As disappointed as I am with Obama, you can't blame him exclusively for his inability to accomplish much.
The Republicans went absolutely nuts with the filibuster when the Dems had a majority in both houses. They'd filibuster basically/anything/ just to prevent Obama getting his way with things, and would continually negotiate in bad faith as a delaying tactic.
Obama's big failings are leadership and communication. He absolutely would not get out there day after day and give it to us straight about why he couldn't get things done. He left that wide open to the Republicans, and they took full advantage.
The teabaggers were never a populist movement. They may have had roots in the Ron Paul supporters, but that was before they took the "tea party" name, which came after the professional politicals like Glenn Beck hijacked the movement.
They also aren't exactly peaceful - what do you call bringing semi-automatic rifles to protests, even if they don't fire them?
Teabaggers weren't originally part of the mainstream Republican party, but for all intents and purposes they are now.
Yeah, well. One doesn't tend to think "you know, why should I say this?" when everybody else says it every day during your formative years, especially when elementary and middle school history texts gloss over things.
I still remember all the lemming-like panic from my fellow gun owners when Obama was elected. Instant large-scale panic buying of guns and ammunition, and prices went up like mad.
As it turned out, Obama was secretly a moderate Republican this whole time and he never did anything about gun rights.
Which is cute, since the Republicans have suddenly discovered black men since Obama got elected. First there was Steele (a token black man if there ever was one, and disposed of at the first decent opportunity) and now there's this guy.
It's not like the 10th is special in that regard - the 4th is regularly ignored as well, for instance.
Still, the Civil War resolved the question of whether the states or the federal government was supreme. It's another case of unintended consequences from rash actions.
If it's true, it's a stupid way to do it. It's better to show that he's a clueless prick by pointing out:
1) he's a homophobe 2) he's bigoted against Muslims 3) he's clueless about what's going on with the Wall Street protests and said that if those dirty hippies aren't employed, it's their fault.
Slashdot Mirror
...because clearly all Muslims, even those who have lived here all their lives, are terrorists.
Forget abortion, you're a poster child for genocide.
As disappointed as I am with Obama, you can't blame him exclusively for his inability to accomplish much.
The Republicans went absolutely nuts with the filibuster when the Dems had a majority in both houses. They'd filibuster basically /anything/ just to prevent Obama getting his way with things, and would continually negotiate in bad faith as a delaying tactic.
Obama's big failings are leadership and communication. He absolutely would not get out there day after day and give it to us straight about why he couldn't get things done. He left that wide open to the Republicans, and they took full advantage.
The teabaggers were never a populist movement. They may have had roots in the Ron Paul supporters, but that was before they took the "tea party" name, which came after the professional politicals like Glenn Beck hijacked the movement.
They also aren't exactly peaceful - what do you call bringing semi-automatic rifles to protests, even if they don't fire them?
Teabaggers weren't originally part of the mainstream Republican party, but for all intents and purposes they are now.
None of those three were elected, just selected and confirmed.
Put it to the base and we'll see.
I give this troll 3/10, mostly for effort.
Oh, I know /why/. Bigotry isn't a good reason, though.
As has been observed by others, the teabaggers are mad at the wrong people. These folks aren't.
The Right's been wanting to get rid of common-law for a while now; remember all the noise about judicial activism?
The middle class was never "meant" to be anything. It's simply an emergent phenomenon.
Since you've got no counter-arguments, what's your point again?
Firewire failed because Apple wanted to collect royalties for every device. If they'd dropped that notion we'd be using Firewire instead of USB now.
Yeah, well. One doesn't tend to think "you know, why should I say this?" when everybody else says it every day during your formative years, especially when elementary and middle school history texts gloss over things.
I still remember all the lemming-like panic from my fellow gun owners when Obama was elected. Instant large-scale panic buying of guns and ammunition, and prices went up like mad.
As it turned out, Obama was secretly a moderate Republican this whole time and he never did anything about gun rights.
Which is cute, since the Republicans have suddenly discovered black men since Obama got elected. First there was Steele (a token black man if there ever was one, and disposed of at the first decent opportunity) and now there's this guy.
It's not like the 10th is special in that regard - the 4th is regularly ignored as well, for instance.
Still, the Civil War resolved the question of whether the states or the federal government was supreme. It's another case of unintended consequences from rash actions.
Homophobia, Islamophobia, and blatantly favoring the rich, for starters.
The question of States' Rights was resolved by the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
The difference, since you're being obtuse for rhetorical reasons, is one group being singled out for the treatment.
Starting around middle school I stopped saying "under god".
Ah, someone modded me flamebait. Let me back up those assertions:
1) http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/herman-cain-asks-for-the-science-behind-believing-being-gay-is-not-a-choice
2) http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/herman-cain-doubles-down-on-his-muslim-loyalty-oath-idea/
3) http://news.yahoo.com/cain-wall-street-protesters-blame-yourself-joblessness-031405246.html
Oh look, a talking-point spouter. I'm sure this will be an intelligent conversation that I won't bother having with you.
He's also possibly the only person who was ever naturalized by vote of the Congress. I'm /sure/ that was on the up-and-up.
Cain does. He thinks Muslims should have to take loyalty oaths.
Cite for those racially-motivated attacks?
If it's true, it's a stupid way to do it. It's better to show that he's a clueless prick by pointing out:
1) he's a homophobe
2) he's bigoted against Muslims
3) he's clueless about what's going on with the Wall Street protests and said that if those dirty hippies aren't employed, it's their fault.
There are plenty of /good/ reasons to slag Cain.
I know of at least one person who will "like" politicians on Facebook for the sole purpose of flaming them.
But he's killed over two hundred people, some of whom were probably even guilty. How can that man /not/ be a good President? /sarcasm