Oh shit…Lecturngate is blowing up in Arkansas where MAGA governor Sanders is in deep shit for using taxpayer funds to take her insurrectionist girlfriends to Paris (and thousands in smaller personal purchases), then trying to hide it by changing how Arkansas replies to FOIA requests in special session with anti transparency laws that would exempt her from explaining the thefts.

When that failed she forged official documents to pretend she had used her insurrectionist friend’s company to buy a $20000 lectern (not for the$20000 trip they took together). Turns out the lecturn they showed trying to continue the fraud was a fake knockoff lectern that would only cost $7000 if it were real and is worth a few hundred dollars at most…a total fraud.
After being caught repeatedly tampering with original public records, a felony, now the AK GOP is going to reimburse the state for her vacation she claimed was a fake lecturn.

Again, MAGA governor Sanders stole well over $20000 for personal use, then used her power to try to hide it by changing FOIA with the GOP complicit in the act, then lied about what it was for when it became public knowledge anyway, and now the GOP are paying the state back for the theft and pretending that was always the plan despite all evidence and anti-transparency legislation created to the contrary.

Another MAGA governor using the office as a personal piggy bank to enrich herself and her friends while shirking their duties and breaking the laws….as usual.

Um....are you really that ignorant and delusional? Oops, forgot who I was addressing....sorry. (I hadn't noticed you flatly denied he has a speech impediment)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-stutter/

Lol. At least he can give a speech with complete sentences and thoughts and without pooping his diaper. Trump can't, just watch his my pillow speech from Saturday when he slurred and mumbled his way through more whining and sour grapes about losing the election...so decrepit he was unable to open his eyes the entire rambling seated speech (maybe involuntarily closed due to rancid full diaper stench), or the pictures from his recent New York trip where he looks on deaths door, pale, frazzled, and exhausted, without his taxpayer funded makeup team he looks like Palpatine after a fight...and you still think obese, dementia riddled diaper Don has it in him to be president. He never did, that's why he spent 1/3 of every day watching tv, and 1/3 of every day frantically rage tweeting nonsense, and astonishingly a full 22%, 308 days of his single term playing golf at tax payers expense and his profit, leaving 11%+- of his time in office for governing, family time, travel, and sleeping combined. He doesn't have it in him to do any physical activity more strenuous than cheating badly at golf while using a cart to go 30 ft., even on the green. Biden runs and bikes long distances constantly, and isn't obese or dementia riddled.

Don is a worn out old con man who should be gripping his soap with all his might in the prison shower....and who may be doing that soon for the rest of his life. Lmfahs!
Also, when Trump eats cookies with his grandchild, he's also having cookies with his child. They're the same person.

Don't know this Stossel guy (seems like a tool), but was always a fan of Mike Rowe, and also his initiative to get more workers in the trades.

I've seen plumbers (2-yr degree + certification) with higher hourly rates than lawyers (8-yr degree + bar exam). I also know a guy who makes more now as a general contractor than he did as a DBA (B.S. in Computer Science).
I think part of this is supply & demand- not as many tradespeople so the wages go up to hire those willing, and the cost of higher wages gets passed on to the customer.

But the point of this video isn't "should you go to college?", it's "the liberals want hard-working people to pay for college for all these liberal students", which is a false premise and why I can't upvote it.

I think community college should be taxpayer-funded for those students who want more than just high school. (but they should have to maintain certain GPA to remain free)
As far as other private Universities, they should be able to charge for it. Colleges that receive Federal or State money should have a cap on the rate that tuition can increase per year (maybe based on inflation). Over the past 20 years, most college tuition has gone up way more than inflation or wages.

Rather than student-loan forgiveness, I'd rather see a federal program that will help those students who couldn't finish school go back and get their degree (where it will pay for itself) or get a different degree. Most of this sub-$10k student debt they talk about is for students who never got their degree.

I know you're joking, but you aren't wrong.

