Where did you do YOUR research on the issue? Please provide some facts to back up your statements about where "believers" live and what they drive. Where did you get your degree in meteorology and/or climatology? How are you so much more of an expert than the NYU student you mock?
I didnt say Bush was the "culprit". I'm just pointing out that the allegations that this report was a partisan attack sponsored and pushed through by Napolitano and the Obama administration is a bit of a stretch due to the fact that it was initiated and produced under the authority of a Bush appointee.
Who said anything about ignoring known threats? The report was meant to issue information about a single topic- "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" as the title states. Look it up- there also dozens (maybe hundreds) of threat assessments on Muslim extremists as well as any other group who is seeking to do harm to the USA.
Apparently, one of the issues here is the perception that this report was a partisan effort by the Democratic administration to vilify republicans and conservatives. However, the right wing extremism report was prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of DHS' Homeland Environment and Threat Analysis Division. That Division fell under the then Acting Under Secretary For Intelligence & Analysis Roger Mackin, who was appointed on September 10, 2008 by President George W. Bush. In fact, many of the top officials at the Department of Homeland Security are Bush (or Chertoff) appointees.
The DHS publishes dozens of threat assessment memos per year. The focus here is on one small piece that the rightwing has latched onto to attack the new administration. Seeuski- there are dozens of DHS documents available for public review regarding militant muslim groups and every other group that might have terrorist aspirations. For example, here is a similar report outlining the Left Wing Extremist threat assessment published in January of 2009.
Even though I tended to disagree with you on many issues leading up to the election. All of your above posts on this thread are absolutely right on. Obama was elected because a majority of the citizens in the US believed in his ability to lead our country. Now its up to him to follow up on that belief and make good on the trust our country has put in him. We elected him because we believe he CAN do a good job. Now its up to him to actually DO a good job.
You are also dead-on about Rahm Emmanuel. He's been described as "a cross between a hemorroid and a toothache" and that was by a fellow Democratic political strategist. And he's exactly what Obama needs in this role.
He's a tough SOB who can wade into political fights, throw punches and get his hands dirty leaving Obama free to be the leader of the Executive Office and say all the nice smiley things a leader is supposed to say. Leadership is about assembling a team and managing people. The presidency is no different and Emmanuel is smart choice. If Obama keeps making choices like that then he's off to a good start.
Do you really think that Obama will institute a draft? Huh? Where did this insight come from? Please provide one credible news source that supports your "theory".
"G W was criticized because people claimed he didn't fulfill his obligation to the Air National Guard." No, he was also criticized for a life of boozing and partying until he "saw the light" when he turned 40.
So, what's better? A recovered alcoholic or an occasional cigarette smoker? Nice double standard.
You also fail to mention the years of economic prosperity during the Clinton administration.
The right wing claim of Clinton scuttling the military budget is false. Many of the military technological advances were accomplished under his administration resulting in a more efficient military. In fact, since 1985, Military spending totals and as a percentage of Federal spending have been reasonably consistent. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/...
Look at pages 73-80 for total government expenditures and pages 119-122 for % of Federal Outlays.
Tell me- where were the huge defense cuts under Clinton?
The only major spike in defense spending has been under GW, but the % of the budget has remained constant. Why? because under the his "conservative" administration, we've seen the largest increase in Federal spending EVER. Including doubling the federal debt in 8 years. page 119.
Right there in black and white from the Goverment's own documents.
Most of you probably received a flyer in the mail from the McCain campaign stating "With Wall Street in Crisis, Obama partied with Hollywood's elite". That flyer quoted an article from the Washington Post and a Good Morning, America broadcast. Here are links to the full Post article and the entire GMA segment.
The quote in the flyer states: "Obama aides say he did not make any calls to help round up votes." GMA 9/30/08
There's another quote from the Washington Post implying that Obama neglected the economic crisis. Here is a link to the full Washington Post article as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Steamboat program deals with issues girls may face starting at an early age
Nice work, Coach Carlin!
October 26, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Scientists: Global warming conversation is one-sided
Canyon-
Where did you do YOUR research on the issue? Please provide some facts to back up your statements about where "believers" live and what they drive. Where did you get your degree in meteorology and/or climatology? How are you so much more of an expert than the NYU student you mock?
September 3, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bob Printy and Tony Weiss: Repugnant report
I didnt say Bush was the "culprit". I'm just pointing out that the allegations that this report was a partisan attack sponsored and pushed through by Napolitano and the Obama administration is a bit of a stretch due to the fact that it was initiated and produced under the authority of a Bush appointee.
