229 replies to this topic

[TakeAStepBack]

i disagree with you regarding the goals of liberals in that last characterization.

this is our current system. the court is in play and whomever becomes president makes the nomination. personally, i would rather we have 4 or 5 robust parties, that would either win outright or be able to form governing coalitions.

Of course you do, cur.

We've been going over this stuff for months. You happen to be partisan. Nothing wrong there, but i've been doing this for years, and this last four years has truly solidified that reality for me. People are far more partisan and playing teams as opposed to looking at individual initiatives objectively.

I've hollered about it regarding foreign policy on this board to nothing but crickets for years now from those who opposed the imperial presidency of Bush. It's just the way it is. It's a team sport, not an elected representative republic anymore. People are opposed to, or in favor of things simply based on party. That's why I can't bare to do it any longer. it's too frustrating to watch. This election is the end of the attention I'm willing to pay to this embarrassment of a government, and in many cases, the constituency as well.

[insolent cur]

Of course you do, cur.

We've been going over this stuff for months. You happen to be partisan. Nothing wrong there, but i've been doing this for years, and this last four years has truly solidified that reality for me. People are far more partisan and playing teams as opposed to looking at individual initiatives objectively.

I've hollered about it regarding foreign policy on this board to nothing but crickets for years now from those who opposed the imperial presidency of Bush. It's just the way it is. It's a team sport, not an elected representative republic anymore. People are opposed to, or in favor of things simply based on party. That's why I can't bare to do it any longer. it's too frustrating to watch. This election is the end of the attention I'm willing to pay to this embarrassment of a government, and in many cases, the constituency as well.

dude, i'm not partisan. i'm neither d nor r. i'm a pragmatic progressive.

[Spidergawd]

That is appalling. Pretty sure I can't sandbag for the first 4 years of a new job.

Sandbagging?? Really??

Here are just two examples of many:

Grover Norquist – “We will make it so that a Democrat cannot govern as a Democrat.”
From : http://www.washingto...UlsH_story.html

Senator Mitch McConnell – “Our #1 priority is to make President Obama a one term president”
From : http://www.zimbio.co...iating Party No

Their stated goal was to obstruct anything the President and the democrats tried to do by filibuster and other tactics. This has been well documented. Dozens of initiatives were halted in this manner. All while the house voted THIRTY-THREE times to repeal Obamacare. Talk about a sandbagging waste of time, especially since they knew damn well there was no way it would pass.

You know better and can do better than that Rene.

[Spidergawd]

And again TASB reminds us how much smarter and more educated he is, and how anyone who dares disagree is just a "partisan". Man, you've just been insufferable lately.

[TEO]

Seems the country is run by whoever is pulling the lobbyists strings.

[TakeAStepBack]

dude, i'm not partisan. i'm neither d nor r. i'm a pragmatic progressive.

Then perhaps you missed this answer to a question you asked? Or was it just that you didn't want to see it?

Posse Comitatus and Habeas corpus by signing NDAA 2012 and then fighting a court ruling to have the provisions in question of this bill removed and considered unconstitutional.

http://rt.com/usa/ne...ffs-hedges-143/

A simple question. Because I've seen this from my friends for months. The memes regarding romney, many of which are funny an sometimes true,. but is that same level of critique offered tot he incumbent? Not that i have seen.

Cur, we have a mutual friend (not on this board that i know of) that absolutely refused to admit that Obama lied even after I pointed out, in quotes, cite source, the lies! That is a frustrating thing, and I feel that it is common place whether llolberal or psuedo-con when it comes to their teams respectively.

[TEO]

(((thin skin)))

[Spidergawd]

Seems the country is run by whoever is pulling the lobbyists strings.

I won't disagree with this one. Lobbyists are one of the scourges of our country.

[TakeAStepBack]

And again TASB reminds us how much smarter and more educated he is, and how anyone who dares disagree is just a "partisan". Man, you've just been insufferable lately.

You can always use the ignore feature if you like. I'm pointing it out how I see it. How I have seen it adn how it continues. If that somehow makes you feel like I'm belittleing you, then perhaps that feature would suit you. Because that isn't the case. But I will call it out like I see it.

[SunshineDrummer]

I won't disagree with this one. Lobbyists are one of the scourges of our country.

I think most of us would agree with this, regardless of affiliation.

[TakeAStepBack]

Obama did promise no lobbyists in his admin. Just sayin'.

[Spidergawd]

You can always use the ignore feature if you like. I'm pointing it out how I see it. How I have seen it adn how it continues. If that somehow makes you feel like I'm belittleing you, then perhaps that feature would suit you. Because that isn't the case. But I will call it out like I see it.

I respect your opinions and you have every right to express them. Your delivery, however, is getting more and more abrasive. Not to PF levals yet, but on the way. FWIW.

[TEO]

Obama did promise no lobbyists in his admin. Just sayin'.

