@Chairman_woo

Well, I wouldn't link minimum pay to highest earners. I would perhaps add a tax penalty based on the income differential. Nor would I go to the extreme of outlawing all but co-operatives/shared ownership. Perhaps a very small tax break for them to encourage that form of business.

I have thought about tying politician pay to the poverty line. Want to be a Representative or Senator, congratulations, you get 2x to 3x the poverty line, and you can have up to 3 staff members at 1.5x the poverty line. No lifetime benefits and of course strict term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court (the President still gets lifetime protection, but no other lifetime benefits and perhaps 5x the poverty line while in office). Nor do they use the Capital building itself but once a year where a lottery decides who gets to go for the State of the Union. The primary idea is to make the number of Representatives we have based on the actual population, rather than shift the 435 that we've had since 1911 around based on state populations. With modern technology, they can stay in their home (computer drawn) districts. I wouldn't make them fully dependent on the state, this is just something somebody does to serve their community for a short time.

So yeah, basically the middle ground.

I was a Libertarian Anrcho-Capitalist after I left the Republican party because I couldn't stand how the Republicans want to legislate morality. Because at the time I was still convinced that sort of economics worked best... over time I realized, after actual vetting sources and looking things over, that the problem was more at the high end than I was led to believe... that and I got a heart just as my evangelical Christianity was about to collapse, mostly due to Republicans and eventually kept off by logic.

Turns out the officer who took the shooter out was a retired RCMP officer employed in the largely ceremonial role of Sergeant-At-Arms. A role I was surprised to find out was armed.

I don't have any real objections to him being armed, but S-A-A is more-or-less a glorified security guard. The only weapon you see him with is a bad-ass looking mace. In the US, the S-A-A is the guy you see announcing the arrival of the President in the House of Representatives before the State of the Union addresses. You can imagine how much security the shooter would have had to passed to get the same place in D.C.

Some of the questions right now are about how the fuck the guy got to the doors where Parliament sits largely unopposed. I mean, it's Canada, the last attack on a Prime Minister consisted of a pie to the face, but you'd think there'd be a metal detector checkpoint and/or a couple Mounties milling about.

Then again, unauthorized crossings at our shared border -up until 9/11- were protected mostly by traffic cones.

You seem to forget that the south attacked Federal forts and 'captured' federal property first...and declared secession. The South STARTED the war...no matter who you blame for the reason they did it.
(and I am a 'southerner' by birth).

And wow, do you really not understand the difference between the United States and Soviet Union? let me explain, the Soviet Union was not a union the satellites had a choice about. They were mostly forced into it, and forced to stay in it. The United States 'union' was entered into voluntarily by all states.

Get it?

During the state of the union address obama said 9 million people had signed up for obamacare. Here he says 3 million.

Perhaps he 'misspoke'.

I think that's part of what happened. I think democrats thought the same thing back in 2004 with Kerry v Bush. They couldn't conceive that Bush would remain elected so they didn't bother to vote.

I think the main thing though is just the implosion of the Republican party. They've gone so far far far right that they're losing moderate republicans.

The most delicious part is how Nate Silver got lambasted as a political pundit by the right even though he correctly predicted every single state of the union race outcome

It just perfectly illustrates the right being so out of touch with reality.

Silver: The data says this
The Right: we don't care! Hey Romney, don't bother writing a concession speech, you won't need it!

Yo Dystop:
My first state of the union address would include costumes, for starters, worn henceforth and according to level of corruption of current members of congress and senate: Data would be of course mined from our resources (those stalwart ass-grabbers of the distinguished intelligence community we have to thank for the dirt we would dredge and release), IMMEDIATELY,!....every phone call, every email every bit of naked boat-parties and teen-aged Thai prettyboys there for all to see…THEN decriminalize all drugs and release all offenders to their respective ends and relatives so charged in the past 100 years, immediately.
I’d make it mandatory that everyone be able to read and write, and provide the necessary means-
Two chickens in every pot
I’d tell everyone the real reason we’re in Afghanistan and will stay the fuck there is for their Lithium, because the world needs batteries to go with the new technology and to go fuck themselves if they don’t like us protecting their poppy fields from angry 4rth century thugs screaming , “AKBAR!”( i.e., I would disclose the actual motivations behind the current clusterfuck..) Oh, I’d have a monthly picnic on the white house lawn holiday, offer federal monies to female athletics, and outlaw fast food chains, billboard advertising, and landlords (I’d work to return ownership of land acquired through unsavory deals by oil-rich cocksuckers, anyone assoc. with any bank scandal in the last 50 years, etc. to the open market for restricted development based on projected models for our world in 50 years)

Just getting started, I’d fuck shit up is the answer to your question, jump-start the place based on the original doc and maybe get another 100 years out of it..

" sensibly address the Sandy Hooks"??

Keep holding your breath-it's already old news as a topic of discourse here on this site with a majority of the opinions coming from outside the country in question).

