I'd prefer neither party have clear control of the legislative branch, then they would have to work together and couldn't push their own agenda through.
Fine and dandy when government action needs to be prevented, like the Iraq war, the Military Commissions Act, or telecom immunity. Not so great when action needs to be taken and the minority party is breaking all filibuster records.
Me too, especially when everybody started talking about the color of the president elect's skin. As such I am hereby starting a new internet meme, "DKDI" pronounced decay-dee-eye which stands for Dr. King's dream indeed.
You might start with a mirror. The point of King's dream wasn't that we'd have a complete change overnight. The election of Obama doesn't mean the U.S. has moved passed racial issues, anymore than Jackie Robinson getting on a white baseball team did.
There's a word these days for moderate Republicans: Democrats. If you're in the GOP and you aren't a big enough asshole, you'll find yourself primaried in the next election by Focus on the Family or the Club for Growth.
Are you usually this thick? McCain has had socialized medicine his entire life, and now he's complaining about how higher taxes on the rich (a sentiment he shared until he completely sold out to run for the presidency again) are "socialism".
So how does that differ from Obama's campaign? I'm not seeing the difference myself.
Because you aren't bothering to actually look.
Once again we see that absence of proof is seen as equivalent to proof of absence. It bothers me how some Obama supporters don't seem to care whether Obama (or his campaign) have done wrong, but are more concerned over whether it can be proven.
Translation: you can't explain how he's beholden to anyone, so you blather some more about proving negatives (an impossibility). Quick, prove to me that you don't have an invisible unicorn living in your backyard.
I'd like to introduce you to knowledge. www.opensecrets.org Welcome to enlightenment.
Congradufrikinlations. Now, enlightened one, why don't you go ahead and point out which page on opensecrets demonstrates how Obama is beholden to any one or anything, given the fact that he's raised hundreds of millions of dollars from an average contribution of less than $100.
But why, exactly, does Obama's win mean we're no longer a racist country? Why wasn't it Jackie Robinson making it onto a white man's baseball team? Why not the desegregation of the military? Why wasn't it Booker T. Washington's invitation to the White House? Why wasn't it the passage of the 14th Amendment? The Emancipation Proclamation?
Yes, because rapists wear uniforms to make their intentions clear, giving women more than enough time to dig a gun out of a purse, cock it and turn of the safety. Ditto for muggers./rolls eyes
Please, you're rationalizing his hypocrisy. If Ron Paul votes against resolutions commemorating the anniversary of genocide because there is no Constitutional basis for it, what exactly is his Constitutional basis for deciding when a clump of cells becomes a human? He could make a states rights argument, but then what is he doing introducing federal legislation then?
because the only oath a person takes when becoming a congressman or president is to uphold the constitution. Condemning bad things isn't in there, so he votes against it.
The declaration would have no force of law, so there is no reason to oppose it on Constitutional grounds. Which means Paul is still a tool.
1. A Constitutional mandate to maintain a balanced budget, to end deficit spending. 2. The establishment of a commodity currency, to end inflation. 3. Constitutional caps on overall tax rates as a percentage of an individual's income.
1 & 2: do you also drink Drano when you get indigestion? We got out of the Great Depression by massive deficit spending and imposing massive tax increases on the rich - your amendments would have kept us in it.
Getting out of this crisis would be similarity easy: bring back the 91% marginal tax rates, pass universal health care, and spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure. We'd have better health care, we wouldn't have to worry about bridges collapsing, and the middle class would actually have some money in it's pocket for a change.
Most coms are in the U.S. First come, first served and all that. Now if you find a violins.com that's based in Austria and send me their smallest violin, I promise to play you a lovely song...
I can't say whether he was elected based on skin color or not (and I certainly hope not), but I can say that exit polls showed 98% of black voters voted for Obama...now, I realize people like the guy, but that's a REALLY high percentage.
Southern Strategy. The GOP has stayed in power for the last few decades by taking advantage of the backlash to the civil rights movement - once the GOP stops demonizing minorities, they'll stop driving them into the Democratic Party.
Unprovoked threats, no matter who makes them, are unjustifiable. Would you care to specify which countries you're talking about?
His threats against Iran. Pay attention much?
Would you care to be specific about what you're talking about, and how it directly relates to the current Iranian leader's threats against Israel and the US?
He's made zero threats against the US or Israel. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The only thing he has promised is to retaliate if Iran is attacked, but don't let facts interfere with your wingnut religion.
And the point of mentioning Operation Ajax is the fact that Iran had a peaceful, stable, secular democracy - until it was destroyed by the United States. If you want to rant about Iran's theocracy, start with the nearest mirror.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd prefer neither party have clear control of the legislative branch, then they would have to work together and couldn't push their own agenda through.
Fine and dandy when government action needs to be prevented, like the Iraq war, the Military Commissions Act, or telecom immunity. Not so great when action needs to be taken and the minority party is breaking all filibuster records.
Which was put in motion during the Clinton years to prop up a failing housing market...
Liar.
The ENTIRE NATION is judging this man by the color of his skin.
[Citation needed]
Me too, especially when everybody started talking about the color of the president elect's skin. As such I am hereby starting a new internet meme, "DKDI" pronounced decay-dee-eye which stands for Dr. King's dream indeed.
You might start with a mirror. The point of King's dream wasn't that we'd have a complete change overnight. The election of Obama doesn't mean the U.S. has moved passed racial issues, anymore than Jackie Robinson getting on a white baseball team did.