As a Canadian I am pretty sick of hearing some of the very snide attitudes up here about look at us and how we afford public healthcare at similar taxation to the US. How dumb are you guys to be spending so much money on evil killing machines. snicker snicker

The thing of it is though, we spend as good as nothing on military spending by comparison, and yeah, by saving that money we get to cheap out on taxes and still afford the public health program we have. However, we 100% are earning that luxury on the backs of US taxpayers funding a military that protects BOTH our country and theirs.

We are getting a free ride and mocking the driver for spending so much on their car that we absolutely rely upon because our car is missing two wheels and the engine needs to be rebuilt and we're too cheap to be bothered.

230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Highlights:


Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)





>Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)


>Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)


>Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)
>Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)


>Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)


>An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)


>Wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)

>Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
http://humanevents.com/2005

Not a straw man one bit. I didn't say you made the list, but you accepted it as the topic and your examples.

Again, they didn't personally profit. Government employees don't own patents on what they create on the job, and didn't profit personally from them. That came later from the public sector. Even in the private sector, inventors often don't profit from inventions they create at work, their company does. I'm certainly not saying people don't profit from their inventions, just not in these publicly funded cases.

100% of the examples were based on purely taxpayer funded inventions, created not through capitalism, not created for profit. Publicly funded projects are SOCIALISM. Those who spout hate of anything socialism should immediately get off the internet.

Again, G5 and G6 are being led by communist countries. Invention isn't tied to profit, especially these inventions.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not profit.

Do we need another round? We're going in circles because you insist socialist academic inventions are due solely to the incentive of profit, ignoring their history and origins.

On social policies, left and right couldn't be more different. Sure, there are plenty of sane conservatives that have come around towards not treating minorities, women, and LGBT like shit. A lot of times it's that same meme we've seen over and over. Conservatives don't give a fuck until they're personally affected by it. They only stop being pro-war if one of their loved ones dies. They only stop being anti-lgbt if they discover that one of their loved ones are lgbt. Just recently, Kasich got a bit of the spotlight because of his 2nd place in the NH primaries and he gets hailed as the more moderate conservative, but he's still pretty anti-choice, so I'm told.

Now yeah, you're exactly right when it comes to other aspects of the parties. the entire primary process is complete bull. The RNC and DNC are both private organizations. There is no rule whatsoever that they are beholden to votes There is nothing in the constitution about parties. They literally can nominate whoever the fuck they want. Sanders and Trump could win every single primary race and they could still pick anyone they want and ignore the votes. What's worse is that taxpayers fund the primary elections so we're wasting taxpayer dollars on a primary race that literally DOES NOT MATTER. I am an election worker and I recently got contacted that ill be working our state's primary election in May. sure the extra cash is nice (it's only about 100 bucks) but that's 100 bucks we could spend on more useful things and I'd gladly give it up to create a better selection process and eliminate primaries completely. Elections in America are so fucking messed up and resemble a reality show way too much, which definitely explains why Trump is doing as well as he is. If we had actual debates and took shit seriously? He'd never have a snowballs chance in hell. But hey, this is America and we care more about spectacle than substance.

Now yeah, if our only two choices were Cruz or Trump, I'd vote for Trump in a heartbeat. He's the lesser of two evils. (And I also love feeding the RWNJ paranoia that he's a democrat plant). That is the reality of our elections. I knew damned well that Obama was never going to be able to do most of the things he said he would do, even if he did have a friendly Congress. But again, he's the lesser of two evils.

America puts way too much stock in the Office of the President. Congress is where the real power is at, but America's culture mistakenly hinges EVERYTHING on the Presidency, and it's just not true, it's a distraction from the real wheels of power. It's the same in Britain. The monarchy has no real power, they're figureheads. The real power is in Parliament. The monarchy is a distraction.

You're exactly right about lobbyists and money in politics. I've been on board with that on day one. I'm definitely pro Bernie. But even if Bernie wins the general, he's going to have a hostile congress and that's going to limit much of what he can do unless we can take back congress. Again, that's where the real power is. The most he will probably be able to do is appoint more SCOTUS judges.

So democrats, if you want shit to change? stop staying home during the midterm elections. Unless something crazy happens, Republicans aren't going to be retaking the white house any time soon, but you need to start voting in the midterms so that Congress changes. It's this sad little cycle. During general elections, dems come out to vote in droves, but then they stay home for the midterms and Republicans trounce them and they wonder why Congress is right-wing.

So yeah, if for social policies alone, I'll definitely vote for Hillary if Bernie doesn't get the nod. Do I think she'll accomplish much? No, but few presidents do. CONGRESS IS WHAT MATTERS!

They alter Hollywood scripts for studios that want US military hardware in their movies. Want to film a taxpayer funded aircraft carrier in this/any movie you're making?? We're not keen on this line where the guy mentions CIA heroin dealing/ lies to invade Iraq / torture centres / deathsquads etc etc..
Some say no (independence day) most go along with it as economic neccesity, others have their nose so far up the military ass they make Leni Riefenstahl look like a impassionate observer (Bruckhemer/Scott etc).
Didn't you wonder why all modern mainstream Hollywood films have become propaganda?

Children absolutely don't belong to their parents and we, less as a 'community' than a species, do have an interest in ensuring that they're properly raised.

We're talking about the future of humanity - they're too important to leave entirely at the mercy of what are generally a pair of confused simpletons. The more we can limit the influence of the parent over their child, the further we can divorce our life outcomes from our circumstances at birth, the healthier our race will be.

Indiscriminately taxpayer funded education isn't a part of that. In an overpopulated environment parents should be expected to cover the cost of their children. Tax them as a group, enough to fund all the relevant social expenses, which of course include universal education with college places for the qualified.

@rbar np, take your time, I'm quite busy as well.

Did East Germany have a great economy? Like you said, it faired well in some sectors, highly subsidized sectors I might add, at the huge expense of the rest of its economy which was miserable compared to West Germany (or to what it could be if it were capitalistic). Think of all the "luxuries" enjoyed right outside the Berlin Wall that were denied to east germans. Can you see purchasing or providing those products and services as economic activity being denied, and, therefore, less cooperation?

You have to question your assumption that capitalism universally strives for competition, or that it always should, or that it's the philosophy of free markets to make everyone compete. There are forces *for* and *against* competition everywhere in capitalism, from those who benefit and lose from it, respectively. I think that's what you mean by "near perfect competition", the perfection being the balance between competing and not competing as required.

Why are labor unions formed? So workers can compete less with each other and cooperate for better employment terms. Does that favor companies? No, but who cares, it's meant to favor the workers. Why are cartels formed? So companies can compete less with each other and cooperate for better profits. Is that good for the consumers? Usually not, but it's good for the companies in the cartel. Why are consumer groups formed... you get the point. These institutions operate against competition, but that doesn't make them any less capitalistic or contrary to the incentives of free markets, assuming they're formed without the use of force, criminal or lawful. A lawful association between individuals or companies to cooperate instead of compete with each other is capitalism at work too.

When you talk about situations where there is less or no competition, you're not considering the competition that arises on the other side of the demand-supply relation!

If there is large demand and little supply, you correctly point out that there is little competition *among suppliers*, right? However, aren't you overlooking the increased competition among the *demanders*? Like I said, competition is increasing as supply and demand differ. Who is competing with whom is beside the point.

You might argue, "well, how is competition among the demand going to help??", because it sucks to be in the demand for something in low supply, that unmet demand represents an incentive for more supply. Supplying something in high demand is a coveted position. Resources from elsewhere will tend to be allocated towards that coveted position, supplying that demand, and increasing competition in what started out as a less or non-competitive environment.

So, I don't follow your "markets universally tend towards monopolies" argument. As much as companies like monopolies, they like it because it profits from the clients/consumers' desperate demand for it, but these people are not ok with fighting each other for something in low supply. THAT is the incentive towards competition, towards destabilizing any monopoly that abuses its position.

