chemvictim wrote:I just need to vent a little. I don't think I can tolerate looking at facebook until this election is over. I think reasonable disagreement about politics is fun and interesting, but most of the facebook stuff is just so far out there. Today I learned that Obama is a socialist because he cut medicare and medicaid, and if I watched Fox News daily I would know these things. I've managed to hide most of the perpetrators, but friends of friends are still getting through.

Just another of the many reasons why I don't do Facebook.

chemvictim wrote:I just need to vent a little. I don't think I can tolerate looking at facebook until this election is over. I think reasonable disagreement about politics is fun and interesting, but most of the facebook stuff is just so far out there. Today I learned that Obama is a socialist because he cut medicare and medicaid, and if I watched Fox News daily I would know these things. I've managed to hide most of the perpetrators, but friends of friends are still getting through.

But, chemvictim, my dear, Obama is a socialist.... perhaps more of a corporate socialist a la Mussolini, but a socialist nonetheless. You really need to read Stanley Kurz's Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. Solidly documented.

rpm wrote:But, chemvictim, my dear, Obama is a socialist.... perhaps more of a corporate socialist a la Mussolini, but a socialist nonetheless. You really need to read Stanley Kurz's Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. Solidly documented.

But is he a socialist because he cut medicare? That's the part I found really strange.

edit: I would think that a person who was concerned about socialism might be happy about scaling back medicare.

chemvictim wrote:But is he a socialist because he cut medicare? That's the part I found really strange.

edit: I would think that a person who was concerned about socialism might be happy about scaling back medicare.

Never said that, and think it's nuts - medicare is redistributive and so is bambicare. Medicare (even considered as a welfare program) would have been fine if it were really for indigent seniors, but in order to sell it, it had to be made available to all seniors. grrrrr.

rpm wrote:Never said that, and think it's nuts - medicare is redistributive and so is bambicare. Medicare (even considered as a welfare program) would have been fine if it were really for indigent seniors, but in order to sell it, it had to be made available to all seniors. grrrrr.

See, this is why it can be difficult to understand the conservative position, when conservatives (not you, the unwashed masses on facebook) scream about how obamacare=socialism but medicare is sacred. How is it even possible to love medicare but hate obamacare?

chemvictim wrote:See, this is why it can be difficult to understand the conservative position, when conservatives (not you, the unwashed masses on facebook) scream about how obamacare=socialism but medicare is sacred. How is it even possible to love medicare but hate obamacare?

From my perspective it's a matter of settled expectations: those who are retired or near retirement do not have any reasonable alternatives to medicare given the way health insurance is generally tied to employment. (let's not go into why the whole system evolved as f***ed up as it is because of government price controls during WWII....) So, you can't do away with medicare right away without real hardship, even if you oppose it in principle.

Obamacare, however, is not a settled expectation and people want to kill it before it multiplies and becomes the entrenched mess medicare has become.

I would be all for phasing medicare out for people under ~50-55 (not sure where to make the change....) and ultimately turning it into only a means tested program for the indigent elderly.

rpm wrote:
Obamacare, however, is not a settled expectation and people want to kill it before it multiplies and becomes the entrenched mess medicare has become.

Makes sense to me. However, voting for Romney would be against my own immediate interests, and I'm not feeling charitable enough to support funding a tax break for the rich out of my own pocket.

Blame federal employees, it's fun and profitable.

Okay now, this is just not cool.

Is this really what the 8th amendment requires? Really? The inmate is suffering 'mental anguish.' Bah.

chemvictim wrote:Okay now, this is just not cool.

Is this really what the 8th amendment requires? Really? The inmate is suffering 'mental anguish.' Bah.

You want to talk about not cool?

We seriously need to recall both judges.

chemvictim wrote:Okay now, this is just not cool.

Is this really what the 8th amendment requires? Really? The inmate is suffering 'mental anguish.' Bah.

Not in any sane world. When you vote for Democrats, you are voting for people who appoint and confirm judges who make rulings like that. You're voting for people who think things like that are just fine.

