Nice try, Chris Rock. Chris doesn't understand that white people are pretty good at reading between the lines, at least when it comes to Obama's administration. It's Obama's handling of the current issues that have turned off the independent voters like myself, rather than swayed us to his side again.

Actions speak louder than words, and Obama's actions have not earned him the chance for a second term, at this point in time. Perhaps in the near future Obama will become enlighted and unshackle himself from his leftist handlers: learning that in being a president one has to be more bipartisan to the issues. Cliton was an excellent President along those lines.

And the leftists on here have done a terrible job making your case for Obama in the months leading up to the election. Attacking the other candidate has nothing to do with making the case for your chosen candidate, and also has had no effect on the outcome.

To be fair, where is Chris Rock's special message to black voters? If a right-wing comedian had made a special message video to black voters in support of Romney, I'm sure people on here would have called attention to aspects of racism in that comedic message.

Seems pretty plain to me. Joss didn't say vote for Obama, he's just having some fun with Romney. Free country, he's allowed to have an opinion and if that turns off a few of his fans, then I don't think he's going to lose sleep over it. He wrote the fucking Avengers script! I think he'll survive somehow.

That said, the election system in this country sucks, and changing it is going to require a monumental effort on the part of a hell of a lot of people. Congress will fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo, because it serves them best. Until we get a system that isn't designed to result in a 2-party system, we will always have this situation of choosing between Asshole #1 and Asshole #2.

It's kind of sad that the one thing that Congress will show true bipartisan support on is saving their own asses.

HA>> ^bareboards2:

I was being snarky. No snark button for titles!
>> ^KnivesOut:
Kudos to Chris Christie, but where does god come into the conversation? Neither he or the Scarborough guys mentioned it.

I was being snarky. No snark button for titles!

>> ^KnivesOut:

Kudos to Chris Christie, but where does god come into the conversation? Neither he or the Scarborough guys mentioned it.

First off, Romney does not equal Obama. This kind of thinking is truly what frightens me, and it's not because of the reasons you probably think.

Some 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population were ignorant of politics and apathetic. Political games were played, cheap shots were utilized, but in the end, in the big scheme of things, on the truly big issues, both sides would compromise and do the right thing. Clinton and the GOP Congress balancing the budget, Bush Sr. raising taxes, etc. etc. Stuff got done. And the majority of people were wholly ignorant on things like federal budgets, that kind of thing. There was also some kind of understanding on basic principles where regardless of your ideology, you couldn't do catastrophic things just because it suited your ideology.

Now, that's gone. Extremists in both parties are labelled fascists or communists, or whatever, but now moderates are being labelled as either part of the same extremist groups, or they're called sell-outs, part of a completely corrupt system, and perpetrators of that system, not as agents trying to work within a system that was built long before they got there, who could change the system while they work within it. When they do the right thing that violates ideology, it's not because it was the bipartisan right thing to do; it's because they're extensions of the corrupt system. The bailouts are an absolutely perfect example. I hate to break it to people here, and I know most won't agree with me, but the bailouts were the right thing to do, even if you're against too big to fail, etc. The banking system was already in place when the economy collapsed. It's like being in a boat as its sinking. You can critique the design of the boat all you want, but the boat sinking kills you all. It's ridiculous to talk about actions that will blow up the boat. Plug the holes, do what you need to do to get the boat to land. THEN figure out how to fix the design, or build a new boat. But what happened? The bipartisan policy by both a Democrat and Republican president was tarred and feathered as government being in the pocket of big business. Those same people don't seem to realize the boat didn't sink. We didn't face another depression. Be critical the banking system wasn't significantly reformed after that was done, I have no issues with that.

To the person who said Obama's policies haven't worked in three years? Again, are we in a depression? No. Those policies worked. And how can you expect a macro-economic shift within a year or two of his other policies? Go back and look at economic history. Things don't change on a dime just from macro-economic policies instituted by the government. It takes several years before the effect can be measured. Again, sheer ignorance. The difference today is the ignorant are far more willing to participate in the political debate even though they don't have a clue what they're talking about. This is a problem on both sides.

Both sides are stoking the ignorant to get involved in the public debates, and not encouraging a very very basic understanding of crucial facts about history. Like... WWII was a Keynesian economic exercise effectively, which in the end was a gigantic gov't deficit that did end the Great Depression. This is a very straight forward basic economical historical fact. But there's 30% of the population that will not believe it because it blows apart what they politically favor today. It's ridiculous.

I disagree with Romney, and I probably won't vote for him. But he's not a fascist. There's a significant difference between him and Santorum. And there's a significant difference between him and Obama. Is there a choice as clearly different as say Ron Paul vs. Ralph Nader? No. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book.

