In completely other news, Obama made some comment about the Supreme Court not overturning the Healthcare reform that Congress passed because they aren't elected officials. Uh..... scary, scary, comment, IMO. I'm paraphrasing the comment, obviously, but anything remotely close to the comment or its message is pretty damn concerning.

kylemittskus wrote:In completely other news, Obama made some comment about the Supreme Court not overturning the Healthcare reform that Congress passed because they aren't elected officials. Uh..... scary, scary, comment, IMO. I'm paraphrasing the comment, obviously, but anything remotely close to the comment or its message is pretty damn concerning.

Know Thomas Sowell?
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/04/04/political_word_games

kylemittskus wrote:In completely other news, Obama made some comment about the Supreme Court not overturning the Healthcare reform that Congress passed because they aren't elected officials. Uh..... scary, scary, comment, IMO. I'm paraphrasing the comment, obviously, but anything remotely close to the comment or its message is pretty damn concerning.

The really scary part was his claim about "“overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”"

Really? IIRC, every Republican voted against it, and they had to "bribe" or threaten at least two Democratic Senators (Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson and Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu come quickly to mind).

Just imagine if he gets 4 more years to stack SCOTUS with his left-leaning appointees.

MarkDaSpark wrote:The really scary part was his claim about "“overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”"

To me, that comes off as a dig against the SC justices who are not elected but appointed, as if that's a problem or makes their decisions less important or valid or I have no idea or what else, but yikes.

kylemittskus wrote:All your points are valid except for this one. My point was that Z wouldn't have needed protection if he hadn't pursued M in the first place. And of course police can't protect us all the time. Nowhere did I even allude to anything remotely saying so. But putting yourself in situations (let's assume that Z thought M was one of the robbers) is a terrible idea! He did the exact opposite of trying to avoid any confrontation. Like I said, I haven't judged innocent or guilty. I'm just arguing the other side of the coin as you are. And I think doing so is bringing out interesting points and ways to look at the situation.

Umm, yes you did. Right there in the middle of your post that I quoted.

And I don't for a second buy the "police can't always protect us" argument.

Or did you mean another "police can't always protect us" argument?

George Zimmerman has a website, if anyone cares.

chemvictim wrote:George Zimmerman has a website, if anyone cares.

Operative phrase....

While I often disagree strongly with Rick Santorum’s politics, I wish his family and especially his daughter only the best as they deal with young Bella’s health issues.

coynedj wrote:While I often disagree strongly with Rick Santorum’s politics, I wish his family and especially his daughter only the best as they deal with young Bella’s health issues.

*distasteful joke deleted*

Upon reading what the girl is afflicted with I realize I was a total a-hole and should not have made a joke. Hopefully, she is doing much better since he's hitting the campaign trail again.

you did the right thing

rpm wrote:No, you shouldn't.

I can't stand Santorum as a politician, but I sure don't wish his family ill and I sure wouldn't joke about it.

YOu're right, cheap shot. I'm better than the late night talk host set. I'll edit it out of mine if you'll edit your reply to me

bhodilee wrote:YOu're right, cheap shot. I'm better than the late night talk host set. I'll edit it out of mine if you'll edit your reply to me

ok done

rpm wrote:you did the right thing

Just call me Spike Lee!

bhodilee wrote:Just call me Spike Lee!

No, you're not tweeting George Zimmerman's home address.

FULL CIRCLE TIE-IN!!!

PetiteSirah wrote:No, you're not tweeting George Zimmerman's home address.

FULL CIRCLE TIE-IN!!!

BAM!

Well, now we're down to it. Obama vs Romney. What does Romney have to do? What does a winning strategy look like?

I can't believe I typed that with a straight face. He has no chance at all. Guess we'll see if everyone's fears of an unchained Obama get realized in the next 4 years.

Say after me:

привет -privet- hello
до свидания - do svidaniya - goodbye
вино - vino - wine
коммунизм является удивительным - kommunizm yavlyaet·sya udivitelʹnym - communism is awesome.

I fertilizer you not, that last one as heard through google translate sounds exactly like a record playing backwards.

bhodilee wrote:Well, now we're down to it. Obama vs Romney. What does Romney have to do? What does a winning strategy look like?

I can't believe I typed that with a straight face. He has no chance at all. Guess we'll see if everyone's fears of an unchained Obama get realized in the next 4 years.

Say after me:

привет -privet- hello
до свидания - do svidaniya - goodbye
вино - vino - wine
коммунизм является удивительным - kommunizm yavlyaet·sya udivitelʹnym - communism is awesome.

I fertilizer you not, that last one as heard through google translate sounds exactly like a record playing backwards.