I'm not saying the 'pubbies aren't nuts as well, in different ways, but they ways they're nuts usually don't end up costing the taxpayers a bundle on stupid things (unless you think defense is stupid, in which case we have a different problem).

chemvictim wrote:Makes sense to me. However, voting for Romney would be against my own immediate interests, and I'm not feeling charitable enough to support funding a tax break for the rich out of my own pocket.

Blame federal employees, it's fun and profitable.

You obviously will, and should, make your own decision. Consider, however, that your immediate interest as you put it, and your medium-to-long-term interest may not be the same. Unless you're taking an Après moi le déluge approach, even as a federal employee, you should want the economy healthy enough that it will be able to support your work and your retirement without creating such resentment that it will be slashed to the bone. Moreover, in the area you do work, you should want a vibrant private economy brimming with creativity and innovation unhindered by excess regulations and taxes. The Democrats are all about more intrusive and larger government which by its nature crowds out the private economy and stifles innovation.

We all have battles we fight with the politicians we end up supporting: on the right, sensible people fight the impulses of social cons to legislate their traditional morality; on the left sensible people fight the impulses of the "progressives" to collectivism in the economy, replace civic institutions with government, and legislate their anti-traditional morality (which includes packing the bench with judges who do things such as the one you pointed out in the post above).

And, on both sides, sensible people have to fight the tendency of politicians on all sides to corruption and cronyism.

My perspective, often expressed here more or less clearly, is that (1) the smaller the government pie is, the fewer the opportunities for corruption and cronyism and the fewer incentives exist to expend resources 'buying' politicians and regulators, and (2) the chances of successfully keeping the social cons from doing serious harm in an administration/Congress based on a coalition of fiscal cons, neocons, classical liberals, and social cons are significantly greater than the chances of preventing "progressives" from doing serious harm in an administration/Congress based on the Democratic/"progressive" coalition.

Just sayin'

rpm wrote:Not in any sane world. When you vote for Democrats, you are voting for people who appoint and confirm judges who make rulings like that. You're voting for people who think things like that are just fine.

And Republicans give us judges like this one?

There are dumb judges all over the place. Some are appointed by Democrats, some are appointed by Republicans, and quite a few of them are elected. In fact, the Massachusetts judge in the case pointed to by chemvictim was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and the California judge pointed to by Sparky was appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, both Republicans if my memory serves me correctly. The Texas judge I mentioned was elected, in a district that is heavily Republican. Thankfully we have an appellate system, under which ridiculous decisions can get reversed.

coynedj wrote:And Republicans give us judges like this one?

There are dumb judges all over the place. Some are appointed by Democrats, some are appointed by Republicans, and quite a few of them are elected. In fact, the Massachusetts judge in the case pointed to by chemvictim was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and the California judge pointed to by Sparky was appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, both Republicans if my memory serves me correctly. The Texas judge I mentioned was elected, in a district that is heavily Republican. Thankfully we have an appellate system, under which ridiculous decisions can get reversed.

Your memory doesn't serve you correctly, as Arnold's second term was as an independent. Moreover, given the extraordinary number of low-level judges (about 1500) in California, and the influence of the Judicial Nominee Evaluation panel, it's pretty weak sauce to connect the trial judge with Arnold.

The same is true with federal district court judges, who especially before the Dems began borking, got almost no political scrutiny. Even today, many judges are appointed to district courts due to political patronage from home-state Senators, who exercise inordinate influence on the process.

Reagan, for what it's worth, appointed nearly 300 district court judges in his 8 years - an average of about one every 9.5 days. Just off the top of my head, among these judges was Obama SCOTUS short-lister Kimba Wood (thanks to NY's senators).

The big problem is with elected judges, though it's silly to compare an elected county judge in Texas blowing off his mouth about politics in general (for which the voters can punish him next election) or a stupid california judge in a high profile divorce case (who also is subject to reelection) to a life-tenured federal judge making a mockery of what the Constitution requires, about which nothing can be done except appeal.