Yes he did.

[MeOmYo]

I'm thinking voting will make TASB feel better.

[Joker]

we're close to going from two to three or four already.

We were close back in the 90's when Perot was running but that's probably only because he was loaded.

I'd love to see it but there's not a doubt in my mind the other two will do whatever it takes to make sure it doesn't happen.

There's some interesting stuff here including how they've pretty much rigged the debates


How Presidential Debates Work

http://people.howstu...com/debate3.htm

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm thinking voting will make TASB feel better.

Nope. What will make me feel better is washing this habitual tendency to give a fuck about politics off tomorrow in the shower before work. It has consumed too much of my time, put me at odds with too many friends adn ultimately has been all for naught...unless the realization this sucker is really in bad shape can be considered a good expenditure of time.

[Joker]

Obama did promise no lobbyists in his admin. Just sayin'.

Pretty sure THAT lasted for less than a week after he was sworn in

[Mind Left Body]

I respect your opinions and you have every right to express them. Your delivery, however, is getting more and more abrasive. Not to PF levals yet, but on the way. FWIW.

Thank you for stating exactly what I said yesterday. Abrasive is the perfect word. The holier than thou stuff gets old fast.

[TEO]

Man some people read with voices in their heads.

[TakeAStepBack]

Pretty sure THAT lasted for less than a week after he was sworn in

But you wont hear any supporters complaining, or even bringing it up. it's all water under the bridge.

[MeOmYo]

Nope. What will make me feel better is washing this habitual tendency to give a fuck about politics off tomorrow in the shower before work. It has consumed too much of my time, put me at odds with too many friends adn ultimately has been all for naught...unless the realization this sucker is really in bad shape can be considered a good expenditure of time.

tell me it wouldn't make you feel good to go write in Daffy Duck?

[Joker]

But you wont hear any supporters complaining, or even bringing it up. it's all water under the bridge.

That's what I don't get.

Much of the argument is Romney would do bad things if he got in and we can't have that, meanwhile Obama IS doing bad things and they're just being ignored

[MeOmYo]

Yosemite Sam?

[MeOmYo]

Sam Bush

"I never exhaled"

[TEO]

Taz

[TakeAStepBack]

tell me it wouldn't make you feel good to go write in Daffy Duck?

You mean wait in line to ballot a prank I wont even get to see a reaction from?

[TakeAStepBack]

That's what I don't get.

Much of the argument is Romney would do bad things if he got in and we can't have that, meanwhile Obama IS doing bad things and they're just being ignored

If Romney wins, it'll go the other way in the same fashion. That's why i have to just walk away from it.

[MeOmYo]

ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY

[Joker]

I'm sure it will

[syd_25]

Seems the country is run by whos strings the lobbyists are pulling.

fixed

[TakeAStepBack]

We can say though, that romney has basically promised......wait, what is the promise of the week?

[TEO]

fixed

Perhaps, however I figure the lobbyists are not necessarily pushing for their own interests.

[Joker]

We can say though, that romney has basically promised......wait, what is the promise of the week?

Something something tax break for the rich something

[china cat]

[syd_25]

Perhaps, however I figure the lobbyists are not necessarily pushing for their own interests.

True dat.... I misinterpreted it.

[Jwheelz]

Well I voted, that's all I'm going to say... definitely not wading any deeper into that subject here

[elder]

Actually voting did make me feel better (in a small way)
I'm proud of my write in. I'm proud of my Governor.

This country needs leaders.

[TakeAStepBack]

Sure, just throw your vote away, elder.

[elder]

Sure, just throw your vote away, elder.

proud not to vote for either of the 2 turd sammiches

[SunshineDrummer]

proud not to vote for either of the 2 turd sammiches

So you voted for Giant Douche?

[elder]

They call him The Bully around here. I'm good with that.

[PeaceFrog]

that was in '92. I believe they changed that rule after Ross Perot

After Ross Perot, they changed the requirements for participating in the debates from 5% support in polls to 10%. Just now I Googled it and found they changed it again in 2000 to 15%.

However, the Federal Funding requirement remains at only 5%. This is the part that I was unaware of. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

In closing, your vote counts. So, just do it.

Write yourself in if you think you can do a better job.

[melissaphish]

Lesser of twoevils

[insolent cur]

Then perhaps you missed this answer to a question you asked? Or was it just that you didn't want to see it?



A simple question. Because I've seen this from my friends for months. The memes regarding romney, many of which are funny an sometimes true,. but is that same level of critique offered tot he incumbent? Not that i have seen.

Cur, we have a mutual friend (not on this board that i know of) that absolutely refused to admit that Obama lied even after I pointed out, in quotes, cite source, the lies! That is a frustrating thing, and I feel that it is common place whether llolberal or psuedo-con when it comes to their teams respectively.

did some campaign promises go unfulfilled? of course.

does the act to which you refer encompass the claims you make? no. that would be an overly broad reading of the law.