Except that google translate is somewhat what, the sentence actually means literally translated: communism is surprising

bhodilee wrote:Well, now we're down to it. Obama vs Romney. What does Romney have to do? What does a winning strategy look like?

I can't believe I typed that with a straight face. He has no chance at all. Guess we'll see if everyone's fears of an unchained Obama get realized in the next 4 years.

Say after me:

привет -privet- hello
до свидания - do svidaniya - goodbye
вино - vino - wine
коммунизм является удивительным - kommunizm yavlyaet·sya udivitelʹnym - communism is awesome.

I fertilizer you not, that last one as heard through google translate sounds exactly like a record playing backwards.

Talk about an imperial presidency... you'll never have imagined that the EPA had so much power.

However, between the media believing its own hype about Obama's reelection chances and the need to play electoral math, I'm slightly cautiously optimistic.

I don't see Obama winning Florida or Pennsylvania (certainly not Indiana, North Carolina, or Virginia).

tiger7610 wrote:Except that google translate is somewhat what, the sentence actually means literally translated: communism is surprising

I figured it wouldn't be perfect, but my Russian is only marginally better than my English

PetiteSirah wrote:Talk about an imperial presidency... you'll never have imagined that the EPA had so much power.

However, between the media believing its own hype about Obama's reelection chances and the need to play electoral math, I'm slightly cautiously optimistic.

I don't see Obama winning Florida or Pennsylvania (certainly not Indiana, North Carolina, or Virginia).

I don't think Romney has a prayer with the Independents, so unless he goes the route of few states big electoral numbers I just don't see it. Also, I work in Natural Resources. I'm intimately aware of EPA's Reach. FWS also, holy wow do they have a LOT of power.

If Obama wins there will be no need to learn Russian or to speak highly of communism, but I doubt I’ll ever convince some folks of that (p.s.: communisms sucks). But the election is far from being in the bag for him.

Romney can still win, but he needs to get away from playing defense. He who has to constantly explain himself and downplay his past statements and actions is poorly positioned to win, and that’s what Obama will try to keep Romney doing.

To me, the election will hinge on five things. I’m sure there will be more, but I’m only coming up with these at the moment.

1) The economy. If it keeps recovering, even if slowly, it helps Obama. If we slip back into recession, it helps Romney. Should be obvious.
2) The Etch-a-Sketch. People have pulled this off before, and I’m sure Romney has smart people around him working on how to do it. The difficulty for him is that flip-flopping is something that people already hold against him, and we’re on notice that he’ll be trying to do it again.
3) Women. Romney, and Republicans in general, need to repair some of the grievous damage they’ve done to themselves with female voters. Time will help here, but you can bet that there will be a lot of attack ads focusing on the “contraception is the devil’s work” meme.
4) Congress. Democrats will be running against the excesses of Republican-controlled statehouses, the comments/proposals of some Republican Congressmen, and the Ryan budget, especially what it does to Medicare. Republicans will be running against deficit spending, entitlement creep, and the fear that U.S. power is in free-fall. Which holds our attention better is an open question.
5) Attitude. Americans don’t like grouchy politicians. If either candidate can clothe himself in optimism and American exceptionalism, he can run as many negative television ads as he likes. Reagan was the master of this, and Obama did it pretty well four years ago. But he needs a revised version for this election, because a repeat of last election’s themes won’t get him far. I don’t yet see Romney doing much on this front. He doesn’t get people excited (a brilliant and novel insight, I’m sure you’ll agree).

The odds right now favor Obama, but the election is a long way off. It’s still wide open, if Romney can play his cards right. Poker playing doesn’t seem to be a great strength of his, though. Same for digging himself out of holes. Right now I think Obama wins, but not in a blowout by any means.

coynedj wrote:If Obama wins there will be no need to learn Russian or to speak highly of communism, but I doubt I’ll ever convince some folks of that (p.s.: communisms sucks). But the election is far from being in the bag for him.

Romney can still win, but he needs to get away from playing defense. He who has to constantly explain himself and downplay his past statements and actions is poorly positioned to win, and that’s what Obama will try to keep Romney doing.

To me, the election will hinge on five things. I’m sure there will be more, but I’m only coming up with these at the moment.