As we have seen (Warren, Blackmun, Souter, Stevens, Roberts in the Obamacare cases), being appointed by a Republican is no guarantee that a judge will get it right. But it's very hard to find a Democratic appointee on the big stage who will.

Thank God that Obama's attempt to put Chairman Liu on the 9th was thwarted -- he'd even bring down that already low average.

coynedj wrote:And Republicans give us judges like this one?

There are dumb judges all over the place. Some are appointed by Democrats, some are appointed by Republicans, and quite a few of them are elected. In fact, the Massachusetts judge in the case pointed to by chemvictim was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and the California judge pointed to by Sparky was appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, both Republicans if my memory serves me correctly. The Texas judge I mentioned was elected, in a district that is heavily Republican. Thankfully we have an appellate system, under which ridiculous decisions can get reversed.

The problem is that while lower judges are appointed (and eventually voted on by us), the Federal Appellate Judges are usually appointed by the President and approved by Congress. So when you have Judges appointed there that believe in "legislating from the bench", instead of interpreting the law, you really get even more problems.


And I read the news release from her law firm. She was a "general business litigator with significant experience in both federal and state court disputes involving employment issues, unfair business practices, real estate and environmental issues.", which explains her incompetence in Family Law issues (She made a big boo-boo as well before in another custody case).

PetiteSirah wrote:Your memory doesn't serve you correctly, as Arnold's second term was as an independent. Moreover, given the extraordinary number of low-level judges (about 1500) in California, and the influence of the Judicial Nominee Evaluation panel, it's pretty weak sauce to connect the trial judge with Arnold.

According to that all-knowing source of accurate information, AKA Wikipedia, Schwarzenegger was nominated for his second term as governor by the Republican Party, having won 89.9% of the votes in the primary.

And my comment was in response to a claim that you get judges such as these when Democrats get elected and gain the power to nominate. Given that Reagan and Schwarzenegger nominated those two judges, the claim lacked supporting evidence.

rpm wrote:You obviously will, and should, make your own decision. Consider, however, that your immediate interest as you put it, and your medium-to-long-term interest may not be the same. Unless you're taking an Après moi le déluge approach, even as a federal employee, you should want the economy healthy enough that it will be able to support your work and your retirement without creating such resentment that it will be slashed to the bone. Moreover, in the area you do work, you should want a vibrant private economy brimming with creativity and innovation unhindered by excess regulations and taxes. The Democrats are all about more intrusive and larger government which by its nature crowds out the private economy and stifles innovation.

We all have battles we fight with the politicians we end up supporting: on the right, sensible people fight the impulses of social cons to legislate their traditional morality; on the left sensible people fight the impulses of the "progressives" to collectivism in the economy, replace civic institutions with government, and legislate their anti-traditional morality (which includes packing the bench with judges who do things such as the one you pointed out in the post above).

And, on both sides, sensible people have to fight the tendency of politicians on all sides to corruption and cronyism.

My perspective, often expressed here more or less clearly, is that (1) the smaller the government pie is, the fewer the opportunities for corruption and cronyism and the fewer incentives exist to expend resources 'buying' politicians and regulators, and (2) the chances of successfully keeping the social cons from doing serious harm in an administration/Congress based on a coalition of fiscal cons, neocons, classical liberals, and social cons are significantly greater than the chances of preventing "progressives" from doing serious harm in an administration/Congress based on the Democratic/"progressive" coalition.

Just sayin'

Yes, long-term is important too. My concerns about social issues are more long-term and don't have much impact on me personally since I don't want to be in a gay marriage or have an abortion, smoke pot, etc.

I agree with you that we need a vibrant private economy and that being resented by the public is no way to go. I'm not convinced that either side really has a handle on fixing the economy, but if you fix that you will also fix the resentment problem. One of the things that pisses me off is that R/R are intentionally fueling this resentment toward federal employees. R/R make this comparison of feds vs. private sector, which is very difficult to do in the first place. They conclude that federal employees are doing better than private employees. I don't think this is true across the board and I suspect that where it is true, it's because the job market isn't good right now. It's a temporary situation. I would argue that federal employees have long accepted lower salaries in return for security and stability. It's a trade off, one which looks more attractive right now since the economy sucks, but once things are back to normal again the public will find us as boring as ever.

