So, you can't argue against my points, so you change your argument?
You said we are sliding into socialism...I showed you that's wrong and now you say 'sliding to more government' is the same thing. They are not.

You are listening to talking heads. The republicans may promise to 'undo what was done' but in reality they don't do that (they don't really even try, they just try to look like they are, how many 'votes' to 'repeal' the ACA?) but instead increase their control at every turn.

1) Wow! A point we agree on!
2) Um...so you want to say the minimal wall street regulations were 'screwing corporations' and removing them is 'unscrewing them'? Well, lets just leave it at 'I totally disagree' that going back to reasonable rules (rules the republicans removed before, causing the insanity in the market for 25 years) is 'screwing business', it's forcing business to not screw everyone else by fraud.
3) If the government IS in charge of the program (and it is, because states failed miserably to do it themselves) there should be reasonable 'rules' on how to do it. Those 'rules' in this case should be determined by nutritionists, not politicians. Catchup is not a vegetable. It's really just one more swipe at the Obamas for no logical reason in my eyes.
4) It's hilarious that when it's for something you like, you are all pro-federal power to override the states/local laws, but when it's not (like a federal lunch program) they shouldn't be involved.
Socialism and corporatism are the reverse of each other. I should not have to be the one to teach you that.
We disagree as to which party is running faster towards 'oligarchy'. We disagree because you think Faux actually shows NEWS, but they ONLY have propaganda on Faux, not news, not reporting, only editorializing. Those who watch Faux are consistently less informed than those who watch NOTHING. Repeatedly proven fact.

Both parties have failed, so you think we should go for the crazed, farther right splinter party...you know the Naz....oh...sorry...I got confused....teabagger party. They might not all be lynching nuts, but most certainly are. I've seen and talked to them, and walked through rallies. It's not a myth.
Because they were not registered republicans does not make them either democrat or independent, most of them just think the republicans don't go far enough to the right...kind of like a certain German party from the 30's I can mention.

EDIT: I guess since it's OK for the republicans to off hand legislate against the known wishes and vote of the people because they 'control the laws in DC', you would have no problem with Obama using executive powers to bypass congress and to line veto the budget to remove all the superfluous BS the republicans added to it? The president has that power and can executive order and line item veto all day long...but you would be having a fit if he did, no?

@bobknight33,
What color is the sky in your universe?
I ask you because your angry statements are actually diametrically opposed to reality.
The republicans are grasping control with both hands and a net, while the democrats are failing miserably at their attempts to stop the power grab....

Examples from just this week, the republicans just added to the budget (which, BTW, is simply not how they system works, and is simply a way to blackmail the government into capitulating to their plans or they'll just 'shut down the government' again, wasting billions more...again)....
1)an increase in the amount corporations can donate to them by 10 times, because republicans think corporations don't have enough say in our government and want to give them 10 times more voice (but not citizens)
2)a removal of the protections against wall street frauds and cheating that were hard won in the last few years, apparently attempting to ensure we have another avoidable 'recession' as soon as possible, and ensure that those responsible are not ever prosecuted for their frauds, but are 'bailed out' instead...again...
3)removal of minimum standards for public school lunches, because they believe poor children don't need vegetables, vitamins, protein, or micro nutrients, carbs and sugars are just fine for them.
EDIT: 4) and just to prove they don't really want smaller, localized government and don't want more power for the states and less for the fed, the republicans have also 'countermanded' the local people's vote in DC on legalized marijuana, making it illegal again there (contrary to the actual vote that was over 60% PRO legalized recreational marijuana).
If only Obama would use the line item veto, it wouldn't be an issue, but he won't (because he's not a power hungry dictator, contrary to Faux News 'reporting').

America is sliding away from socialism, and into corporatism. At least socialism is designed to benefit the populace, what we are getting from the republicans is designed to benefit their pocket books and corporate America, not the people.

