there's nothing to dodge/duck/dip/dive/dodge...
I think the root of your problem is you don't know what the definition of intellectual dishonesty is!
Today's lesson- don't use words/terms you don't understand. You'll end up looking foolish.
Hint: just /c you don't agree with a position/opinion ≠ intellectual dishonesty ;)
Teaching y'all so much in the last day or so... I do hope some of it sinks in!
Well, we avoided the fiscal cliff and jumped right into the frying pan. This deal is an absolute joke. Did not address spending at all. This deal still manages to and 4T debt over the next 10 years. Not to mention the taxes added are 620B and the spending is only 15B. WTF seriously. The ratio of taxes to spending cuts is 40:1. That's a balanced fucking approach :Smiley2: This deal is such a joke.
Anyone else into anarchist theory?
I find it more liberating than the mainstream discussions.
The GOP folded on spending b/c they didn't want to be held responsible for across the board tax increases.
So they caved on spending with the strategy of using the debt ceiling debate in 2 months as their chance to maneuver...
but coming from the "man" who for weeks pretended like he knew Ron Paul's secret strategy to steal the GOP nomination at the convention... I don't expect anything less. I bet you've got a tin foil rash behind your ears.
Essentially... your intellectual dishonesty is far more sweeping than what I initially gave you credit for. It lies more in what you DON'T say or acknowledge than what you DO say. This isn't to say you don't say dishonest things. This is about your overall partisanship behavior.
:roll: uh huh... tin foil hats or the acknowledgment that RP is just a flawed candidate. you seem to prefer the former.
but again we return to the root of your problem:
you don't know the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
I'm not sure what spending cuts were discussed, but it doesn't seem like Washington is serious about tackling the root of the problem... spending. They will gladly increase taxes, but until they get serious about controlling the outgo, it continues to be business as usual.
had we gone over the cliff- all tax rates would have increased. and the Dems would have brought tax cuts to the floor for those making under 250k... to which the GOP would have been put in an uncomfortable position of voting against the middle class/protecting the rich. So the Dems really had all the leverage going into the cliff.
I think spending is recognized as a problem, but they couldn't come to a compromise by the artificial deadline that they... at the end of an election year :roll: brilliant.
Obama has said he is will to leave his base to get some cuts passed. Some dems don't want any entitlement cuts... some repubs want total entitlement cuts... and it those people who are unwilling to budge at all that make this such a hemorroid...
Too many congressmen/women don't want to cut anything that could remove money from the pockets of people that vote for them regardless of the type of spending it is.
I had this discussion with someone the other night, staunch Dem supporter (not as much as he used to be though). Ultimately, we both feel the same way, until there is absolutely no choice, until we are on the brink of collapse and total chaos (Eg. Greece), they will just continue to do what they've been doing.
I really hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see any real change in DC, not in the past 4 years, not in the past 40 years, it's really just been either tax more spend more or tax less spend more.
Let the madness commence:
Could Obama be first 3-term president since FDR?
Edited: 8 January, 2013, 14:18
A United States congressman has introduced a bill that would repeal the 22nd Amendment, which currently limits the president to serving only two terms as commander-in-chief.
A huge copy of the United States Constitution. (Reuters / Yuri Gripas)
Should the bill become a law, it could allow President Barack Obama to run for reelection yet again in 2016.
The bill, H.J. Res. 15, offers “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”
New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano reintroduced the measure on January 4, after it did not make it to a floor vote in January 2011, the Daily Caller reports. Serrano has attempted to repeal the amendment for decades and proposed similar bills in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007.
Rep. Serrano’s initiatives are not dependent on any particular party, since he has tried to get the measure passed under the presidencies of both Democrats and Republicans. But if the bill makes it to the floor for a vote this year, President Obama, a Democrat, might have a chance at a third term in the White House, which would make him the first president to possibly seek a third term since Franklin Roosevelt.
Even though a repeal has not made it far in Congress, there have been several
attempts at bringing it to the floor, which have garnered support from past presidents and prominent legislators. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) repeatedly proposed repealing the 22nd Amendment while both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in office, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tried to repeal it in 1995. In 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced a similar resolution.
Former President Ronald Reagan told Barbara Walters in a 1986 interview that the 22nd Amendment “was a mistake,” while former President Bill Clinton has always believed in the option for a president to seek reelection at a later time – even if he has already served twice.
“Shouldn’t a president be able to take two terms, take time off and run again?” Clinton said in an MSNBC interview in November. “I’ve always thought that should be the rule. I think as a practical matter, you couldn’t apply this to anyone who has already served, but going forward, I personally believe that should be the rule.”
Repealing the 22nd Amendment has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, but has never garnered enough votes to go into effect.
Congress passed the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by 41 states and rejected by only two. It limits each president to two terms, but did not apply to the sitting president, former President Harry Truman, who withdrew as a candidate for re-election in 1952.
I am all for a leader getting two terms in office for actually doing their job successful for the first term
But for three is like a dictatorship in my mind and a few others
Won't happen so long as the Republicans hold the house. And the fact that it has been tried so many other times shows that its chances are slim.
but i feel this could be it and Obama could get this third term.....But is their not elections soon about who controls the lower house or that next year
So if the democrates get control of the lower house and that means he could be in for a third term
What a load of shit.. Why is this a good idea?
Won't happen because in 4 years, we are going to see our first female president.