I'm not excited about obamacare or anything else that adds layers and layers of paperwork. At the same time I have zero confidence in Romney. As bowtie said, at least with Obama you know you're getting 4 more years maximum. Then we can try again, and hope for stronger candidates.

MarkDaSpark wrote:The problem is that while lower judges are appointed (and eventually voted on by us), the Federal Appellate Judges are usually appointed by the President and approved by Congress. So when you have Judges appointed there that believe in "legislating from the bench", instead of interpreting the law, you really get even more problems.

"Legislating from the bench" is when you don't agree with the decision. Correct?

chemvictim wrote:"Legislating from the bench" is when you don't agree with the decision. Correct?

Wrong. So very, very wrong. Legislating from the bench is when the Judge(s) make new law(s) from the bench, instead of interpreting the law.

The Legislative branch makes laws and the Judicial is to interpret them based on the Constitution.

We've seen far too many Democratic appointed Judges legislate from the bench, instead of interpreting the law.

coynedj wrote:According to that all-knowing source of accurate information, AKA Wikipedia, Schwarzenegger was nominated for his second term as governor by the Republican Party, having won 89.9% of the votes in the primary.

And my comment was in response to a claim that you get judges such as these when Democrats get elected and gain the power to nominate. Given that Reagan and Schwarzenegger nominated those two judges, the claim lacked supporting evidence.

You can't really blame it on Schwarzenegger, since the CA legislature is Democratically controlled, and has been for way too long (which is why we are almost in bankruptcy). They have to approve all his appointments, plus, as PS pointed out, there are way too many for him to personally know.

MarkDaSpark wrote:So when you have Judges appointed there that believe in "legislating from the bench", instead of interpreting the law, you really get even more problems.

One person's "legislating from the bench" or "activist judge" is another's cautious jurist. Just sayin'.

coynedj wrote:According to that all-knowing source of accurate information, AKA Wikipedia, Schwarzenegger was nominated for his second term as governor by the Republican Party, having won 89.9% of the votes in the primary.

And my comment was in response to a claim that you get judges such as these when Democrats get elected and gain the power to nominate. Given that Reagan and Schwarzenegger nominated those two judges, the claim lacked supporting evidence.

There's are a few missing links in your chain of logic, but it's not really your fault for missing it.

The district courts (and trial courts generally) find/determine facts and apply law. They do not have the power to make law or establish binding interpretations of law on themselves or even their fellow trial court judges. This is unlike intermediate and ultimate appellate courts, which give substantial deference to factual determinations and zero deference to legal interpretation or application, and do have the power to establish binding legal norms for lower courts.

So it doesn't really make sense to point to decisions of trial court judges to show that Republican appointees "make" bad law when these judges aren't "making" law at all. And, as I alluded to in my prior post, this is why there's so much heat and noise about SCOTUS and even the appellate courts and nobody really cares all that much about district court appointees.

klezman wrote:One person's "legislating from the bench" or "activist judge" is another's cautious jurist. Just sayin'.

Reinhardt and Warren were NOBODY's cautious jurists.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Wrong. So very, very wrong. Legislating from the bench is when the Judge(s) make new law(s) from the bench, instead of interpreting the law.

The Legislative branch makes laws and the Judicial is to interpret them based on the Constitution.

We've seen far too many Democratic appointed Judges legislate from the bench, instead of interpreting the law.

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "interpreting" the law. Do you mean giving it a simple thumbs up versus thumbs down? Anything more complex than that is going to result in some sort of change. If a law is vague (I know this never happens, right?), are you saying the judge should just give it a thumbs down and not say that the law means x, y, or z?

PetiteSirah wrote:Reinhardt and Warren were NOBODY's cautious jurists.

All blanket statements are approximations

chemvictim wrote:"Legislating from the bench" is when you don't agree with the decision. Correct?