Who said anything about ignoring known threats? The report was meant to issue information about a single topic- "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" as the title states. Look it up- there also dozens (maybe hundreds) of threat assessments on Muslim extremists as well as any other group who is seeking to do harm to the USA.
June 3, 2009 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bob Printy and Tony Weiss: Repugnant report
Apparently, one of the issues here is the perception that this report was a partisan effort by the Democratic administration to vilify republicans and conservatives. However, the right wing extremism report was prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of DHS' Homeland Environment and Threat Analysis Division. That Division fell under the then Acting Under Secretary For Intelligence & Analysis Roger Mackin, who was appointed on September 10, 2008 by President George W. Bush. In fact, many of the top officials at the Department of Homeland Security are Bush (or Chertoff) appointees.
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/g...
The DHS publishes dozens of threat assessment memos per year. The focus here is on one small piece that the rightwing has latched onto to attack the new administration. Seeuski- there are dozens of DHS documents available for public review regarding militant muslim groups and every other group that might have terrorist aspirations. For example, here is a similar report outlining the Left Wing Extremist threat assessment published in January of 2009.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/L...
June 3, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bob Printy and Tony Weiss: Repugnant report
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwi...
This is the report in question. Read it and decide for yourself.
June 3, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Ken Collins: Obama's success
Thanks JLM-
Even though I tended to disagree with you on many issues leading up to the election. All of your above posts on this thread are absolutely right on. Obama was elected because a majority of the citizens in the US believed in his ability to lead our country. Now its up to him to follow up on that belief and make good on the trust our country has put in him. We elected him because we believe he CAN do a good job. Now its up to him to actually DO a good job.
You are also dead-on about Rahm Emmanuel. He's been described as "a cross between a hemorroid and a toothache" and that was by a fellow Democratic political strategist. And he's exactly what Obama needs in this role.
He's a tough SOB who can wade into political fights, throw punches and get his hands dirty leaving Obama free to be the leader of the Executive Office and say all the nice smiley things a leader is supposed to say. Leadership is about assembling a team and managing people. The presidency is no different and Emmanuel is smart choice. If Obama keeps making choices like that then he's off to a good start.
November 10, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Local Democrats celebrate Obama win, voter turnout
Empty-
Do you really think that Obama will institute a draft? Huh? Where did this insight come from? Please provide one credible news source that supports your "theory".
"G W was criticized because people claimed he didn't fulfill his obligation to the Air National Guard."
No, he was also criticized for a life of boozing and partying until he "saw the light" when he turned 40.
So, what's better? A recovered alcoholic or an occasional cigarette smoker? Nice double standard.
You also fail to mention the years of economic prosperity during the Clinton administration.
The right wing claim of Clinton scuttling the military budget is false. Many of the military technological advances were accomplished under his administration resulting in a more efficient military. In fact, since 1985, Military spending totals and as a percentage of Federal spending have been reasonably consistent.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/...
Look at pages 73-80 for total government expenditures and pages 119-122 for % of Federal Outlays.
Tell me- where were the huge defense cuts under Clinton?
The only major spike in defense spending has been under GW, but the % of the budget has remained constant. Why? because under the his "conservative" administration, we've seen the largest increase in Federal spending EVER. Including doubling the federal debt in 8 years. page 119.
Right there in black and white from the Goverment's own documents.
November 7, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Vandals target campaign ads
No, but 3 lefts do. :)
October 21, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lynn Abbott: Character question
Here are the facts on the Obama-Acorn situation:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...
Most of you probably received a flyer in the mail from the McCain campaign stating "With Wall Street in Crisis, Obama partied with Hollywood's elite". That flyer quoted an article from the Washington Post and a Good Morning, America broadcast. Here are links to the full Post article and the entire GMA segment.
The quote in the flyer states:
"Obama aides say he did not make any calls to help round up votes." GMA 9/30/08
Read the full article and the above quote in context.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalrad...
There's another quote from the Washington Post implying that Obama neglected the economic crisis. Here is a link to the full Washington Post article as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Inform yourself.
October 20, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Conservative commentary: A servant's heart
Here's your VP candidate who, upon her nomination "conservatives were doing "The Wave" from coast to coast and breathing a collective sigh of relief."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txfqWz...
Really?? This is who you think should be the VP?
September 27, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )