"the full extent of the measures he's endorsed is breathtaking, and includes cosponsoring a measure that would allow hospitals to deny women access to an abortions even if their life is in immediate danger."
"the full extent of the measures he's endorsed is breathtaking, and includes cosponsoring a measure that would allow hospitals to deny women access to an abortions even if their life is in immediate danger."
ZYGOTES ARE PEOPLE TOO!
So which is it? Now you're saying you can't get pregant if you are raped? what are you- Akin?
"the full extent of the measures he's endorsed is breathtaking, and includes cosponsoring a measure that would allow hospitals to deny women access to an abortions even if their life is in immediate danger."
ZYGOTES ARE PEOPLE TOO!
He didnt' say "valid" form of conception... but, it's a "method" (barbaric) of conception is it not? Are you saying that you can't get prego via rape? You know, that's what Atkins was saying . (edit: ninja'ed by Fraz)
As to the anti-abortion bill... never gonna pass. But, whatdoyouexpect? He's a staunch pro-lifer?
[notice how I don't disparage you for getting your news from the huffintonpost?]
"the full extent of the measures he's endorsed is breathtaking, and includes cosponsoring a measure that would allow hospitals to deny women access to an abortions even if their life is in immediate danger."
ZYGOTES ARE PEOPLE TOO!
So which is it? Now you're saying you can't get pregant if you are raped? what are you- Akin?
LoneLictor wrote: In the past two months, it seems the Republican party has gone off the rails on the crazy train.
No, in the pass 2 months, the Democrats (and liberal media, but I repeat myself) are looking for topics to distract how horrible the current presidency is.
The disgusting thing is that he views rape as just another method of conception and believes that women should have to give birth to children regardless of circumstances.
LoneLictor wrote: In the past two months, it seems the Republican party has gone off the rails on the crazy train.
No, in the pass 2 months, the Democrats (and liberal media, but I repeat myself) are looking for topics to distract how horrible the current presidency is.
The disgusting thing is that he views rape as just another method of conception and believes that women should have to give birth to children regardless of circumstances.
It is just another form of conception. This has nothing to do with the horrific event that it was for the mother. If you believe that life begins at conception and you believe life is sacred then of course you would be against abortion. Its simple math. if you don't believe life begins at conception, or don't believe life is sacred then you're fine.
LoneLictor wrote: In the past two months, it seems the Republican party has gone off the rails on the crazy train.
No, in the pass 2 months, the Democrats (and liberal media, but I repeat myself) are looking for topics to distract how horrible the current presidency is.
Mind explaining why it is so terrible?
10% real unemployment. 15%+ underemployment. GDP less than 2% The largest deficit in the history of mankind. The horror show that is Obamacare instead of a proper program. And for the record. We still have Gitmo.
LoneLictor wrote: In the past two months, it seems the Republican party has gone off the rails on the crazy train.
No, in the pass 2 months, the Democrats (and liberal media, but I repeat myself) are looking for topics to distract how horrible the current presidency is.
That is absolutely disgusting. Someone should tear his spine out and sodomize him with it.
No THAT is absolutely disgusting. Saying, "I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life." Is a far cry from a graphic and sexual act. It's a statent of position from a guy that has never hidden his beliefs on abortion.
It sounds much better to scream RYAN SAYS RAPE IS JUST CONCEPTION! Than LIFE IS LIFE NO MATTER HOW IT STARTED. Ahh contrived sensationalism you are the well that never goes dry.
LoneLictor wrote: In the past two months, it seems the Republican party has gone off the rails on the crazy train.
No, in the pass 2 months, the Democrats (and liberal media, but I repeat myself) are looking for topics to distract how horrible the current presidency is.
Mind explaining why it is so terrible?
??? seriously? Stole the following summary... there's more.
1. Universal healthcare
3. Justice system has become a political tool (weighing in & commenting on the Trayvon Martin case, which obviously influenced many blacks against Zimmerman)
4. Ended the war on terror. “There is no terror, only legitimate Jihad.” WTH?
6. Labor unions are a full partner in his Presidency.
7. Sueing the state of Arizona over illegal immigration, instead of enforcing existing federal laws.
9. Oil moratoriums. He has shut down the largest oil refinery on the east coast. Gasoline has doubled in price since Bush left.
10. Shut down the coal industry. On record as saying he would make it unprofitable and punishing to open a mine.
11. Advanced two ultra liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
12. Demonized millionaire entrepreneurs and Wall Street.
13. Co-opted banks & auto industry. Not fully nationalized just yet.
14. Credit protection agency answers to no one but the the Fed. Outside the Constitution.
15. US Military has been reduced in size...
16. Changing foreign constitutions by withholding State Department money if they don’t modify their constitution to approve abortions.
17. Co-opted the media
18. Demonizes anyone with an opinion different from his.
19. Appointed Socialists & Communists revolutionaries to high positions.
20. Gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Socialist-Communist Delores Huerta.
22. Operations such as Libya, were European-led, not US.
23. Gotten rid of the Missile Shield at the expense of Poland.
25. DOJ stopped prosecution of illegal voting in Florida.
26. Has been on a non-stop “apologize for America” tour.
27. Made sure ACORN was a federal budget item.
28. Cozied up with Russians, Hugo Chavez, etal. IOW, our enemies.
29. Massive regulations in place, courtesy of Cass Sunstein
30. Supports Occupy Wall Street, a group made up largely of anarchists, Communists and revolutionaries.
31. EPA can now regulate carbon emissions
32. Michelle Obama is trying to tell us what Americans can & cannot eat
33. Oversaw massive expansion of government dependency, with Food Stamp recipients going from 26 million to 48 million under his administration.
34. Bloated stimulus plans that did little other than benefit liberal pet projects, and funnel money back to Democrat election funds.
35. Student loan system now all governmental.
To be fair... I had a list just a long when Bush was in office...
1) expanded govt even more
2) patriot act
3) etc...
The disgusting thing is that he views rape as just another method of conception and believes that women should have to give birth to children regardless of circumstances.
It is just another form of conception.
If you believe that life begins at conception and you believe life is sacred then of course you would be against abortion. Its simple math.
if you don't believe life begins at conception, or don't believe life is sacred then you're fine.
LoneLictor wrote: In the past two months, it seems the Republican party has gone off the rails on the crazy train.
No, in the pass 2 months, the Democrats (and liberal media, but I repeat myself) are looking for topics to distract how horrible the current presidency is.
Mind explaining why it is so terrible?
10% real unemployment. 15%+ underemployment.
GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.
The horror show that is Obamacare instead of a proper program.
And for the record. We still have Gitmo.
I like Gitmo. I don't see any reason to scrap it. Off shore prison for dangers to the state seems perfectly reasonable. I knew he wouldn't remove it.
Isn't 10% unemployment the natural amount in a free market. I can't find my Economic notes now, but I believe it was something near 9%.
Yes, he has the largest deficit in the history, but wasn't there a considerable contribution to that from the previous president's tax cuts and two foreign wars?
And if you wouldn't mind explaining why Obamacare is such a horror show, that would be great. I fail to see the carnage and destruction it creates.
LoneLictor wrote: In the past two months, it seems the Republican party has gone off the rails on the crazy train.
No, in the pass 2 months, the Democrats (and liberal media, but I repeat myself) are looking for topics to distract how horrible the current presidency is.
Mind explaining why it is so terrible?
??? seriously? Stole the following summary... there's more.
1. Universal healthcare
3. Justice system has become a political tool (weighing in & commenting on the Trayvon Martin case, which obviously influenced many blacks against Zimmerman)
4. Ended the war on terror. “There is no terror, only legitimate Jihad.” WTH?
6. Labor unions are a full partner in his Presidency.
7. Sueing the state of Arizona over illegal immigration, instead of enforcing existing federal laws.
9. Oil moratoriums. He has shut down the largest oil refinery on the east coast. Gasoline has doubled in price since Bush left.
10. Shut down the coal industry. On record as saying he would make it unprofitable and punishing to open a mine.
11. Advanced two ultra liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
12. Demonized millionaire entrepreneurs and Wall Street.
13. Co-opted banks & auto industry. Not fully nationalized just yet.
14. Credit protection agency answers to no one but the the Fed. Outside the Constitution.
15. US Military has been reduced in size...
16. Changing foreign constitutions by withholding State Department money if they don’t modify their constitution to approve abortions.
17. Co-opted the media
18. Demonizes anyone with an opinion different from his.
19. Appointed Socialists & Communists revolutionaries to high positions.
20. Gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Socialist-Communist Delores Huerta.
22. Operations such as Libya, were European-led, not US.
23. Gotten rid of the Missile Shield at the expense of Poland.
25. DOJ stopped prosecution of illegal voting in Florida.
26. Has been on a non-stop “apologize for America” tour.
27. Made sure ACORN was a federal budget item.
28. Cozied up with Russians, Hugo Chavez, etal. IOW, our enemies.
29. Massive regulations in place, courtesy of Cass Sunstein
30. Supports Occupy Wall Street, a group made up largely of anarchists, Communists and revolutionaries.
31. EPA can now regulate carbon emissions
32. Michelle Obama is trying to tell us what Americans can & cannot eat
33. Oversaw massive expansion of government dependency, with Food Stamp recipients going from 26 million to 48 million under his administration.
34. Bloated stimulus plans that did little other than benefit liberal pet projects, and funnel money back to Democrat election funds.
35. Student loan system now all governmental.
To be fair... I had a list just a long when Bush was in office...
1) expanded govt even more
2) patriot act
3) etc...
I unhid your post for some mindless reason, and your list is absolutely hilarious.
I mean, fething really? : 26. Has been on a non-stop “apologize for America” tour.
LOL 34. Bloated stimulus plans that did little other than benefit liberal pet projects, and funnel money back to Democrat election funds.
Where did you get this garbage from? theblaze.com or some gak?
Also a lot of the things in your list I am GLAD he has done. feth man, you make my brain ache.
LoneLictor wrote: In the past two months, it seems the Republican party has gone off the rails on the crazy train.
No, in the pass 2 months, the Democrats (and liberal media, but I repeat myself) are looking for topics to distract how horrible the current presidency is.
10% real unemployment. 15%+ underemployment.
GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.
The horror show that is Obamacare instead of a proper program.
And for the record. We still have Gitmo.
I like Gitmo. I don't see any reason to scrap it. Off shore prison for dangers to the state seems perfectly reasonable. I knew he wouldn't remove it.
Agreed.
Isn't 10% unemployment the natural amount in a free market. I can't find my Economic notes now, but I believe it was something near 9%.
Not exactly sure, but I believe the optimal is around 5-6%. The problem is the 15% underemployment... that's where the angst resides.
Yes, he has the largest deficit in the history, but wasn't there a considerable contribution to that from the previous president's tax cuts and two foreign wars?
And if you wouldn't mind explaining why Obamacare is such a horror show, that would be great. I fail to see the carnage and destruction it creates.
You haven't seen anything yet as it doesn't kick in till 2013 and fully in 2014.
No one was arguing that status quo needed to stay... but the way Obmamcare was pass (Pelosi, you need to pass it in order to read it)and all the political payoff (cornhusker kickback) left a really bitter taste.
There are certainly better ways of phrasing that sentiment. Had it been me and I held similar views, I would have gone with, "Rape can lead to conception." The way he phrased it could very easily, and not incorrectly, be read as a statement akin to, "Conceiving via rape is fine."
Seaward wrote: There are certainly better ways of phrasing that sentiment. Had it been me and I held similar views, I would have gone with, "Rape can lead to conception." The way he phrased it could very easily, and not incorrectly, be read as a statement akin to, "Conceiving via rape is fine."
True... he could've said it better.
But, dontcha know? It's "GOTCHA POLITICS" season now!
Seaward wrote: There are certainly better ways of phrasing that sentiment. Had it been me and I held similar views, I would have gone with, "Rape can lead to conception." The way he phrased it could very easily, and not incorrectly, be read as a statement akin to, "Conceiving via rape is fine."
True... he could've said it better.
But, dontcha know? It's "GOTCHA POLITICS" season now!
I'm always annoyed with partisans brushing off idiocy from their chosen ones with the, "oh, it's just a gotcha question," rationale. Personally, I want to elect someone who has the mental capacity to do more than the verbal equivalent of standing there frozen and staring at the oncoming headlights. If he or she can't get out of the way of a 'gotcha' question, maybe he or she needs to rethink his or her policies and hold off on seeking public office for a few years.
1. Universal healthcare
Not universal. Not even healthcare. Medicare for all would be universal healthcare, the ACA is not that. It's a mainstream solution with many components that poll very well.
3. Justice system has become a political tool (weighing in & commenting on the Trayvon Martin case, which obviously influenced many blacks against Zimmerman)
What? Are you going to also talk about the New Black Panther Party? And, yeah, obviously African Americans only became angry about Zimmerman after the DoJ came out about it.
4. Ended the war on terror. “There is no terror, only legitimate Jihad.” WTH?
Wait, what?
6. Labor unions are a full partner in his Presidency.
Yep, labor unions are democracy in action. Why do you hate democracy?
7. Sueing the state of Arizona over illegal immigration, instead of enforcing existing federal laws.
Yeah, because the 14th Amendment only extends to white folk.
9. Oil moratoriums. He has shut down the largest oil refinery on the east coast. Gasoline has doubled in price since Bush left.
Stop lying. Gasoline was so cheap at the end of the Bush Administration because people were terrified that the world was going to end the economy was so bad. Prices are in line with long term trends.
10. Shut down the coal industry. On record as saying he would make it unprofitable and punishing to open a mine.
This statement is totally inaccurate and it is why Greenland is lush with ice and glaciers right now!
11. Advanced two ultra liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
And?
12. Demonized millionaire entrepreneurs and Wall Street.
He's not demonizing entrepreneurs. He's demonizing those that profit by raiding pension funds and other tactics that result in harm done to people. You'd think Eugene Debs was president.
13. Co-opted banks & auto industry. Not fully nationalized just yet.
So, saving the American auto industry and then selling it back was "co-opting"? Are you really blaming him for saving millions of jobs? And, yeah, breaking up the big banks polls very well but he has not done that.
14. Credit protection agency answers to no one but the the Fed. Outside the Constitution.
lol
15. US Military has been reduced in size...
Yep, we can only conquer the world 4 times instead of 5 times over, now.
16. Changing foreign constitutions by withholding State Department money if they don’t modify their constitution to approve abortions.
lol
17. Co-opted the media
Wait, what? Is this about NPR or something? What are you even going on about?
18. Demonizes anyone with an opinion different from his.
No. I would like him a lot more if he talked to you boot licking petty fascists in a more forceful manner.
19. Appointed Socialists & Communists revolutionaries to high positions.
I know of no one that attends any of our meetings that has been given a high position. Or are you talking about Van Jones?
20. Gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Socialist-Communist Delores Huerta.
Yes, because unions are evil communists attempts to overthrow the nation. And Cesar Chavez is obviously a pariah. Do you even want any Latinos to ever vote for a Republican?
22. Operations such as Libya, were European-led, not US.
And?
23. Gotten rid of the Missile Shield at the expense of Poland.
I'm very sad that Poland is now a big crater after being conquered by Iran.
25. DOJ stopped prosecution of illegal voting in Florida.
Lies.
26. Has been on a non-stop “apologize for America” tour.
Stupid lies.
27. Made sure ACORN was a federal budget item.
What's wrong with ACORN? Or should we not have "urban people" register to vote or have legal advice?
28. Cozied up with Russians, Hugo Chavez, etal. IOW, our enemies.
I look forward to voting for the Putin / Chavez ticket this year.
29. Massive regulations in place, courtesy of Cass Sunstein
lol
30. Supports Occupy Wall Street, a group made up largely of anarchists, Communists and revolutionaries.
As an actual socialist I can promise you that many of the people at the OWS encampments I went to were mostly young people who were idealistic but largely non-ideological, mixed in with a few burnt out 1960s types that go to these events, and lots of homeless people looking for a safe place to sleep and a meal.
31. EPA can now regulate carbon emissions
Yep, it is almost like it is an administration that's goal is to protect the environment!!!1!!
32. Michelle Obama is trying to tell us what Americans can & cannot eat
That vile woman is trying to encourage kids to eat better so we don't have a country of enormous fat people who get their feet chopped off because of diabetes. She's the fething worst!
33. Oversaw massive expansion of government dependency, with Food Stamp recipients going from 26 million to 48 million under his administration.
It's better those people starve. Who is John Galt?
34. Bloated stimulus plans that did little other than benefit liberal pet projects, and funnel money back to Democrat election funds.
Not true.
35. Student loan system now all governmental.
Yes, because corporations should obviously be allowed to profit by overseeing student loans. You realize the existed system was zero risk for these companies because they were all backed by the federal government? You realize this just makes student loans more efficient and cheaper, right?
----
So, this list is hilarious. Whenever Obama does something to help the economy it's because he's an EVIL SOCIALIST. People complain that the economy is so bad because of Obama and that people can't get a job, but people who are unemployed are dependent on the government for food stamps and that stops them from looking for all those jobs that are out there?
This list is based in lies, paranoia, stupidity, racism, and just ignorance.
whembly wrote:[notice how I don't disparage you for getting your news from the huffintonpost?]
I don't get my news from Huffington Post. I linked to an article they hosted. Big difference.
And it's really tough to disparage me for soures I cite, as those sources always cite their sources, and so on. And those root sources are always either direct in-context quotes, or else peer-reviewed academic publications.
You, on the other hand, post blogs and clips of sensationalized mouthpieces.
PS: I'm not really familiar with Huffington Post. Exactly what's their deal, aside from being owned by a woman that habitually joins cults?
I don't know enough about her campaign outside of the "she has a garden and gives vegetables and fruits to DC schools, and thinks that kids should maybe go outside and play", but yeah, those seem like healthy things.
I'm pretty sure Russia, China, and possibly Pakistan, India, and Israel have enough nukes to destroy the world if deployed correctly.
And no, her campaign isn't particularly healthy. She is still extremely ignorant on many subjects and has made some amazingly hilarious comments. I'm still trying to figure out what "“You don’t have to be a weightlifter,” she says. “I know a lot of women get worried about muscle definition. But actually, I’ve been told by fitness experts that the average person will not bulk up on the weights that we can lift.”" is supposed to mean exactly.
She eats tofu (bleh), oatmeal (not terrible, but not healthy), protein shakes (get it from meat, why won't people at least eat chicken or tuna FFS?), veggie pizza (instead of pizza with some form of protein on it, wth?), potatoes (good for gaining weight or keeping you alive, not necessary in most diets unless you're poor), and other bad choices. It's basically the typical somewhat vegetarian diet that involves questionable carbs, minimal meat, and minimal protein.
The good thing is that she eats multiple small meals to keep her metabolism up and actually advocates brown rice as a healthy carb. Those are both good suggestions. Eating healthy enough for the average person is simple, don't drink soda, avoid high fructose corn syrup, avoid simple sugars, eat lean meats, eat some fruits (not a lot), lots of vegetables, and keep alcohol to a minimum. It is not some big complex conundrum that people can't solve.
Okay @daedalus-templarius, I deserved that double-facepalm.
That was weak-sauce and lazy on my part...
@Azazel... eh, Huffington post is like any other blogger, they use baiting topics to get the "clicks". That's true with any site out there. If I remember... Arianna worked for Conservative politician (not sure who), then started supporting typically (D) issues. This site us usually touted is a "liberal mouthpiece"... but, I'm not so sure that's true. (yes, I read that site too).
Back to the OP: I agree with Seaward... he could've phrased it better. But, its NOT the same as Atkins, which was deplorable.
If you wanna ding Ryan because of his Abortion stance, you're free to... I understand. At least he's consistent. Also, realize he's could be the VP... which he can't do much on this issue unless there's a deadlock in the Senate. Furthermore, I don't believe congress will EVER have the political will to pass another law on this until it's struck down by the SC (if ever).
1. Universal healthcare
Not universal. Not even healthcare. Medicare for all would be universal healthcare, the ACA is not that. It's a mainstream solution with many components that poll very well.
??? There's a mandate that says you must purchase insurance (private or public exchange)... that's Universal to me.
From a tangental point of view... I see where you're coming from. If we really want Universal Healthcare, we'd should be going to a single-payor system ala Canada. Not this frankenstein...
3. Justice system has become a political tool (weighing in & commenting on the Trayvon Martin case, which obviously influenced many blacks against Zimmerman)
What? Are you going to also talk about the New Black Panther Party? And, yeah, obviously African Americans only became angry about Zimmerman after the DoJ came out about it.
In my mind, Obama made the situation worse when he said "Tryavon could be my son"... without knowing the full fact. That's my issue.... 'cuz at this point, Zimmerman is guilty before having his say in court.
4. Ended the war on terror. “There is no terror, only legitimate Jihad.” WTH?
Wait, what?
Yeah... not sure what this is... but, there were reports on the ground that the officers thought they were withdrawing too fast, too soon. It appeared that Obama was pushing this for political gains... not strategic gains. That's my perception.
6. Labor unions are a full partner in his Presidency.
Yep, labor unions are democracy in action. Why do you hate democracy?
Its subversive to democracy. OR, at best, puts tax-payers at negotiating disadvantage.
Case in point:
1) Elected a former SIUE president to head the board labor in the administrations. Obvious conflict of interest.
2) The Delphi non-union workers lost portion of their pension, while the GM union workers did not (administration picked winners/losers here). This has been taken to court.
3) This administration (and some Ds) what to get rid of anonymous votes to unionize.
7. Sueing the state of Arizona over illegal immigration, instead of enforcing existing federal laws.
Yeah, because the 14th Amendment only extends to white folk.
Wait, what? Arizona what's to enforce immigration, essentially the same laws that the Feds has...
9. Oil moratoriums. He has shut down the largest oil refinery on the east coast. Gasoline has doubled in price since Bush left.
Stop lying. Gasoline was so cheap at the end of the Bush Administration because people were terrified that the world was going to end the economy was so bad. Prices are in line with long term trends.
Not sure I follow... remember the BP spill in the Gulf? His administration took that event and imposed the moratoriams. And where do you get the idea that "prices are in line with long term trend?"... if true, so what. It can be cheaper.
10. Shut down the coal industry. On record as saying he would make it unprofitable and punishing to open a mine.
This statement is totally inaccurate and it is why Greenland is lush with ice and glaciers right now!
Tell that to West Virigina... it's very hard to operate coal industries now.
11. Advanced two ultra liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
And?
SC Justices are there to uphold the Constitution... NOT make new laws from "prenumbra and embras" and such. We don't need judges that feels a need to "look at other countries' laws" to determine if it's legal in the US.
12. Demonized millionaire entrepreneurs and Wall Street.
He's not demonizing entrepreneurs. He's demonizing those that profit by raiding pension funds and other tactics that result in harm done to people. You'd think Eugene Debs was president.
"you didn't build that"
13. Co-opted banks & auto industry. Not fully nationalized just yet.
So, saving the American auto industry and then selling it back was "co-opting"? Are you really blaming him for saving millions of jobs? And, yeah, breaking up the big banks polls very well but he has not done that.
You do realize that taxpayers will lose Billions of dollars once they offload the GM shares, dontcha? Check the CBO for that.
GM and those distressed Banks ought to have went thru a proper Bankruptcy process.
And let me say this with feelings: It's NOT the President's job to "SAVE" jobs. Because, in doing so, he's picking losers and winners (see GM vs Delphi and Solyndra).
14. Credit protection agency answers to no one but the the Fed. Outside the Constitution.
lol
One of the good thing about this is that it forces creditors to ensure that any rate/fee changes are communicated in advance. /tinfoil on: This board has power to change how credit is operated... it's a dangerous board. /tinfoil off.
15. US Military has been reduced in size...
Yep, we can only conquer the world 4 times instead of 5 times over, now.
16. Changing foreign constitutions by withholding State Department money if they don’t modify their constitution to approve abortions.
lol
Okay... tried to find something on this, but I'm not seeing it.
17. Co-opted the media
Wait, what? Is this about NPR or something? What are you even going on about?
Old-school media are generally in the tank for Democrats... if you don't see this bias, take your blinders fold off.
Having said that, they have been harder on Obama lately that was refreshing. Gotta give 'em props for that.
18. Demonizes anyone with an opinion different from his.
No. I would like him a lot more if he talked to you boot licking petty fascists in a more forceful manner.
19. Appointed Socialists & Communists revolutionaries to high positions.
I know of no one that attends any of our meetings that has been given a high position. Or are you talking about Van Jones?
Van Jones is a commie... but, yeah, the other appointees are "socialist". But, not sure why those who wrote #19 is surprised.
20. Gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Socialist-Communist Delores Huerta.
Yes, because unions are evil communists attempts to overthrow the nation. And Cesar Chavez is obviously a pariah. Do you even want any Latinos to ever vote for a Republican?
So, all latinos are like Huerta?
22. Operations such as Libya, were European-led, not US.
And?
Are we the world's police or not?
23. Gotten rid of the Missile Shield at the expense of Poland.
I'm very sad that Poland is now a big crater after being conquered by Iran.
It's a diplomatic snafu.
25. DOJ stopped prosecution of illegal voting in Florida.
Lies.
Really... huh... so, there's no illegals in Florida? Is that what you're saying?
26. Has been on a non-stop “apologize for America” tour.
Stupid lies.
This did bug me. He's the President... he needs to be the big bad mofo that this office deserves. Just saying Haters gonna hate...
27. Made sure ACORN was a federal budget item.
What's wrong with ACORN? Or should we not have "urban people" register to vote or have legal advice?
Guess you missed the voter fraud, mortgage counseling racketeering...
But, I think this is a case where a minority are breaking the law and the majority are doing good work.
28. Cozied up with Russians, Hugo Chavez, etal. IOW, our enemies.
I look forward to voting for the Putin / Chavez ticket this year.
Right... he's really chummy with them, but cold to our traditional allies...
29. Massive regulations in place, courtesy of Cass Sunstein
lol
More like...
30. Supports Occupy Wall Street, a group made up largely of anarchists, Communists and revolutionaries.
As an actual socialist I can promise you that many of the people at the OWS encampments I went to were mostly young people who were idealistic but largely non-ideological, mixed in with a few burnt out 1960s types that go to these events, and lots of homeless people looking for a safe place to sleep and a meal.
Right... DOWN WITH THE MAN!
31. EPA can now regulate carbon emissions
Yep, it is almost like it is an administration that's goal is to protect the environment!!!1!!
You have no idea the consequence of this do you? By the way, I think the court has temporarily stopped them on this...
32. Michelle Obama is trying to tell us what Americans can & cannot eat
That vile woman is trying to encourage kids to eat better so we don't have a country of enormous fat people who get their feet chopped off because of diabetes. She's the fething worst!
It's a perception thing... but, I have no issue with the First Lady.
33. Oversaw massive expansion of government dependency, with Food Stamp recipients going from 26 million to 48 million under his administration.
It's better those people starve. Who is John Galt?
His economic policies (or lack thereof) put them on the dole...
34. Bloated stimulus plans that did little other than benefit liberal pet projects, and funnel money back to Democrat election funds.
Not true.
Very true... in fact, both parties are guilty of this. Anytime a gak-ton of money like this is distributed, some of it goes to pet project and favored donors.
Besides... the stimulus was POOR excuse to "fix" the economy... the result shows.
35. Student loan system now all governmental.
Yes, because corporations should obviously be allowed to profit by overseeing student loans. You realize the existed system was zero risk for these companies because they were all backed by the federal government? You realize this just makes student loans more efficient and cheaper, right?
You do realize that now TAX PAYERS fund this. While this wasn't necessarily a bad thing, I wasn't aware that the private ones were bad? In fact, my loans are privately held and cheaper than the current federal loans. Whodoyathunk that?
It was cheap when it was private BECAUSE they were non-dischargable loans. Which means, even if you filed for bankruptcy, you cannot get rid of your school loans
----
So, this list is hilarious. Whenever Obama does something to help the economy it's because he's an EVIL SOCIALIST. People complain that the economy is so bad because of Obama and that people can't get a job, but people who are unemployed are dependent on the government for food stamps and that stops them from looking for all those jobs that are out there?
Disagree... he's not evil... just misguided.
This list is based in lies, paranoia, stupidity, racism, and just ignorance.
Maybe.
Congratulations.
THANKS!
Having said all THAT.
I just don't LIKE Obama as my President.
The fact that he's associated with Rev Write and Ayers...
- - - I know someone who does security background checks... and Obama wouldn't pass.
The fact that created these CZARs...
- - - I know he's just delegating jobs to his administrations, but to call it CZARs brings up Soviet Communism connotations.
The fact that he said "we need to spread the wealth around"...
- - - I thought this was a slip, but its apparent that he really believes it's the government job to spread the wealth.
The fact that he said "you didn't build that..."
- - - Again... perception... just wrong.
Among others...
And it's nothing to do with his race or party.
I'd be fine if he's a Rep or Senator... but, not as my President.
Can you still honestly claim that "you didn't build that" meant that he said what you wanted him to say and that businesses are build without any government support or without utilizing a single thing that is taxpayer funded?
d-usa wrote: Can you still honestly claim that "you didn't build that" meant that he said what you wanted him to say and that businesses are build without any government support or without utilizing a single thing that is taxpayer funded?
Perception... and his history is in play.
Yes, it takes a collective to succeed in that shared infrastructures is used.
But, are you really going to say that the folks that put in their blood, sweat and tears into their business, working insane hours... that they're not going to take umbrage to that "you didn't build that" statement.
And for what it's worth... that whole speech just rubbed me wrong.
d-usa wrote: Can you still honestly claim that "you didn't build that" meant that he said what you wanted him to say and that businesses are build without any government support or without utilizing a single thing that is taxpayer funded?
Perception... and his history is in play.
Yes, it takes a collective to succeed in that shared infrastructures is used.
But, are you really going to say that the folks that put in their blood, sweat and tears into their business, working insane hours... that they're not going to take umbrage to that "you didn't build that" statement.
And for what it's worth... that whole speech just rubbed me wrong.
Maybe I'm just... different.
Here is the entire quote. I am going to highlight the things showcase the point that he made about shared infrastructure and working together in green, and the quote that you focus on in red:
Obama, July 13: There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.e not on your own, we’re in this together.
I get it, you don't like him. Lot's of people don't like him. But that doesn't mean that half the crap that is said about him is true.
Saying somebody else made that happen is a flat out lie and an ignorant statement. People may have helped, but people help all sorts of people who don't open up businesses. Unless you inherited it from someone, if you are business owner you had to bust your ass to get it started.
d-usa wrote: Can you still honestly claim that "you didn't build that" meant that he said what you wanted him to say and that businesses are build without any government support or without utilizing a single thing that is taxpayer funded?
Perception... and his history is in play.
Yes, it takes a collective to succeed in that shared infrastructures is used.
But, are you really going to say that the folks that put in their blood, sweat and tears into their business, working insane hours... that they're not going to take umbrage to that "you didn't build that" statement.
And for what it's worth... that whole speech just rubbed me wrong.
Maybe I'm just... different.
I can't believe I am saying this. BUT GET BACK ON TOPIC!
This is about Paul Ryan's STUPID comments. Not your political hate list. Take it to another thread not here!
Amaya wrote: Saying somebody else made that happen is a flat out lie and an ignorant statement. People may have helped, but people help all sorts of people who don't open up businesses. Unless you inherited it from someone, if you are business owner you had to bust your ass to get it started.
Err no, Obamas right, and you didn't read it right, at all. Yes but as a business owner you usually get help from others to get a business started, starting a business takes a long time and alot of help from other people. You cannot start a business by yourself. You need support.
1) So you agree that it isn't universal healthcare, but argue that it is? Look, I don't like that the ACA further empowers for-profit health insurance, but there are lots of parts of it that are popular. It's still not "universal healthcare".
3) And? He is getting his say in court. But, yeah, what's wrong with President Obama saying that this whole affair hit him closer because a vigilante harassed a kid for being black, which then lead to his death?
4) He ran on getting out of Iraq, and he ran on using intelligence and drone strikes more aggressively. I don't care what it "appears", but President Obama has not been withdrawing anything on the "War on Terror" since he escalated matters in Afghanistan, has taken a stronger role in Pakistan, is more active in Yemen, and has otherwise executed this war on a bigger stage. Even when he does what the right wants he can't win.
6) Oh no! A union leader was put in a position dealing with labor and it might be a conflict of interest! There is no clear conflict of interest, just a person with a clear and expressed perspective put into a position where he can exercise that perspective. Do you even know what a conflict of interest is? Stop pretending that the right's attacks on unions are anything more than their attempt to destroy worker's power and to harm an important part of the Democratic base.
7) Yes, racial profiling is obviously them just wanting to enforce the laws.
8) Were you alive in 2007? Or 2008? You realize that gas was expensive then, too, right? And that the only reason gas was cheap in January 2009 was because of how awful the economy had become. It's dishonest to compare the aberrant price of gas then to the present normal. Don't be dishonest.
10) Even if the attacks on coal were half as real as talked about (they're not), I still don't care. Our reliance on coal is causing much bigger problems.
11) Yes, because the only valid reading of the Constitution is one where the government has no power at all and exists so we can all feel good about voting so Congress and the Government can do, what, exactly? They are upholding the Constitution, as they see it. Go to the YMDC board and see how people can't agree on rules for 40k and maybe you can then understand that there are all sorts of perspectives on how to read the Constitution.
12) Stop being dishonest.
13) Wait, so which is it? Did Obama nationalize the car industry or did they bail them out? And, yeah, I get it: you believe in the perfect free market that will magically just work. Good luck with that, hombre.
15) Yep
17) Eh, media is more biased towards sensationalism and lazy group think. But, yeah, obviously upper class white people in the cities are usually more progressive on social issues, but don't pretend like the media has a strong bias towards any sort of leftist view of economics or race.
19) What other appointees are socialists? I have not seen them at any of our meetings.
20) Huerta is not some extreme person, she helped unionize and empower Latino labor in the United States. But, yeah, when Republicans consistently come down on the side of privileged white men you shouldn't be surprised that everyone else is totally against them.
22) We are not.
23) Eh, is Poland going to reform the Warsaw Pact? Who cares?
25) What illegal voting are you talking about?
26) Only insecure man babies believe America has never done anything wrong. Don't be an insecure man baby. Admitting mistakes and showing respect is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength, maturity, and conviction.
27) There was no voter fraud with ACORN. That's a lie. They were accused of voter registration fraud because people would fill out voter registration forms with bogus names (Mickey Mouse, etc) and ACORN was then LEGALLY REQUIRED to submit those voter registration forms, because who are they to say that someone named Mickey Mouse wasn't legitimately trying to register to vote? Stop talking about things you don't know about, and if you do know about it then you are a liar.
28) What allies is he cold towards? And don't say Israel, because feth Netanyahu is just the worst.
30) No, read what I said: these are not largely ideological people. They are disenfranchised young people who want to be part of something, and who realize that the current way of doing things is not working. At none of the OWS sites I've been to have I met anyone that has even read Marx or Lenin or any of those guys.
31) You have an idea of the consequences of not regulating carbon emissions, but you just refuse to believe that science exists. Or, you choose to believe that climate change is a global conspiracy of scientists of hundreds of fields conspiring to screw over coal miners in West Virginia.
32) That's bs. It's not a perception thing. You don't like her for some reason that makes no sense. She's just trying to get kids to take responsibility and eat better, there is literally nothing wrong about that. The only "perception" that could possibly exist is that you don't like her for some really ugly reasons.
33) And? Times are hard. So, Obama should let millions of jobs evaporate with GM's collapse and not let them go onto public assistance and then magically everything works out? How?
34) Serious Question: Where did the vast majority of the money from the stimulus go?
35) Tax payers always funded this. Sallie Mae, or whoever, would give you a student loan. If you then defaulted at that student loan the federal government would then give the money to Sallie Mae. All those loans were guaranteed by the federal government. There was literally no risk for the lenders.
Wait, czars bring up "Soviet Communism connotations"? I'm not asking this to be mean, merely asking to make sure I don't waste anymore time with you, but are you stupid?
Everything else you talked about is your perception, which mostly stems from your WILLFUL DESIRE to hate this guy. Just stop it.
It's a far better, far less controversial statement without the offending section. Honestly, that was dumb. Does it show insight into Obama's philosophy? Possibly. Possibly not. Not owning a business myself, even I'm a little disgruntled with the sentiment the quote seems to convey, even in the context of the paragraph. It goes a tad too far.
I employ people where possible and I am thankful that those people were educated by school systems that I did not build or fund.
I get materials and ship products out to people on roads and through a mail system that I did not build or fund.
I get to use the internet to get new clients and to research solutions for their demands, and I did not invent or build the internet.
I could keep going on, but while I do work very hard I am not delusional enough to think that I went off into the West and extracted wealth and prosperity from the earth by using my hands and nothing else.
And, Amaya, don't be stupid about Michelle Obama's food programs. Sure, I'm sure her personal diet could be better or whatever but children's diets are so DISASTROUSLY BAD that her encouraging them to get any better is a big step in the right direction. It is literally the least offensive thing ever, and for it to become disagreeable says far more about you than anything else.
whembly wrote: @d-usa: that entire quote in verbatim is insulting to those business owners. If you can't see that, I can't convince you.
My dad is a business owner and he is not offended. Along with most of his partners, they actually support obama over Romney.
Because they like Obama because of the things he has said.
A step in the right direction would be instituting a tax on all products that contain high fructose corn syrup, stop subsidizing the corn and grain industries, and instead use that money to lower the prices on fresh fruits, vegetables, and lean meat.
Amaya wrote: A step in the right direction would be instituting a tax on all products that contain high fructose corn syrup, stop subsidizing the corn and grain industries, and instead use that money to lower the prices on fresh fruits, vegetables, and lean meat.
........
Now look at your statement
You know why fruits, vegetables and lean meats are expensive? Its because of one thing....
The Food Companies control that. Not the US Government.
I agree, Amaya. Soft drinks and the like should be taxed pretty heavily to discourage people from drinking them, and to use that money to fund a national healthcare plan.
It's naive that we can tackle healthcare without talking farm subsidies, poverty, and lots of other issues. Only a holistic approach would work.
I just don't expect Michelle Obama to come out to the hard left of President Obama.
whembly wrote: @d-usa: that entire quote in verbatim is insulting to those business owners. If you can't see that, I can't convince you.
My dad is a business owner and he is not offended. Along with most of his partners, they actually support obama over Romney.
Because they like Obama because of the things he has said.
It is a free country, and part of that freedom is to be honest and respectful of those freedoms instead of saying lies and then hiding behind them because of "perception" or something.
TheHammer wrote: It is a free country, and part of that freedom is to be honest and respectful of those freedoms instead of saying lies and then hiding behind them because of "perception" or something.
Right... so anyone's opinions contrary to yours are lies... gotcha.
TheHammer wrote: It is a free country, and part of that freedom is to be honest and respectful of those freedoms instead of saying lies and then hiding behind them because of "perception" or something.
Right... so anyone's opinions contrary to yours are lies... gotcha.
Err no that is taking it out of context.
He has said that some of your statements have been false so they technically are lies.
Amaya wrote: A step in the right direction would be instituting a tax on all products that contain high fructose corn syrup, stop subsidizing the corn and grain industries, and instead use that money to lower the prices on fresh fruits, vegetables, and lean meat.
Guess I missed the part where the First Lady had the power to do that.
TheHammer wrote: It is a free country, and part of that freedom is to be honest and respectful of those freedoms instead of saying lies and then hiding behind them because of "perception" or something.
Right... so anyone's opinions contrary to yours are lies... gotcha.
Err no that is taking it out of context.
He has said that some of your statements have been false so they technically are lies.
Amaya wrote: A step in the right direction would be instituting a tax on all products that contain high fructose corn syrup, stop subsidizing the corn and grain industries, and instead use that money to lower the prices on fresh fruits, vegetables, and lean meat.
Guess I missed the part where the First Lady had the power to do that.
Is this "let's be obtuse" day? She can suggest that and she can certainly persuade her husband (you know...the president) to try to get that achieved.
Article 0 in the Constitution deals with the enumerated powers of the Constitution. They include, but are not limited to, baking cookies for everyone and regulating the sale of high fructose corn syrup.
For what it's worth, whembly, I don't think you're a liar. I think you just tend to find things that agree with your prejudices and then when told that those things are factually inaccurate you then just talk about perception. Adults should look at evidence and then come to their conclusions, instead of finding evidence to support their prejudices.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Do you really think that she could come out and say those things, Amaya? What little things she has said has caused a gak storm on the right, can you even begin to imagine what they would say about "Moo-chelle" trying to do something to actually stop obesity? You're just being ridiculous now.
Amaya were not talking about just any old commodity were talking about heavily subsidized corn product that has tons of lobbyists. I can tell from your posts your intelligent so you know this. It takes a LOT more than the first lady to get something like that taxed.
But she can still start the ball rolling and getting the idea out there or at least raise awareness as to HFCS's danger. Advocating the stereotypical "skinny bitch" diet isn't enough.
TheHammer wrote: Article 0 in the Constitution deals with the enumerated powers of the Constitution. They include, but are not limited to, baking cookies for everyone and regulating the sale of high fructose corn syrup.
For what it's worth, whembly, I don't think you're a liar. I think you just tend to find things that agree with your prejudices and then when told that those things are factually inaccurate you then just talk about perception. Adults should look at evidence and then come to their conclusions, instead of finding evidence to support their prejudices.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Do you really think that she could come out and say those things, Amaya? What little things she has said has caused a gak storm on the right, can you even begin to imagine what they would say about "Moo-chelle" trying to do something to actually stop obesity? You're just being ridiculous now.
Hammer... thanks.
I'm not saying I'm right... I can be wrong. There's a lot of "finding evidence to support their prejudices" on both sides to be honest.
Amaya wrote: But she can still start the ball rolling and getting the idea out there or at least raise awareness as to HFCS's danger. Advocating the stereotypical "skinny bitch" diet isn't enough.
I agree fully she should. That gak is fething deadly in my opinion. But would you POSSIBLY admit that there might be pressure to not say anything like that from the corn lobby?
Of course. That's why those fething donkey-caves have succeeded in poisoning America. They are making money off of killing people essentially.
Edit: Especially the poor. The fact liberals aren't up in arms over this is amazing. Capitalist corn lobbyists are selling poison to America, but essentially to the poor who make notoriously bad diet decisions or can not afford healthy food. Screw the abortion issue, this is much worse.
Amaya wrote: Of course. That's why those fething donkey-caves have succeeded in poisoning America. They are making money off of killing people essentially.
Edit: Especially the poor. The fact liberals aren't up in arms over this is amazing. Capitalist corn lobbyists are selling poison to America, but essentially to the poor who make notoriously bad diet decisions or can not afford healthy food. Screw the abortion issue, this is much worse.
Absolutely. But theres a reason even the FDA is remiss to post too much negative gak about corn syrup. And its a lot more than Dem/Rep politics. And I definitely do agree with you that she should be doing more if shes trying to promote healthy eating. But a start is a start. The fact my nephew's generation is expected to live less than his parents for one of the few times in history is disgusting to me. And its in large part due to obesity related issues.
Thing is, if you believe life begins at conception and should be protected, then it is reasonable to conclude that it shouldn't matter whether that life was created through consensual or non-consensual sex.
I'm more puzzled by the people who believe abortion should be outlawed except in cases of rape, to be honest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I'm not saying I'm right... I can be wrong. There's a lot of "finding evidence to support their prejudices" on both sides to be honest.
Sure, it's common on both sides but that doesn't make it alright. In fact, because it is so common on both sides that makes it less acceptable whenever it happens.
sebster wrote: Thing is, if you believe life begins at conception and should be protected, then it is reasonable to conclude that it shouldn't matter whether that life was created through consensual or non-consensual sex.
That is the point he was struggling to make, yes. And while I do not subscribe to it, I understand it.
However, the manner in which he said it, and the choice of the word 'valid,' has, at least in the context, a perceived moral implication to it, like I said earlier. Even knowing what he meant the instant he said it, the quote still reads to me like, "Conception through rape is just as good as other types of conception." Biologically, true. Morally, abhorrent.
Whether you believe in the "war on women" or not, the degree to which the Republicans seem to be tone deaf about the issue is pretty fething amazing.
Ok, IF Woe V. Wade does get overturned, soon in the media there will be the story of mothers dieing for back alley abortions. and it will come right back.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, IF Woe V. Wade does get overturned, soon in the media there will be the story of mothers dieing for back alley abortions. and it will come right back.
The possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned is minuscule. I guess it shouldn't be ruled out completely, but you'd have to have a very extreme an activist SCOTUS. I'd call it an extreme "conservative" SOCTUS, but taking away rights is not conserving rights so what do call that? A regressive activist court?
Seaward wrote: That is the point he was struggling to make, yes. And while I do not subscribe to it, I understand it.
However, the manner in which he said it, and the choice of the word 'valid,' has, at least in the context, a perceived moral implication to it, like I said earlier. Even knowing what he meant the instant he said it, the quote still reads to me like, "Conception through rape is just as good as other types of conception." Biologically, true. Morally, abhorrent.
Whether you believe in the "war on women" or not, the degree to which the Republicans seem to be tone deaf about the issue is pretty fething amazing.
I agree that the Republican party as a whole with women's issues, but I'm not sure that extends to Ryan's comment here. I mean, what he said was awkward enough that anyone who wanted to go looking for outrage could find it, but I think a reasonably impartial reading would see he was just giving a position that's pretty common among Republicans.
And yeah, I don't agree with outlawing abortion even in cases of rape, but I do understand it. More interesting to me is that 'life begins at conception' is now almost unanimous among the church, but was an issue of debate among religious leaders just forty years ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: The possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned is minuscule. I guess it shouldn't be ruled out completely, but you'd have to have a very extreme an activist SCOTUS. I'd call it an extreme "conservative" SOCTUS, but taking away rights is not conserving rights so what do call that? A regressive activist court?
They'd call them reactionary, probably.
I agree that it is unlikely, but I'd say it is more probable than you give it credit for. Afterall, Republicans realised some time ago that the Presidency is all about nominating Supreme Court justices, and one of the major criteria they have for any potential nomination is their position on Roe v Wade. If Republicans continue to win their share of presidential races, and continue to hold their 5-4 position in the Supreme Court, and continue to have abortion as a key element of their platform, then having 5 justices on the Supreme Court who disagree with Roe v Wade becomes a matter of time. The real issue is whether Republicans will dare resolve an issue that wins them so many votes every year.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, IF Woe V. Wade does get overturned, soon in the media there will be the story of mothers dieing for back alley abortions. and it will come right back.
The possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned is minuscule. I guess it shouldn't be ruled out completely, but you'd have to have a very extreme an activist SCOTUS. I'd call it an extreme "conservative" SOCTUS, but taking away rights is not conserving rights so what do call that? A regressive activist court?
It would for the most part be impossible for roe v wade to be overturned by SCOTUS,given all they can do is rule laws unconstitutional. We would have to see congress pass a lwa banning abortions, then for it to be challenged in court, then ruled constitutional. It just cant realistically happen. That is kind of the buety of the American system, we are horribly inefficient but that inefficiency prevents many bad laws
politicians are some of the stupidest richest people on earth
they live in a bubble and we are their pawns
I have faith in humanity, and I want to help us back into HUMANITY. I have a plan to give a life back to the largest unemployed sector, the homeless. I have met many a person who fell on bad times and wound up on their ass on the street. Not saying everyone isn't a junkie and a waste of O2, but everyone deserves a chance if they will work for it. I want to buy an apartment building and furnish all the units. I would find tenants off the street. I would make a program where you work and pay a minimum rent so you can save money to move out on your own at some point in time. The biggest thing a homeless person faces when trying to get a job is not being able to get a good nights sleep and clean themselves up. Just imagine if you can get folks back out on their own feet in 3-6 months. Hundreds of people could be helped in a year, a real change could be made in folks lives.
and I am not talking slave labor, well paid employees are known to work harder than people getting minimum wage
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, IF Woe V. Wade does get overturned, soon in the media there will be the story of mothers dieing for back alley abortions. and it will come right back.
The possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned is minuscule. I guess it shouldn't be ruled out completely, but you'd have to have a very extreme an activist SCOTUS. I'd call it an extreme "conservative" SOCTUS, but taking away rights is not conserving rights so what do call that? A regressive activist court?
It would for the most part be impossible for roe v wade to be overturned by SCOTUS,given all they can do is rule laws unconstitutional. We would have to see congress pass a lwa banning abortions, then for it to be challenged in court, then ruled constitutional. It just cant realistically happen. That is kind of the buety of the American system, we are horribly inefficient but that inefficiency prevents many bad laws
there's plenty of ways to get there. The easiest one is for congress to pass a law prohibiting/requiring insurance to pay/not pay for abortions and have it be challenged to at least the appellate level. Then SCOTUS could potentially elect to cite and then overturn Roe, or not mention it and create a de facto ban on abortions by forcing people to pay out of pocket for abortion.
Seb: I get what you are driving at but look how well conservative judges worked out on Roe ja? Judges are rarely just fatuous gas bags and political puppets. Such judges are even more rare in SCOTUS, I can't even fathom an actual situation where Roe would be overturned, let alone by a 5-4. I could be wrong of course, but I think most judges come down on the side of civil liberties when push comes shove.
whembly wrote:
@Azazel... eh, Huffington post is like any other blogger, they use baiting topics to get the "clicks". That's true with any site out there. If I remember... Arianna worked for Conservative politician (not sure who), then started supporting typically (D) issues. This site us usually touted is a "liberal mouthpiece"... but, I'm not so sure that's true. (yes, I read that site too).
Right, okay. But you see the difference between me posting an editorial piece from a mouthpiece, a la you; and me posting a link to a video of a primary source -Ryan himself speaking on camera- that just so happens to be hosted on a mouthpiece site, right?
Amaya wrote:Saying somebody else made that happen is a flat out lie and an ignorant statement. People may have helped, but people help all sorts of people who don't open up businesses. Unless you inherited it from someone, if you are business owner you had to bust your ass to get it started.
Yes. Bust your ass and get a small business loan, thereby demonstrating how correct Obama's statement was. Unless your startup money was stashed in your closet, in which case it probably came from somewhere, at the very least a job that you got to via driving on government roads and were able to save up because the social infrastructure prevented a guy with assless chaps and a red mohawk from pillaging your home.
The only people who can honestly claim they started everything on their own are frontier trappers and panhandlers, and those guys haven't been around for about a hundred years. If you think otherwise, then go ahead and give me an example, and I'll point out to you how your example used the existing infrastructure in order to succeed.
10% real unemployment. 15%+ underemployment.
GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.
The horror show that is Obamacare instead of a proper program.
And for the record. We still have Gitmo.
As opposed to what the other side of the isle has offered:
A plan to make the rich richer in hopes they hire more people.
No change
More deficit to keep tax cuts for the wealthy while doing away with public services.
No program at all. (It's ironic they call it 'obamacare' as it was originally proposed by Newt Gingrich about twenty years ago.)
And more gitmos as opposed to fewer.
From my perspective it's a choice between bad and worse, not bad and good.
BaronIveagh wrote:From my perspective it's a choice between bad and worse, not bad and good.
But that's part of the nirvana fallacy that permeates the thinking of the GOP: there's no perfect solution, so they won't try to solve anything at all.
But that's part of the nirvana fallacy that permeates the thinking of the GOP: there's no perfect solution, so they won't try to solve anything at all.
Actually, there's a bunch of them that want to make things worse, rather than better. After all, God wills it.
AustonT wrote: Seb: I get what you are driving at but look how well conservative judges worked out on Roe ja? Judges are rarely just fatuous gas bags and political puppets. Such judges are even more rare in SCOTUS, I can't even fathom an actual situation where Roe would be overturned, let alone by a 5-4. I could be wrong of course, but I think most judges come down on the side of civil liberties when push comes shove.
Belief that Roe v Wade was the wrong decision is not that uncommon among highly credentialled judges. And it isn't simply a matter of more or less rights, but an issue of whether the precedents for privacy drawn from the Constitution really extend up to abortion.
AustonT wrote: Seb: I get what you are driving at but look how well conservative judges worked out on Roe ja? Judges are rarely just fatuous gas bags and political puppets. Such judges are even more rare in SCOTUS, I can't even fathom an actual situation where Roe would be overturned, let alone by a 5-4. I could be wrong of course, but I think most judges come down on the side of civil liberties when push comes shove.
Belief that Roe v Wade was the wrong decision is not that uncommon among highly credentialled judges. And it isn't simply a matter of more or less rights, but an issue of whether the precedents for privacy drawn from the Constitution really extend up to abortion.
While there a little grey area to it (though less so than you've implied) those same highly credentialled judges always seem to work along party lines.
It's really a shame judges are forced to campaign in the US
True. One of the problems, to my mind, is that while Supreme Court Justices are appointed and are therefore kind of outside of politics, potential nominees will first have won election as judges at lower levels, putting them into the party political system. That isn't the only reason the judiciary in the US has become so political, but it's a major one.
TheHammer wrote: I agree, Amaya. Soft drinks and the like should be taxed pretty heavily to discourage people from drinking them, and to use that money to fund a national healthcare plan.
It's naive that we can tackle healthcare without talking farm subsidies, poverty, and lots of other issues. Only a holistic approach would work.
I just don't expect Michelle Obama to come out to the hard left of President Obama.
Since the family doesn't drink soft drinks I think they should be taxed 5000% percent. In fact nearly everything I don't use should be heavily taxed, with those proceeds use to offset any taxes on goods I use.
No, in the pass 2 months, the Democrats (and liberal media, but I repeat myself) are looking for topics to distract how horrible the current presidency is.
The list you posted in defense of this comment is basically just a series of conservative talking points, which honestly makes sense given that the vast majority of people claiming that Obama can't discuss his Presidency are either conservatives or libertarians. In other words, people that would be highly unlikely to vote for a Democrat anyway. This makes the expressed sentiment about as relevant as a liberal claiming that Bush II would be unable to discuss his first Presidency as, in both cases, it ignores how actions are qualitatively assessed by people of differing stances.
True. One of the problems, to my mind, is that while Supreme Court Justices are appointed and are therefore kind of outside of politics, potential nominees will first have won election as judges at lower levels, putting them into the party political system.
Not necessarily. At the very least Kagan never held a judicial position prior to her nomination to the Supreme Court, and Clarence Thomas held no judicial position prior to being nominated to the DC court of appeals; and I imagine there are other cases.
The biggest issues I think, it simply that both parties attempt to nominate justices with sympathetic political and legal views.
True. One of the problems, to my mind, is that while Supreme Court Justices are appointed and are therefore kind of outside of politics, potential nominees will first have won election as judges at lower levels, putting them into the party political system.
Not necessarily. At the very least Kagan never held a judicial position prior to her nomination to the Supreme Court, and Clarence Thomas held no judicial position prior to being nominated to the DC court of appeals; and I imagine there are other cases.
The biggest issues I think, it simply that both parties attempt to nominate justices with sympathetic political and legal views.
Technically speaking... a Prez could nominate Kim Kardashian for Justice... but, good luck getting the Senate's approval .
TheHammer wrote: I agree, Amaya. Soft drinks and the like should be taxed pretty heavily to discourage people from drinking them, and to use that money to fund a national healthcare plan.
It's naive that we can tackle healthcare without talking farm subsidies, poverty, and lots of other issues. Only a holistic approach would work.
I just don't expect Michelle Obama to come out to the hard left of President Obama.
Since the family doesn't drink soft drinks I think they should be taxed 5000% percent. In fact nearly everything I don't use should be heavily taxed, with those proceeds use to offset any taxes on goods I use.
GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.
And yet, the economy is tooling along just fine, doing what it's supposed to do. Wall Street is doing well, and corporations are running all-time record profits these past five years. If that's not what the economy is supposed to do, what IS it supposed to do?
GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.
And yet, the economy is tooling along just fine, doing what it's supposed to do. Wall Street is doing well, and corporations are running all-time record profits these past five years. If that's not what the economy is supposed to do, what IS it supposed to do?
It's supposed to help Republicans get elected of course.
GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.
And yet, the economy is tooling along just fine, doing what it's supposed to do. Wall Street is doing well, and corporations are running all-time record profits these past five years. If that's not what the economy is supposed to do, what IS it supposed to do?
GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.
And yet, the economy is tooling along just fine, doing what it's supposed to do. Wall Street is doing well, and corporations are running all-time record profits these past five years. If that's not what the economy is supposed to do, what IS it supposed to do?
You think less than 2% is doing just fine???
Well, big businesses are doing just fine. Romney said so as well.
GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.
And yet, the economy is tooling along just fine, doing what it's supposed to do. Wall Street is doing well, and corporations are running all-time record profits these past five years. If that's not what the economy is supposed to do, what IS it supposed to do?
You think less than 2% is doing just fine???
Well, big businesses are doing just fine. Romney said so as well.
And according to the Republican economic platform of trickle-down economics, so long as the rich are making money, they will create jobs and pay well and everyone will be great!
So, since the 1% is doing fantastically well, we must all be doing fantastically well. It's just the liberal media lying again.
(And if you actually believe that in face of the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary, go ahead and vote Republican. This is EXACTLY the economic situation they've been clamining would be best for the country, after all...)
GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.
And yet, the economy is tooling along just fine, doing what it's supposed to do. Wall Street is doing well, and corporations are running all-time record profits these past five years. If that's not what the economy is supposed to do, what IS it supposed to do?
You think less than 2% is doing just fine???
Well, big businesses are doing just fine. Romney said so as well.
And according to the Republican economic platform of trickle-down economics, so long as the rich are making money, they will create jobs and pay well and everyone will be great!
So, since the 1% is doing fantastically well, we must all be doing fantastically well. It's just the liberal media lying again.
(And if you actually believe that in face of the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary, go ahead and vote Republican. This is EXACTLY the economic situation they've been clamining would be best for the country, after all...)
They'll pay well for the men who work for them anyways. Because women just aren't worth as much, so they just don't need equal wages.
Question it seems do YOU think the economy is doing fine? Everyone can read a paper or a internet news source and draw an accurate conclusion. The conclusion you come up with. Is it accurate?
Jihadin wrote: Question it seems do YOU think the economy is doing fine? Everyone can read a paper or a internet news source and draw an accurate conclusion. The conclusion you come up with. Is it accurate?