As has been mentioned above, you must simply have no idea what socialism is if you think America is even headed in that direction, we're headed the other way buddy.

love how everyone starts chuckling when he declares that Obamacare *will* be killed

I'll never understand why democrats do not show up to vote on midterms. The Republicans didn't win the midterms...Dems just didn't show up so R just won by forfeit

They'll show up to vote against Palin and McCain, and to vote against Romney/Ryan. But they're silent during midterms.

On the lighter side though, Nothing has really changed though, Obama can still veto anything the R puts out and they don't have enough control of congress to override the veto. If anything If Reps really are emboldened and think they have a mandate to go full retard..even moreso than usual. Then in the long term, this will benefit the liberals when the public ultimately rejects GOP ideas as they have increasingly done so.

I'm no monarchist. But you're tilting at windmills. The symbolism you speak of is dead, because everyone knows how ridiculous they are. The government treats them with disdain and are always cleaning up after one of them goes gobbing off. The constitutional veto that the Queen nominally has, for example, would be impossible for her to exercise.

The British tourism industry is based almost entirely on the history of the Royal family and the USP is that we still have one - they're not just figures from history, we have, as Mr Stanhope points out, the genuine article still in residence. It's a zoo.

She still owns half the land. The military, police and intelligence services all swear their oaths to her above us. The higher courts belong to her along with the Judges & QC's. The Prime Minister has to meet her once a week, she can veto any law parliament passes (and to pass it must gain "royal ascent"), or even dissolve parliament itself. etc. etc.

But more than any of that it is a genuine fucking embarrassment to me that in the 21st century we still accept any member of our society declaring themselves our natural betters in law, or indeed the rest of us as being "subjects".

You are not a free citizen of the UK, you are a "Subject" of the crown in law. Even if this was pure symbolism (which I don't agree with anyway), what it symbolises is disgusting and backwards. (that could be the UK's tagline "disgusting and backwards" )

If you have a nation built upon a principle of Nepotism the end result should come as no surprise to anyone. The only good argument I've ever heard for keeping the monarchy is that due to the amount of land they own, paying their "wages" works out considerably cheaper than the rent they could charge the government......

...But if that's not a reason to strip them of their power AND rights to the land WE live on I don't know what is. They want to hold us to ransom? The mature response would be to give any such people a stark lesson about the collective consensual prerequisite of personal property. Not put a fucking crown on their heads and bow to them like the feckless goons we are .

Fuck the Queen, fuck her castles and fuck her family. The Corgi's I can turn a blind eye to, they seem quite friendly.....


"Struck a nerve Mr. Woo?"
Yes I fear you have! Please try not to take that as an attack on yourself however Mr. Flowers, you're not the one I'm being angsty at if you see what I mean.

Saw in the news the Supreme Court upheld the right to restrict cover (5:4), for "closely-held" corporations based on a 1993 law that limited the ability to restrict religious freedoms.

I kind of see the logic of saying that if non-profits corporations can already avoid providing it (which seems to be the case), then for profit corporations should have the same rights. But then I don't see why non-profits should have had the right to deny it either.

Either way though, I agree with John Oliver's bit. Plenty of people would have liked to veto funding for the Iraq war but obviously never had the option. To say that religious objections are specifically excluded is highly arbitrary. No employees who receive a salary should be excluded.

The "closely-held" provision is also highly arbitrary, almost implying that the court doesn't like the law and are trying to limit it's impact. Maybe it was some kind of compromise to get a majority. Either way, I imagine the notion of "closely-held" will be stretched as loosely as possible in practice.

http://time.com/2940577/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-contraception-obamacare/

This is just a distraction. Obviously the attendees at Bilderberg are not doing anything about "climate change" one way or the other.

(The Roman Republic also had Tribunes of "the People" who could veto laws. It made no difference at all to the lifestyle and activities of the Patricians, Senators, and military men of the Republic. If you -- who clearly has no influence over what the state does or doesn't do -- think that you "are the government," then I have little interest in trying to "cure" you of that delusion (unless you're a paying client of mine). And, by some definitions -- that ultimately make no practical difference -- you "are" the government, then I have every confidence that you can and will "deal with these issues" yourself to your satisfaction. And I wish you the best of luck!)

