General Politics Thread

[Morganator]

calling someone out for feigning interest in a topic ≠ caring about the topic.

If I cared or wanted to keep the subject alive- I would have responded to the question as to why I think Obama deserved the award.

on another note- your post is beyond incoherent. work on expressing your thoughts- free advice champ.

or you could continue trying to hurt my feelings on the interwebs RON PAUL 2XXX???

How you got to "trying to hurt my feelings on the interwebs RON PAUL 2XXX???" from me calling you on your intellectual dishonesty baffles me. Then again, this kind of deflection and thus, intellectual dishonesty is typical of you DayWalker. My post is far from incoherent so I've two words for you. Quit dodging.

[DayWalker]

How you got to "trying to hurt my feelings on the interwebs RON PAUL 2XXX???" from me calling you on your intellectual dishonesty baffles me. Then again, this kind of deflection and thus, intellectual dishonesty is typical of you DayWalker. My post is far from incoherent so I've two words for you. Quit dodging.

now who's being dishonest.

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!

[btbam]

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 This deal is such a joke.

[Hayzoo5]

Anyone else into anarchist theory?

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

I find it more liberating than the mainstream discussions.

[DayWalker]

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 This deal is such a joke.

strategy. on both sides.

the GOP surrendered on tax cuts, the Dems will surrender on spending in 2 months.

====

off topic I saw that Django movie- Jamie Foxx
classic Tarentino...

[btbam]

strategy. on both sides.

the GOP surrendered on tax cuts, the Dems will surrender on spending in 2 months.

====

off topic I saw that Django movie- Jamie Foxx
classic Tarentino...

I doubt it. Reagan didn't get any spending cuts in the 80s. G.H.W. Bush didn't get any spending cuts in the 90s. Basically what happened, is they raised taxes but didn't even put a dent in the problem, and then they are going to continue to spend. A complete failure.

[weskurtz81]

strategy. on both sides.

the GOP surrendered on tax cuts, the Dems will surrender on spending in 2 months.

====

off topic I saw that Django movie- Jamie Foxx
classic Tarentino...

Why did it have to wait 2 months?

[Morganator]

now who's being dishonest.

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!

You. But I expect this of you. You've always been this way... at least in the politics section.

[DayWalker]

Why did it have to wait 2 months?

imo its cuz they suck...but you'll have to ask congress.
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...

You. But I expect this of you. You've always been this way... at least in the politics section.

if I have you've gone ahead and found the worst example of intellectual dishonesty available to you. so kudos.

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.

[Morganator]

if I have you've gone ahead and found the worst example of intellectual dishonesty available to you. so kudos.

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.

I fully admit that my predictions about Ron Paul were wrong. However, I also pointed out what exactly could, would and did happen at the RNC. I had no illusions about the level of corruption at the event that would and did inevitably take place. One thing that I find extremely funny though is that those same tactics were brought up at the DNC as well. Yet, I don't see you calling foul on that event either. Here is one thing you missed out whether by accident or willfully. Ron Paul was the ONLY candidate who ran that both parties and their media overlords actively went against in the most corrupt fashion.

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.

[DayWalker]

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.

[weskurtz81]

imo its cuz they suck...but you'll have to ask congress.
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...

Sounds to me like the Dems knew they could do what they wanted on the "fiscal cliff" because if taxes went up across the board they could simply point at the GOP and blame them for not "compromising".

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.

[DayWalker]

Sounds to me like the Dems knew they could do what they wanted on the "fiscal cliff" because if taxes went up across the board they could simply point at the GOP and blame them for not "compromising".

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.

well yes. Obama campaigned on eliminating tax cuts for those making over 250k... he compromised to 400-400k.

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 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...

[weskurtz81]

well yes. Obama campaigned on eliminating tax cuts for those making over 250k... he compromised to 400-400k.

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 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...

I could end up being proven wrong in 2 months, but at this point it just seems like such a sham.

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.

[Vulgotha]

Let the madness commence:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/...-violent-games

[MATRIX 2]

[DayWalker]

Let the madness commence:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/...-violent-games

no problem with violent video games.

the problem, once again, is the paretns who rely on video games and tv to raise their children.

[Vulgotha]

no problem with violent video games.

the problem, once again, is the paretns who rely on video games and tv to raise their children.

Which is the real issue at heart here. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their terrible parenting practices. Games and movies have ratings on them for crying out loud- and the players\consoles have parental control settings!

Idiots.

[claud3]

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.

http://rt.com/usa/news/president-ame...ll-repeal-541/

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

[-Kwesnoth-]

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.

[claud3]

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

[Vulgotha]

What a load of shit.. Why is this a good idea?

[Lethal_NFS]

Won't happen because in 4 years, we are going to see our first female president.

[DeviousOne]

Won't happen because in 4 years, we are going to see our first female president.

You think so? Idk if we will next term I know eventually we will tho.

[-Kwesnoth-]

Won't happen because in 4 years, we are going to see our first female president.

There are currently no women that are popular enough to even be considered for presidency. Mrs. Clinton had her chance and lost to Obama.