A compulsory buyback is still... more of a confiscation, in my mind.

In the US, areas with a "demonstrate a need" law usually end up "only if you have connections," in practice. But regardless, I overstated, yes, but the point is that the restrictions listed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Firearms_categories

Are restrictions that 1) no one in the US would dare propose 2) would require a constitutional amendment or a new Supreme Court ruling. They are undoubtedly effective, but they just aren't going to happen in the US, and few people are trying to get them to happen. So pointing to Australia's success with those laws is not really indicative as to how proposals in the US will fare.

Australian firearm ownership is at 3-4%. You'd be crucified if you tried to get US ownership down to that level.

depends on how you define "maximum nasty" @enoch

There was a time where I thought for sure we were heading towards another civil war. My assumption was that the gun nuts and other right wing lunatics would eventually take up arms against their country but ultimately lose.

But as I think about it more, for all their bluster and rhetoric. Chickenhawks are ultimately cowards and even gun-nuts really don't want to sacrifice their lives for their interpretation of the 2nd amendment. When it comes right down to it, most people don't want to fight and kill their fellow countrymen despite how much they want to try and demonize the "other"

The core issue as I see it that is preventing our political system from being more effective is private money in our politics and I don't think that's going to be fixed without a constitutional amendment prohibiting it. Thanks to the internet age, elections should be 100 percent publicly funded and lobbying and donations should be outlawed, because anyone can e-mail/blog and thus influence their elected officials without bribes or gifts or perks being involved. Money is not free speech

income inequality is going to get worse and worse until it reaches a tipping point that galvanizes the 99 percent but we're just not there yet. While I'm sure there will be some bloodshed during this process, I think on a national level it will be relatively bloodless and relatively peaceful.

as always, it's just going to be painful and it's going to take time. One of the problems with change is that you usually have to wait for people with bad ideas to die of old age before better ideas are implemented.

You need to fix your goalposts son. To start off, the burden of proof is on those that seek to prohibit something. You could never show, for instance, that anything "won't help" anything else. That's asking for proof of a negative. It belies your profound misunderstanding of statistics. We had a nationwide assault weapons ban. It's efficacy was unimpressive. It certainly did not provide any conclusive evidence that the ban was effective which is where the burden should lie for restrictions on liberty.

There are also these things called "priors." For example: "An extremely small proportion of homicides are conducted using assault weapons. Thus, the maximal impact of their ban would similarly be small." If you want to ban anything it should be handguns, but I don't view that as consistent with the second amendment at all. You would (or at least should) need a constitutional amendment to pull that off.

Finally, I view homicide in general as a relatively small problem in comparison to other matters of public health and safety. That is if I look at numbers, as opposed to guessing at probabilities while I'm crying a river over news broadcasts designed to make me feel unsafe.

Sometimes being educated means considering other points of view. I'm a liberal and I don't own (or wish to own, or even really enjoy) guns. You have a fucking gun in your avatar.

Is it so wrong?? To let the herd cull itself ?? Johnny can't use his hammer correctly so he beat himself in the face and needs stiches. Ban Hammers.
Billy slipped on dish soap in his kitchen wearing defective non-slip soles, ban those, we're too fucking stupid to walk around in our own ki9tchen.
Little Timmy threw a rock and it entered the man's brain through his temple. BAN ROCKS.

This argument is as sound as any that have spewed from all on this subject with a fear of the unknown and a severe lack of basic motor skills and critical thinking-

It is wrong to rely on what is reported and what is not reported by news media, local blotters, etc. to shape one's understanding of the constitution and the history of the United States. YOU PEOPLE WATCH TOO MUCH FUCKING TELEVISION (in whatever country you're in) AND KNWO DICK ABOUT RECENT HISTORY, MUCH LESS ANCIENT.!! The fact that this shit is even up for vote, retooling, or added restrictions boggles, man. Short of a constitutional amendment, the shit reads clearly and plainly in the 2nd and 4rth-If you amend the 2nd you have fucked the thing up, which will consequently, screw the 4rth.

More laws for idiots and imbeciles, less for the operations managers of a realistic unfolding of our immediate future.

A fastidious child with an hour of training and two of practice could kill 100 people with a .22 pistol before the police come or someone wrestles her to the ground, be it school, mall, fast-food joint or post-office line.