The derivatives market is a complex example, but you're blaming the "free market", when the banking system is far from a free market if there's a central bank. Banks should be allowed to make risky investments and, if these investments don't pan out, they should pay the price with loss and bankruptcy, like it happens with any business that makes bad decisions. That is one of the best incentives to make good decisions! If the whole banking system is to blame for that, then it would collapse, which would be disastrous, but it would expose the disaster that is central banking.

Would the government want society to realize that central banking is terrible? Of course not, they're the ones who profit from it the most, which is why it stepped in with a massive taxpayer-funded bailout. None of what I just described is allowed in a free market.

Just like people realized the Church and State should be separate centuries ago, it will take a while for people to realize the State and Banks should be separate as well. The evidence is unravelling right before us.

If we let the people out of prison, who will operate the factories they are attached to? Where will we get our cheap paint and crappy fiberboard office furniture?

(In the United States)the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people. (...)

Profits are so good that now there is a new business: importing inmates with long sentences, meaning the worst criminals. When a federal judge ruled that overcrowding in Texas prisons was cruel and unusual punishment, the CCA signed contracts with sheriffs in poor counties to build and run new jails and share the profits. According to a December 1998 Atlantic Monthly magazine article, this program was backed by investors from Merrill-Lynch, Shearson-Lehman, American Express and Allstate, and the operation was scattered all over rural Texas. That state's governor, Ann Richards, followed the example of Mario Cuomo in New York and built so many state prisons that the market became flooded, cutting into private prison profits.

After a law signed by Clinton in 1996 - ending court supervision and decisions - caused overcrowding and violent, unsafe conditions in federal prisons, private prison corporations in Texas began to contact other states whose prisons were overcrowded, offering "rent-a-cell" services in the CCA prisons located in small towns in Texas. The commission for a rent-a-cell salesman is $2.50 to $5.50 per day per bed. The county gets $1.50 for each prisoner.

Source=/globalreasearch.ca/Vicky Pelaez/2008

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-taking-birth-control-pills-for-reasons-other-than-contraception/

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

Your poll, you missed out on one little thing in it...

"*Among the 62 percent of Americans who have heard about the mandate*, 48 percent said they support an exemption for religiously affiliated institutions if they object to the use of contraceptives, the survey found. Forty-four percent said the groups should be required to cover contraceptives like other employers."

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

And it doesn't matter because majority rule doesn't determine whether something is unconstitutional. Majority votes don't tell what is good policy for the US necessarily either.

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left.

FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

"Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

So he's not an extreme liberal, but these views are extreme liberal, and you believe he's likely to take off his costume and become the true hardcore communist everyone should fear in his second term... but he's NOT an extreme liberal?

Dude, which is it?

>> ^shinyblurry:


Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.
That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.
There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause
Not according to this poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/po
ll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/
Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.
That's just scratching the surface.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.
>> ^heropsycho:

Keep linking to videos of hard right extremists. You're really not making an honest case. You're making a partisan case.

? The video was congressional hearing where Kathleen Selibus gave testimony concerning the contraceptive mandate. How is that "hard right extremists?" Did someone program her answers for her?

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.

Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.

Imagine a religion that believes you should not attempt to prevent someone from accidentally dying because you're interfering with God's will. Therefore, seat belts are against their religion. The Church then goes out to buy vehicles. Of course, the federal gov't regulates the automobile industry, and requires every vehicle to have seat belts. So federal regulations requiring seat belts are against the 1st Amendment?!

That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.

Um, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since the constitution says the purpose of gov't, among other reasons, is to promote the general welfare, it has passed laws to provide minimum quality guidelines for meat in the Meat Inspection Act, food and medicine with the Pure Food and Drug Act, cars, building codes, I could go on and on. This provision in Obamacare is intended to mandate minimum socially acceptable health insurance coverage for various things. You can't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, etc. Included in this is to say medical insurance must provide coverage for these kinds of contraception. This has nothing to do with favoring certain religions over others. In fact, the use of these types of birth control can be for reasons that haven't a thing to do with preventing pregnancy, and therefore can have absolutely zero religious implications. Everyone can still practice their religions as they want. This isn't the portion of Obamacare that will get declared unconstitutional, or else the legal precedent it would establish would imply that much of the transformational and positive laws we've passed over the last 100 years would also be unconstitutional.

