>> ^quantumushroom:

And when will we have the weepy politico talking about her wonderful daughter and her daughter's wonderful two would-be husbands? If these votes are based only on how people are wired or some all-purpose equality then the State has no right to bar plural aka polygamous marriages.
I'm less concerned with the issues than with how these laws are created and passed.
The califascists allow issues to make it to the ballot box, then simply ignore undesired outcomes when the sheeple don't vote how they wish. Other states just run bills through and hope no one is paying attention.


In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
And when will we have the weepy politico talking about her wonderful daughter and her daughter's wonderful two would-be husbands? If these votes are based only on how people are wired or some all-purpose equality then the State has no right to bar plural aka polygamous marriages.

I'm less concerned with the issues than with how these laws are created and passed.

The califascists allow issues to make it to the ballot box, then simply ignore undesired outcomes when the sheeple don't vote how they wish. Other states just run bills through and hope no one is paying attention.


I wonder why people bother engaging you when you are such an obvious troll. Saying things only to rile people up, yet lacking any real substance.

If you really feel the way you feel - ditch the rhetoric and come with some commentary.

And when will we have the weepy politico talking about her wonderful daughter and her daughter's wonderful two would-be husbands? If these votes are based only on how people are wired or some all-purpose equality then the State has no right to bar plural aka polygamous marriages.

I'm less concerned with the issues than with how these laws are created and passed.

The califascists allow issues to make it to the ballot box, then simply ignore undesired outcomes when the sheeple don't vote how they wish. Other states just run bills through and hope no one is paying attention.

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

When I saw the Politico piece about this, I just about blew a gasket. I mean, why should we let a little thing like popular vote get in the way of our Democratic process? ...Oh, wait.

Republicans are happy to have Paul bump up their seat numbers in the Senate, but when it comes to a Presidential election, he can't be "one of them"? Maybe the GOP bigwigs in their smoke-filled rooms should take note of Ron Paul's popularity as a sign that maybe *some* of their base would prefer some shifts in the direction of Libertarianism rather than the continual creep further and further into the raving/religious right. Hint hint, wink wink, nudge nudge, me included.

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?


I agree with you 100%, and I think most people would too. It's my money too dang nab it; true capitalism has no bailouts. The problem today is that we have a corporate-socialist-capitalist government. In other words, the banks got a bailout and the people didn't. I speak for myself here when I say that any amount of money spent on somebody else's greed (whether it's personal buying a house, or corporate buying toxic mortgages) was a waste of money. People talked about the real-estate bubble bursting since 2004; everyone had 3 years to get their act together (capital gains on homes is 2 years, so they had plenty of time to refinance or sell), yet some actually paid attention and limited their losses, and others believed that during recession (2001) it still made sense that house prices were on the rise.


Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.


I agree with you here as well. I like the practice of democracy and I don't have an issue with these people voicing their concerns, and like I said before, I don't see this problem solved by any existing politician today. I have no faith in the federal government, Democrat or Republican. So far I am liking the movement, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, like I did with the Tea Party. The moment I see the OWS people align with an existing corrupt party (choose your flavor), then I'll polarize against it.

Good day to you.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I appreciate the work that went into your response and I read all of it. "Leaderless" movement? Don't believe it.

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?

Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.



>> MonkeySpank:[snip]

So in short, QM, I think you're not always wrong as I tend to agree with some of your posts, but you're not always right either. Neither am I. The truth is somewhere in between.

As my old English teacher used to say, the best argument is the one that sits on the fence...


I appreciate the work that went into your response and I read all of it. "Leaderless" movement? Don't believe it.

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?

Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.



>> ^MonkeySpank:

QM,
There is no need to put labels on these people. Labels are a sign of weakness in any argument. The OWS have repeatedly stated that they are not affiliated with any party.. >>

Can't someone just embed the original video from Politico's site, instead of a video of a screen of a video?

Also, dumb cunt.

I sometimes think that, too, but we both know it's not going to happen.

I like a good argument, but there comes a point where there's just no point in it anymore.

Looking forward to joking around with the crew.

Good to see you, too.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, you need to keep an eye on the blood pressure, buddy.

Well, debating politics on the internet does next to no good. And I think this site would be better if we didn't speak any of it.

Good to have you back.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
Hey Blankie.

I've been trying to avoid the politico thing. My blood pressure is through the roof.

I'm not sure it does any good any more.

Good to see you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yo! Where've you been? There are some invigorating debates about the politico these days. Some real humdingers, as the youngin's these days say.

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, you need to keep an eye on the blood pressure, buddy.

Well, debating politics on the internet does next to no good. And I think this site would be better if we didn't speak any of it.

Good to have you back.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
Hey Blankie.

I've been trying to avoid the politico thing. My blood pressure is through the roof.

I'm not sure it does any good any more.

Good to see you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yo! Where've you been? There are some invigorating debates about the politico these days. Some real humdingers, as the youngin's these days say.

Hey Blankie.

I've been trying to avoid the politico thing. My blood pressure is through the roof.

I'm not sure it does any good any more.

Good to see you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yo! Where've you been? There are some invigorating debates about the politico these days. Some real humdingers, as the youngin's these days say.

Yo! Where've you been? There are some invigorating debates about the politico these days. Some real humdingers, as the youngin's these days say.

@peggedbea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
"In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that have primarily replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications."
So there are politico-economical reasons sodas in Europe contain beet sugar.

>> ^ponceleon:

The problem is that people don't understand the mentality of the lunatic fringe. Evidence is not evidence for them, it is just "proof" of a coverup.
Basically, if they don't get the answer they want, they just continue to complain that it is all a conspiracy.


The problem is that the "lunatic fringe" is made up of 69% of all Republicans. America, you are fucked.

Not the kind of expression to be used on a national talk show by a politico, to be sure, but the expression that I think he's looking for is more akin to come to Jesus, which has to do with having an emotional experience that results in a change in behavior. (We use this expression in my work with addicts.)

He asked a rather empty question. The kind asked in Question Period in the house of commons. Those politicos are skilled enough to riposte them.

He could have made a request, he could have made reference to something specific, he could have…
In fact the follow-up question after his was sharper.

But it made for good television.