Fuck, give morons a goddamn tattoo so we know who to keep sharpened toothbrushes away from

>> ^chingalera:

Country's
Motto: Faith, Unity, Discipline
Last 5 empires to rule :British, Sikh, Durrani, Mughal, and Mongol.
By 2030 it is expected to overtake Indonesia as the largest Muslim country in the world (About 97% of the population) The majority are Sunni, with an estimated 5–20% Shi'a.
Between the dominant strain and the 5-20% of Shi'a throw-backs to the 4rth century,of the rest.... The Ahmadis (sect considered non-Muslim by virtue of a 1974 constitutional amendment, how fucking retarded and out-of-synch with 21st century sensibilities with a view to societal evolution is that,hello??),Quraniyoon..etc etc, and the rest of the religions or disciplines to be found on the planet.
It's an ancient seat of human society, rich on culture and heritage, unfortunately, Muslim religion dictates much of influence on government policies as well. Oh. They have the fucking atomic bomb, too. That's worrisome...nah, fuck it, they're not suicidal.
I have a silly question for y'all. How many 14-year-old kids do you know or have heard of in Canada ,the United States or Denmark who can fashion replacement parts for an AK-47 in a hut with a dirt floor and a home-made smelt?
The alternatives to not-so-'precise or humane air strikes involve equally as 'problematic and inhumane aspects. I can think of only one scenario where everybody wins.
UN-TEACH SHIT-THINK TO EACH NEW GENERATION. A similar fix would make North Korea a country full of humans being instead of robot putty husks, in just outside of 2 generations.


This is why Obama destabilizing the country by ramping up Drone attacks and soldiers in Afghanistan is stupid. We don't own the world, but we act like we do.

Country's
Motto: Faith, Unity, Discipline

Last 5 empires to rule :British, Sikh, Durrani, Mughal, and Mongol.

By 2030 it is expected to overtake Indonesia as the largest Muslim country in the world (About 97% of the population) The majority are Sunni, with an estimated 5–20% Shi'a.

Between the dominant strain and the 5-20% of Shi'a throw-backs to the 4rth century,of the rest.... The Ahmadis (sect considered non-Muslim by virtue of a 1974 constitutional amendment, how fucking retarded and out-of-synch with 21st century sensibilities with a view to societal evolution is that,hello??),Quraniyoon..etc etc, and the rest of the religions or disciplines to be found on the planet.

It's an ancient seat of human society, rich on culture and heritage, unfortunately, Muslim religion dictates much of influence on government policies as well. Oh. They have the fucking atomic bomb, too. That's worrisome...nah, fuck it, they're not suicidal.

I have a silly question for y'all. How many 14-year-old kids do you know or have heard of in Canada ,the United States or Denmark who can fashion replacement parts for an AK-47 in a hut with a dirt floor and a home-made smelt?

The alternatives to not-so-'precise or humane air strikes involve equally as 'problematic and inhumane aspects. I can think of only one scenario where everybody wins.

UN-TEACH SHIT-THINK TO EACH NEW GENERATION. A similar fix would make North Korea a country full of humans being instead of robot putty husks, in just outside of 2 generations.

It's amusing that Obama get's criticism for "pushing it down the throats" of Americans, for not "working across the isle" when the only agenda of those on the right side of the isle was to obstruct progress and then blame his administration for the lack of it. Why are congressional republicans not held to the same standard?

So answer this: what exactly is the government supposed to do when there is a democratically elected majority in all three branches?

Put another way, if we somehow tragically got a republican super majority next month, do you think they would hesitate to write a constitutional amendment repealing Roe v. Wade? Affordable Care Act? Would they hold back because a little less than half of Americans disagree with them? No, of course they wouldn't. They would merrily "push it down our throats" and call it a mandate.

I think someone's realizing they got their butt handed to them. If you're not gonna quote the actual law to prove what you're saying about said law, then it is a waste of time. Personally, it is a waste of time to argue this because what I wrote is stone cold fact.

Hardly. FOCA will nullify the partial birth abortion ban, and any other state law which could be interpreted to "interfere" with a womans "right" to an abortion. The untruth is to say it is simply codifying roe vs wade; It will create substantial changes to hundreds of laws.

Yes, the law contains language that partial birth abortions would only be allowed in situations where the "health" of the woman could be impacted. Well, that is a meaningless distinction. Almost anything could be allowed under those circumstances, including mental health issues. The fact is, the ban will be repealed and partial birth abortions will be a go, and many will be justified under some flimsy pretext.

Again, to say FOCA isn't far left is simply to be intellectually dishonest. It goes far beyond what the average american would approve of.

For the record, I honestly don't really care much about the issues of gay marriage, abortion laws, and the birth control requirement in Obamacare. I'd much rather focus on issues like the economy, foreign policy, that kind of thing. Of those three issues, the contraception thing is the one I care about the most because it's one of like 5 things the general population knows about the law, and it's completely insignificant in the big scheme of things. I'm completely in favor of just making a compromise about birth control for religious institutions, and move on if that's what it takes to actually have an honest debate about the bill. Such institutions are so small in number, who gives a crap? It doesn't systemically make Obamacare not work economically or socially speaking. But the simple truth is if it's not the birth control issue, it's protecting the small number of idiots to be allowed to not buy health insurance if they don't want to, even though that helps break the current health care system when society has absolutely no problem legally forcing people to buy car insurance for basically the same reason - not buying car insurance if you have a car is stupid and hurts society.