[TakeAStepBack]

On other notes:

http://www.npr.org/b...win?ft=1&f=1001

Since 1984, Guam has been conducting a non-binding presidential 'straw poll' on the same date as the presidential election. And each time since 1984, the Guam Straw Poll has correctly predicted who will be the next president.
"Because Guam votes so early and has a perfect track record in picking the winner, Guam is the new bellwether in presidential politics. Traditionally, those seeking an early indication of things to come on Election Day have looked to Dixville Notch, and a couple other tiny New Hampshire towns which vote just past midnight on Election Day and then proceed to count a handful of ballots. However, these early returns have had little predictive value historically.
"Guam, on the other hand, has predicted the presidential winner every time. In fact, the only time Guam arguably got it wrong it still predicted the ultimate winner. In 2000, Guam narrowly favored Bush over Gore. Of course, Bush lost the popular vote nationwide in 2000, but he still managed to become president."

[TakeAStepBack]

did some campaign promises go unfulfilled? of course.

does the act to which you refer encompass the claims you make? no. that would be an overly broad reading of the law.

http://rt.com/usa/ne...-ndaa-stay-414/

Last week, a federal judge ruled that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barring the White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizen behind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the US Justice Department asked for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction.
.......

A lawsuit against the administration was filed shortly thereafter on behalf of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and others, and Judge Forrest agreed with them in district court last week after months of debate. With the stay issued on Monday night, however, that justice’s decision has been destroyed.
With only Judge Lohier’s single ruling on Monday, the federal government has been once again granted the go ahead to imprison any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" until a poorly defined deadline described as merely “the end of the hostilities.” The ruling comes despite Judge Forrest's earlier decision that the NDAA fails to“pass constitutional muster” and that the legislation contained elements that had a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights”
Because alleged terrorists are so broadly defined as to include anyone with simple associations with enemy forces, some members of the press have feared that simply speaking with adversaries of the state can land them behind bars.
"First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away," Judge Forrest wrote last week. "This Court rejects the Government's suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention."
Bruce Afran, a co-counsel representing the plaintiffs in the case Hedges v Obama, said Monday that he suspects the White House has been relentless in this case because they are already employing the NDAA to imprison Americans, or plan to shortly.
http://www.gpo.gov/f...12hr1540enr.pdf
There are judges and lawyers that disagree. Either way, that right, as we've seen with every other infringement, can and most likely will be abused. You're playing word chess with me, brother. The question was which rights were taken away and this is another example of that. Even by appeals court the WH found it necessary to secure these provisions of the bill that have many questioning the motive. Whether you think the provisions are OK, or not, does not mean that they are not infringements Otherwise it's fair game all the way based arbitrarily on perspective...which is kind of the whole problem here.

[Geminimoon]

I've been seeing a lot of people say that on Facebook. I can't say I'm that surprised.

me either

It is just one of the small things that makes the experience memorable and fun.

[Geminimoon]

My voting sticker!

[insolent cur]

http://rt.com/usa/ne...-ndaa-stay-414/

Last week, a federal judge ruled that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barring the White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizen behind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the US Justice Department asked for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction.
.......

A lawsuit against the administration was filed shortly thereafter on behalf of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and others, and Judge Forrest agreed with them in district court last week after months of debate. With the stay issued on Monday night, however, that justice’s decision has been destroyed.
With only Judge Lohier’s single ruling on Monday, the federal government has been once again granted the go ahead to imprison any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" until a poorly defined deadline described as merely “the end of the hostilities.” The ruling comes despite Judge Forrest's earlier decision that the NDAA fails to“pass constitutional muster” and that the legislation contained elements that had a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights”
Because alleged terrorists are so broadly defined as to include anyone with simple associations with enemy forces, some members of the press have feared that simply speaking with adversaries of the state can land them behind bars.
"First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away," Judge Forrest wrote last week. "This Court rejects the Government's suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention."
Bruce Afran, a co-counsel representing the plaintiffs in the case Hedges v Obama, said Monday that he suspects the White House has been relentless in this case because they are already employing the NDAA to imprison Americans, or plan to shortly.
http://www.gpo.gov/f...12hr1540enr.pdf
There are judges and lawyers that disagree. Either way, that right, as we've seen with every other infringement, can and most likely will be abused. You're playing word chess with me, brother. The question was which rights were taken away and this is another example of that. Even by appeals court the WH found it necessary to secure these provisions of the bill that have many questioning the motive. Whether you think the provisions are OK, or not, does not mean that they are not infringements Otherwise it's fair game all the way based arbitrarily on perspective...which is kind of the whole problem here.

that is one whacked, fringe website (rt)!! yeah, i *may* disagree with their positions.

[TakeAStepBack]

Is the information whacked? Because I can give that over from several aves...

But really, it's kind of late int he game for old debates.