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.

Hey now, nothing wrong with arranged marriages. Just forced marriages. Father's need to start doing their job in finding suitors who are qualified and capable of wooing their daughters. I'm sure this young lady would love to get married if she were in love. Naturally the young lady ought to have complete veto power.

To pick nits ... the bill of rights was the first set of amendments to the original constitution. A very good addition through amendments, but it is still somewhat sad that it required amending to get those freedoms spelled out and nailed down as opposed to being in the original document. I guess hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

Shit like the patriot act, citizens united, etc. aren't amendments -- they are legislation passed into federal laws. I'd fully agree with any argument that they are "breaking the actual constitution"; such an argument seems quite clear cut to me. Unfortunately the judicial branch is the entity designated as having the checks and balances on the legislative branch, and they have failed to strike down such nonsense as unconstitutional when given the opportunity.

This is why I am feeling rather betrayed by the whole goddamn system. Bush the younger (executive) fed the patriot act to congress (legislative) who made it law, and the law was help up by the supreme court (judicial) with minor challenges. Later congresses (legislative) voted to renew expiring parts of the act. Obama (executive) could have vetoed that OR eliminated, cut back/pared down, or instructed the offices that actually implement the patriot act busywork (Dept. of Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) to kill or reduce the scope of the program.

At any single stage of that, any one of those governmental branches could have grown a pair and said enough was enough. But that didn't happen, and here we are. I have absolutely no faith in any branch or office of my federal government anymore. I hope Snowden evades capture and gets somewhere that won't bend to extradition pressure (which there will be a shitload of).

Wow, people have some short memories. He almost did run in 2012, but was basically told Americans wouldn't vote for a fat guy.

And he's definitely a republican...

You'll never convince the smaller states to get rid of the EC. But it can be somewhat fixed:

* Replace the first past the post with an alternative vote (see one of his other videos)
* Replace the winner take all in every state. The winner of each congressional district gets that district's vote, then the last two votes go to the winner of the state overall. This is perhaps one of the most important changes as it makes it as close to the popular vote as you can get without getting rid of the EC, which as I said, I don't think you'll get enough states to agree to.
* District lines should be drawn by open source software to help eliminate gerrymandering.
* Strict term limits (on both houses and the Supreme Court) and no life-time benefits for any of them that isn't given to every citizen, and every law that applies to citizens applies to them (so no more insider trading being legal for them).

Those few changes alone make it easier to be represented and increases the chance of 3rd parties getting some votes.

I would extend it further with one more important change. We have had 435 Representatives since 1911. It hasn't kept pace with the population growth. With modern technology there is no need for everyone to be in DC. Rather than adjusting those 435 people based on the population of the states, we should go back to the original system of having a Rep for X many people. Perhaps one Rep for every 50,000 or 100,000 people (no less than one for every 250,000). With everyone in their home districts and so many of them it makes it hard to buy them all. With so many Reps it probably means a pay cut, which they should have anyhow, especially getting rid of the life time privileges it comes with now... I would also kill the ability to add amendments to bills that aren't super tightly integrated to the bill, if you can't get your legislation passed without it being hidden as part of another bill, then it shouldn't be passed. Perhaps a lime-item veto of amendments and riders for all members of congress and the President. I say make pay based on the poverty rate and adjust for cost of living in each district... perhaps 2x the poverty rate, that would encourage them to fix poverty (and while we are at it rather than set some random number like $250,000 as a high tax bracket, tax brackets are broken by multiples of the poverty rate as well, so 10x the poverty rate puts you in the same bracket as $250k does today).

Vetoing the 2012 NDAA would have held up the military budget and would not have stopped the detention clause. It was a lose/lose game of political chicken and Obama chose pragmatism over idealism.

Obama has greatly helped the country by creating a healthcare program, by passing stimulus, by using quantitative easing to keep the recession from going depression, by ramping down military operations in the middle east, by favoring diplomacy over sabre rattling in Iran.