1) The economy. If it keeps recovering, even if slowly, it helps Obama. If we slip back into recession, it helps Romney. Should be obvious.
2) The Etch-a-Sketch. People have pulled this off before, and I’m sure Romney has smart people around him working on how to do it. The difficulty for him is that flip-flopping is something that people already hold against him, and we’re on notice that he’ll be trying to do it again.
3) Women. Romney, and Republicans in general, need to repair some of the grievous damage they’ve done to themselves with female voters. Time will help here, but you can bet that there will be a lot of attack ads focusing on the “contraception is the devil’s work” meme.
4) Congress. Democrats will be running against the excesses of Republican-controlled statehouses, the comments/proposals of some Republican Congressmen, and the Ryan budget, especially what it does to Medicare. Republicans will be running against deficit spending, entitlement creep, and the fear that U.S. power is in free-fall. Which holds our attention better is an open question.
5) Attitude. Americans don’t like grouchy politicians. If either candidate can clothe himself in optimism and American exceptionalism, he can run as many negative television ads as he likes. Reagan was the master of this, and Obama did it pretty well four years ago. But he needs a revised version for this election, because a repeat of last election’s themes won’t get him far. I don’t yet see Romney doing much on this front. He doesn’t get people excited (a brilliant and novel insight, I’m sure you’ll agree).

The odds right now favor Obama, but the election is a long way off. It’s still wide open, if Romney can play his cards right. Poker playing doesn’t seem to be a great strength of his, though. Same for digging himself out of holes. Right now I think Obama wins, but not in a blowout by any means.

I saw at lunch today that Romney says Obama's economic policies hurt women, though around 60% of new jobs have been for women. I love Romney, glad he can be my candidate.

bhodilee wrote:I saw at lunch today that Romney says Obama's economic policies hurt women, though around 60% of new jobs have been for women. I love Romney, glad he can be my candidate.

Is it good for women that their husbands can't find work?

PetiteSirah wrote:Is it good for women that their husbands can't find work?

If both are unemployed, yes. If they need both incomes, yes. Even if they needed both incomes they'd still be screwed if he worked and she didn't I guess.

That wasn't the point though, it was that his economic policies were hurting women. They're the ones working. If anything it's hurting men. I just found it funny we discussed Romney's need to get back women voters and the first thing he did is attack Obama on Women's issues. Sounds like he's got a competent campaign staff.

If it's because the man feels emasculated, no. I'd love it if my wife made more than I did and I could stay home.

PetiteSirah wrote:Is it good for women that their husbands can't find work?

It's not good for anyone to be out of work. I recall reading that men's employment was recovering faster than women's, but men were hit much harder to begin with. I think it's pretty weak for Romney to take this approach, but anything's better than having him talk about women's reproductive issues.

Edit: as long as I'm advising Romney, I think he should talk about this Buffett rule. What Tiny Flowers is that? Come on, Obama.

chemvictim wrote:It's not good for anyone to be out of work. I recall reading that men's employment was recovering faster than women's, but men were hit much harder to begin with. I think it's pretty weak for Romney to take this approach, but anything's better than having him talk about women's reproductive issues.

Edit: as long as I'm advising Romney, I think he should talk about this Buffett rule. What Tiny Flowers is that? Come on, Obama.

True.

‎"The Buffett rule is for left-leaning elites who think voters are dolts and easily baited into becoming envious of others. It is for the economically illiterate who imagine that by taking more money from a tiny sliver of the population that already contributes a huge portion of the country’s taxes we will do. . . well do what, exactly? Not anything to address the debt."

Income inequality flourishes under Obama

Even more telling ... "In fact, the poverty rate – the worst kind of income inequality – has increased under this president. Last fall figures showed we went from a poverty rate of 14.3 to 15.1 percent."

How skewed is that number, though? There was a recession that was, in part, not Obama's fault (how much was or wasn't is obviously up for debate).

MarkDaSpark wrote:True.

‎"The Buffett rule is for left-leaning elites who think voters are dolts and easily baited into becoming envious of others. It is for the economically illiterate who imagine that by taking more money from a tiny sliver of the population that already contributes a huge portion of the country’s taxes we will do. . . well do what, exactly? Not anything to address the debt."

Income inequality flourishes under Obama

Even more telling ... "In fact, the poverty rate – the worst kind of income inequality – has increased under this president. Last fall figures showed we went from a poverty rate of 14.3 to 15.1 percent."

It's so bad that Jay Leno quipped that even Obama's doing worse under President Obama.

kylemittskus wrote:How skewed is that number, though? There was a recession that was, in part, not Obama's fault (how much was or wasn't is obviously up for debate).

I had this exact same thought. I also laughed at RPM's Leno comment and I never laugh at Leno.

kylemittskus wrote:How skewed is that number, though? There was a recession that was, in part, not Obama's fault (how much was or wasn't is obviously up for debate).

Remember, the "Bush recession" was over by mid-2009 according the administration. It's all been uphill from their. 'Course, at something of a snail's pace... and not very much at that, and, we're still all worse off than we were four years ago....

