David Letterman owns Sarah Palin!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1tkf0zth0c

Starbuck wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 2:27pm:


basic rule of thumb:
if you're bouncing on a trampoline and someone is filming you...  you are just seconds away from getting really fucked up

fuman wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 12:05pm:


Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.

Speaking of which...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is taking a half-step toward taming U.S. executive pay. Some lawmakers prefer a fuller stride.

Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee said Thursday the administration's efforts to hector the private sector into reining in executive pay might not go far enough.

The administration contends that excessive compensation contributed to the U.S. financial crisis, but rejects direct intervention in corporate pay decisions.

Instead, the administration plans to seek legislation that would try to rein in compensation at publicly traded companies through nonbinding shareholder votes and less management influence on pay decisions.

"I do differ with the administration in that hope springs eternal and their position seems to be that if we strengthen the compensation committees we will do better," said the committee chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat.

Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat, said that instead of giving shareholders a nonbinding voice on pay, their votes should be binding on boards of directors.

Democrats and administration officials agreed that companies across the private sector need to adjust compensation practices to avoid damaging the economy.

Gene Sperling, a counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, said administration guidelines call on all publicly held companies to link compensation to long-term performance, not short-term gains.

nankerphelge wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 2:47pm:


Where is James Bond to infiltrate the grass eating North Koreans when we need him, to take out the porno king & his emaciated minions?

What's behind Obama's sudden attempt to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general?
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
06/11/09 8:14 PM EDT
There are a number of unanswered questions today about President Obama's abrupt decision to fire the inspector general of the AmeriCorps program, Gerald Walpin.  Obama sent letters to House and Senate leaders yesterday informing them that he was firing Walpin, effective 30 days from the date of the letters.

"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General," the president wrote.  "That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector General."

The 30 day requirement is important because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for IGs, who have the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies, against interference by political appointees or the White House.  Part of the Act was a requirement that the president give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an IG.  One of the co-sponsors of the Act was then-Sen. Barack Obama.

The Act also requires the president to outline the cause for his decision to remove an IG.  Beyond saying that he did not have the "fullest confidence" in Walpin, Obama gave no reason for his action.

There are two big questions about the president's actions.  One, why did he decide to fire Walpin?  And two, did he abide by the law that he himself co-sponsored?

According to Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, a strong advocate of inspectors general, Walpin received a call from the White House Counsel's office on Wednesday evening.  Walpin was told that he had one hour to either resign or be fired.  Senate sources say Walpin asked why he was being fired and, according to one source, "The answer that was given was that it's just time to move on.  The president would like to have someone else in that position."  Walpin declined to resign.

Grassley fired off a letter to the president on Thursday saying that, "I was troubled to learn that [Wednesday] night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated," Grassley wrote.  "As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions.  Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure.  This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny."

Grassley's version of events suggests that the White House first tried to muscle Walpin out of his job without having to go through the 30-day process.  It was only when Walpin refused to resign that the White House then notified Congress of the president's intention to fire Walpin.

The bigger question is why the president is doing this and why he is attempting to do it so quickly.  Senate sources now believe Obama is firing Walpin over Walpin's investigation of Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and a prominent supporter of the president.

Johnson, now the mayor of Sacramento, California, started a non-profit organization called St. Hope. The group's mission, according to its website, is "to revitalize inner-city communities through public education, civic leadership, economic development and the arts."  As part of its work, St. Hope received a grant of about $850,000 from AmeriCorps. 

Last year, Walpin began an investigation of how Johnson's group spent the money.  According to the Associated Press, "[Walpin] found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car." Walpin asked federal prosecutors to investigate.  In April, the U.S. attorney in Sacramento, a Bush holdover, declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and also criticized Walpin's investigation. 

That might suggest that St. HOPE was OK, and it was Walpin who was in the wrong.  But at the same time prosecutors decided not to file any charges against St. HOPE, the U.S. attorney's office also entered into a settlement with St. HOPE in which the group also agreed to pay back about half of the $850,000 it had received from AmeriCorps.

In his letter to the president, Grassley defended Walpin's performance.  "There have been no negative findings against Mr. Walpin by the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), and he has identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds either wasted outright or spent in violation of established guidelines," Grassley wrote.  "In other words, it appears he has been doing his job. "

The bottom line is that the AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money.  After an investigation, the prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money.  And Obama fired the AmeriCorps IG.

There is a good article written by Juan Cole over at The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090629/cole

His big applause lines came when he cited the Koran on truth-telling and social tolerance and when he spoke of human and women's rights. But he was not booed even when he defended Israel or pledged to pursue the Afghanistan war.

