The Democrat Thread

[mr_genius]

Nice of you to volunteer that you're one of the extremists he's referring to. Go Jefferson Davis!

 

well, let's be honest about this one, it's perfectly reasonable to compare and contrast Lincoln and Davis when covering the civil war in a text book. It all comes down to context.

[bmags]

sure it does, one who was right and one who was incredibly wrong and believed in something terribly evil. But besides that they were both white men from the united states in leadership positions.

[mr_genius]

sure it does, one who was right and one who was incredibly wrong and believed in something terribly evil.

 

see, contrast.

[bmags]

See, I think you are joking. But how do American textbooks not already talk about Jefferson Davis and Lincoln? And I was a student in America, we don't cover Davis terribly negatively nor the south, there's a bunch of innuendo that it wasn't about slavery, which it was.

[mr_genius]

But how do American textbooks not already talk about Jefferson Davis and Lincoln?

 

I don't remember. But if the text books are being changed to revise history to make it out like Jefferson Davis was a righteous crusader for good, than that is completely outrageous.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yup! Yup! We are a bunch of ignorant, hate, racist motherf***ers. Way to label 20,000,000 people with one fell swoop.

 

Either you didn't bother to read what I wrote (where I was clear it wasn't all Texans, or all conservative Texans even), or...

 

Nice of you to volunteer that you're one of the extremists he's referring to. Go Jefferson Davis!

 

[bmags]

Kap does this all the time, you can't criticize any fringe right group without kap jumping on the grenade for them and acting hurt.

 

If someone started talking s*** on code pink or the firedoggers I don't think I would care.

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama now trying to deploy a Lite Line Item Veto through Congress. It will probably fail there, but at least he's trying to do something (along with the program cuts he made last year) to cut out the pork barrell B.S. that Congress keeps shoving into bills.

 

[bmags]

I still don't believe it's constitutional and it should fail.

[southsider2k5]

I still don't believe it's constitutional and it should fail.

 

I believe is a an excellent check. I don't know constitutional law well enough, but as long as Congress has the ability to override each line veto individually, it should be OK by me.

[NorthSideSox72]

I believe is a an excellent check. I don't know constitutional law well enough, but as long as Congress has the ability to override each line veto individually, it should be OK by me.

In this case, they'd have to override all or none per bill. In other words, it would go like this:

 

1. Congress passes bill

2. President vetoes one or more specific spending items in the bill

3. Congress has to vote 2/3 to either override veto on all for that bill, or if they can't, then all veto lines are removed

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Way too much executive power, imo.

[bmags]

I believe is a an excellent check. I don't know constitutional law well enough, but as long as Congress has the ability to override each line veto individually, it should be OK by me.

 

 

Sure, they have the ability...but realistically it would be the death of it.

[Balta1701]

Way too much executive power, imo.

It's probably worth noting that Elena Kagan has writings on this issue in the past that suggest she would be favorable towards a line-item veto.

[Balta1701]

I figured that this was a good counter-point to the post in the other thread saying that the ARRA had obviously done nothing.

The $800 billion U.S. stimulus package has had a slightly bigger effect on the U.S. economy than was projected when it was passed more than a year ago, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Tuesday.

 

Through the first quarter of 2010, the stimulus boosted employment by an estimated 1.3 million to 2.8 million jobs, about a quarter or half million more than projected. Gross domestic product was 1.7 to 4.1 percentage points higher than it would have been without the stimulus, the nonpartisan budget office said.

 

The effect of the stimulus is expected to increase through the middle of the year, then fade, the CBO said.

[bmags]

CBO is now a biased office. It would be immediately discredited.

 

Duh.

[Soxy]

Big ups to my Senator (Amy Klobuchar) for calling out some of the sexist coverage of Kagan.

 

I'm not a big Kagan fan, but I don't think she should be publicly critiqued for not sitting like a lady, dressing dowdy or playing softball.

[mr_genius]

Better be careful about what you post. It's probably illegal.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/25/b...h_n_588798.html

 

When Sen. Jim Bunning complained on the Senate floor in February that he'd missed the Kentucky-South Carolina basketball game because of a debate on unemployment benefits -- a debate the Kentucky Republican himself prevented from proceeding to a vote -- Bruce Shore got angry.

"I was livid. I was just livid," said Shore, 51, who watched the floor proceedings on C-SPAN from his home in Philadelphia. "I'm on unemployment, so it affects me. I'm in shock."

 

Instead of just being angry, Shore took action: He sent several emails to Bunning staffers, blasting the senator for blocking the benefits.

 

"ARE you'all insane," said part of one letter Shore sent on Feb. 26 (which he shared with HuffPost). "NO checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT??"....

 

on May 13, U.S. Marshals showed up at Shore's house with a grand jury indictment....

 

Harvey Silverglate, a prominent civil liberties lawyer and the author of "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent," has long argued that vague laws allow the federal government to prosecute citizens for things most people wouldn't consider crimes. (The message of his book's title is that the average person unintentionally commits three felonies a day. "Half of the anonymous Internet comments would" be illegal according to the statute used against Shore, said Silverglate.)

 

Balta commits like 100 crimes a day with his harassing posts here at Soxtalk (i find them very offensive and mean)

Edited May 26, 2010 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

So NOW you have a problem with the government targeting political opponents with surveillance mechanisms?

[mr_genius]

So NOW you have a problem with the government targeting political opponents with surveillance mechanisms?

 

^^^

illegal post (the tone was angry)

 

 

anyways, i have always been against such surveillance. why do think i would suddenly be against this type of stuff?

Edited May 26, 2010 by mr_genius

[bmags]

Because I just turned you in.

[KipWellsFan]

Big ups to my Senator (Amy Klobuchar) for calling out some of the sexist coverage of Kagan.

 

I'm not a big Kagan fan, but I don't think she should be publicly critiqued for not sitting like a lady, dressing dowdy or playing softball.

 

I kind of have a crush on Senator Klobuchar. Is that sexist? Or is that sexual harassment?

[Soxy]

I kind of have a crush on Senator Klobuchar. Is that sexist? Or is that sexual harassment?

Unless you plan on groping her or putting pubes in her coke you're probably okay.

[KipWellsFan]

Way too much executive power, imo.

 

Different systems aside, I think one of the big reasons Canada was able to get rid of its huge deficits in the 1990s was strong executive power. It's harder to make big decisions in a weak legislative system. I don't think I'd be opposed to the kind of line item veto that Obama is proposing.

[southsider2k5]

Different systems aside, I think one of the big reasons Canada was able to get rid of its huge deficits in the 1990s was strong executive power. It's harder to make big decisions in a weak legislative system. I don't think I'd be opposed to the kind of line item veto that Obama is proposing.

 

With as easy as it is to add riders to bills, I think this is an excellent check.