If this does pass, I expect the courts to step in and rule it unconstitutional exactly because of the broad language. I'd be impressed if Obama vetoed it before that point, but I don't think he genuinely cares that much about civil liberties.

My cards on the table: I think Obama is a horrible leader, one of the worst I've ever seen in elected office. I thought he had great vision before, and I liked his early actions in the Middle East, but he seems to lack the balls to do anything decisive. Even if he made strong decisions that I disagreed with I'd respect him more than I do. On that count, Bush was better.

What good would the Keystone Pipeline do the US? All it does is remove oil from the States to sell abroad. How could this possibly be a good thing?

Assuming "scamulous" means "stimulus", then yes, of course it failed. Nothing would have succeeded. And if he hadn't given a stimulus package, the Republicans would have jumped down his throat for doing nothing. But per your last comment, "the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame", so you accept then that the entire worldwide financial crisis is Bush's fault anyway. Deal.>> ^quantumushroom:

Pretending or denying Obama's lack of experience and leadership hasn't negatively affected the US economy is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.
Oil prices are not controlled by your government.
Where were statements like this when Bush was being blamed for high gas prices? Nowhere.
Oil prices are affected by the federal leviathan's antics every day. Gasoline is taxed by the government, and although it shouldn't be deciding which industries thrive and which fail, here we have the Amateur and his merry crew losing billions of taxpayer dollars to bullsh1t green solar companies while vetoing the Keystone Pipeline.
Our enemies know His Earness is spineless. You think iran would be playing these games with a real leader in the White House? Or are you going to state that iran doesn't directly control oil prices so it "doesn't count".
And oh yes, what about the scamulus? FAIL.
Whether "fair" or not, the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame. Deal.
>> ^messenger:
How the uneducated make arguments:
1. Pick a random problem in your life.
2. Say your chosen target did it.
3. Repeat until it gains traction.
Oil prices are not controlled by your government.>> ^quantumushroom:
Are you enjoying the higher gas prices?

Pretending or denying Obama's lack of experience and leadership hasn't negatively affected the US economy is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.

Oil prices are not controlled by your government.

Where were statements like this when Bush was being blamed for high gas prices? Nowhere.

Oil prices are affected by the federal leviathan's antics every day. Gasoline is taxed by the government, and although it shouldn't be deciding which industries thrive and which fail, here we have the Amateur and his merry crew losing billions of taxpayer dollars to bullsh1t green solar companies while vetoing the Keystone Pipeline.

Our enemies know His Earness is spineless. You think iran would be playing these games with a real leader in the White House? Or are you going to state that iran doesn't directly control oil prices so it "doesn't count".

And oh yes, what about the scamulus? FAIL.

Whether "fair" or not, the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame. Deal.

>> ^messenger:

How the uneducated make arguments:
1. Pick a random problem in your life.
2. Say your chosen target did it.
3. Repeat until it gains traction.
Oil prices are not controlled by your government.>> ^quantumushroom:
Are you enjoying the higher gas prices?

Americans Elect is Shady

-They refuse to disclose most of their funding.
-The funding that has been disclosed comes mostly from Arno Consulting, a far right organization that has been involved in 5 different voter fraud cases.
-Chairman Peter Ackerman is an investment banker with connections to Koch Industries and the Cato Institute. (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/relationship.asp?personId=662219) (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute)
-There is no oversight or transparency to their process.
-The way the site is run could easily push the results in the direction that the secret funders want it to go.


Arno Political Consultants Controversies (from wiki).

-In 2004, APC hired JSM who hired YPM who is accused of tricking people into registering to vote as a Republican.[2]
-In 2004, APC is accused of forging signatures on a petition to legalize slot machines in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.[5]
-In 2005, APC has come under fire for allegedly fraudulent ballot petitioning strategies, particularly pertaining to a Massachusetts anti-gay marriage proposal as put forth by the Massachusetts Family Institute.[6][7]
-In 2007, APC hired JSM, Inc. who hired independent contractors who gave snacks and food to homeless people in exchange for signing petitions and registering to vote.[8]
-In 2009, proponents of a payday loan veto referendum sued APC in Franklin County for breach of contract and negligence. 13,000 signatures were thrown out because the Form 15's had not been appropriately filled out. They were seeking $438,000. [9] Both parties reached an undisclosed settlement agreement on July 29th, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Political_Consultants

>> ^lantern53:

Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.
Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does.
Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption.
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.
You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know.
I'm a big believer in experience, myself.


lantern53, we've had some good times, but this will have to be my last post on the subject. Unless you make a worthwhile argument.