It's when you gin up a reason to require something that's not in the text or any reasonable interpretation of it (like it's cruel and unusual punishment to not pay for a sex change) or to ignore something that's clearly in there because it's inconvenient (9th Amendment, Contracts Clause).

Judicial passivism is just as much of a sin as judicial actvism. In a way, it's worse, because it's an abdication of the job as opposed to merely screwing it up.

PetiteSirah wrote:It's when you gin up a reason to require something that's not in the text or any reasonable interpretation of it (like it's cruel and unusual punishment to not pay for a sex change) or to ignore something that's clearly in there because it's inconvenient (9th Amendment, Contracts Clause).

Judicial passivism is just as much of a sin as judicial actvism. In a way, it's worse, because it's an abdication of the job as opposed to merely screwing it up.

That makes sense, thanks! However, I still think there's a fair amount of wiggle room in "reasonable interpretation."

chemvictim wrote:That makes sense, thanks! However, I still think there's a fair amount of wiggle room in "reasonable interpretation."

Oh, totally.

Not every bad decision is "judicial activism" (sex change) or "judicial passivism" (Roberts in Obamacare). Some are just understandably wrong or plausible but not the best interpretation (like the dissent in Ledbetter).

chemvictim wrote:Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "interpreting" the law. Do you mean giving it a simple thumbs up versus thumbs down? Anything more complex than that is going to result in some sort of change. If a law is vague (I know this never happens, right?), are you saying the judge should just give it a thumbs down and not say that the law means x, y, or z?

It doesn't really make sense to speak of it in abstractions without specific examples. Scalia's A Matter of Interpretation is a good start, as is his new book with Bryan Garner.

There are various canons of interpretations that judges and litigants use to help resolve ambiguities, and they don't always all point to the same conclusion.

But first, it's really a two-step process. First you have to INTERPRET the language, to determine what it means. Then you have to CONSTRUE it or APPLY it to the situation at hand. Mistakes are most often made in trying to do both in one step.

(If this sounds a lot like Markman and infringement/invalidity reads, you're not wrong.)

PetiteSirah wrote:There's are a few missing links in your chain of logic, but it's not really your fault for missing it.

The district courts (and trial courts generally) find/determine facts and apply law. They do not have the power to make law or establish binding interpretations of law on themselves or even their fellow trial court judges. This is unlike intermediate and ultimate appellate courts, which give substantial deference to factual determinations and zero deference to legal interpretation or application, and do have the power to establish binding legal norms for lower courts.

So it doesn't really make sense to point to decisions of trial court judges to show that Republican appointees "make" bad law when these judges aren't "making" law at all. And, as I alluded to in my prior post, this is why there's so much heat and noise about SCOTUS and even the appellate courts and nobody really cares all that much about district court appointees.

Wow – this got a long way from what I actually said. This will be my absolute last post on this – I’m not a fan of back-and-forth banter on interpretations of one another’s posts.

When one party says “bad decisions like these are what you get with Democrat-appointed judges”, and another party says “but those bad decisions were made by Republican-appointed judges”, that response is simply a means of disproving the initial statement.

I did not in any of my posts say that these decisions were the result of Republican policies or thinking; I merely pointed out that they were not the result of Democratic policies or thinking. The motives you keep arguing against were put there by you, not by me.

coynedj wrote: I merely pointed out that they were not the result of Democratic policies or thinking. The motives you keep arguing against were put there by you, not by me.

No, you tried to assert that. And my response was that simply because a trial judge is one of hundreds appointed by a Republican executive in a typical term does not mean that this trial judge's ruling is "not a result of Democratic policies or thinking", given (1) home-state Senatorial influence on the federal level and (2) similar state level politics and other influence-peddling on the state level, along with "non-partisan" judicial commissions.

Again, nobody would attribute "republican policies and thinking" to Earl Warren.

No love for slick Willie? I love that guy!

bhodilee wrote:No love for slick Willie? I love that guy!

Somehow, I don't think the majority of the contributors here are friends of the Democratic party.