I'm not particularly interested in the social issues either. This country is degenerating at an exponential rate and I doubt anything will change that.

BTW, for the record, I'm not 100% on board with Obamacare. I just think vehemently opposing it for those two reasons is ideological inflexibility at its worst. There are very legitimate reasons to oppose it.

I hope it gets thrown out if only for my mothers sake, who will have her current coverage eliminated and her premiums raised because of it.

What I get pissed about is factual misrepresentation, such as partisan hack assessments about how Obama is far left on abortion and gay marriage laws when he clearly isn't. You cannot prove Obama favors legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states via federal legislation or a constitutional amendment. THAT is far left. You can't prove Obama wants anyone to be able to get an abortion anywhere at any time without any regulations whatsoever. THAT is far left. Your entire argument that Obama is far left on those issues, and "religious freedoms" because of the whole birth control thing is completely ridiculous. When I think extreme left on religious freedom issues, I think it's passing a law that businesses can't put up a Merry Christmas sign, or not allowing an academic class in school that studies religion, or something like that. If the worse alleged religious persecution is large religious institutions who provide health insurance to their employees must offer plans that must include coverage of a lot things that are generally beneficial to society, such as the pill, so employees can afford them IF they want them in a day and age where health insurance is the de facto and often only way to get affordable health insurance, I think you need to go spend some time in a country with real religious persecution by the government.

What's clear is that you have a much different idea of what is far left, and what isn't from the average person.

>> ^heropsycho:

I think someone's realizing they got their butt handed to them. If you're not gonna quote the actual law to prove what you're saying about said law, then it is a waste of time. Personally, it is a waste of time to argue this because what I wrote is stone cold fact.

For the record, I honestly don't really care much about the issues of gay marriage, abortion laws, and the birth control requirement in Obamacare. I'd much rather focus on issues like the economy, foreign policy, that kind of thing. Of those three issues, the contraception thing is the one I care about the most because it's one of like 5 things the general population knows about the law, and it's completely insignificant in the big scheme of things. I'm completely in favor of just making a compromise about birth control for religious institutions, and move on if that's what it takes to actually have an honest debate about the bill. Such institutions are so small in number, who gives a crap? It doesn't systemically make Obamacare not work economically or socially speaking. But the simple truth is if it's not the birth control issue, it's protecting the small number of idiots to be allowed to not buy health insurance if they don't want to, even though that helps break the current health care system when society has absolutely no problem legally forcing people to buy car insurance for basically the same reason - not buying car insurance if you have a car is stupid and hurts society.

BTW, for the record, I'm not 100% on board with Obamacare. I just think vehemently opposing it for those two reasons is ideological inflexibility at its worst. There are very legitimate reasons to oppose it.

What I get pissed about is factual misrepresentation, such as partisan hack assessments about how Obama is far left on abortion and gay marriage laws when he clearly isn't. You cannot prove Obama favors legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states via federal legislation or a constitutional amendment. THAT is far left. You can't prove Obama wants anyone to be able to get an abortion anywhere at any time without any regulations whatsoever. THAT is far left. Your entire argument that Obama is far left on those issues, and "religious freedoms" because of the whole birth control thing is completely ridiculous. When I think extreme left on religious freedom issues, I think it's passing a law that businesses can't put up a Merry Christmas sign, or not allowing an academic class in school that studies religion, or something like that. If the worse alleged religious persecution is large religious institutions who provide health insurance to their employees must offer plans that must include coverage of a lot things that are generally beneficial to society, such as the pill, so employees can afford them IF they want them in a day and age where health insurance is the de facto and often only way to get affordable health insurance, I think you need to go spend some time in a country with real religious persecution by the government.

>> ^shinyblurry:


If you're going to keep cherry picking your responses, I don't see much reason to waste my time writing a reply.

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:

http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secretary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate

All of this is far left.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing.

Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.

Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true.

They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/obamas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

I think I've shown otherwise..

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.

>> ^heropsycho:

His recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage?!

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing. Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true. A truly radical stance to the left on abortions is pushing for a federal law to provide anyone who wants an abortion to get them for free, and at any time during the pregnancy. Something closer to that line than "I want to continue to provide funding for an organization that spends 99% of its budget on other things than abortion. BTW, this is an organization that was also funded by the Republican presidential administration AND a GOP dominated Congress. In fact, it's received funding since 1970."

