Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- ukit0
AHAHA...oh yeah NOW you guys are all worked up over it
Which political party do you think is in favor of this and which is against?
That's not being partisan, it's just a fucking fact. Now maybe you understand why some of us have pushed so hard for the Democratic party to be in power, because as much of a shadow of their former self it may be, at least it doesn't make fucking over the middle class an ideological platform.
- Get him, Tommy... With the same fervor you normally reserve for me. Fucking bubblehead.DrBombay
- He's actually saying something. I disagree with it. But he's not running around the tread like a fucking moron whose team won.mathinc
- Your vision is blurredDrBombay
- You said you only spend 20 minutes a day here.mathinc
- You sure do monitor me a lot. Creepy little bitch.DrBombay
- You sure do cry a lot about how you can't get ahead because of the elitists while you sit on a message board all day.mathinc
- I might track down your boss. Let him know what you do all day then I'm going to tell him he doesn't pay you enough for it.mathinc
- :Dmathinc
- version30
only whigs love america
- CALLES0
Democrats propose $1.9T increase in debt limit
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100…
will this affect the McDonalds Dollar Menu?
- This message brought to you by:
Kentucky Fried Chickenukit
- This message brought to you by:
- twokids0
One voice in favor of Obama. He is doing a great job. The issues are so huge, so complex and he needs to deal with total obstructionist opposition party who want him to fail and unrealistic liberals who think you can just snap your fingers and solve poroblems.
I am so tired of hearing criticism of him from both sides.
- DrBombay0
Check the comments on Foxnews.comhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/…
Some real fucking patriots there.
- GeorgesII0
just pull out of irak and you'll have enough cash to finance whatever you want,
101 math- or english and geography 101version3
- we do not all speak english here, do you speak french or italian or korean ? I didn't think soGeorgesII
- hahah v3. George, is Iraq spelled differently in those places then?mathinc
- irak = iraq no matter what country you're fromversion3
- eye rackPonyBoy
- your ignorance never seize to amaze me, suck we can't all speak "american"
http://fr.wikipedia.…GeorgesII - I bet you think everyone speaks english or use the same word everywhere. fmlGeorgesII
- BattleAxe0
lets start by sending the Supreme Court a message , by reforming the Justice Election process
we elect most of our local and state judges , why not these asshats
- fooler20
"I THINK THAT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD HAVE TO WEAR ALL THEIR CORPORATE SPONSORS ON THEIR JACKETS (like stock cars)SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW WHO THEY are working for."
Actually, that isn't a bad idea.
- they would have to wear coattails that dragged behind themversion3
- hahah I like this ideamathinc
- lol @ versionEightyDeuce
- ********0
Maybe Obama has finally decided that it's impossible to be bipartisan - and that the far-right will never be satisfied.
So - rather than pander to the right and end up with moderate policies that achieve nothing - perhaps he's finally grown some balls and is doing what he truly considers is the right thing?
- PonyBoy0
^^he was the most liberal voter in the senate during his short stay... and since he's taken office... he's allowed the gov to come under financial control of more than one industry...
... everything about him is non-bipartisan.
What you call 'the right thing' is the absolute 'wrong thing' to many of us...
... gov has no business being this size (this includes the military).
- lowimpakt0
you can't be bi-partisan when the other side are obscurant assholes.
- <EightyDeuce
- um... the left up until a couple of days ago could do whatever they wanted... and didn't... but the american people wouldn't let them.PonyBoy
- them.PonyBoy
- No they couldn't they needed their super majority to do ANYTHING.DrBombay
- lowimpakt0
how do you determine the appropriate size of government?
is there a scale, an algorithm, a benchmark or a even graph?
- when they're in control or hold the majority of debt... they've gone too far.PonyBoy
- let the company die... there's a reason it's not making money - you can prop it up all you want... but the consumers...PonyBoy
- ... make the decision in the end by choosing to purchase or not.PonyBoy
- just like our govt!johndiggity
- ukit0
Yea, we're fed up with this shit so let's take it all out on the guy who has been in there for 12 months, take our country back, and...elect Republicans so that the EXACT SAME GUYS WHO WERE RUNNING CONGRESS AND THE SENATE UNDER BUSH can be passing laws again.
Yeah, if Repubs take Congress literally the same two guys who presided over the Republican Congress of the 2000s will be back in power (McConnell & Boehner). AKA the Congress that spent more and wasted more money than any Congress in history.
"President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term. Even if Congress passes Bush’s new budget exactly as proposed, not a single cabinet-level agency will be smaller than when Bush assumed office."
That's from an article by the Cato Institute from 2005, when Republicans controlled the WH, House and Senate.
- can't trust the cato inst. biased.johndiggity
- Yeah it is a think tank for fiscal conservatives... So not liberally biased.DrBombay
- ukit0
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," said President Obama in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans... That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."
- PonyBoy0
This Hitler getting pissed video thing has been run into the ground...
- ukit0
"Today's decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, serves as an affirmation of the constitutional rights provided to Americans under the first amendment," said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele in a statement.
- DrBombay0
Scott Brown's wife: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20… haha
- hahaha! saw this earlier...
'she's a girl w/ a curious hand!'
... good shit. :)PonyBoy
- hahaha! saw this earlier...
- DrBombay0
Constitutional Law
Free speech; elections
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Although the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," §441b's prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy-it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people-political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest." WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.
08-205 Citizens United v. FEC
Kennedy, J.; Roberts, C.J., concurring; Scalia, J., concurring; Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part; Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.- How are the concurring justices, not being "activist judges"?DrBombay
- ********0
Q: how do you determine the appropriate size of government?
Typical A of clueless Koolaid Drinking Rightwinger, as demonstrated here by PonyBoy: "when they're in control or hold the majority of debt... they've gone too far."
Seriously, please tell me where in history governments don't run at a net debt ratio? Governments issue money. They are the last backstop. From the "coin of the realm" to the modern Fed backed monetary system. You guys just don't understand how these things scale and how money works on a macro level. You think that economies work like Joe Schmoo's corner store. It just doesn't work that way. Ever.
Sure limited expenditures by government are an ideal, and a good thing to shoot for, but governments don't actually run that way. Ever.
And if they do it means that thay are a) small and unable to respond to the needs that the vaulted "free market" doesn't nor can address and b) tend to be highly, highly criminally corrupt since the cop/lawyer/judge is not earning a living wage and thus can be bought off and paid to look the other way.
You guys live in a fucking fantasy world. You really, really do. You don't understand the first principles of how government works and how it has always worked.
Of course, then you say "Well government in principle is the problem! We don't need it!"
Great. Ask the Haitians how they're tiny, underfunded and corrupt government are dealing with not only a gigantic natural disaster but with the results of lack of even minimal building code enforcement.
- BonSeff0
Power to the CEOple™
- bonseff, buy the domain, its going to be worth a 1000GeorgesII
- proud owner of ceople.comBonSeff
- you did it you rock!!!GeorgesII