And of course only places like the Washington Times would report it. The Major national papers are just a unofficial wing of the Democratic party and wothey sork to suppress embarrassing things like this.
Would you count Tom Steyer and George Soros in that crowd or do you only have a problem with people that help to get Republicans elected? Who is really being obtuse here?
The voting system isn't set by the Constitution, the electoral system is. The voting system used to determine electoral votes is entirely left up to the States.
Are you familiar with something called the Secretary of State Project? No, it wasn't created by Republicans. And seriously, how does gerrymandering affect Senate and gubernatorial races?
Why didn't Democrats show up to vote? Low turnout always causes someone to lose an election. Duh. That's pretty much the stupidest theory on election results I've heard.
Not if he were to use his newly discovered executive authority to stop it. It's all being perpetrated by agencies he controls. None of the previous presidents have the power to stop it. Only he does. I take it you voted for him twice. It's your fault.
I've got an idea. How about we get President Obama to take away Obama's surveillance state. Is it to difficult to actually blame the guy in charge? Or does that just make you a racist?
The problem here is that you just no true Scotsmanned away over half the people with your ideological alignment.
Besides which, the data on libertarian voting isn't very ambiguous. Self identified libertarians vote for republican candidates at about the same rate as self identifed republicans. 75% vs 80%.
Yes, because Republicans and Libertarians are far more liberal than the authoritarian socialists people call Democrats these days. Naturally they would align.
I thought millions of people didn't have access to health care before the PPACA. That's why we passed it, right? Oh, I see. You and all the others that supported it lied about that too. Got it.
I see a lot of him caving to corporations and Wall Street, but I don't see any mention by you of him caving to the demands of conservatives. I think they were really out of the picture until now. Barack just like making deals for corporations that cozy up to him and his agenda. Goldman Sachs, Solyndra, Google, Health Insurance companies, and many more. And soon we will be able to add Comcast to that list.
When an executive delegates, they are still responsible for the work of the delegates. The President is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the executive branch. As is the next President and all Presidents that came before them. If you want to change this, fine. Then surely George Bush is not responsible for all the things you and Barack Obama blame him for.
Hah. You're suddenly out of factual rebuttals and have to resort to attacking Fox News. Facts really get in the way of your understanding of the world, don't they?
No, you're being silly. Republicans passed many bills that funded the Federal government. The Democratic Senate refused. You are the one being deliberately disingenuous. And still to be precise, it was the executive branch that actually shut down various functions.
No, he's not personally responsible. He's supposed to be ultimately responsible. But in the future as in the present, we no longer will hold Presidents responsible for the execution of the Federal Government. Right? Good.
It doesn't have to be legislated. In our new era of all-powerful Presidents who can rule by executive order, all the next President has to do is order the FCC to reverse itself.
No, they've got more than 2 years. At least 8 or more if they don't pass a steaming pile of horseshit like the PPACA. Much more if they successfully repeal it and pass meaningful reforms.
Actually, that's Steven Rosenfeld's response. But I do like the fact that at times he seems to be able to distinguish between Progressivism and liberalism. Jonathan Martin, not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy shit. You are deliberately obtuse, Colonel Klink.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-16-secretary-state-democrats_x.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_Project
http://ballotpedia.org/Secretary_of_State_Project
And of course only places like the Washington Times would report it. The Major national papers are just a unofficial wing of the Democratic party and wothey sork to suppress embarrassing things like this.
Would you count Tom Steyer and George Soros in that crowd or do you only have a problem with people that help to get Republicans elected? Who is really being obtuse here?
The voting system isn't set by the Constitution, the electoral system is. The voting system used to determine electoral votes is entirely left up to the States.
Are you familiar with something called the Secretary of State Project? No, it wasn't created by Republicans. And seriously, how does gerrymandering affect Senate and gubernatorial races?
Why didn't Democrats show up to vote? Low turnout always causes someone to lose an election. Duh. That's pretty much the stupidest theory on election results I've heard.
Clearly the lesson is that if you like income inequality, vote Democrat and choose to live in a place governed by Democrats.
I don't know why you would think that. That's a pretty irrational argument actually. And quite silly.
Not if he were to use his newly discovered executive authority to stop it. It's all being perpetrated by agencies he controls. None of the previous presidents have the power to stop it. Only he does. I take it you voted for him twice. It's your fault.
So what you're saying is that Amazon and Seattle are Republican bastions that hate women? You don't really think much, do you?
No, Title IX
I've got an idea. How about we get President Obama to take away Obama's surveillance state. Is it to difficult to actually blame the guy in charge? Or does that just make you a racist?
The problem here is that you just no true Scotsmanned away over half the people with your ideological alignment.
Besides which, the data on libertarian voting isn't very ambiguous. Self identified libertarians vote for republican candidates at about the same rate as self identifed republicans. 75% vs 80%.
Yes, because Republicans and Libertarians are far more liberal than the authoritarian socialists people call Democrats these days. Naturally they would align.
And these are conservative things....why exactly? Fascist socialists always cuddle up to big business. The free market is their nemesis.
I thought millions of people didn't have access to health care before the PPACA. That's why we passed it, right? Oh, I see. You and all the others that supported it lied about that too. Got it.
I see a lot of him caving to corporations and Wall Street, but I don't see any mention by you of him caving to the demands of conservatives. I think they were really out of the picture until now. Barack just like making deals for corporations that cozy up to him and his agenda. Goldman Sachs, Solyndra, Google, Health Insurance companies, and many more. And soon we will be able to add Comcast to that list.
When an executive delegates, they are still responsible for the work of the delegates. The President is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the executive branch. As is the next President and all Presidents that came before them. If you want to change this, fine. Then surely George Bush is not responsible for all the things you and Barack Obama blame him for.
Hah. You're suddenly out of factual rebuttals and have to resort to attacking Fox News. Facts really get in the way of your understanding of the world, don't they?
No, you're being silly. Republicans passed many bills that funded the Federal government. The Democratic Senate refused. You are the one being deliberately disingenuous. And still to be precise, it was the executive branch that actually shut down various functions.
Explain precisely how Republicans shut down the government. Wouldn't that be something the executive branch does?
No, he's not personally responsible. He's supposed to be ultimately responsible. But in the future as in the present, we no longer will hold Presidents responsible for the execution of the Federal Government. Right? Good.
What makes you think this would survive a veto? Unlike the executive branch, the legislative branch cannot rule by decree.
It doesn't have to be legislated. In our new era of all-powerful Presidents who can rule by executive order, all the next President has to do is order the FCC to reverse itself.
No, they've got more than 2 years. At least 8 or more if they don't pass a steaming pile of horseshit like the PPACA. Much more if they successfully repeal it and pass meaningful reforms.
I think we agree on much more than was apparent at first.
Actually, that's Steven Rosenfeld's response. But I do like the fact that at times he seems to be able to distinguish between Progressivism and liberalism. Jonathan Martin, not so much.