BTW, the state of the union address was like watching some surreal event targeting an audience of the developmentally disabled and mental incompetents. Obama sickens and distresses more each passing day, he looks angry and tired and his voice has become synonymous with bullshit in many minds.

He NEVER looks directly into the camera, that shifty, side-to-side head whilst speaking-The mans' a piece of garbage.

This reminds me of the photo of Jan Brewer poking her finger at the President or the "You Lie" incident during the State of the Union -- and something tells me that such things wouldn't happen if the President wasn't black.

>> ^Yogi:

State's rights don't mean anything to any administration if there's a powerful corporate entity that wants it regulated.
Penn's wrong here...not surprising. Obama didn't personally come up with this stance, it is THE stance you have to take if you want funding to get elected.


Cali is the most populated state in the union, containing nearly 12% of the entire US population. If it was state regulated, that is at least 12% of the people free from this. I don't understand your point exactly I guess.

>> ^chingalera:

Can Canadians or Minnesotans be bubbas? Thought that monniker was reserved for the southern United States~


To me a Bubba is a state of mind ... not a state of the union [your mileage may vary] =oD

This is the other state of the union.

He could have mentioned that Germany has a working fiscal union as well, it is a Federal Republic after all. Domestic tranfers between the states is a very successful and popular mechanism, or at least it used to be until a few weeks ago.

But I wanted to point out something else. Germany, with its export-centered economy, is the last country in Europe that could afford general austerity in the peripheral states or the union as a whole. The resulting decline in demand would cripple the German economy more than anything else. The European free-trade zone is paramount to German interests. So why the fuck would they push these extreme austerity measures on GIPSI? Not to mention that avoiding austerity works much better, as shown by Argentina and most recently Iceland.

But it's not just austerity that is being forced upon the periphery. The German proposal to install a European Commissionar to run Greece's finances has raised the stakes enormously. Forfeiture of national sovereignty, that's one fucked up idea of solving problems. Both default and austerity have severe economical consequences for Greece. But austerity and losing sovereignty would add a whole new dimension to the European crisis. Greeks are no strangers to being occupied by foreign powers, particularly the Germans. That's one explosive mixture we're talking about.

Plus, democratically elected governments in Greece and Italy were already replaced by technocrats, so what the hell are we doing here?

I have no problem believing the reporter is probably right @cosmovitelli I'm just saying that in the world we live in, having all the facts on your side doesn't automatically save you from being portrayed as a douche/villian/whatever.

He could very well be right, but he attacked him in the wrong way in the wrong time. He basically just threw out a "wah, you're lying!" fit out of nowhere with no real compelling proof that he's right. He did it so clumsily that Romney is able to sidestep the whole thing and play it like he's the victim of the rabid conspiracy theorist.

If you want to look at it from the other side of the aisle. You got Joe Wilson's "YOU LIE!" outburst at the state of the union. Playing devil's advocate, even if the guy was 100 percent right. He still comes off as a dick and it portrays the republicans as frothing-at-the-mouth maniacs

I'm not saying people shouldn't do stuff like that, but you have to at least acknowledge that you're not exactly going to win a lot of people over with clumsy outbursts like that regardless of how right you may be.

@bareboards2

Article 1 Section 8


"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Stating that the Congress can "do what it must" to carry out the duties of legislation

Article 2 Section 2

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"

The chief executive is basically the puppet of the will of the Congress; he more than just reports, but carries out the will of Congress, which is then ratified.

Article 2 Section 3

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them..."

And in other cases, the Chief Executive can demand certain things of the Congress

Article 3 Section 1

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

The courts can and should handle things, but Congress can at anytime form its own set of inferior courts for their own purposes. Much like when they called all the tabaco companies in for hearings.

Really, when you get down to it, congress is the real meat of government. It is why I always liked that objection raised in "The Patriot", "why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can. "

It always strikes me how fast you can read through the entire constitution, not even 15 min read! And while there are checks and balances and all that, the bulk of power and responsibility lays in the Congress, as far as I can read anyway. I think we tend to have this notion that the 3 sections are all supposed to be just as powerful as each other; 3 sets of equally strong men fighting for dominance, but when you read it, that isn't the picture presented. Congress is God, the President is their emissary, and the courts their gavel...and if any one of them don't do as they are told, Congress can do what "necessary and proper" to get the job they see as fitting done. Perhaps I am the one seeing it wrong, though. There are also problems the don't really have to do with our constitution, like the legal framework. We work in a case law system legally, but that isn't really spelled out in the constitution. With that said, it would be a far different thing for the President to arrest a Judge and not the Congress...so in so far as we are talking about "President Gingrich" arresting judges and such, that is crazy out of line, and I would consed the point that the President has no such authority. I got the impression that he was talking about Congress, though, so I didn't have a problem with what he said; ultimately, if the Congress feels the courts have not upheld the law, they can come after them, it is there responsibility that the entire letter of the law be executed.

>> ^honkeytonk73:

I wish these damn reporters would STFU about 'electability'. The election isn't here yet. Let the damn candidates run and let the people decide who is in the lead without the pro establishment propaganda.


aye it's hard to watch