Point by point:

"Some of you people must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions."

Bad joke, not factually off base, but minus one for style.

"Anyway...Santorum will not be 'legislating', as this is what the legislature does."

The definition of legislate: 'to perform the function of legislation; specifically: to make or enact laws' or 'to mandate, establish or regulate by or as if by legislation'

So, are you suggesting that the president only executes? The Supreme court only judges? I'm not calling you stupid, but your attempt to use language to cover your argument is. I think it's completely valid to use the word "legislate" to describe some of what the president does, as he has an effect on laws being made, even outside utilizing the veto. Besides, presidential contenders are often asked about legislation they would support. I wouldn’t think using this word would confuse anyone, unless they hadn't yet taken eighth grade American history.

"Also, I did not say sex outside marriage was wrong or evil, did I? You made that assumption."

Yeah, we're responding to what you wrote. See, when adults write things, we can tell things due to context and implication. It's not really an unfounded assumption on my part to infer that you were preaching the evils of premarital sex. This discussion is about a video concerning Santorum's views. You defended him. So, we'll assume you think he has valid ideas.

"My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage."

Okay, fine. Let's just ignore everything else. Here's your point. Same as last time, you are wrong. We can't define social problems like this and rate them from better to worse. Have you seen "Dead Poet's Society"? Remember when Robin Williams rips the intro out of their Literature textbook? He does that because the text was attempting to rate something as subjective as art. Here you're doing the same thing as that chart attempted in that movie, saying one subjective human experience is better than another. I bet you could come up with a handy chart too. Instead of a Literature text book, you're invoking religion or tradition as the authority when making such a claim. Either way, its BS.

"You can go on believing whatever you want (see, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, am I?) but the end result will teach you what you need to know."

Thank you, I will. Notice, I made this same point in my last post. I interpret the 'but in the end' bit as you saying: Just sleep around outside of marriage and you'll suffer, just wait.

"I'm a big believer in experience, myself."

Really? You don't seem to value experience if you think never having sex outside of marriage is the ideal path for all Americans. Some people would consider that inexperience. I consider it sad.

>> ^longde:

I agree with most of your points, except that a toothless UN resolution has any material affect on what is going on in Syria.>> ^bcglorf:
@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.
You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.
The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.
What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?
First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.
As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.
"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."



I'll quite readily agree that virtually everything the UN does is toothless and in that sense, completely worthless and meaningless. I would however argue that the Russian and Chinese vetoes absolutely do have a material affect on what is going on in Syria. The vetoes are sign of the depth of Russian and Chinese commitment to Assad's regime. That support is absolutely vital and essential to Assad's continued military campaign against his own people. Without that support, the combined efforts of the Arab League and the Syrian opposition would be seeing Assad forced to back down.

I agree with most of your points, except that a toothless UN resolution has any material affect on what is going on in Syria.>> ^bcglorf:

@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.
You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.
The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.
What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?
First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.
As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.
"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."

@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.

You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.


On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.

The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.

What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?

First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.

As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.

"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."

>> ^longde:

How do you know that people don't know about Tianamen? Of course they do; it was a nationwide protest! But I think for some kids to have an in depth opinion of something that happened so long ago is like asking me (born in the early 70s) about Kent State. Yeah, I know something happened; but I wouldn't be able to really expound upon it.
There are many current issues that have prompted Chinese citizens to protest against their government, with results. Two examples. People in China protest against the government all the time. Of course the state run media suppresses things. But with the internet and cell phone technology, it's like trying to plug up the ocean. When the Chinese gov't starts to hire Fox News consultants, then I will really worry.
China vetoing a Security Council proclamation is not the same as China oppressing Syrians. C'mon.
Lastly, these students are arrogantly giving a lesson. They are giving their opinions and insights in the spirit of dialogue.
>> ^njjh201:
I'm not American, but as long as China's government forbids its children from learning about a massacre that took place in the centre of their own capital city little more than 20 years ago, in the midst of a pro-democracy protest of the sort that China is now suppressing in Syria, I'll take no lessons from their teenagers.
I'm astounded by how irrelevant you think such recent history is. Let's see one of these kids have the ambition to make China a country where people get to choose their own destiny and government. Let's see how long they're still free to talk to journalists then. The USA has a Nobel peace prize winner in the Oval Office. China threw theirs in jail.



