I do believe that "None of the above" is a fundamental democratic right.

The downside of no-one being elected to write more laws, is that there's also no-one to repeal existing stupid laws.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

OH man - the evidence is in - unfortunately looks like this is a self-link.

-- Sift of the week is hereby repealed.
-- Video is (really) discarded
-- @yourhydra is banned

Sorry for the kerfuffle everybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shooting

A pair of Tech 9's and a .45, and one unstable fuck-tard, and the entire state adopts laws soon repealed, because they were emotionally-charged, retarded-at-face-value, bullshit and reactionary.

Sanity prevails and will continue to until all hope is lost, all fucking morons take heed.

I'd still like to understand how you believe diplomacy to be a more workable solution. If diplomacy is to be the solution to extremism in Pakistan, I presume you look to the moderate leaders in Pakistan for the answers? When I go through the list of such leaders, a disturbing trend is observable.

Shahbaz Bhatti was an elected member of the National Assembly lobbying for repealing Pakistan's death penalty for blasphemy. He was assassinated on March 2, 2011.

Salman Taseer was a governor in Pakistan, lobbying for repealing Pakistan's death penalty for blasphemy. He was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards on January 4, 2011.

Benazir Bhutto, the nations first female Prime Minister had returned after being chased off by the nations military to run in the 2008 elections. She was assassinated on December 27, 2007.

This list is just highlights, countless more moderate leaders keep ending up dead in Pakistan. Meanwhile, elected figures like those from parties like the JUI-F survive, and give speeches in Pakistan's National Assembly declaring Osama Bin Laden an Islamic hero, and the assassins that killed those in the prior list as heroes as well.

I don't mean to be rude about it, but I just don't understand why you believe that diplomacy alone can be expected to succeed in such circumstances?

I don't like the DMV website.

REPEAL THE DMV!!

What is helping with that though is that because the right keeps moving the goalposts, so many people who were once Republicans are now RINOs according to the extremists. Just like this video suggests, Will may be a fictional character, but he's describing exactly what a lot of moderate Republicans are going through right now. The right wing extremists have decided to pursue a personal vendetta against Obama and all the moderates in the party are going "wtf?"

Sorry, but that's the most basic sign of a downfall. when you keep purging your ranks for not having enough ideological purity, you're not exactly planning for long term success.

When all the big historical Republicans heroes like Lincoln, Nixon, and Reagan, and maybe even HW Bush couldn't win a Republican primary in today's climate, you know you're losing touch

I dunno though, speaking more generally however, there's got to be some way of inducing politicians to not play games like this. The whole 10% approval yet 90% incumbancy rate should hopefully shock people into doing something. We've got a bill that passed both houses of congress, signed into law by the president AND upheld by the SCOTUS, and yet a small faction is holding gov't hostage over this.

I don't see how it's even legal to defund something that is law. If it's law, how is it legal to interfere with it like that? If you don't like it, pass a new law repealing it....that should be the only way to stop an existing law (other than Supreme Court of course)

I've heard this numerous times before from conservatives that we need to enforce the laws already on the books....well...ok. Let's do that.

I despise the two party system, but one side, (or to be more specific, one subfaction of one side) is demonstrably more harmful than the other.

I'm all in favor of abolishing parties in this nation, this "but they're equally bad" argument is bull.

Government was actually designed that way though, sure we don't like shutdowns (but then again, here's the problem, some people DO want the gov't to be shut down so that corporations can run everything) but government WAS designed to be slow and not easy to change laws. It has the side benefit of being very resistant to tyranny since it requires so many people and multiple branches to agree

It's one thing to not like how government works, but its quite another to be willing to shutdown gov't over ONE piece of legislation that has the support of the people and the branches of gov't. It's quite another to have a faction completely and utterly oppose the president purely on the basis of the color of his skin.

The big tent GOP is being left behind and that tent is getting smaller and smaller. Gerrymandered districts are pretty much the only reason they are still retaining control. And typically when a company isn't doing so hot, they tend to not actually change tactics, but they do change their name so people with short memories get fooled, so then they called themselves the Tea Party, well that's not working out so well since again, they haven't really changed at all, so now they're rebranding themselves again and calling themselves Libertarians, but it's the same bullshit, just a different name.