My fear is in our political ecosystem, the moderates, the good ones who truly aren't compromising for the wrong reasons, but do it to get things done, and have a willingness to ignore ideology for practical solutions that help the country are getting drowned out, and characterized as corrupt when they're not. I disagree with Romney, but he's not corrupt. I disagree with Obama, but he's not corrupt. We don't need a revolution to fix our current political system, but an increasing number of people think we do. And the last decade we're seeing a rise in the extremists on both sides enough to drown out the political moderates we desperately need. This just can't continue indefinitely.

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward

Bipartisan = For the Corporate State
*promote

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Fuck this genocidal scumbag.


Dude, we all hate Friedman, and with good reason. However, I don't disagree with this line of argument. I think the resurgence of true libertarians in the republican party makes this one of the few issues we could get bipartisan agreement on. I'd just as soon pursue it than malign their ideologues.

Also, I think some of what happened in Chile is overly associated with Friedman. He wasn't Pinochet himself. I don't think he was "disappearing" women himself. While it was a horrible blemish on human history, it's hard to say what exactly his involvement was.

Ahh, I upvoted before realizing this was campaign rhetoric designed to attack the Republicans rather than outline the real issue - that both parties wanted the pipeline to go ahead:

47 House Democrats voted to require the administration to quickly act on the Keystone XL project, helping to pass the North American-Made Energy Security Act (H.R. 1938).

Nearly two dozen House Democrats wrote a letter to President Obama asking him to approve the Keystone XL project, saying it will “create 20,000 direct jobs, spur the creation of 118,000 spin-off jobs.” The Democrats note that several environmental reviews show “the Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment.”

A bipartisan group of 14 Senators wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in support of the Keystone project. The Senators said Keystone XL would “provide thousands of high-quality jobs for Americans and invest billions of private sector dollars in our nation's economy.”

Both of Montana’s Democratic Senators support the Keystone energy project, including Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) who said, “We need to put Montanans back to work and cannot afford further delays to the Keystone XL pipeline.”

“The Keystone pipeline will create Montana jobs,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), “And it should not have to wait 14 months for an up-or-down decision…”

“I support the Keystone XL project,” said Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR). “You want to talk about shovel-ready projects, that’s one that’s shovel-ready,” reported Politico.

“I think the president’s wrong on this,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) who is “inclined to vote for the GOP’s version of the payroll tax cut measure” because he supports both the payroll tax break extension and the Keystone XL jobs project, according to Politico.

“I probably would vote to accept the deal,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

“Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said he’s not swayed by Obama’s veiled veto pledge,” says Politico. “The Keystone is awfully important,” he said. The article highlights several other Democrats who support both the payroll tax break and the energy project.

These are from http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=271882

It's pathetically predictable. Republicans scream bloody murder that we have to make cuts. Obama makes cuts, Republicans scream bloody murder anyway.

Tell me again why Republicans are relevant again? Or to be more bipartisan, tell me why the two party system is relevant/good for our country? It just encourages childish finger pointing like Rush's rant instead of reasoned discourse.

I wrote to my Senator (Orrin Hatch-R., Utah, responsible for the Protect IP Act) about SOPA and its problems and gave them a rather "cool" scathing review about its faults and errors and the public demonstrations that have taken place like GoDaddy and the fact that three major companies had pulled out from the SOPA bill (although their political alliance group is still signed into SOPA--so they can still look good in the public eye and still, really, support the bill) and got the "printing press" release as follows (which has nothing to do with what I wrote, really--I know this bill is coming, but really, an auto-send out letter for pissed constituents?):

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act.

On May 12, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy and I introduced the PROTECT IP Act. If enacted, S. 968 would provide law enforcement with important tools to stop foreign websites “dedicated to infringing activities.” In other words, the bill targets the most egregious offenders of online theft who profit from counterfeit products and pirated content. These goods can range from new movie and music releases to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. With this legislation, we send a strong message to those selling or distributing pirated content or counterfeit goods online that the United States will strongly protect intellectual property rights.

The bill authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign-registered domain name itself. However, DOJ officials must first seek approval from a federal court before taking any action. In determining whether an Internet site is “dedicated to infringing activities,” a federal judge must weigh all of the facts carefully in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – just like what happens today in shutting down an illegal bricks and mortar storefront.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a common assumption with some online users that illegal downloads and purchases online are free and harmless. This is far from true. Fake pharmaceuticals threaten people’s lives. Stolen movies, music, and other products threaten the jobs and livelihoods of many people, and drive up costs for other consumers. Every year, these online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars by stealing American intellectual property, and this undermines legitimate commerce.

This also has a direct impact on Utah. As you may know, Utah is considered a very popular state for film and television production activity. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Utah’s workforce is also a draw to filmmakers who come for one of the most highly educated and hardworking workforces in our country. It is estimated that the motion picture and television industries are responsible for thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in wages in Utah. There is no doubt that intellectual property theft has a direct, negative impact on Utah’s economy and its workforce. This same impact can be seen nationwide.

On July 22, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported S. 968 by unanimous consent. While it is unclear when the bill will be considered by the full Senate, the legislation enjoys strong support with 39 bipartisan cosponsors to date. Please know that my Senate colleagues and I are committed to crafting consensus legislation and welcome suggestions on ways to improve the bill. Unfortunately there has been some misinformation circulated about what the PROTECT IP Act aims to accomplish. In an effort to be of assistance, I have enclosed “Fact vs. Fiction” information about the legislation. I hope this information will be helpful to you.

Again, thank you for writing. I welcome your continued input on issues of concern.



Complete BULLSHIT. I hate my politicians, they're fucking half-wits!

Ok so it's law. Great. Thank you congress for your bipartisan, veto-proof majority.

ha!

well, let's just put this in perspective then...
26 of our 50 states took the obama healthcare initiative to our highest court.
wouldn't this be the same conflict of interest if any state funds were used to host any activity to which our supreme court justices were invited and attended? (by any measure, they are the plaintiffs in this case.)

answer: yes, by your very myopic and obtuse assessment... it would.

take a deep breath, pull your heads out of your behinds, and realize A. that this is one-sided reporting of a bipartisan pasttime, and B. that the members of our SCOTUS are selected because they are the premier interpreters of our nation's constitution, and therefore given the benefit of the doubt because of the long road and fractious appointment process that has brought them to their positions.

frankly, i don't care which way they vote on this issue - i live overseas. but if i were a betting man, i'd wager that we see a 5-4 / 6-3 split, both against the constitutionality of the current plan. this will clearly disrupt your shortsighted view of political partisanism.

seriously, don't bother to respond to my comments if you don't understand the issue, or are too lazy to do your homework.

rachel maddow is figuratively the unwanted offspring of a beck / limbaugh coupling, where they then pissed on the infant and put her up for adoption.

simply put: she inherited their style but has an axe to grind with their politics.

A Pyrrhic 'Victory'
By Thomas Sowell
8/10/2011

In Don Marquis' classic satirical book, "Archy and Mehitabel," Mehitabel the alley cat asks plaintively, "What have I done to deserve all these kittens?"

That seems to be the pained reaction of the Obama administration to the financial woes that led to the downgrading of America's credit rating, for the first time in history.

There are people who see no connection between what they have done and the consequences that follow. But Barack Obama is not likely to be one of them. He is a savvy politician who will undoubtedly be satisfied if enough voters fail to see a connection between what he has done and the consequences that followed.

To a remarkable extent, he has succeeded, with the help of his friends in the media and the Republicans' failure to articulate their case. Polls find more people blaming the Republicans for the financial crisis than are blaming the President.

Why was there a financial crisis in the first place? Because of runaway spending that sent the national debt up against the legal limit. But when all the big spending bills were being rushed through Congress, the Democrats had such an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress that nothing the Republicans could do made the slightest difference.

Yet polls show that many people today are blaming the Republicans for the country's financial problems. But, by the time Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, and thus became involved in negotiations over raising the national debt ceiling, the spending which caused that crisis in the first place had already been done -- and done by Democrats.

Had the Republicans gone along with President Obama's original request for a "clean" bill -- one simply raising the debt ceiling without any provisions about controlling federal spending -- would that have spared the country the embarrassment of having its government bonds downgraded by Standard & Poor's credit-rating agency?

To believe that would be to believe that it was the debt ceiling, rather than the runaway spending, that made Standard & Poor's think that we were no longer as good a credit risk for buyers of U.S. government bonds. In other words, to believe that is to believe that a Congressional blank check for continued record spending would have made Standard & Poor's think that we were a better credit risk.

If that is true, then why is Standard & Poor's still warning that it might have to downgrade America's credit rating yet again? Is that because of the national debt ceiling or because of the likelihood of continued runaway spending?

The national debt ceiling is just one of the many false assurances that the government gives the voting public. The national debt ceiling has never actually stopped the spending that causes the national debt to rise to the point where it is getting near that ceiling. The ceiling simply gets raised when that happens.

Just a week before the budget deal was made at the eleventh hour, it looked like the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives had scored a victory by getting the President and the Congressional Democrats to give up the idea of raising the tax rates -- and to cut spending instead. But now that the details are coming out, that "victory" looks very temporary, if not illusory.

The price of getting that deal has been having the Republicans agree to sitting on a special bipartisan Congressional committee that will either come to an agreement on spending cuts before Thanksgiving or have the budgets of both the Defense Department and Medicare cut drastically.