I just got done watching former President Clinton's speech and I was blown away buy it. Ole Bill has still got it. I thought the appeal for partisan cooperation was well done and in general he told fewer lies than the Republicans did during their convention. A far more positive speech than anyone on the opposite side presented and actual answers, not just rhetoric too!

I had the opportunity to attend a speech then President Clinton gave on a US airbase in Korea in the '90s. I was quite close to the stage and I took some great photos of him. After the speech he came down the rope line and I shook his hand. The man has charisma on TV but seeing him in person you really feel it.

edlada wrote:Somehow, I don't think the majority of the contributors here are friends of the Democratic party.

I just got done watching former President Clinton's speech and I was blown away buy it. Ole Bill has still got it. I thought the appeal for partisan cooperation was well done and in general he told fewer lies than the Republicans did during their convention. A far more positive speech than anyone on the opposite side presented and actual answers, not just rhetoric too!

I had the opportunity to attend a speech then President Clinton gave on a US airbase in Korea in the '90s. I was quite close to the stage and I took some great photos of him. After the speech he came down the rope line and I shook his hand. The man has charisma on TV but seeing him in person you really feel it.

Yep, he's a pile of awesome. No doubt about it. That was the kindest rebuke of an entire party and philosophy I've ever heard. Excellent job. If Obama gets reelected, he owes Billy Boy a fruit basket.

Course, as good a public speaker as Obama is, he probably can't live up to that speech tonight. Though, he does speak after Biden, so a test pattern would probably seem great after that.

bhodilee wrote:Yep, he's a pile of awesome. No doubt about it. That was the kindest rebuke of an entire party and philosophy I've ever heard. Excellent job. If Obama gets reelected, he owes Billy Boy a fruit basket.

Course, as good a public speaker as Obama is, he probably can't live up to that speech tonight. Though, he does speak after Biden, so a test pattern would probably seem great after that.

Indeed, my first thought after hearing Bill, was that will be a real tough act to follow.

I live in a small town in western Poland and I am the only American in a large area. When I first moved here I was teaching English in a bigger town about 30 miles away and I was interviewed by several regional radio and TV stations about the 2008 presidential election. They wanted to know how an American (and I was the only one they could find) felt about Barrack Obama and the election in general. I basically told them I supported Obama and I thought he would win the election but there were two big problems he would face. The first problem was the huge mess that Obama faced after the failed, miserable policies of 8 years of one of the worst presidential administrations in the history of the country. The second problem, I said, was the problems were so big, the expectations were so high, and the opposition and dislike from the Republicans so strong that there was no way Obama could repair all of the damage in four years. Clinton pretty much said the same thing in his speech. Fortunately, I think the American public has the sense to see through the smoke and mirrors of the "Party of No" platform and Obama can have four more years to continue to undo the damage that occurred.

edlada wrote:Indeed, my first thought after hearing Bill, was that will be a real tough act to follow.

I live in a small town in western Poland and I am the only American in a large area. When I first moved here I was teaching English in a bigger town about 30 miles away and I was interviewed by several regional radio and TV stations about the 2008 presidential election. They wanted to know how an American (and I was the only one they could find) felt about Barrack Obama and the election in general. I basically told them I supported Obama and I thought he would win the election but there were two big problems he would face. The first problem was the huge mess that Obama faced after the failed, miserable policies of 8 years of one of the worst presidential administrations in the history of the country. The second problem, I said, was the problems were so big, the expectations were so high, and the opposition and dislike from the Republicans so strong that there was no way Obama could repair all of the damage in four years. Clinton pretty much said the same thing in his speech. Fortunately, I think the American public has the sense to see through the smoke and mirrors of the "Party of No" platform and Obama can have four more years to continue to undo the damage that occurred.

I'll get told I'm wrong, but I've always seen the presidency like football. We seem to do best when we have stability. Look at the Steelers, great team, have been for roughly ever. Three coaches over god knows how many years. Now look at Detroit, they suck almost always. Coach after coach, after coach, no stability. If Barack gets reelected (and I would be shocked if he didn't), I think things will start to turn around a little quicker than they have. Always seems to work that way. People, including those living, breathing organisms, corporations, will know what to expect and adapt to fit. Kind of like how when I was a freshman in college I did homework because I didn't know what to expect. Sophomore year I learned and did better and by Junior year I could have slept walked through the courses (and basically did).

Edit: the filter for homework, makes that sentence totally homework

bhodilee wrote:I'll get told I'm wrong, but I've always seen the presidency like football. We seem to do best when we have stability. Look at the Steelers, great team, have been for roughly ever. Three coaches over god knows how many years. Now look at Detroit, they suck almost always. Coach after coach, after coach, no stability. If Barack gets reelected (and I would be shocked if he didn't), I think things will start to turn around a little quicker than they have. Always seems to work that way. People, including those living, breathing organisms, corporations, will know what to expect and adapt to fit. Kind of like how when I was a freshman in college I did homework because I didn't know what to expect. Sophomore year I learned and did better and by Junior year I could have slept walked through the courses (and basically did).

Edit: the filter for homework, makes that sentence totally homework

Woot! filters. You gotta love that homework!

bhodilee wrote:No love for slick Willie? I love that guy!

I didn't see it. Maybe I can find it online somewhere and watch.

I got annoyed when they forced the change to the platform through, no way was there a 2/3 majority. The change didn't mean anything, but it still pissed me off they way they did it.

chemvictim wrote:I didn't see it. Maybe I can find it online somewhere and watch.

I got annoyed when they forced the change to the platform through, no way was there a 2/3 majority. The change didn't mean anything, but it still pissed me off they way they did it.

The Democrats, not playing by the rules? Not living up to their name?

I'm SHOCKED, just SHOCKED.

The boos at the announcement will write Republican TV and radio ads for years.

edlada wrote:Indeed, my first thought after hearing Bill, was that will be a real tough act to follow.

I live in a small town in western Poland and I am the only American in a large area. When I first moved here I was teaching English in a bigger town about 30 miles away and I was interviewed by several regional radio and TV stations about the 2008 presidential election. They wanted to know how an American (and I was the only one they could find) felt about Barrack Obama and the election in general. I basically told them I supported Obama and I thought he would win the election but there were two big problems he would face. The first problem was the huge mess that Obama faced after the failed, miserable policies of 8 years of one of the worst presidential administrations in the history of the country. The second problem, I said, was the problems were so big, the expectations were so high, and the opposition and dislike from the Republicans so strong that there was no way Obama could repair all of the damage in four years. Clinton pretty much said the same thing in his speech. Fortunately, I think the American public has the sense to see through the smoke and mirrors of the "Party of No" platform and Obama can have four more years to continue to undo the damage that occurred.

What you smoking there?

Except what Slick Willie failed to mention, is that he had a change in Congress midway during his 1st term. And by changing from his initial Far Left (Hilary Care, etc.) to a more middle of the road stance, he was able to work with the Republicans.

Unlike Obama, who stayed Far Left in his stance, failed to work with the Republicans, and will fail to get a 2nd term because of that.

Plus you know the missing items on the Dem Platform had to be due to him. Which is going to lose him the Pro-Israeli vote.


And I think there will be many who disagree with you about the "failed, miserable policies of 8 years of one of the worst presidential administrations in the history of the country". Especially with the failed, miserable policies of the current admin. How does that saying go? "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

New saying ... "It's a poor President who blames everyone else, year after year, instead of working to make it better." Obama hasn't been working to make it better, only worse.

And you know that Carter is going to be going on and thanking Obama for taking over the title of Worst President ever.

PetiteSirah wrote:The Democrats, not playing by the rules? Not living up to their name?

I'm SHOCKED, just SHOCKED.

The boos at the announcement will write Republican TV and radio ads for years.

That reads like Mad libs:

The _______, not playing by the ______? Not ______ up to their name?

I'm ______, just _______.

This is true of both parties. They both suck, just in different ways. One is a Hoover, the other a Dyson.