Obama clearly won most Egyptians over. According to an instant poll conducted in Egypt by a government think tank, 37 percent believed everything the president said, while 41 percent believed some of it. Only 5 percent rejected the address as a litany of falsehoods.

Still, the main difference in Obama's approach was his willingness to show respect to his audience. He insisted that the United States will be a partner, not a patron, for Iraq. That Obama's policies differ little from Bush's official stances makes it all the more clear that the Republicans' clamor against his speech arose from a petty refusal to treat Muslims even-handedly and with basic decency--something Republicans identify as "surrender" and an "apology."


It will be interesting to see if the speech will have any effect on the voting in Iran.

the first 6 years of the last president, were spent blaming his predescor for all problems... all! the last two years, were spent blaming Democrats who only had just gained control of the house and senate. The past 6 months have been spent blaming the current president for everytihng, actually he was blamed even before the election... There's a nmber of people who just missed some stuff, don't believe it existed or forgot what happened, by definition, that is considered delusional. As in, deluded, thinknig you and talking about stuff you have no clue about, no proof of, just words, it means nothing and is more anti-american that flying a plane into a building, because way more humans beings died because of delusional thought, then WMD's and an Arab group called Al Quieda. The biggest delusion, is anyone who thinks partisan politics matters, b/c the governemtn if fucking the delusion right out of you, niether party gives a fuck about you, never has, never will... you're a pawn that has been used and controlled, it started long before you were born, and it all about money, you never controlled, but are deluded into thinking exists for you... enjoy the oil and opium! No president in my lifetime has preserved and efended the constitution of the united states of america... Lincoln may have been the last one to actually do that... yup!

Riffhard wrote on Jun 12^th, 2009 at 1:48pm:


Poor Mr. Riffhard. Take a deep breath! Who are you screaming at?

See, here's the thing - Barack Hussein Obama is the legally elected President of the United States.  It was not a particularly close election, and, unlike the last 2 elections (hiccup) there have been no credible allegations of wrongdoing in the democratic process.  Furthermore, despite your many outbursts, and those of your heroes Rush, Hannity, et al, President Obama enjoys a high approval rating and the support of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

As many in the country could tell you about the (hiccup) previous eight years, democratic elections sometimes result in a party, candidate or ideology which you completely disagree with being in power. When that occurs, you have several options.  You can wait for the next election and hope that your party wins. You can move to a country which more closely mirrors your own ideals and beliefs.  You can become a crackpot talk radio hate-monger. You can start a lame website and complain about the President's golf swing and his kooky distant relatives. Or, as you have obviously chosen, you can post obscenity-laden, barely comprehensible rehashes of Rush Limbaugh's latest broadcast on a Rolling Stones website. (Note - this last one is probably the least effective, and often results in people thinking you are some sort of unbalanced wingnut.)

I had to laugh when I read this:

"Get out of my country you sacks of shit!!! You want a socialist utopia?! Go live in Venezuela!"

It's not YOUR country, Mr. Riffhard. It's OUR country. If you disagree with the way we choose our leaders, and would prefer life-time right-wing dictatorships, I would suggest that YOU go live in one of the Central American banana republics which your hero Ronald Reagan was so fond of.


Your hatred of President Obama seems to be moving into the realm of schizoid pathology. I wonder - what would your reaction be if some right-wing Fox-news-watching white supremacist assassinated him?


Another question - do you own any guns?

Jesus Christ wrote on Jun 12^th, 2009 at 4:02pm:




Interesting read. Go fuck yourself.


Riffy

fuman wrote on Jun 12^th, 2009 at 2:48pm:



They aren't hypocrits, they just aren't conservatives and haven't been since the 60's.

Detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison who are brought to the United States to stand trial in U.S. criminal courts, they are expected to enjoy the same rights afforded others who pass through the federal criminal court system, and that worries some.

The contentious debate over bringing terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison to the United States to be tried in federal courts raises thorny questions about rights such as bail hearings, plea negotiations and jury selections -- and of course, what happens if a suspect is acquitted.

"That's the issue that drove the whole system in the first place," said Anthony Barkow, a former U.S. attorney and executive director of the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at New York University.

"I think some if not all pose a risk to national security and I think the administration is going to be put in a tough spot if anyone is acquitted and faced with a difficult decision about whether to employ some other mechanism to detain these people," Barkow told FOXNews.com.

Nanky-san, Copy and Paste articles have been declared the new hiccup. Nobody reads that crap so please refrain from posting it from now on.  Unless of course it's from a legit news source like Riffy's alien blog or Fiji Joes Big Feed. Thanks in advance!