Obama owns this economy, the Porkulus bill, BambiCare, the extended dole, the excessive debt, it's all Bambi's.

Even Axelrod said we can choose between policies which will encourage growth and "the path we are on...." Watta maroon!

Alabama leads job recovery, but Obama touts Michigan

In fact, Obama has boosted Michigan with his massive multi-billion dollar auto bailout, and hampered Alabama with lawsuits.

Obama directed his lawyers in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to halt a major element of Alabama’s unemployment reduction program — the popular and bipartisan immigration reform law that requires residents to show work eligibility, which has opened up many jobs to Alabama residents since June 2011.

Campaign politics may play a role in Obama’s favoritism.

Stating the obvious in that last sentence. Once again, Obama tries to divide the country instead of uniting it.

Food for thought ... The eight principles of conservatism

8.) As observed by Milton Friedman, there are four ways of spending money. From most efficient to least efficient:

a. Spend your own money on yourself.

b. Spend your own money on someone else.

c. Spend someone else’s money on yourself.

d. Spend someone else’s money on someone else (which happens to be how government spends money).

Just seems to me that most of last year's Occupy Wall St. people wanted to use C & D.

Did I miss a discussion of NDAA???

On New Year's Eve, with almost no mainstream media attention given to it, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, or NDAA, into law. Since I am not an attorney, I will fall back on the ACLU's analysis of this disastrous new law: "On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield."

"indefinite military detention without charge or trial" --- What Tiny Flowers???

And people are going to vote for Obama???

MarkDaSpark wrote:Did I miss a discussion of NDAA???




"indefinite military detention without charge or trial" --- What Tiny Flowers???

And people are going to vote for Obama???

I'm not entirely clear how this is different than Bush's Patriot Act, although I'm sure it is. This seems to be along the same concerning lines of that American Obama ordered the hit on (can't remember his name).

kylemittskus wrote:I'm not entirely clear how this is different than Bush's Patriot Act, although I'm sure it is. This seems to be along the same concerning lines of that American Obama ordered the hit on (can't remember his name).

It's not different from Bush. And Bush isn't different from anybody else in history.

The traditional war powers have always permitted the detention of combatants for the duration of hostilities. Citizenship does not now, and has not ever, had anything to do with it (see, e.g., the Civil War, where the North's official position was that the Southerners remained American Citizens).

The difference is that you have non-state actors and soldiers without uniforms who themselves don't obey the laws of war. So you do have hostilities that last for decades, if not longer.

Accordingly, it's much harder to get them (and there's always an issue with "them", like the People's Front of Judea, to say who "they" are), to actually agree to lay down arms.

(I'm sure RPM could put together a much longer, better, more thorough, and more historically accurate piece, starting from Grotius, but this is just my $0.02)

PetiteSirah wrote:It's not different from Bush. And Bush isn't different from anybody else in history.

The traditional war powers have always permitted the detention of combatants for the duration of hostilities. Citizenship does not now, and has not ever, had anything to do with it (see, e.g., the Civil War, where the North's official position was that the Southerners remained American Citizens).

The difference is that you have non-state actors and soldiers without uniforms who themselves don't obey the laws of war. So you do have hostilities that last for decades, if not longer.

Accordingly, it's much harder to get them (and there's always an issue with "them", like the People's Front of Judea, to say who "they" are), to actually agree to lay down arms.

(I'm sure RPM could put together a much longer, better, more thorough, and more historically accurate piece, starting from Grotius, but this is just my $0.02)

Except you still had Habeas corpus for citizens, and it seems to be suspended with the NDAA, or am I totally off on that?

MarkDaSpark wrote:Food for thought ... The eight principles of conservatism



Just seems to me that most of last year's Occupy Wall St. people wanted to use C & D.

I never could figure out what the Occupy people wanted or what they were doing. Not that I spent much time on it.

I read the eight principles and I agreed with most of them, but I don't typically agree with conservative politicians' ideas about individual liberties (or lack thereof, when it comes to certain people). I'd like our conservative politicians to review principles 1-3 and 6 and then get back to me. I'm not sure about number 4...would we all pay taxes "voluntarily?" I would, but I probably wouldn't pay as much! lol

MarkDaSpark wrote:Except you still had Habeas corpus for citizens, and it seems to be suspended with the NDAA, or am I totally off on that?

No, you didn't. Confederates didn't get to sue for habeas.

PetiteSirah wrote:No, you didn't. Confederates didn't get to sue for habeas.

Except during times of War (declared) ... duh.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Except during times of War (declared) ... duh.

And haven't Al-Qaeda, et al, declared war on us?

The AUMF covers this sort of activity.