I think you are missing the point behind asking about Tiananmen. It's not their lack of knowledge, but rather the lack of freedom to speak about it. If you plan to continue living in China and climbing the ladder, appearing on camera speaking against the Tiananmen massacre is risky and not a particularly wise move.

If you want a current example ask about Taiwanese independence and you'll find most of the sympathy and support for non-intervention suddenly evaporating.

Don't dismiss the veto of the Syrian motion so lightly either. There is no question that unarmed civilians in Syria are being killed by the Syrian military. The Arab league itself was the one asking for the UN motion that China and Russia vetoed. Complaining about the damage FOX does is great, but at least be even handed enough to recognize the direct damage also done by vetoing the Syrian motion...

How do you know that people don't know about Tianamen? Of course they do; it was a nationwide protest! But I think for some kids to have an in depth opinion of something that happened so long ago is like asking me (born in the early 70s) about Kent State. Yeah, I know something happened; but I wouldn't be able to really expound upon it.

There are many current issues that have prompted Chinese citizens to protest against their government, with results. Two examples. People in China protest against the government all the time. Of course the state run media suppresses things. But with the internet and cell phone technology, it's like trying to plug up the ocean. When the Chinese gov't starts to hire Fox News consultants, then I will really worry.

China vetoing a Security Council proclamation is not the same as China oppressing Syrians. C'mon.

Lastly, these students are not arrogantly giving a lesson. They are giving their opinions and insights in the spirit of dialogue.

>> ^njjh201:

I'm not American, but as long as China's government forbids its children from learning about a massacre that took place in the centre of their own capital city little more than 20 years ago, in the midst of a pro-democracy protest of the sort that China is now suppressing in Syria, I'll take no lessons from their teenagers.
I'm astounded by how irrelevant you think such recent history is. Let's see one of these kids have the ambition to make China a country where people get to choose their own destiny and government. Let's see how long they're still free to talk to journalists then. The USA has a Nobel peace prize winner in the Oval Office. China threw theirs in jail.

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

>> ^Diogenes:

whether his ideas are good or bad... could a president paul actually get anything accomplished?
he'd be just the executive in our trias politica - congress would likely ignore his goals of substantive change, as well as override his vetoes that might threaten the status quo... and our judiciary would lock horns with him over the 14th amendment, at the very least
might as well elect a bag of sand, imho


That's a good point. I really don't know how a single man would get things done. I'm guessing a worst case scenario would be of constant deadlock, but a worsening economy would put enormous pressure on the opposition, I think we can count on Ron Paul not budging on his positions no matter what just based on his voting record.

whether his ideas are good or bad... could a president paul actually get anything accomplished?

he'd be just the executive in our trias politica - congress would likely ignore his goals of substantive change, as well as override his vetoes that might threaten the status quo... and our judiciary would lock horns with him over the 14th amendment, at the very least

might as well elect a bag of sand, imho

Ok so it's law. Great. Thank you congress for your bipartisan, veto-proof majority.

Be careful, if there's too much outrage we're going to have to legitimize the law by using it against a universally loathed figure.
I guess all we need now is a civil emergency. Framework for martial law, check. Domestic "surveillance" drones, check. FEMA Camps, check. Looks like those damn conspiracy kooks were right after all. (again)

@NetRunner
You're living proof that psychological warfare is a more powerful weapon than any gun or bomb. So vetoing the bill would've been political theater, but the hollow signing statement is "good"? LOL What about Obama spending months pledging to veto the bill, was that political theater? I guess we don't actually expect the President to keep his word, do we?

Main point that Cenk omits:
Specifically, it was the White House, not lawmakers, that demanded Section 1031 be expanded to empower the government to detain U.S. citizens without trial.

Uploaded to YouTube Dec 10, 2011:


Also, Obama has been claiming for over a year and a half that he could target American citizens for assassination without any trial or due process. (http://www.salon.com/2010/06/25/assassinations_3/)

Recent Greenwald articles on the NDAA:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/