As far as promises go, he has kept (or at least attempted to keep to the best of his ability) most of his big promises, like ending combat in Iraq, creating a health care system, ending the use of torture, putting needed financial regulations into place, restricting warrantless wiretaps, ending denial of health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and signing an executive order to shut down Gitmo. Congress blocked his order to shut down Gitmo, which means the timetable is dependent on getting Republicans out of congress this November. Contrary to popular belief the executive branch is not all powerful. I know you don't like Obama, but can you at least admit these are positive changes for the better that would not have happened under a McCain or Romney administration? What were the broken promises you were talking about?

I love intellectuals like Chomsky and Chris Hedges and respect their criticisms of Obama. I think it would be much more productive to be informed by intellectuals, rather than slumming it in the right libertarian gutter. This video is just as frivolous as the Jackson video, if not morso.

I wish Obama was could be more progressive too, but that isn't going to happen in a conservative country where big business and the military industrial complex wield as much power as they do. We need both idealism and pragmatism if we are going to make progress. The country is far from how I'd like it to be, but I am happy that Obama is moving us in the right direction.

Don't mind me since I have been drinking but most of this seems like personal conjecture.

Obama did not Veto NDAA when he said he would.

People where killed overseas without Due process.

I personal don't give two shits over mittens and Kock brothers.

Jackson didn't produce depth it just made it seem cool, but it is more like the anti drug commercial this is your brain on drugs commercials. Shock value.

Obama has promised many things and delivered on little.

I like Noam Chomsky and he has been highly critical of the administration.

He hasn't closed Gitmo and has given no timetable.

Fuck John McCain and his sanctimonious POW bullshit.

I know that it was a rider and his administration fights to keep that one part alive.

Obama is not going to save this country. That believing he will help the country is only prolonging its death. I don't vote for the lesser evil.

This is all good fodder for discussion, but it is clear from the dishonest way in which this video was put together that the Kochs are more interested in creating a political hit piece than fostering any kind of discussion.

They claim Obama signed an executive order to kill American citizens, but they provide no context and erroneously use the plural (citizens) when in actuality it's just one guy. I'm not sure if it could have been avoided. I'm not sure how many lives it saved, if any. I'm not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing. In context, it exists in a very debatable grey area. But we see no attempt to understand any of this in this sanctimonious sermon.

As far as NDAA, it was not a bill designed to indefinitely detain prisoners, it was, (is) an annual military budget bill. John McCain attached a rider to the 2012 NDAA that allows for indefinite detention, for reasons I don't understand, because indefinite detention was already permissible under other existing clauses. Obama asked for it to be removed, but no action was taken, and it was voted in with a veto proof majority.

As to why the court case was appealed, I don't know. It might have something to do with Obama's executive order to shut down Guantanemo and provide trials for the prisoners. Congress vetoed the order by prohibiting funds to try the prisoners, leaving them in a kind of limbo. Does this clause give him more time to shut down Gitmo and give trials to the prisoners under a new and improved congress? I don't know. The point is that while it might be fun for the Koch's to drop some provocative soundbites, they do it in a superficial way that does little to further the conversation. If you want depth, read Chris Hedges, who has written some great stuff on the subject.

You could say that Reason is being superficial on purpose to mirror the Jackson video, but none of the videos they produce ever approach any level of depth.

Beyond all that, right wing libertarianism is not a viable alternative to a consensus guy like Obama or even a complete disaster like Romney. They are at the bottom of the barrel as far as our choices go. Their backwards and luddite view of economics disqualifies them from serious consideration from anyone with even a cursory understanding of economics.

Obama has kept his promises of ending combat in Iraq, getting us a healthcare system and signing an executive order to shut down gitmo (even if congress stopped him from doing it). I'd love to elect Noam Chomsky as President, but that's not going to happen, and he probably wouldn't get much done if somehow he were miraculously elected. There are many factions in this country pushing and pulling, and frankly, I can't remember a time when regular citizens had more pull. Change is slow in a democracy.