By Hanlon, on October 10th, 2008 at 08:34 PM
Holy effing shit. I just saw this on Countdown, as soon as I can get anything solid, I will link to it.
By Hanlon, on October 10th, 2008 at 05:47 PM
 I didn’t take a look at this one at first because I thought it was nothing new. Okay, more talk aobut the NSA spying on Americans. I’m aware of that. This one has a little wrinkle though: they were just flagrantly spying on people and sharing the more intimate conversations.
Adrienne Kinne, a former U.S. Army Reserves Arab linguist, told ABC News the NSA was listening to the phone calls of U.S. military officers, journalists and aid workers overseas who were talking about “personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism.”
David Murfee Faulk, a former U.S. Navy Arab linguist, said in the news report that he and his colleagues were listening to the conversations of military officers in Iraq who were talking with their spouses or girlfriends in the United States.
According to Faulk, they would often share the contents of some of the more salacious calls stored on their computers, listening to what he called “phone sex” and “pillow talk.”
Both Kinne and Faulk worked at the NSA listening facility at Fort Gordon, Georgia. They told ABC that when linguists complained to supervisors about eavesdropping on personal conversations, they were ordered to continue transcribing the calls.
I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that once the Bush administration is out of power, we’re going to be seeing a heck of a lot more along these lines.
By Hanlon, on October 10th, 2008 at 02:30 PM
 Yesterday I found myself wondering if McCain’s brilliant “let’s toss another $300 billion of taxpayer money at the problem” plan would play well with the conservatives. If Obama is out there criticizing him for being too wasteful with the taxpayer dollar, what the hell will “the base” think?
Seems they aren’t happy at all.
In a sharply worded editorial on its Web site Thursday, the editors of The National Review — an influential bastion of conservative thought — derided the plan as “creating a level of moral hazard that is unacceptable” and called it a “gift to lenders who abandoned any sense of prudence during the boom years.”
Prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin went one step further, calling the plan “rotten” and declaring on her blog, “We’re Screwed ’08.”
Matt Lewis, a contributing writer for the conservative Web site Townhall.com, told CNN the plan only further riles conservatives upset with McCain’s backing of the massive government bailout plan passed last week.
Having talked with many conservatives in the run-up to the nomination, it’s almost been amusing. Early on, they derided him for being “not conservative enough” to the point that he had to insist that he was. Then he got the nomination and had to shore up the base by insisting that he really was a Maverick.
Unfortunately, what it means to be a “maverick” is to defy the base. You can’t have both. Either the base is happy or you’re stepping across the aisle. The problem for McCain is that it was the right-wing noise machine that offered him good press after he pissed on the mainstream media. If he’s going to go “socialist” on us, he’s going to lose them as well.
By Hanlon, on October 10th, 2008 at 11:15 AM
John McCain, 2000:
“I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don’t have much of a vision for the future or you’re not ready to articulate it.”
As the article notes, 100% of McCain’s ads have been negative (I haven’t seen a positive ad from McCain here in PA since before the conventions).
By Hanlon, on October 10th, 2008 at 01:10 AM
 Since we’re having a fun time wading around in Bizzaro-Land, let’s see just how far things can go. Obama went on the attack recently about McCain’s plan for the bailout. What, specifically? Well, the part where the government would buy mortgages from homeowners at a taxpayer cost of about $300 billion.
So now we have the Democrat arguing that the Republican is being too wild with taxpayer money. Amazing. But wait, Obama and Bush agree on something!
The Bush administration reacted cautiously to McCain’s proposal, suggesting that some programs already exist to do what the Arizona senator wants accomplished.
…
The Obama campaign’s immediate reaction after Tuesday night’s debate was to argue that McCain’s plan, referred to by the McCain campaign as the Homeownership Resurgence Plan or the McCain Resurgence Plan, was a proposal that would give Treasury authority it already has as a result of last week’s financial rescue plan and this summer’s bailout of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Before I continue (and I’m certainly no financial expert), I want to let you read the McCain camp’s defense of the move, rather than the Obama camp’s derision of it.
“It is important that those families who have worked hard enough to finance homeownership not have that dream crushed under the weight of the wrong mortgage,” the campaign said. “The existing debts are too large compared to the value of housing. For those that cannot make payments, mortgages must be restructured to put losses on the books and put homeowners in manageable mortgages. Lenders in these cases must recognize the loss that they’ve already suffered.”
So let’s just take a moment and digest this information.
Read More ->
Since we’re having a fun time wading around in Bizzaro-Land, let’s see just how far things can go. Obama went on the attack recently about McCain’s plan for the bailout. What, specifically? Well, the part where the government would buy mortgages from homeowners at a taxpayer cost of about $300 billion.
So now we have the Democrat arguing that the Republican is being too wild with taxpayer money. Amazing. But wait, Obama and Bush agree on something!
The Bush administration reacted cautiously to McCain’s proposal, suggesting that some programs already exist to do what the Arizona senator wants accomplished.
…
The Obama campaign’s immediate reaction after Tuesday night’s debate was to argue that McCain’s plan, referred to by the McCain campaign as the Homeownership Resurgence Plan or the McCain Resurgence Plan, was a proposal that would give Treasury authority it already has as a result of last week’s financial rescue plan and this summer’s bailout of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Before I continue (and I’m certainly no financial expert), I want to let you read the McCain camp’s defense of the move, rather than the Obama camp’s derision of it.
“It is important that those families who have worked hard enough to finance homeownership not have that dream crushed under the weight of the wrong mortgage,” the campaign said. “The existing debts are too large compared to the value of housing. For those that cannot make payments, mortgages must be restructured to put losses on the books and put homeowners in manageable mortgages. Lenders in these cases must recognize the loss that they’ve already suffered.”
So let’s just take a moment and digest this information.
Read More ->
By Will, on October 10th, 2008 at 12:57 AM
 Honestly, there is not much more I can do but give you the link and show you the headline:
Palin Pre-Empts State Report, Clears Self in Probe
McCain-Palin campaign pre-empts state ethics report, clears governor of wrongdoing
Okay, guys. This isn’t funny anymore. We’re officially through the looking glass. I was worried about this being the case for months, but it’s official. Satire is fucking dead. I honestly cannot think of a way to make a joke about this. There is no hyperbole I could possibly employ. I just… can’t make this any more fucked up than it already is.
NOTE FROM HANLON: I’m just curious, if the Obama campaign released an internal report saying “No significant ties to Rezko or Ayers,” would the McCain camp accept it as a legitimate report? Would they expect the public to consider it a legitimate report?
Can I start issuing reports like this? If I’m about to go on trial for murder, can I throw out a report saying “Hanlon determines Hanlon not involved in murder” and be let go?
|
|
|