My neck of the woods weathered it pretty good.
Last unemployment number I could find for Oklahoma City was 4.5%, and 4.8 for Oklahoma in general. The long term trend seems to follow the national average as far as ups and downs go.
I also live in a new neighborhood where we build a new home, moved there in January 2010 and when we moved in there were 5 empty lots on our street. In 2010 there were no houses build on my street. In 2011 they build one house, and this year they build on the remaining 4 lots. There are less foreclosure signs and for sale signs in our neighborhood as well and they went from hardly building on our street to submitting plans to the city for the next phase addition to the neighborhood.
We have more national businesses move to Oklahoma City, and more retail being build, more hotels being build.
I know it's not hard data, but at least for us it seems like things are moving up.
It would be doing a lot better well if the republicans didn't filibusterer every proposal that would have helped.
I disagree with this a bit. Who trying to get the Keystone Pipeline started on its new new route?
The republicans will always side with big oil, as the big oil companies own most of them. It's the same republicans who will allow the oil companies to sell that oil to whoever wants it, instead of supporting it be used in america. They just can't help big oil enough, that's why they get $24 billion in subsidies. They can't find a penny to help those who need help the most, but they can find billions to provide welfare for corporations.
I use the Keystone as an example. It will help create jobs that would cascade out amongst the industry. Perfect example for that is the Alasken Pipeline. If you were offer a job in help developing the Keystone Pipeline would you take it? I know your canadian but that doesn't mean you cannot accept a higher paying job on your end.
edit
If the republicans manage to get it started I can't imagine you saying "No" because its the republican success.
It would be doing a lot better well if the republicans didn't filibusterer every proposal that would have helped.
I disagree with this a bit. Who trying to get the Keystone Pipeline started on its new new route?
The republicans will always side with big oil, as the big oil companies own most of them. It's the same republicans who will allow the oil companies to sell that oil to whoever wants it, instead of supporting it be used in america. They just can't help big oil enough, that's why they get $24 billion in subsidies. They can't find a penny to help those who need help the most, but they can find billions to provide welfare for corporations.
You know... I don't thinks that accurate... but I'm willing to be wrong.
But, aren't these subsidies available to other non-oil businesses?
Now as for those subsidies itself... ya, we need to look at 'em if they're needed, but I suspect they're tax laws that oil companies chose to take advantage of.
Jihadin wrote: I use the Keystone as an example. It will help create jobs that would cascade out amongst the industry. Perfect example for that is the Alasken Pipeline. If you were offer a job in help developing the Keystone Pipeline would you take it? I know your canadian but that doesn't mean you cannot accept a higher paying job on your end.
edit
If the republicans manage to get it started I can't imagine you saying "No" because its the republican success.
Yeah, they used the jobs angle to get through a law in PA that if oil and gas companies had to pay liabilities for poisoning people, it'd cost jobs. So now, even if you are dying from exposure to groundwater contamination from the oil and gas industry, by law your doctor can't tell you that.
It would be doing a lot better well if the republicans didn't filibusterer every proposal that would have helped.
I disagree with this a bit. Who trying to get the Keystone Pipeline started on its new new route?
Pretty hard for the Republicans to block everything when the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and dominated the House. Obamacare was Pelosi's fiasco, because when Bill Clinton tried it, he tried to control it and failed. Obama punted all leadership and the result is a nightmare of hodgepodge crap.
I don't blame Obama for trying to nationalize healthcare. I blame him for letting Pelosi to run the show instead of trying something both sides could agree to, even if much less than what he wanted.
I don't blame Obama for trying to nationalize healthcare. I blame him for letting Pelosi to run the show instead of trying something both sides could agree to, even if much less than what he wanted.
Like Obama wanting a public option, but then giving in and agreeing to an individual mandate because that is what the Republicans wanted and would agree to at the time?
Jihadin wrote: Have there been any contamination from the Alasken Pipeline of that nature Baron?
The Alaskan pipe line? NOt as far as I know, but they also don't pump 100k gallons of toxic chemicals into the ground per well for it either. I was talking about Natural Gas Fracking, another item in the 'we need less regulation for greater profit' list. It 'only' causes (albeit small) earthquakes and had caused enough ground water contamination to be banned in several states. PA passed laws against allowing the public to know exactly what they were being exposed to to protect companies using the technique in PA.
dogma wrote: Not necessarily. At the very least Kagan never held a judicial position prior to her nomination to the Supreme Court, and Clarence Thomas held no judicial position prior to being nominated to the DC court of appeals; and I imagine there are other cases.
That there are two who did not win elections does not make it not an issue.
The biggest issues I think, it simply that both parties attempt to nominate justices with sympathetic political and legal views.
That is, of course, the big issue. I thought about whether or not to include it, and wrote about half an essay before figuring I was drifting from the point and replaced it with 'That isn't the only reason the judiciary in the US has become so political, but it's a major one.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Technically speaking... a Prez could nominate Kim Kardashian for Justice... but, good luck getting the Senate's approval .
But technically doesn't really matter What matters is what people actually do, and what people actually do most of the time is nominate people with strong judicial records in lower courts, which they reached through the electoral process. This means it is pretty rare to find a potential nominee without some prior political connection.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Vodka and gaterade
Gentleman Jack and coke
Southern Comfort with Dew
Thats about it for me.
You just listed about every highschool party I ever truly, completely regretted.
Well, apart from that one where we found the bottle of Mississipi Moonshine where the ingredients were listed as 'wine, alcohol, sugar.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: And the house republicans passed formal budgets that Reid wouldn't move to the Senate floor to be negotiated/voted on...
And it's the Republican doing all the filibustering?
Reminds to self: Republicans bad... evil creatures...
amrite?
You do have to be a little bit honest with stuff like this - putting up a budget with all of your side's wish list items and nothing for the other side, and then complaining when they don't pass the budget is hardly constructive politics.
And ultimately, it's on record that no congress ever filed as many cloture motions to end filibusters as the 2007-08 congress. Now, you can point out that in the modern history of the filibuster the circumstances of politics never demanded a filibuster as much as that congress, and that'd be reasonable, but let's not pretend the Republicans didn't realise their particularly weak minority position and set themselves to stop as much DNP legislation as possible.
Reagan I was to young to even think politics. Just remember him calling for Gorbachev to teardown these walls
Bush Senior. First Iraq War a good chunk. ATM I think he was a 1 termer right?
Clinton. Drew down the military to its current level. Lots of base closure.10 Divisions for the army. two terms
Bush Jr. Two war front. two terms Plus up of brigade per divisions
Obama Two war front. One war front (not going to count Libya) still on first term
I believe its present value of the dollar, if not then every bar but obamas would increase
See, this is why I hate graphs:
Don't looks at the bars, they're essentially meaningless, just look at the numbers. Though its worth noting that the Pelosi graph provided above isn't wrong per se, just out of date.
Its also worth noting that percent change in debt relative to GDP is a much better statistic for comparison.
Jihadin wrote: Alright bear with me here. Shooting from the hip
Reagan I was to young to even think politics. Just remember him calling for Gorbachev to teardown these walls
Bush Senior. First Iraq War a good chunk. ATM I think he was a 1 termer right?
Clinton. Drew down the military to its current level. Lots of base closure.10 Divisions for the army. two terms
Bush Jr. Two war front. two terms Plus up of brigade per divisions
Obama Two war front. One war front (not going to count Libya) still on first term
Thinking the military budget side of the house.
So it sounds to me that, if we are going to just do a cursory analysis, that when you vote in a Republican you are voting for a war, Cold or otherwise, which makes me think of this:
Spoiler:
You should have put that Bush Jr. was fighting a two front war and cutting taxes while doing it.
I see a good chunk of Bush Jr debt. Sticking with the military side of the house. Body armor advancement, uparmor of the Humvee's to 7, MRAPS, MATV's, drones, uparmor for numerous other vehicles....to numerous to really get down to it because a deployment of a unit a lot of freaking cash. Also advancement. Bit of that would fall into Obama column to for the first year.
I believe its present value of the dollar, if not then every bar but obamas would increase
See, this is why I hate graphs:
Don't looks at the bars, they're essentially meaningless, just look at the numbers. Though its worth noting that the Pelosi graph provided above isn't wrong per se, just out of date.
Its also worth noting that percent change in debt relative to GDP is a much better statistic for comparison.
So other words the general trend of federal spending has been a decreasingly increasing rate until you hit Bush Jr and Obama when the rate exploded. You wouldn't happen to have the change in debt/GDP data would you. (delta-debt sounds humorous)
So other words the general trend of federal spending has been a decreasingly increasing rate until you hit Bush Jr and Obama when the rate exploded. You wouldn't happen to have the change in debt/GDP data would you. (delta-debt sounds humorous)
Huh, I would have expected less of a decline from the Eisenhower through Johnson administrations. So what caused the upward trend since the mid 80's, what were we doing that cost us more then vietnam+war on poverty
dogma wrote: Not necessarily. At the very least Kagan never held a judicial position prior to her nomination to the Supreme Court, and Clarence Thomas held no judicial position prior to being nominated to the DC court of appeals; and I imagine there are other cases.
That there are two who did not win elections does not make it not an issue.
The biggest issues I think, it simply that both parties attempt to nominate justices with sympathetic political and legal views.
That is, of course, the big issue. I thought about whether or not to include it, and wrote about half an essay before figuring I was drifting from the point and replaced it with 'That isn't the only reason the judiciary in the US has become so political, but it's a major one.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Technically speaking... a Prez could nominate Kim Kardashian for Justice... but, good luck getting the Senate's approval .
But technically doesn't really matter What matters is what people actually do, and what people actually do most of the time is nominate people with strong judicial records in lower courts, which they reached through the electoral process. This means it is pretty rare to find a potential nominee without some prior political connection.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Vodka and gaterade
Gentleman Jack and coke
Southern Comfort with Dew
Thats about it for me.
You just listed about every highschool party I ever truly, completely regretted.
Well, apart from that one where we found the bottle of Mississipi Moonshine where the ingredients were listed as 'wine, alcohol, sugar.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: And the house republicans passed formal budgets that Reid wouldn't move to the Senate floor to be negotiated/voted on...
And it's the Republican doing all the filibustering?
Reminds to self: Republicans bad... evil creatures...
amrite?
You do have to be a little bit honest with stuff like this - putting up a budget with all of your side's wish list items and nothing for the other side, and then complaining when they don't pass the budget is hardly constructive politics.
And ultimately, it's on record that no congress ever filed as many cloture motions to end filibusters as the 2007-08 congress. Now, you can point out that in the modern history of the filibuster the circumstances of politics never demanded a filibuster as much as that congress, and that'd be reasonable, but let's not pretend the Republicans didn't realise their particularly weak minority position and set themselves to stop as much DNP legislation as possible.
There were definately political shenanigans going on, but sebster, the Republicans retook the House in 2010.
They PASSED budget bills and sent it to the Senate. Usually, what happens is that it goes in conferences for further negotiations/tweaking before it even gets to the floor. Harry Reid refused to put those budgets on the Docket, thus filibustering (in his own way) the budget process.
So, Reid thought it was better to NOT work with the House Republicans and force Congress to pass the continuing resolution bills in order to keep the government running (status quo).
whembly wrote: You know... I don't thinks that accurate... but I'm willing to be wrong.
But, aren't these subsidies available to other non-oil businesses?
Now as for those subsidies itself... ya, we need to look at 'em if they're needed, but I suspect they're tax laws that oil companies chose to take advantage of.
The figure is accurate, it's the amount given to oil companies for a range of incentive schemes over a rougly twenty year period, 1985 to 2005 or something like that. Legislation went up to stop these subsidies a year or two ago and was prevented from being tabled on a nearly party line vote.
Basically the subsidies come in three forms - there's direct subsidies to oil companies to encourage them to invest in the US rather than elsewhere in the world, these are the kind of tax breaks available to every big company and suck, but are basically the price of doing business in a multinational world. Then there's subsidies that make oil cheap for low income people and other business, Low Income Energy Assistance, Fuel Tax Exemption for Farmers and other stuff like that. And then there's direct subsidy to oil industry, almost entirely tax bonuses for exploration spending and the like.
To be perfectly honest, I think the left wing overstates this issue by quite a long way.
That said, it is or at least should be, illustrative to the right wing about government and big business really do work together, and that the idea of an open market where companies grow and succeed without government involvement is basically a myth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Is that with the dollar at its current value or does it actually protray the debt current with the value of dollar?
It's the percentage of the debt at the start of the President's term and what it was at the end. So if you owed $10 when you took office and $22 when you left office it'd be 120%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Don't looks at the bars, they're essentially meaningless, just look at the numbers. Though its worth noting that the Pelosi graph provided above isn't wrong per se, just out of date.
Its also worth noting that percent change in debt relative to GDP is a much better statistic for comparison.
That is the most meaningful measure, but that also explains why neither party uses it. Instead Republicans use straight up dollar figures (and don't even show debt under previous Republican presidents) in order to get people shocked with 'wow that's a big number'. At the same time Democrats use 'debt at beginning of term to debt at end of term' and thereby take advantage of the fact that Obama started with a really huge base to make deficit growth under him look small comparatively.
Politicians tell halve truths... who would have thunk it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote: Huh, I would have expected less of a decline from the Eisenhower through Johnson administrations. So what caused the upward trend since the mid 80's, what were we doing that cost us more then vietnam+war on poverty
Long story short Reagan cut taxes. The economy was in recovery so tax revenues still rose, but nowhere near what they would have increased under the old tax structure. This meant not only did you fail to post breakeven or even surplus budgets during the growth in the 80s, it also meant deficits were greater than they should have been when the economy performed poorly such as in the early 90s. It was a structural problem alleviated somewhat by the Republican Congress/Clinton presidency with their spending cuts to welfare, but one made worse again when Bush II pushed through further tax cuts.
Jihadin wrote: Why I'm thinking the grapths...eerrr whatever are based off the value of the dollar of that time. Remember 50 cent cokes from the vending machine?
whembly wrote: There were definately political shenanigans going on, but sebster, the Republicans retook the House in 2010.
They PASSED budget bills and sent it to the Senate. Usually, what happens is that it goes in conferences for further negotiations/tweaking before it even gets to the floor. Harry Reid refused to put those budgets on the Docket, thus filibustering (in his own way) the budget process.
So, Reid thought it was better to NOT work with the House Republicans and force Congress to pass the continuing resolution bills in order to keep the government running (status quo).
But the budgets put up by Republicans weren't even half way reasonable, so they could be tweaked into something more reasonable. It'd be like a Democratic controlled House passing a budget that said 'here's a 50% cut to defence, a doubling in taxes to everyone paying more than $100,000, and we're using that money on minority awareness campaigns', and then complaining when the Republicans didn't negotiate.
Basically, if you ask me, the country is in such a state right now that neither party could deliver a sensible budget that wouldn't have a massive deficit... let alone a budget that both parties negotiated to reach. As such, is not politically palatable for either party to actually pass a budget, so the only thing left to do is play a game about pretending to pass a budget to score political points. It's a game the Republicans have played better, but that shouldn't surprise anyone.
whembly wrote: There were definately political shenanigans going on, but sebster, the Republicans retook the House in 2010.
They PASSED budget bills and sent it to the Senate. Usually, what happens is that it goes in conferences for further negotiations/tweaking before it even gets to the floor. Harry Reid refused to put those budgets on the Docket, thus filibustering (in his own way) the budget process.
So, Reid thought it was better to NOT work with the House Republicans and force Congress to pass the continuing resolution bills in order to keep the government running (status quo).
But the budgets put up by Republicans weren't even half way reasonable, so they could be tweaked into something more reasonable. It'd be like a Democratic controlled House passing a budget that said 'here's a 50% cut to defence, a doubling in taxes to everyone paying more than $100,000, and we're using that money on minority awareness campaigns', and then complaining when the Republicans didn't negotiate.
Basically, if you ask me, the country is in such a state right now that neither party could deliver a sensible budget that wouldn't have a massive deficit... let alone a budget that both parties negotiated to reach. As such, is not politically palatable for either party to actually pass a budget, so the only thing left to do is play a game about pretending to pass a budget to score political points. It's a game the Republicans have played better, but that shouldn't surprise anyone.
Yeah, I agree with this.
The art of compromise is lost now... and, it doesn't look like that's going to change. Pity...
And wouldn't he have had to go through security checks to become president? Admittedly I'm not a seppo so I don't pay as much attention to how you guys do things over there.
And wouldn't he have had to go through security checks to become president? Admittedly I'm not a seppo so I don't pay as much attention to how you guys do things over there.
Nope. If you're elected President, you don't go through the same security clearance as if you wanted to work for some other federal agency (ie, FBI). I'm pretty sure that's true for all elected official (not sure though).
It was my friend's opinion (who does this for a living), no one officially said it.
And wouldn't he have had to go through security checks to become president? Admittedly I'm not a seppo so I don't pay as much attention to how you guys do things over there.
Nope. If you're elected President, you don't go through the same security clearance as if you wanted to work for some other federal agency (ie, FBI). I'm pretty sure that's true for all elected official (not sure though).
It was my friend's opinion (who does this for a living), no one officially said it.
Ha that is awesome. In a weird way. I'm sure he'd have to be vetted in some way, it wouldn't make sense if there was 0 checks, I mean, he still has to be cleared for certain level briefings and what not, they won't just go 'Everyone in the room is cleared for what-have-you-level-clearence apart from this guy. But he's cool. Trust me.'
But if your mate does it, who am I to gainsay him. I'm just surprised is all, I would have expected it to be really stringent.
And wouldn't he have had to go through security checks to become president? Admittedly I'm not a seppo so I don't pay as much attention to how you guys do things over there.
Nope. If you're elected President, you don't go through the same security clearance as if you wanted to work for some other federal agency (ie, FBI). I'm pretty sure that's true for all elected official (not sure though).
It was my friend's opinion (who does this for a living), no one officially said it.
Ha that is awesome. In a weird way. I'm sure he'd have to be vetted in some way, it wouldn't make sense if there was 0 checks, I mean, he still has to be cleared for certain level briefings and what not, they won't just go 'Everyone in the room is cleared for what-have-you-level-clearence apart from this guy. But he's cool. Trust me.'
But if your mate does it, who am I to gainsay him. I'm just surprised is all, I would have expected it to be really stringent.
Believe... I was surprised too...
And Amaya... he'd probably be cleared to join certain branches of the military. Not likely with intelligence though... (I've know folks who were 16 and joined the services... how'd that get thru I have no idea).
And wouldn't he have had to go through security checks to become president? Admittedly I'm not a seppo so I don't pay as much attention to how you guys do things over there.
Nope. If you're elected President, you don't go through the same security clearance as if you wanted to work for some other federal agency (ie, FBI). I'm pretty sure that's true for all elected official (not sure though).
It was my friend's opinion (who does this for a living), no one officially said it.
Ha that is awesome. In a weird way. I'm sure he'd have to be vetted in some way, it wouldn't make sense if there was 0 checks, I mean, he still has to be cleared for certain level briefings and what not, they won't just go 'Everyone in the room is cleared for what-have-you-level-clearence apart from this guy. But he's cool. Trust me.'
But if your mate does it, who am I to gainsay him. I'm just surprised is all, I would have expected it to be really stringent.
Believe... I was surprised too...
And Amaya... he'd probably be cleared to join certain branches of the military. Not likely with intelligence though... (I've know folks who were 16 and joined the services... how'd that get thru I have no idea).
I'd say believe is too strong a word. But its interesting.
. (edit: ninja'ed by Fraz)
.. ooff. rather you than me there.