No one ever said the ACA is perfect...no one. It was a compromise, What the public WANTED was single payer, but this was the compromise. You want to tweak it? change it? improve it? I'd agree with getting rid of all the exceptions people of talked about,

but you don't threaten to shutdown the gov't over it. especially when you've already failed to repeal it 40+ times in the past. Shutting down the gov't and waging message warfare trying to blame it on the president when it's 100% a congress issue is deranged behavior and basically counts on people being stupid enough to not know how the gov't works (like @lantern53) to believe the message.

People are dumb, but they're not quite THAT stupid, most people do know that it's the Tea Party holding the gov't hostage and not the President. This little stunt is really not helping their chances in the next election so in a weird way, I'm glad they're doing this because it just hastens them getting kicked out in 2014

Anecdotally speaking, a lot of my coworkers are conservatives and every single one of them is saying "fuck the Tea Party"

I see @lantern53 has no idea how gov't works. You see bobknight33, err I mean lantern53, There are three branches of government. Only one of them can create laws.

After much compromise, congress passed a law called the ACA. The President agreed and signed it into Law. It was ALSO upheld by the Supreme Court. So you see, ALL THREE branches of gov't are OK with this law.

Now this faction in the House of Representatives are trying to pass a law that says "sure, we'll fund gov't...but only if you de-fund or repeal the ACA. That's not governing, that's called taking a hostage. The senate isn't going to agree, so there's deadlock. See, the president isn't even involved.

He would ONLY get involved if both housed agreed with this, but guess what, even if congress agreed with the Tea Party, The President has this pesky little thing called a veto, which sends it back to Congress and they need a whopping 2/3rds majority vote to override him.

sorry, ain't going to happen. But hey, I'm happy that I could give you some remedial education since you refused to pay attention in class.

So in actuality, The Tea Party can keep having their little temper tantrum, They're all but digging their graves in the next election.

Wait, I thought the stock scandal was because elected officials could do insider trading and it wasn't illegal. It was always illegal for the staff members.

What I hear in this is that the on-line database of personal stock transactions is being repealed for the staffers. The database will be there for the elected officials.

And it is still illegal to do insider trader for elected officials -- which is the real disgusting thing which the stock act took care of.

Unless I don't understand something?

As far as the law--I hate it. It's stupid. However, you cannot "force and intimidate" someone to defend themselves. What most likely happened was that Zimmerman made Trayvon into a punk bitch and Trayvon responded illegally. It is not against the law to punk someone, it is to swing on that person. Then Zimmerman, fat little man he is, became scared and when he hit the concrete it was over.

I am only speculating based on reason here. It doesn't excuse Zimmerman and the law should be repealed yesterday.

It is funny, I was walking from the park and a black kid turned to me suddenly, inches from my face, and punked me. I just kept walking, even though I could have broke his nose despite his height. And his friend's face too for that matter. But I was a big boy. I have kids and responsibilities. Why risk it there, and why Trayvon risked it I don't know.

NDAA 2007 basically overrode Posse Comitatus, even though it's overreach was repealed later. NDAA 2012 extended the definition of covered persons to include " any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities." A covered person is someone that is subject to martial law and exempt from Posse Comitatus. Of course, it's kinda hard to declare martial law on just one person which is why you saw martial law in full effect following the Boston bombing.

However, to answer your question, this was a military exercise, not US Armed Forces (with the exception for the National Guard and Coast Guard) enforcing domestic law. Of course, extrapolating from @chingalera 's tags, this exercise serves a more sinister purpose. I'll leave it up to him to expound on that.

Your video, U.S. Citizens Sign Petition to Repeal U.S. Bill of Rights, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 3 Badge!

Here is a list of all congressmen who voted to extend the patriot act:
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/376

Number of times congress has tried to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act: 37
Number of times congress has tried to repeal the Patriot Act: 0

The repugs in the House have failed to submit a jobs program of any kind (which they ran on in '10 and '12), but their slavering base of luddites only care for the endless blatherings of faux-rage and the types of useless quixotry that repealed Obamacare 37 times.

RSNML

"I swore an oath to defend prohibition and the repeal of prohibition, so help me God".

Its just secular religion; a crisis of modernity, the same as Nazism, Communism, industrialism et al.