correct. that one. the law said it had to be done, congress is the only group who has the legal authority to delay it. The democrats would not budge saying they wont stop it, until the website launched and made them look like total idiots for wasting millions of dollars they changed their minds. the republicans at this point rightfully wanted to make them own it instead of trying to blame the republicans (which based on your responses clearly is working on the avg american voter)
and the abuses committed by obama and his NSA trump ANYTHING nixon did. and truthfully, if you look at what nixon did OTHER than his scandal, he wasnt the worst thing ever
But I have noticed a big difference in the reporting of the scandals. If the bum is Republican, the new story will almost certainly mention this, if the bum is a Democrat they news story usually does not consider party affiliation worth mentioning.
in the new book by the CBS reporter she actually goes into this. Granted its talking about analysts and not members of congress, but you can do the math
One of her bosses had a rule that conservative analysts must always be labeled conservatives, but liberal analysts were simply “analysts.” “And if a conservative analyst’s opinion really rubbed the supervisor the wrong way,” says Attkisson, “she might rewrite the script to label him a ‘right-wing’ analyst.”
you could say the same about blue states like NY where I live, we havent had a blue mayor or local councelmen in forever. yet because of albany and NYC we are a "hard blue" state.
if you want to be technical about the shutdown, it had to do with the individual mandate. the republicans knew the website was trash and wanted to delay the mandate by a year. the dems would not budge. so after the shutdown, they went ahead and did exactly what the republicans were asking for, a delay to the individual mandate.
the republicans suck there is no question, but this set of democrats make them look good by comparison
how can you even take this seriously? The republicans in the house passed a number of them.
The U.S. House passed seven of the 12 annual appropriations bills this year and sent them to the Senate for consideration, according to the status report by Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee also approved 11 of the 12 spending bills and sent them to the full Senate for consideration.
An independent search by PolitiFact via the Library of Congress’ Thomas bill-tracking web site confirmed the figures cited in the GOP report.
But none of the bills approved by the House or the Senate Appropriations Committee were ever brought to the Senate floor for a vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who decides which bills will be considered, told reporters on July 10, 2012, that no spending bills were likely to be approved this year because of an ongoing dispute with House Republicans over how much the federal government should spend.
If there's an opening and 1000 white guys apply and one black guy applies, does the latter get the job just because he's black?
to the politically correct crowd, if he doesnt get the job, the company is racist. even though in a pool of 1001, and with only 1 job opening, he has a 1 in 1001 chance of being the best.
exactly. Does anyone remember kids chemistry kits growing up? I had some AWESOME kits, I could melt coins in acid that came in mine, yes, acid was sold in chem kits that were marketed to 8 up and this was in the late 80s early 90s. i can only imagine how awesome chem kits were in the 60s
fair enough, I should have been more specific. Anything with pseudoephrine has been nehind the counter for yeards. Im talking about a lot of stores now have a blanket policy on any cold medicine regardless of ingredients
but I stand my my point regardless if you can make meth with it. How about instead of regulating things that could potentially be used to make bad things, we simply go after people who actually DO bad things. Stop inconveniencing the majority because of a very VERY small minority
the fact that I need to show an ID to buy nyquil because some people try to use it to make meth (which you cant do with nyquil anyway) is a fucking joke. stop with the bullshit cold.
as a historian, you should know better than to take things out of context
the reason it "must continue" is for the greater good of the nation at the time. you should know that compromise was needed to keep the country from falling apart . Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed. From the mid-1770s until his death, he advocated the same plan of gradual emancipation. First, the transatlantic slave trade would be abolished. Second, slaveowners would “improve” slavery’s most violent features, by bettering living conditions and moderating physical punishment. Third, all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free, followed by total abolition. The unintended effect of Jefferson’s plan was that his goal of “improving” slavery as a step towards ending it was used as an argument for its perpetuation. Pro-slavery advocates after Jefferson’s death argued that if slavery could be “improved,” abolition was unnecessary.
not really. as i said, no one is advocating killing anyone. however if the need should arise, the people have the right to do so. There is a big difference for being prepared for the worst and advocating for it.
as someone who claims to be a historian, I suggest you do a little more research into Jefferson and the other founding fathers because you clearly dont know what you are talking about
At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition. In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories. But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation. To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves.
and yes.. we all know he had slaves. doesnt change the laws he proposed and worked on to get it abolished
for someone who reads alot, you sure dont know shit about history.