There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/7-states-sue-to-block-contraception-mandate/

There are provisions of the bill that there is honest debate about the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate is an interesting constitutional question. But this? Please. And this isn't far left by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe prescription birth control is amoral, and most believe that it's a basic drug that should be covered by health insurance. Not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike 1...

Not according to this poll:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/poll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/

Repeal of DOMA? Not far left. All DOMA does is say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, and the federal government does not consider a gay couple married. Obama's stance is states should decide if gay marriage is illegal.

Let's look at what the Obama administration has a problem with in DOMA. It's Section 3, which is what states the US gov't won't recognize a gay marriage, legal in the state where those people live and in which it was performed, as legal for the purposes of federal taxes, insurance benefits, and the like. IE, Obama wants it to be that if a state says it's legal, the federal gov't will recognize it the same. If it's considered illegal by the state, the US gov't will not supercede it either.

That's far left?! NO! Far left would be supporting legalization of gay marriage via federal legislation or otherwise against states' wills if necessary. That is NOT what Obama has proposed in any shape or form.

Strike 2...

Repealing DOMA has been on the far left agenda since it was enacted. Whatever Obama says his position is, which has switched three times, is irrelevant to the point.

Supporting FOCA is far left? FOCA attempts to codify Roe v. Wade. It declares a woman has the right to get an abortion up to the point the fetus is deemed viable, or in the case that the fetus is a threat to the health of the mother.

That's far left?! Dude, it's what's already pretty much the law!!! Far left would be unrestricted abortions for any reason all the way up to birth. That's not what FOCA is.

In other words, anyone who thinks abortions should be protected even in limited cases, you consider extreme. I submit FOCA isn't extreme; clearly, you are.

Strike 3, thanks for playing.

Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.

That's just scratching the surface.

So, you pretty much said it yourself. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe Obama is someone apparently from the hard left, and you have nothing to base this on other than your warped ideology. This is a guy who is criticized by the very far left of his party for not being to the left enough.

I'm sorry, but your views are absurd.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.

>> ^heropsycho:

I'll just respond to these in bulk, since it's quite a pile of manure.

The following state things happened that never happened:

>> ^lantern53:

First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.


The following he wasn't the first to do, or wouldn't have been if it weren't also part of the block above:

>> ^lantern53:

First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law a duly passed Act of Congress.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect.
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to take a 17 day vacation.


Many of these he not only wasn't the first to do, they were things Bush did when he was in office. Some, like "arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it" and "require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party" happened back when the founding fathers were still alive.

Let's see, what's left?

>> ^lantern53:

First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.


There's a lot wrong with this one. First, it wasn't a trillion dollars. Second, "the President" didn't spend it. Third, "shovel-ready" was a term to describe projects that could begin work sooner rather than later, and amazingly enough, those existed. Fourth, this wasn't a "first" -- the New Deal was bigger when you adjust for inflation. Fifth, it was a big help to our sagging economy, and we should've done a second round of it.

But I do agree, the President deserves credit for getting the stimulus passed. So does the President -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the stimulus) is featured prominently in the video above.

>> ^lantern53:

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.


That's because Republicans in Congress came within seconds of forcing the US to default on its debt.

>> ^lantern53:

First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.


No argument from me on this one. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

>> ^lantern53:

First President to repeat the Holy Quran tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.


I suspect if we check the record really carefully we can find Bush (Jr. or Sr.) saying something similar, but in any case is this supposed to be a bad thing?

President Obama's record is one he should be proud of. I was hoping he'd be able to do more, but honestly I underestimated the totally craven hostile bullshit that having a black Democrat in the White House brought out of the Confederacy. Excuse me, I mean the "Republican party."

Did they mention these?

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.
First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to repeat the Holy Quran tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
First President to take a 17 day vacation.