Since neither side can afford to be blamed for a disaster like that, this virtually guarantees that the Republicans will have to either go along with whatever new spending and taxing that the Democrats demand or risk losing the 2012 election by sharing the blame for another financial disaster.

In short, the Republicans have now been maneuvered into being held responsible for the spending orgy that Democrats alone had the votes to create. Republicans have been had -- and so has the country. The recent, short-lived budget deal turns out to be not even a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans. It has the earmarks of a Pyrrhic defeat.

Unknown Unknowns

By Thomas Sowell (Jul 13, 2011)

When Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, he coined some phrases about knowledge that apply far beyond military matters.

Secretary Rumsfeld pointed out that there are some things that we know that we know. He called those "known knowns." We may, for example, know how many aircraft carriers some other country has. We may also know that they have troops and tanks, without knowing how many. In Rumsfeld's phrase, that would be an "unknown known" -- a gap in our knowledge that we at least know exists.

Finally, there are things we don't even know exist, much less anything about them. These are "unknown unknowns" -- and they are the most dangerous. We had no clue, for example, when dawn broke on September 11, 2001, that somebody was going to fly two commercial airliners into the World Trade Center that day.

There are similar kinds of gaps in our knowledge in the economy. Unfortunately, our own government creates uncertainties that can paralyze the economy, especially when these uncertainties take the form of "unknown unknowns."

The short-run quick fixes that seem so attractive to so many politicians, and to many in the media, create many unknowns that make investors reluctant to invest and employers reluctant to employ. Politicians may only look as far ahead as the next election, but investors have to look ahead for as many years as it will take for their investments to start bringing in some money.

The net result is that both our financial institutions and our businesses have had record amounts of cash sitting idle while millions of people can't find jobs. Ordinarily these institutions make money by investing money and hiring workers. Why not now?

Because numerous and unpredictable government interventions create many unknowns, including "unknown unknowns."

The quick fix that got both Democrats and Republicans off the hook with a temporary bipartisan tax compromise, several months ago, leaves investors uncertain as to what the tax rate will be when any money they invest today starts bringing in a return in another two or three or ten years. It is known that there will be taxes but nobody knows what the tax rate will be then.

Some investors can send their investment money to foreign countries, where the tax rate is already known, is often lower than the tax rate in the United States and -- perhaps even more important -- is not some temporary, quick-fix compromise that is going to expire before their investments start earning a return.

Although more foreign investments were coming into the United States, a few years ago, than there were American investments going to foreign countries, today it is just the reverse. American investors are sending more of their money out of the country than foreign investors are sending here.

Since 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal, "the U.S. has lost more than $200 billion in investment capital." They add: "That is the equivalent of about two million jobs that don't exist on these shores and are now located in places like China, Germany and India."

President Obama's rhetoric deplores such "outsourcing," but his administration's policies make outsourcing an ever more attractive alternative to investing in the United States and creating American jobs.

Blithely piling onto American businesses both known costs like more taxes and unknowable costs -- such as the massive ObamaCare mandates that are still evolving -- provides more incentives for investors to send their money elsewhere to escape the hassles.

Hardly a month goes by without this administration coming up with a new anti-business policy -- whether directed against Boeing, banks or other private enterprises. Neither investors nor employers can know when the next one is coming or what it will be. These are unknown unknowns.

Such anti-business policies would just be business' problem, except that it is businesses that create jobs.

The biggest losers from creating an adverse business climate may not be businesses themselves -- especially not big businesses, which can readily invest more of their money overseas. The biggest losers are likely to be working people in America, who cannot just relocate to Europe or Asia to take the jobs created there by American multinational corporations.

We need means testings, not raising the retirement age.

When wealthy people get $30,000 year, and when they die their non-working spouse gets $30,000 a year for life.... that is a problem.

Tax more of the income on wealthy people, instead of only on 85%.

Acknowledge that it is a safety net system and not a retirement system and that the wealthy will pay more.

Look to the income tax return and reduce benefits if there are significant other sources of income (you don't need "social security" if you make $100,000 a year in other pension and dividend/interest income.)

For pity's sake, DON'T CUT CONTRIBUTIONS -- bipartisan support got it cut for 2011 and they are talking about continuing the cuts in 2012 -- the deficit has fuckall to do with Social Security, and they just made the social security funding problem worse. The hypocrisy is MIND BLOWING.

We need to have a rational conversation about it, rather than knee-jerk reactions to any changes to it. It really annoys me that whenever this topic comes up, all we hear about are the low income seniors. Yes, they must be protected. Heck, raise their benefits, that's fine. But it's a SAFETY NET and it is not a safety net to millions who receive it.