Slashdot Mirror
you spelled democrat wrong
last time i was subjected to the democrats new round of peace and prosperity, I had to look for a new job
correct. that one. the law said it had to be done, congress is the only group who has the legal authority to delay it. The democrats would not budge saying they wont stop it, until the website launched and made them look like total idiots for wasting millions of dollars they changed their minds. the republicans at this point rightfully wanted to make them own it instead of trying to blame the republicans (which based on your responses clearly is working on the avg american voter)
Nixon was a Republican scandal
and the abuses committed by obama and his NSA trump ANYTHING nixon did. and truthfully, if you look at what nixon did OTHER than his scandal, he wasnt the worst thing ever
But I have noticed a big difference in the reporting of the scandals. If the bum is Republican, the new story will almost certainly mention this, if the bum is a Democrat they news story usually does not consider party affiliation worth mentioning.
in the new book by the CBS reporter she actually goes into this. Granted its talking about analysts and not members of congress, but you can do the math
One of her bosses had a rule that conservative analysts must always be labeled conservatives, but liberal analysts were simply “analysts.” “And if a conservative analyst’s opinion really rubbed the supervisor the wrong way,” says Attkisson, “she might rewrite the script to label him a ‘right-wing’ analyst.”
http://nypost.com/2014/10/25/f...
dont blame me, i voted kodos
all the more reason to vote for the man
you could say the same about blue states like NY where I live, we havent had a blue mayor or local councelmen in forever. yet because of albany and NYC we are a "hard blue" state.
if you want to be technical about the shutdown, it had to do with the individual mandate. the republicans knew the website was trash and wanted to delay the mandate by a year. the dems would not budge. so after the shutdown, they went ahead and did exactly what the republicans were asking for, a delay to the individual mandate.
the republicans suck there is no question, but this set of democrats make them look good by comparison
The U.S. House passed seven of the 12 annual appropriations bills this year and sent them to the Senate for consideration, according to the status report by Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee also approved 11 of the 12 spending bills and sent them to the full Senate for consideration. An independent search by PolitiFact via the Library of Congress’ Thomas bill-tracking web site confirmed the figures cited in the GOP report. But none of the bills approved by the House or the Senate Appropriations Committee were ever brought to the Senate floor for a vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who decides which bills will be considered, told reporters on July 10, 2012, that no spending bills were likely to be approved this year because of an ongoing dispute with House Republicans over how much the federal government should spend.
http://www.politifact.com/tenn...
but yes, lets blame the republicans in congress for harry reid not bringing votes to the floor in the senate....
you mean the government shutdown that was over delaying the individual mandate because the website was not ready.....
and the government shutdown where for the first time in history the president closed down open air monuments that dont have guards anyway???
The same government shutdown where the president allowed illegals to rally at the "closed" national mall???
the Same government shutdown that when lifted obama did the single thing he was asked to do to avoid said shutdown???
yeah, all the republicans fault though
VOTE OR DIE!!!
he has no legal authority to do alot of things, doesnt stop him or the previous president from doing them though
you mean the government shutdown that was over delaying the individual mandate because the website was not ready.....
and the government shutdown where for the first time in history the president closed down open air monuments that dont have guards anyway???
The same government shutdown where the president allowed illegals to rally at the "closed" national mall???
the Same government shutdown that when lifted obama did the single thing he was asked to do to avoid said shutdown???
yeah, all the republicans fault though
not all rpeublicans are saying that... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...
really??? now we think republicans are telling cops to execute black kids??? wtf is wrong with you?
heh, you know, i never thought about that argument before. Thanks!
If there's an opening and 1000 white guys apply and one black guy applies, does the latter get the job just because he's black?
to the politically correct crowd, if he doesnt get the job, the company is racist. even though in a pool of 1001, and with only 1 job opening, he has a 1 in 1001 chance of being the best.
exactly. Does anyone remember kids chemistry kits growing up? I had some AWESOME kits, I could melt coins in acid that came in mine, yes, acid was sold in chem kits that were marketed to 8 up and this was in the late 80s early 90s. i can only imagine how awesome chem kits were in the 60s
fair enough, I should have been more specific. Anything with pseudoephrine has been nehind the counter for yeards. Im talking about a lot of stores now have a blanket policy on any cold medicine regardless of ingredients
but I stand my my point regardless if you can make meth with it. How about instead of regulating things that could potentially be used to make bad things, we simply go after people who actually DO bad things. Stop inconveniencing the majority because of a very VERY small minority
bring back borg gates
the fact that I need to show an ID to buy nyquil because some people try to use it to make meth (which you cant do with nyquil anyway) is a fucking joke. stop with the bullshit cold.
as a historian, you should know better than to take things out of context
the reason it "must continue" is for the greater good of the nation at the time. you should know that compromise was needed to keep the country from falling apart . Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed. From the mid-1770s until his death, he advocated the same plan of gradual emancipation. First, the transatlantic slave trade would be abolished. Second, slaveowners would “improve” slavery’s most violent features, by bettering living conditions and moderating physical punishment. Third, all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free, followed by total abolition. The unintended effect of Jefferson’s plan was that his goal of “improving” slavery as a step towards ending it was used as an argument for its perpetuation. Pro-slavery advocates after Jefferson’s death argued that if slavery could be “improved,” abolition was unnecessary.
not really. as i said, no one is advocating killing anyone. however if the need should arise, the people have the right to do so. There is a big difference for being prepared for the worst and advocating for it.
as someone who claims to be a historian, I suggest you do a little more research into Jefferson and the other founding fathers because you clearly dont know what you are talking about
At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition. In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories. But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation. To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves.
and yes.. we all know he had slaves. doesnt change the laws he proposed and worked on to get it abolished
for someone who reads alot, you sure dont know shit about history.