I think he meant, look at us, we elected a man (or at least cheered him on) based on the colour of his skin.
[Citation needed], racist.
There's a word these days for moderate Republicans: Democrats. If you're in the GOP and you aren't a big enough asshole, you'll find yourself primaried in the next election by Focus on the Family or the Club for Growth.
Hypocrisy? How so?
Are you usually this thick? McCain has had socialized medicine his entire life, and now he's complaining about how higher taxes on the rich (a sentiment he shared until he completely sold out to run for the presidency again) are "socialism".
So how does that differ from Obama's campaign? I'm not seeing the difference myself.
Because you aren't bothering to actually look.
Once again we see that absence of proof is seen as equivalent to proof of absence. It bothers me how some Obama supporters don't seem to care whether Obama (or his campaign) have done wrong, but are more concerned over whether it can be proven.
Translation: you can't explain how he's beholden to anyone, so you blather some more about proving negatives (an impossibility). Quick, prove to me that you don't have an invisible unicorn living in your backyard.
I'd like to introduce you to knowledge. www.opensecrets.org Welcome to enlightenment.
Congradufrikinlations. Now, enlightened one, why don't you go ahead and point out which page on opensecrets demonstrates how Obama is beholden to any one or anything, given the fact that he's raised hundreds of millions of dollars from an average contribution of less than $100.
Typical hypocrite.
Pot, Kettle, Black. Typical wingnut lack of self awareness.
Please let me in on your version of history.
"My verison"? What are you, a "balance" fanboy?
But why, exactly, does Obama's win mean we're no longer a racist country? Why wasn't it Jackie Robinson making it onto a white man's baseball team? Why not the desegregation of the military? Why wasn't it Booker T. Washington's invitation to the White House? Why wasn't it the passage of the 14th Amendment? The Emancipation Proclamation?
Yes, because rapists wear uniforms to make their intentions clear, giving women more than enough time to dig a gun out of a purse, cock it and turn of the safety. Ditto for muggers. /rolls eyes
Please, you're rationalizing his hypocrisy. If Ron Paul votes against resolutions commemorating the anniversary of genocide because there is no Constitutional basis for it, what exactly is his Constitutional basis for deciding when a clump of cells becomes a human? He could make a states rights argument, but then what is he doing introducing federal legislation then?
because the only oath a person takes when becoming a congressman or president is to uphold the constitution. Condemning bad things isn't in there, so he votes against it.
The declaration would have no force of law, so there is no reason to oppose it on Constitutional grounds. Which means Paul is still a tool.
1. A Constitutional mandate to maintain a balanced budget, to end deficit spending.
2. The establishment of a commodity currency, to end inflation.
3. Constitutional caps on overall tax rates as a percentage of an individual's income.
1 & 2: do you also drink Drano when you get indigestion? We got out of the Great Depression by massive deficit spending and imposing massive tax increases on the rich - your amendments would have kept us in it.
Getting out of this crisis would be similarity easy: bring back the 91% marginal tax rates, pass universal health care, and spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure. We'd have better health care, we wouldn't have to worry about bridges collapsing, and the middle class would actually have some money in it's pocket for a change.
It disproves the belief that the US is a Racist country.
I thought that was already disproved when Teddy Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to the White House. /rolls eyes
D-Link is Shit. Buy Linksys.
Like drinking Coke because Pepsi has high fructose corn syrup in it.
Never said my world would end I am just wondering what change will mean
So am I. I'm wondering if you'll change, or continue being a concern troll.
Most coms are in the U.S. First come, first served and all that. Now if you find a violins.com that's based in Austria and send me their smallest violin, I promise to play you a lovely song...
I can't say whether he was elected based on skin color or not (and I certainly hope not), but I can say that exit polls showed 98% of black voters voted for Obama...now, I realize people like the guy, but that's a REALLY high percentage.
Southern Strategy. The GOP has stayed in power for the last few decades by taking advantage of the backlash to the civil rights movement - once the GOP stops demonizing minorities, they'll stop driving them into the Democratic Party.
The racists of America
Yea, how are you guys doing right now?
So, are you
1) a crazy racist
or
2) completely ignorant of history?
Obama used racial tension to divide and install anger
[Citation needed]
mobilizing the blacks to vote for him because he was black
[Citation needed]
and promised to give them free money
[Citation needed]
He consistently played the race card while McCain avoided the topic
[Citation needed]
Obama used past generations of racism to his advantage
[Citation needed]
And at his acceptance speech, he began to back-peddle on all of his promise
[Citation needed]
King would be appalled at Obama's actions. Obama has create a division that could tear this country apart.
[Citation needed]
Question: does that hood make it harder for you to type?
As usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint (and in this case, a highly racist wingnut) and you have reality.
Unprovoked threats, no matter who makes them, are unjustifiable. Would you care to specify which countries you're talking about?
His threats against Iran. Pay attention much?
Would you care to be specific about what you're talking about, and how it directly relates to the current Iranian leader's threats against Israel and the US?
He's made zero threats against the US or Israel. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The only thing he has promised is to retaliate if Iran is attacked, but don't let facts interfere with your wingnut religion.
And the point of mentioning Operation Ajax is the fact that Iran had a peaceful, stable, secular democracy - until it was destroyed by the United States. If you want to rant about Iran's theocracy, start with the nearest mirror.