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Not some , most . Obama governs mostly to the center-left, except for his recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage. He lets his minions do his dirty work for him.
I agree, this happens all the time. It is the lens through which everyone seems to understand politics. I just don't think anyone really knows what makes Obama tick, and certainly not what he plans to do in his second term, when he is no long accountable. He is not a traditional democrat, certainly.

This idea of "a wall of seperation" of church and state came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a baptist association while he was in France. It has been misinterpreted in recent times as a principle of exclusion of religion from government, but is this really what Jefferson intended? If he did, you might want to ask yourself why Jefferson attended church every sunday..in the house of representitives. You might want to ask why Jefferson closed presidential documents with "In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ", or why he negotiated treaties that used federal funding to pay for Christian missionaries to evangelize the indians. You also might want to ask why public education was teaching the scripture in schools, and why nearly every state had its own church..and why many states wouldn't allow non-christians to be elected to public office.

This idea of "freedom from religion" has no basis in history, or in the intentions of our founders. The secular community apparently feels that they can move in to this house that Christianity built and evict the ones who built it. It would be a bit like you inviting me to stay at your house and then I tell you that I am going to redecorate it the way I please and would you please stay in your room and never come out again.

Consider the words of William Rehnquist in a supreme court ruling about this issue:

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts


>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.
The statements are plainly contradictory. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from a government religion or any promotion of religion by the government. Also, as Boise_Lib notes above, it's impossible to have true freedom of religion without also having freedom from any other religion being imposed upon you. Intelligent people may disagree over whether certains actions constitute imposition of religious principles or doctrine, but the idea that the Constitution does not guarantee a level of freedom from religion is patently false.

>> ^Sagemind:

...because everyone like a good link: http://www.wolf-pac.com/
http://videosift.com/video/Cenk-Announces-Wolf-PAC-com


Hrm it's odd, they don't actually provide much information about the details of what they are trying to do on their website or in that vid. Yes they say they want to overturn corporate personhood, but what are the mechanics of the constitutional amendment exactly. Also, isn't it obvious that the recent corporate personhood decision is just the tip of the iceberg - and what about the earlier corporate personhood rulings, what about citizen funded elections?

*promote

Needing context? see http://videosift.com/video/Colbert-for-President-With-No-Help-from-Stewarts-Superpac

That vid needs to be seen by every American eligible to vote. Let's get a constitutional amendment so SuperPacs can be made illegal. Please.

Good talk NR. I'm not convinced.... there are cabinet appointments, etc. he's made that make me not trust him, but I am listening. Ob's speech a couple days ago has me wondering you've got a direct line to him or something.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^Truckchase:

I know where you're coming from and I don't disagree with your logic, but I'm not gonna get out there and campaign for or vocally support Obama because I do think his administration is still heavily corrupted by (mainly) the financial industry. As you point out he's not nearly as bad as the repubs, so unless by some miracle Buddy Roemer gets any real traction I'll most likely be voting for Obama and running from the polling place in a ankle length trench coat and hat like a family man from 1974 escaping the newsstand with a smut rag.

Oy, Buddy Roemer? The problem with Buddy Roemer is that he seems to think his becoming President is the only/main way to fix the problem with money in politics. Never mind that the biggest problem with campaign finance law is that a) Republicans always oppose it and b) the Supreme Court has deemed real campaign finance law unconstitutional.

The answer to that is a Constitutional Amendment, not giving Buddy Roemer the potential ability to appoint SCOTUS judges, especially since he'd only get to replace liberals in a 2013-2017 term, not roadblocks like Thomas, Scalia, or Roberts.

I personally don't think silent support is good enough. I'm gonna be out campaigning for Obama nice and loud. I'm especially going to be pushing back against what I see as crazy misinformation, like the story Cenk is pushing here.

Once you strip away the misinformation, the only legitimate liberal complaints I've heard about Obama boil down to "he didn't do enough to make things better" as opposed to "he made something worse". People seem to have rather quickly forgotten the width and breadth of the damage done by Bush and a Republican congress.

Most people just remember the wars, the Patriot Act, and the tax cuts. Fewer people remember the US Attorneys scandal, fewer people remember the way he gutted the SEC, put the EPA on hold, sabotaged the FEC, tried to gut the FCC, turned the NLRB into a union-busting department, and so on. It was a nonstop deluge of sabotage, fraud, and abuse that just went on and on relentlessly for eight fucking years.

It grates me that it's only partially and often only temporarily being undone by Obama, but now those low-publicity nitty-gritty detail stories are almost universally good ones.

The choice isn't really one of a "lesser of two evils" it's a choice between empowering an enemy who's sworn to destroy everything you hold dear, or empowering a friend who's let you down. I see this as a choice between feckless and imperfect good, or pure, ruthless evil.