Balta1701 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 10:39 AM) It's official. Corporations will now run this country...even though they pretty much already have been. Thankfully we got the health care reform bill passed before...oh...right. Joe Lieberman's 2012 campaign, brought to you by Aetna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 20, 2010 -> 09:46 AM) The Dow down almost 160 after the GOP picks up another seat. Dow down 207 waiting to hear Obama chastise banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 11:23 AM) Dow down 207 waiting to hear Obama chastise banks. :lolhitting :lolhitting :lolhitting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I love you Jon Stewart. The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Fox News Covers Scott Brown's Victory www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 just wrote to inform all related congressman, senators, majority leaders, and the speaker of the house to let them know I'm no longer voting in 2010. May they have as difficult of time finding a job as the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I don't have a clue what happened to that post. Anyway, What do you call it when you're completely trying really hard to hide an erection? Jon Stewart's real answer: an Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 12:02 PM) just wrote to inform all related congressman, senators, majority leaders, and the speaker of the house to let them know I'm no longer voting in 2010. May they have as difficult of time finding a job as the rest of us. Achieves very little. Better to vote for someone new, if that's your aim. Though I do applaud that you bothered to write them, not many people do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 disagree. Until congress decides to participate in governing, I will not participate in electing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01...are.php?ref=fpa f*** you too, Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 03:13 PM) http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01...are.php?ref=fpa f*** you too, Obama. The session is open until January 2011. There's still 11 months to get this passed. This kind of makes sense and its really just a way to make sure that reconciliation happens. What you aren't seeing reported right now is back channel negotiation. Essentially, the Senate is going to agree to make some concessions to the house bill in reconciliation after the fact and the House will vote for the Senate bill as is. That's the plan, as far as I can tell. Setting aside what's become a super toxic debate for a few months to work on something like a jobs package which is what should be his front and center public voice right now is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm not happy about where this is either, but this is not "shutting it down." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 02:46 PM) The session is open until January 2011. There's still 11 months to get this passed. This kind of makes sense and its really just a way to make sure that reconciliation happens. What you aren't seeing reported right now is back channel negotiation. Essentially, the Senate is going to agree to make some concessions to the house bill in reconciliation after the fact and the House will vote for the Senate bill as is. That's the plan, as far as I can tell. Setting aside what's become a super toxic debate for a few months to work on something like a jobs package which is what should be his front and center public voice right now is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm not happy about where this is either, but this is not "shutting it down." You've learned to backpeddle quite well, Rex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 04:18 PM) You've learned to backpeddle quite well, Rex. I don't think being a realist equals backpedaling. But whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 04:00 PM) I don't think being a realist equals backpedaling. But whatever. I'm just kidding you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 05:04 PM) I'm just kidding you. Sorry, politics makes me a sad panda lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 03:46 PM) The session is open until January 2011. There's still 11 months to get this passed. This kind of makes sense and its really just a way to make sure that reconciliation happens. What you aren't seeing reported right now is back channel negotiation. Essentially, the Senate is going to agree to make some concessions to the house bill in reconciliation after the fact and the House will vote for the Senate bill as is. That's the plan, as far as I can tell. Setting aside what's become a super toxic debate for a few months to work on something like a jobs package which is what should be his front and center public voice right now is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm not happy about where this is either, but this is not "shutting it down." What you're not realizing is...the longer this hangs out there, the sicker people are getting of hearing about it. We've had a legitimate 11 month policy debate right now, and the longer it's lasted, the worse the policy has gotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 A twitter-based comment on the Supreme Court decision today. "appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy," says SCOTUS...b4 bursting into laughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 11:20 PM) What you're not realizing is...the longer this hangs out there, the sicker people are getting of hearing about it. We've had a legitimate 11 month policy debate right now, and the longer it's lasted, the worse the policy has gotten. and this backyard dealing for the senate to make after the fact changes, let me guess, headline: "House/Senate makes deal on changes to vote on" 3 hours later "Joe Lieberman refuses to vote for changes" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 BTW, the next time we hear anything about an activist supreme court judge, I'm going to vomit. This is probably the most activist judicial decision of my lifetime. It is time for everyone to drop all the talk about the Roberts court's "judicial minimalism," with Chief Justice Roberts as an "umpire" who just calls balls and strikes. Make no mistake, this is an activist court that is well on its way to recrafting constitutional law in its image. The best example of that is this morning's transformative opinion in Citizens United v. FEC. Today the court struck down decades-old limits on corporate and union spending in elections (including judicial elections) and opened up our political system to a money free-for-all. ... What is so striking today is how avoidable this political tsunami was. The court has long adhered to a doctrine of "constitutional avoidance," by which it avoids deciding tough constitutional questions when there is a plausible way to make a narrower ruling based on a plain old statute. That's what the court did in last term's voting-rights case—in fact, going so far as to adopt an implausible statutory interpretation to avoid overturning a crown jewel of the civil rights movement. What we have in Citizens United is anti-avoidance. Kennedy's majority had to go out and grab this one. Justice Stevens' dissent lists three ways the majority could have skirted the constitutional question. One of them would have been to say that McCain-Feingold does not apply to video-on-demand. This and the Stevens' other options are all plausible interpretations, certainly more plausible than the tricky footwork in the voting rights case. Instead, here the court went out of its way to overturn its own precedent, in violation of its usual rule of stare decisis, which calls for respecting past rulings for the good of reliable law-making. And it did so violating its usual rule, which it cited even yesterday, that it does not generally reach issues not raised in the initial petition to the court. In short, the court did not have to do what it did today. The chief justice issued a brief concurrence apparently solely to defend himself (and Justice Alito, who signed it) against charges of judicial activism. Roberts wrote that the alternative interpretations were not plausible, and that exceptions to stare decisis apply. Opponents of the decision today are likely to be unconvinced. This is a court that has taken a giant leap toward deregulation of the electoral process. It left in place one requirement: that the corporate and union groups unleashing the attack ads have to disclose who they are (and for that, Kennedy had everyone's vote but Justice Thomas'.) But given the history of money and elections, why should we think that disclosure alone will be enough to deal with the problems of corruption and inequality that threaten our government? I have my doubts. But I'm sure this is a bad day for American democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 10:39 AM) It's official. Corporations will now run this country...even though they pretty much already have been. Free speech my ass, the price of free speech just went up by a few million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 06:25 PM) Free speech my ass, the price of free speech just went up by a few million. It'll only be a few million until it's realized that if you're Exxon or GS, you can outbid the people spending a few million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 05:25 PM) Free speech my ass, the price of free speech just went up by a few million. Then pay me, dammit. That's twice in two days I'm trying to get you to see the benefits of "redistribution of income". Come on, lf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when I ask, how can we really call ourselves a democratic republic anymore? It couldn't be any more obvious that our votes don't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 05:29 PM) I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when I ask, how can we really call ourselves a democratic republic anymore? It couldn't be any more obvious that our votes don't matter. That's the way it's been for a long time now. However, instead of backroom doors, it's going to be in the open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 06:30 PM) That's the way it's been for a long time now. However, instead of backroom doors, it's going to be in the open. Actually, Justice Thomas argued that having it in the open was unconstitutional today, and that it should be done in backroom deals. Quite literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 12:31 AM) Actually, Justice Thomas argued that having it in the open was unconstitutional today, and that it should be done in backroom deals. Quite literally. exactly, companies don't have to disclose where their money went, they can merely funnel it through places like the chamber of commerce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts