?

I've posted, several times, that I thought that all child abusers were hypocrites. Unless they're openly pro-molestation.

That's the minority view here. The majority view is that Republicans child molesters are especially hypocritical, or more hypocritical than liberal child molesters. That I don't get at all. Both Republicans and liberals oppose child molestation. Are you saying that Republicans oppose it "more"? And that's what you think makes them more hypocritical? I disagree. I think Democrats are just as opposed to child abuse as Republicans are.

The grouping of child abuse, a CRIME, with stereotypical Republican rantings about morality and homosexuality and abortion and adultery is crazy to me. I can't believe so many liberals here are doing that.

Edit: The stereotypical conservative Republican moral hostility that we oppose so much is towards stuff like homosexuality, gay marriage, divorce, adultery. You guys are throwing in child abuse into that mix. Don't you see how that's different? Don't you see how that's weird and actually offensive to throw child abuse in there? Is child abuse really another one of those weird Republican hang-ups like gay marriage? OK, if that's true, I think I'm now one of the more liberal posters here, because I don't see it like that all. Child abuse is not a family values issue, it's a crime that we all oppose. I don't think you guys REALLY think that child abuse is akin to homosexuality, I just think that some people can't see the distinction when they're in full-on team politics mode. So it's just a knee jerk reaction - "That guy molests kids even though he claimed to be against it, typical intolerant Republican!" We're all against child molestation, Democrats included.

The conservative gay-basher who is outed as gay is absolutely more hypocritical then a liberal tolerant guy who is outed as gay. Because the latter guy did not bash gays. But on the other hand, the conservative who abused children isn't any more hypocritical than the liberal who abused children because they both opposed child molestation, like everyone in society does. See the difference, and see how it's actually kind of offensive to group those things, and how it minimizes and politicizes child abuse by characterizing opposition to it as a weird hang-up that Republicans have?

I sure hope he can name that third dept he wants to get rid of this time,,,along with solid reasons for wanting to get rid of then :)

FWIW, I called him a hypocrite. I was not generalizing GOP or Dems.

However, Bill must be smiling at the sweet irony that those that accused him/"cast the first stone" have been caught in scandals themselves.

Domestic policy is still important but unless the economy takes a drastic downturn again, I am putting more weight on a President that can do a "better" job on Foreign policy this time around.

Hillary obviously has a lot of experience but I don't remember a lot of production (and no, I don't think she gets the blame for Benghazi).

FWIW, polls say

John Kerry rated worst secretary of state in 50 years - MarketWatch

Maybe it's just human nature to feel that way, especially for him, since he went through so much.

I just wish that the main take-away here for so many people wasn't how awesome this is politically. It's just distasteful. There's a pretty strong likelihood that there are other victims, maybe many other victims. A pedophile who was a part of an organization for so long, was so respected, with so much access to children, was unlikely to have one and exactly one sexual contact with a student over all those decades.

Again, molson, you seem to be the one making the claim that 'liberals' think it is 'awesome' that a Republican was accused of child molestation, when there isn't much to support that point. Anyone who commits child abuse is a scumbag, and someone who was in a position of authority over children and championed that while also committing abuse is a hypocritical scumbag. That in no way is awesome, it is sad.

Fair enough, I initially only expressed mild annoyance that this was characterized as a familyvalues/hypocrite issue in the first few posts, but then I got into it a little more based on flere's responses and his responses alone.

Agreed, child molesters are scumbags. I prefer that characterization to conservative family value hypocrite acting contrary to his views on homosexuality, abortion, and adultery. Because again, if this is a conservative family value/hypocrite deal, then THOSE are the relevant traits we're talking about, not being anti-child molestation because everyone is against that.

I dunno, I visit a couple of a liberal message boards and they get positively ecstatic when a story like the Duggars or Dennis Hastert breaks. Anecdotal I know but I do see it.

Looks like some potentially big stuff could be included in this hack:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politi...ent/index.html

Not that I'm advocating it here, but I wonder at what point a country will consider hacking as an act of war? Will it require some physical destruction caused by the hack (like a power plant being sabotaged) or will the simple theft of classified material do it?