ThinkFast: May 29, 2009
ThinkFast: May 29, 2009
In a speech to the Atlantic Council yesterday, National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones rebutted Vice President Cheney’s assertion that the country is less safe under President Obama. He said that the current administration has rejected “the false choice between our security and our ideals” and the United States “is not only safe but it will be more secure…because of the president’s leadership.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is “circulating the outlines of sweeping health-care legislation that would require every American to have insurance and would mandate that employers contribute to workers’ coverage.” The proposal also “calls for opening Medicaid to those whose incomes are 500 percent of the federal poverty level, or $110,250 a year for a family of four.”
On a conference call with Organizing for America volunteers yesterday, President Obama said it’s now or never for health care reform. “If we don’t get it done this year, we’re not going to get it done,” Obama said, urging callers to “work in your communities” to build support for reform. “[W]e’ve got to get it done this year,” Obama repeated.
Despite having ready access to the White House, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) sent in a suggestion to the White House website’s online suggestion box that currently has more votes — 599 — than any other idea. Boehner called on the White House “to back a mandatory 72-hour review period before Congress votes on any major spending bill.”
“The White House scrambled yesterday to assuage worries from liberal groups about Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s scant record on abortion rights.” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama never asked her about her view of abortion rights, but that he lwas “very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his,” an indication that she agrees with the basis of Roe v. Wade.
The Obama administration asked a federal appeals court yesterday “to halt the release of disturbing images of detainee abuse, saying the photos could incite violence in Pakistan as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The court papers “cite two partially secret statements from two top U.S. generals, David Petraeus and Ray Odierno. Such arguments failed to sway the court in the past.”
The Obama administration “is aiming to use the bankruptcy process to strip” Chrysler and General Motors of their debts and reconstitute them as “more viable global competitors.” Chrysler is “pushing to create a new company in bankruptcy” while GM’s bankruptcy plan “aims to sell off the automaker’s productive assets to a new revived GM.”
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack “issued a temporary order yesterday governing development in ‘roadless’ areas of national forests, requiring all new projects to be approved by him personally.” The order is not a ban and officials said that it is “unclear whether projects with a strictly commercial aim, such as logging or mining, will be allowed.”
And finally: “American Idol” winner and Arkansas native Kris Allen has teamed up with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee for a duet. In a taping for his show set to air on Saturday, Huckabee backs up Allen on bass for “Yesterday” by The Beatles. “Maybe someday I could be the Governor of Arkansas, right?” asks Allen during the appearance. “It’s a great gig,” replies Huckabee. “It really is.”
Sign up here to receive our daily e-newsletter, The Progress Report.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I think some liberal groups are getting their undies in a bunch over nothing, If people think Obama didn’t ask her about abortion rights, you’ve been drinking your bath water. Obama would be toast if he puts someone on the court who was pro life when it comes to Roe v Wade. Liberals need to stop worring.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:09 amLets see how long it takes repugs heads to explode over Kennedys healthcare plan. 5,4,3,2, boom!
May 29th, 2009 at 9:12 amCFP, much to do about nothing.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:13 amWhy aren’t you helping to foment the latest hysteria over Kim Jong Il’s “nuclear threat”? LOL. It seems that Fox Noise has all the right-wingers cowering under their beds over this latest boogeyman. It’s quite funny to watch now that these people have absolutely no power anymore.
Seriously, Clinton just needs to visit the poor guy a couple times a year like Madeleine Albright did, and everything will be just fine.
Cue the next boogeyman please… LOL
May 29th, 2009 at 9:15 amWhy now, and not when Bush was in office, Boehner? Besides, since when does the White House dictate to Congress how long it can take before voting on a bill?
All this amounts to is political posturing, instead of doing the people’s work.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:16 amCFP lets FOX and the Republicans they work for terrorize him into supporting anti-American policies
He’s simply another coward too scared to live in the Home of the Brave
Terrorism only works on the terrified, which is why it works so well on right wing cowards like CFP.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:18 amIf true, then President Obama did not do what the Reich-Wing does – he did not have a litmus test on certain issues, but instead selected a person based on how that person interprets the constitution.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:18 amBoehner didn’t have time to contact the white house in person, it would have cut into his time in the tanning booth.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:18 amCFP is still flinging crap against the wall hoping that something will stick. LOL
May 29th, 2009 at 9:21 amHeck uv a job, CFP.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:22 amno-one cares about your silly blog, jeff, give it up
May 29th, 2009 at 9:25 amGlad CFP is here to illustrate that the GOP base is still stupidest bunch of people on the planet.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:25 amKeep up the good work of driving the GOP into extinction, CFP!!
Despite his promises of change, President Barack Obama has kept tradition by making sure WH toilet paper dispensers all unroll from the top, instead of the bottom…
May 29th, 2009 at 9:26 amIn other words, releasing photos of what was done to prisoners under Bush’s watch could put our troops in greater danger. All the more reason to prosecute those at the top who put those policies in place.
Those who created Bush’s policies, as well as those who carried them out, must be prosecuted. ‘I was just following orders’ is not an excuse. Neither is political expediency.
Frankly, if Republicans in Congress have threatened to shut down Congress should the Bush Administration be prosecuted, I would give serious thought to naming them either as co-conspirators or as aiding and abetting after-the-fact.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:27 amJeffboste Says: Do you support releasing additional pictures of sexual abuse and torture?
Tough call. I see the argument on both sdes of the debate and am not sure, because I think that the people who would pay for them are the soldiers on the field that are not responsbile for them. Yet, we do need to know the truth…
May 29th, 2009 at 9:28 amIn a taping for his show set to air on Saturday, Huckabee backs up Allen on bass for “Yesterday” by the Beatles.
A good theme song for the republicans.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:30 amJeffboste, those youtube polls are wothless crap. Nobody cares.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:31 amBriseadh na Firefly Says:
If true, then President Obama … did not have a litmus test on certain issues, but instead selected a person based on how that person interprets the constitution.
But… but…. then how are the single-issue voters supposed to make a judgement of her? How are the conservatives supposed to USE that issue against her and the Obama administration when it wasn’t even considered? For the love of gawd, man, how can the conservatives frame this as a purely partisan process when it is being played out in an honest manner that adheres to the spirit of the process?
May 29th, 2009 at 9:32 amIn a speech to the Atlantic Council yesterday, National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones rebutted Vice President Cheney’s assertion that the country less safe under President Obama.
But then again, what would a General know about things like national security compared with someone who served the military with such distinction as Dick Cheney did… what’s that? He did what?? Five times!?!
nevermind
May 29th, 2009 at 9:32 amDon’t fall for jeff’s spam links. He does this on almost every thread. He keeps trying to get people to visit his lame blog by posting links to silly polls here
May 29th, 2009 at 9:34 amBriseadh na Firefly Says:
Frankly, if Republicans in Congress have threatened to shut down Congress should the Bush Administration be prosecuted, I would give serious thought to naming them either as co-conspirators or as aiding and abetting after-the-fact.
I would call that treasonous — threatening to “shut down” our government becasue legal investigations are going on is treason.
The threat itself is terrorism, by definition.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:34 amMy admiration for Ted Kennedy knows no bounds when it comes to his tireless work on health insurance reform. Here’s a man who, even if he DIDN’T have gold-plated health care available to him as a Senator, could well afford to pay for any kind of health insurance/care he needed. It would be so easy for him to say “I got mine” and tell the rest of the country to eat cake — as all too many of our other elected officials do. Yet he soldiers on, despite his own personal grave health concerns, because he considers this issue to be vitally important.
It’s because of his work on health care that I’m willing to trust his instincts on how he crafted his bill. I’m sure he’s put many more hours into research on this than I have.
But I am a bit concerned about the idea of making employers cough up money to get more people covered. Our current system of health insurance relies on employers more than anyone else. And this is a dumb system — one that we should try to move away from.
Most Americans who have health insurance get at least part of it paid through their employers (or their spouse’s employer, or their parents’ employer). And health insurance has become so expensive that if not for this benefit, many more millions of Americans would be uninsured. This system is flawed. It requires people to stay in jobs they hate (or are a bad fit for) because they can’t afford to lose the insurance benefit. It requires people to stay in bad marriages because they can’t live without a spouse’s employer-paid insurance. And when a person does lose his job, he gets hit with a double-whammy when he finds out how much his COBRA benefit is going to cost him.
I realize that Kennedy is probably going to the employer well for money because he’s politically savvy enough to know that’s the path of least political resistance, and the important thing is to get something passed that will help — not wait for the perfect solution. But this should be temporary, with a view to getting employers OUT of the mix in the future.
When employers pay for insurance for their employees, they have to make up the cost by increasing the cost of their goods and services. We consumers are paying for somebody’s health insurance with every dollar we spend. So if everybody is paying for everybody’s health insurance anyway, can’t we find a more efficient way of doing that? One that gets employers out of the loop?
May 29th, 2009 at 9:35 amI’ll have to admit that the John Roos selection is a bit bewildering, as I would like to have my ambassadors to have as much experience regarding their new embassies as possible. It hits home with me, since a lot of my work involves Japanese culture, language and cooperation. I do want to see someone who has had more of a connection to their new countries of residence, and I think the selection of Joseph Nye would have been a better selection for his knowledge of Asia.
I’ll give CFP some credit where credit is due. Obama could have made a better pick here, so I implore Roos to do a good job of acclimating to his new role.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:35 am“mandatory 72-hour review period”
WTF??? Bills in Congress can spend MONTHS in committee. The last bit of stupid legislation jammed through ln this sort of time period was the PATRIOT ACT, but since that was not a ’spending bill’, it wouldn’t be subject to Boner’s (SIC) hurdle.
“I’ll post something, and then we’ll get all our ‘keyboard corps’ to vote for it! Yeah! That’ll show ‘em!” Sheesh!
May 29th, 2009 at 9:36 amRantingTommy Says: Don’t fall for jeff’s spam links. He does this on almost every thread. He keeps trying to get people to visit his lame blog by posting links to silly polls here
Thanks for the heads-up. I didn’t go to his site though – just answered his question here.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:37 amCretin, you didn’t catch the meme? Sotomayor is obvioulsy an intellectual lightweight. Graduating suma cum laude from Princeton and being on the Yale Law Review proves it! For true intellectual prowess, Republicans look to Bush (Mr. C Student), McCain (Mr. Barely Passing) and Rush (Mr. College dropout).
Also, the fact that she’s not a white male proves that she is a racist and discriminates based on gender!
Oh, you’re also being a racist if you pronounce her name correctly. In order to be race-neutral you must mispronounce her name and say it as if her ancestors came from England.
More Republican talking points to follow, I’m sure…
May 29th, 2009 at 9:42 amMost ambassadors are crony appointments, often with little or no experience (unless they’ve interned for an ambassador).
Get over it already.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:43 amOverlooking the fact Boehner didn’t make the same proposal when they were in the majority, or the fact he chose a public website to make the suggestion so he could grandstand…
It’s actually not a bad idea (a 72 review period on spending bills) worthy of some consideration.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:48 amGeneral James L. Jones went Bilderberging in Mid May in Greece. He wasn’t the only Obama participant. One MSM journalist from the Guardian (UK) covered the event. His first few posts mocked the conspiracy theorists, but by Day 6 he knew something was terribly wrong.
I came to make a few cracks about Bilderberg and ended up getting sledgehammered in the nuts.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/charlie-skeltons-bilderberg-files
The global power boys don’t do communication or exposure.
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2009/05/obamas-team-goes-bilderberging.html
http://peureport.blogspot.com/2009/05/ex-goldman-obama-boys-go-bilderberging.html
RantingTommy, please ignore this post.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:50 amIt’s sort of like a handgun waiting period
Given the knee-jerk cowardice of many in congress, I have to agree, it probably is a good idea.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:50 amstate, please ignore facts
already done, I see
May 29th, 2009 at 9:51 amObama officials gave Bilderberg briefings
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22957.html
May 29th, 2009 at 9:51 amBriseadh na Firefly Says:
Sotomayor is obvioulsy an intellectual lightweight.
Of course. She’s not a caucasian male, so obviously she is inferior.
Graduating suma cum laude from Princeton and being on the Yale Law Review proves it!
Look…. when you…. she was… …. IT’S JUST A GODD@MNED PIECE OF PAPER!!!!
Also, the fact that she’s not a white male proves that she is a racist and discriminates based on gender!
Of course. Goes without saying. White males are SO discriminated against in the world these days. Oh… the anguish…. oh, the belittlement…… oh, woe is the opressed white male being kept down by “The woMAN”.
Oh, you’re also being a racist if you pronounce her name correctly.
Sure, just like them chinks and gooks and all, ya know. Because. Also. Why them all cain’t get ‘em some good ol’ easy to prunonce names like “Jones” or “Smith” or “Dakie” we’ll jes nebber git. Ought ter be some law ’bout that, ‘n all, so’s us good speakin’ murkins cin says their names when we haves to and all. Also. Because.
Oh, and she’s not, like, a real hottie, you know? I mean, a good looking MILF type is FAR more qualified for any governmental position, you know. Because looks matter. Also.
(sorry…. snarky this morn…..)
May 29th, 2009 at 9:53 ambarfly Says:
In a taping for his show set to air on Saturday, Huckabee backs up Allen on bass for “Yesterday” by the Beatles.
A good theme song for the republicans.
_______________
Perhaps they could do a medley and segue into “Nowhere Man” at that point…
May 29th, 2009 at 10:00 am* * *
in case you missed it, in the ad above:
NBC & Meet the Press: Don’t Air Rick Scott’s Phony “Documentary”
http://action.seiu.org/page/s/StopScott
*
May 29th, 2009 at 10:02 amOnly a repug would express indignation at the Obama’s appointments of ambassadors.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:04 amObama is desperate to pull one ‘big win’ out of the clusterfooks left behind by the Busheviks.
It dowsn’t actually have to help anybody, but it has GOT TO LOOK GOOD.
Health care is just such an issue.
It can be spun indefinitely as a HUGE VICTORY against “Big Bidness,” without actually fixing anything.
That will be, I predict, the trajectory of the entire one term of his Presidency: Doing shit that looks like change but is really only reatrtanging the imagery to make it look like something was accomplished when, in fact, that valuable ’status quo’ was left pretty much in tact…
May 29th, 2009 at 10:05 amJeffboste Says: Do you support releasing additional pictures of sexual abuse and torture?
Hellyes! There’s always a market for violent porn, and when it’s our guys doing the dirty to those raghaids, well, it’s pure video GOLD!!!
May 29th, 2009 at 10:10 amWhen repugs were in charge, they would wait for no one in their efforts to get as much through congress as possible. But now that they are in the minority, they are eager to advocate for a period of review before passing anything.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:10 amPredicting the 180 degree reversal on the so-called principles of the repugnicant party is becoming a parlor game.
watchdog Says: Taxpayers are on the hook for an extra $55,000 a household to cover rising federal commitments made just in the past year for retirement benefits, the national debt and other government promises, a USA TODAY analysis shows
We’re in this debt because of corporations that do not pay their taxes. Period. If the Greedy rich pigs would have paid their taxes, there’d be little deficit.
Also, when Obama reduces the deficit, as he plans to do once things stabilize, will you give him credit for that? Didn’t think so…
May 29th, 2009 at 10:18 amBriseadh na Firefly Says:
… should the Bush Administration be prosecuted…
__________
But “prosecuted” is such an… ugly word. Perhaps if we began w/ “thoroughly investigated” and then, if the evidence supported it, moved onto “rightfully indicted”, and THEN… got to the prosecution part, it’d be easier for the GOOPers to swallow…
I wonder how their gag reflex is doing? After 8 years of BushCo, prolly completely gone…
May 29th, 2009 at 10:18 amMissMolly, I don’t agree with you. If people are relegated to pay up for their insurance on their own, what will wind up happening is that people will wind up with lower wages (perhaps not immediately, but over time). It should be a part of employment, with people self employeed paying into it on their own.
If you leave it in the hands of industry to do the right thing (meaning pay people a living wage including let’s pick an arbitrary number of $500 [min] monthly for insurance), we already know the side they will choose.
As for Teddy expanding MedicAID…why not expand MedicARE? Medicaid has problems. Medicare is a solid model.
I don’t get that.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:19 amwatchdog Says:
GOV’T OWES RECORD $63.8 TRILLION
Taxpayers are on the hook for an extra $55,000 a household to cover rising federal commitments made just in the past year for retirement benefits, the national debt and other government promises, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
The 12% rise in red ink in 2008 stems from an explosion of federal borrowing during the recession, plus an aging population driving up the costs of Medicare and Social Security.
Thank you Bush and Obama!
LOL, what a silly f-kwit you are. The recession started under Bush and all that debt was from Bush.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:22 amLittle Kim Jong Il has CFP quivering in his pants
I just can’t imagine being so overwhelmed by fear
May 29th, 2009 at 10:24 amkeep flinging the poo, little CFP monkey
none of it seems to stick
it must not have any substance
May 29th, 2009 at 10:26 amDespite having ready access to the White House, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) sent in a suggestion to the White House website’s online suggestion box that currently has more votes — 599 — than any other idea. Boehner called on the White House “to back a mandatory 72-hour review period before Congress votes on any major spending bill.”
I personally think a minimum 72-hour review period prior to any vote on ANY major (not just spending) bill would be great. I would certainly have liked to see this prior to such monsters as the Patriot Act and the Medicare Part D bill. However, the Legislative branch is supposed to be an independent branch, as per the Constitutional design of the balance of powers. Thus, for the White House to push or dictate such a review period would be completely inappropriate. Bush pulled this kind of thing constantly, usually speeding up votes on issues important to the administration; it would be wrong for Obama to do so as well.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:28 amHere we go. Hang on to your wallet.
Medicare is already broke.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:30 amObama promised a 5 day review period (so the people of the US could read the bill) before he would sign any bill.
What happened with that?
May 29th, 2009 at 10:33 amAs far as I know Bush never hired a “speed reader” to read the bills on the floor. Waxman admitted that he didn’t know what was in the bill and didn’t really care. With people like that, we do need the 72 hour review process (or the 5 days he promised) so the “American People” have a chance to read those documents.
OBTW there is nothing in the Constitution that says Obama can’t allow such a thing.
You know, “fairness and openness in Government”.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:41 amIt appears so.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:41 amIt was an inadvertent untruthfulness.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
May 29th, 2009 at 10:44 amWith people like that, we do need the 72 hour review process (or the 5 days he promised) so the “American People” have a chance to read those documents.
Wake-up jackmeat.
How’d that Patriot Act passing go down, or where you too blinded with Neocon love?
NOBODY read that fcuking disgrace of a bill.
Rarely do their interns even read the legislation.
DO TRY AND KEEP UP…
May 29th, 2009 at 10:45 am.
Huckabee & Allen will also be covering “Deliverance.” The movie, not the song.
Here’s yawl some more crazy current events.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:45 am.
Not even the Democrats who voted for it. All the more reason for Obama to keep his word.
“rarely do their interns even read the legislation”. So what’s your point?
We have change in the White House now.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:48 amAccording to DNFP, I’m the “jackmeat”.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Read his nonsense. His argument stinks.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
May 29th, 2009 at 10:50 amHey jaybird, the House and the Senate set their own rules, not the white house or the President. Do try to keep up will ya.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:59 amJeffboste Says:
Do you support releasing additional pictures of sexual abuse and torture?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=5385
You are aware, are you not, that most people are too ill-informed to have a meaningful opinion on just about any complex issue? For example, people who get their information from primarily right-wing media often believe things that are not true. Why ask them what to do?
If you have something meaningful to contribute, fine. Otherwise, stop spamming all the threads with links to worthless polling.
Thank you.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:03 amSo why is DNFP blaming the Patriot Act on George Bush???
How many Democrats were in congress when the bill was on the floor?????
Any one of them could call for the reading of the bill!!!!!
DNFP has a stupid argument. If anything, he is making my point for a 5 day period before Obama signs any bill.
He should have read the Stimulus bill before he signed it, he didn’t.
You should try and keep up Angel. I won’t call you the same name that DNFP called me.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:03 amOh Angel. If you don’t think that the White House has no influence in what goes on in Congress then you are truly naive.
Hell the VP is the President of the Senate. That’s the Constitution speaking, not me.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:07 amJeffboste Says:
Do you support releasing additional pictures of sexual abuse and torture?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=5385
Besides, if this is how the question is framed, the responses are going to be meaningless. I bet if you ask,
“Do you support releasing additional evidence of War Crimes committed by our former president and vice president?”, the results would be completely different.
How polling questions are framed is very significant because it will influence the thinking of the person answering the question. Do you ask people if they are “pro-life” or “anti-choice”? Do you ask them if they are “pro-choice” or “pro-death”? How you word the question will absolutely affect how the person answers. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of Americans are too ill-informed to be giving advice on these matters, and you completely negate the usefulness of polls.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:08 amThat didn’t come out quite right. I’ll correct it.
How’s that?
May 29th, 2009 at 11:09 amjay Says:
He lied.
It appears so.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:41 am
____________
Wrong. Go to whitehouse.gov. New legislation is posted there for review after being passed by both houses.
And you can always review the full text of any legislation BEFORE it passes Congress at thomas.loc.gov.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:13 am______
Briseadh na Firefly Says:
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama never asked her about her view of abortion rights,…
If true, then President Obama did not do what the Reich-Wing does – he did not have a litmus test on certain issues, but instead selected a person based on how that person interprets the constitution.
angels81 Says:
I think some liberal groups are getting their undies in a bunch over nothing, If people think Obama didn’t ask her about abortion rights, you’ve been drinking your bath water.
______
Presidents don’t “have a litmus test” for judges like judges don’t “make policy.” ;)
May 29th, 2009 at 11:13 amIn most cases that is not true. Beside Obama promised a 5 day period before signing any bill. He does not and so far hasn’t kept to his word.
The bill that leaves Congress can be totally different than the bill as read on the floor. Sorry that you don’t know that but that’s not my problem
May 29th, 2009 at 11:18 amOBTW those sites you posted didn’t have the final “Stimulus” bill as was passed, posted until after Obama signed it.
So much for that.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:23 am______
Ms_Joanne Says:
As for Teddy expanding MedicAID…why not expand MedicARE? Medicaid has problems. Medicare is a solid model.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:19 am
______
That “solid model” is plagued by billions of dollars per year in fraud and waste. No method used to extend coverage to the uninsured will be free of fraud, but pretending that Medicare is free of serious problems doesn’t help the discussion.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:23 amAllowing a family of four who makes $110,250 to qualify for Medicaid is ridiculousness.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:28 amjay Says:
winddancer Says:
Despite having ready access to the White House, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) sent in a suggestion to the White House website’s online suggestion box that currently has more votes — 599 — than any other idea. Boehner called on the White House “to back a mandatory 72-hour review period before Congress votes on any major spending bill.”
I personally think a minimum 72-hour review period prior to any vote on ANY major (not just spending) bill would be great. I would certainly have liked to see this prior to such monsters as the Patriot Act and the Medicare Part D bill. However, the Legislative branch is supposed to be an independent branch, as per the Constitutional design of the balance of powers. Thus, for the White House to push or dictate such a review period would be completely inappropriate. Bush pulled this kind of thing constantly, usually speeding up votes on issues important to the administration; it would be wrong for Obama to do so as well.
Obama promised a 5 day review period (so the people of the US could read the bill) before he would sign any bill.
What happened with that?
Let me point out that the 5-day review period was AFTER any final vote and BEFORE he signed the bill. Again, this was not something mandated to CONGRESS. However, you are right…he seems to have possibly broken his promise for that 5-day review before signing any non-emergency bill. Except that he wasn’t specific in exactly how that would work. This is the latest explanation I could find during a press conference with Robert Gibbs on May 22.
Q Robert, on the signings today, I’m wondering, the President had pledged to put bills up on the Web for five days before he signed legislation. And is that just pretty much out the window?
MR. BURTON: It’s been five days.
MR. GIBBS: I think we posted conference reports several days in advance. I can get you the exact days.
Q The conference reports?
MR. GIBBS: The conference reports that after they’ve voted on become the gross legislation that’s delivered here that the President ultimately signs that becomes public law.
Q So you’re — is that a finalized version of it that went out or –
MR. GIBBS: Well, a conference report, as you know, is an unamendable piece of legislation that has to be approved by both Houses, language has to be simultaneous, it gets sent down here, and we sign it. So if a conference report is — if something is delineated as a conference report or if there’s not a conference committee and there’s a separate piece of legislation, if the Senate passes a bill — if the House and Senate pass different versions of a bill and the House agrees to accede to the Senate version, then the Senate version might be put up before the House votes on it. Once they vote on it, both Houses have passed identical legislation, and it comes down here.
Q So it’s effectively a finalized version. It just hasn’t –
MR. GIBBS: It’s not effectively — it legally is, yes.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-5-22-09/
May 29th, 2009 at 11:33 amCageyCretin Says:
(sorry…. snarky this morn…..)
LOL. You’re killing me here ;)
May 29th, 2009 at 11:33 amHey, lets just make ALL Citizens eligible for Medicare and Medicaid regardless of what they make.
No need to pass a Nationalized health care plan.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:50 amupright left Says:
______
That “solid model” is plagued by billions of dollars per year in fraud and waste. No method used to extend coverage to the uninsured will be free of fraud, but pretending that Medicare is free of serious problems doesn’t help the discussion.
I am not saying there isn’t problems. But the problems are less.
What will improve the system overall is the ability to negotiate prices on a ginormous level (the government) to control costs (think drugs, which Bush specifically outlawed our ability to negotiate…which Canada does and gets the same drugs we get for a fraction of the price).
Who administrates Medicare? Did Bush not push much of that off into the private sector (so they could rip it off)? Which agency oversees it? GAO? Did Bush act on anything the GAO said? Is Obama?
You cannot say that something flat out doesn’t work without looking at why it doesn’t work. Bush wanted to prove government couldn’t work by working to make it not work.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pmSome proof is in order for this statement.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:24 pmjay Says:
Ms_Joanne Says:
You cannot say that something flat out doesn’t work without looking at why it doesn’t work. Bush wanted to prove government couldn’t work by working to make it not work.
Some proof is in order for this statement.
I’m not too inclined to respond to you because reading the bull you have written above, but, dude, honestly, were you not paying attention at all during the Bush years? Christ, spend a few minutes on Google.
What a joke. Don’t even respond to me with something as stunningly stupid as that.
I agree with you that all bills should be read, but the crap the GOP tried (with reading a, what, 900 page bill), was just obstruction. Each representative should read every bill they vote on, but not during session.
That is all the GOP has to offer these days; obstruction and lots of NO’s and NOPE’s.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:38 pmNo, jay, you are an idiot.
Bye bye.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:42 pmMs_Joanne, so you have no proof to back up your statement.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:43 pmNo, jay, you are an id.i.ot.
Buh bye.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:44 pmjay Says:
Ms_Joanne, so you have no proof to back up your statement.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:44 pmOf course there is no fraud or waste in the private pay, profit-driven insurance, right, Jay?
The point is that we will never be totally free of fraud – human nature being what it is – what is not acceptable is that American citizens are unable to get needed medical care because they can’t afford it!
May 29th, 2009 at 12:46 pmIt all boils down to money and where the social conscience of the country places its value.
Hey, lets just make ALL Citizens eligible for Medicare and Medicaid regardless of what they make.
No need to pass a Nationalized health care plan.
Problem solved.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:48 pmapparently not.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:49 pmI just asked for her to provide some proof that Bush worked to make sure the Government didn’t work.
She couldn’t and neither did you.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:52 pmWhy I am predisposed to not answer stoopid people. Apparently not, indeed.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:52 pmOf course you are. If you make a blanket statement like that then you should be willing and prepared to back it up.
Apparently not.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pmNeither did I do what, Jay? I got some time to kill… shall we do the tango? What will be the result? Will you screech about me being a dogmatic liberal? You say I’m just deflecting?
Will you LYAO?
HA HA HA HA
May 29th, 2009 at 12:59 pmMay 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Well then since I didn’t make the statement, I don’t have to back it up? Why are saying that I should, Jay? That’s just silly.
What I did say is that it is apparent to me that you weren’t paying attention during the 8 years Bush was running the show.
I stand by that. I also think you’re full of piss, but I can’t prove it… so I let you do it for me.
LMAO
May 29th, 2009 at 1:08 pmYou have no idea of how much attention I was giving to the Bush Administration. You only have a judgmental opinion of what I was paying attention to.
That is your opinion, right?
Not a fact but if you do have some facts that back up your statement, then lets have them.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:12 pmYes, Jay. In my opinion you are full of piss. You’ll have to supply the facts. How do you feel about “liberals”, Jay?
Give me a little insight before I pass any more judgement.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:16 pmI don’t see any relevance to your question but it’s simple to see from my posts here that I don’t really care for their politics or tactics, but as people, I luv everyone Liberal, Conservative and Independents.
How do you feel about Republicans?
May 29th, 2009 at 1:20 pmSo you are in the position to pass judgment on people. Strange.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:22 pmAww… bullsh*t. I deal w/ them.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:22 pmAs do I with liberals.
I still luv them though.
So we are the same type of person.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pmno, Jay… were not. That is your judgmental opinion.
When you see me jerkin’ off on a tighty-righty blog then you may claim we are… in the mean time, we’re worlds apart.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:28 pmI’m not quite as judgmental as you are as is evident in your post.
I’m here doing just what you are doing here. I just have an opposing view. It seems that you can’t handle that.
So be it.
What world are you living on these days?
May 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pmAlpuz, I’m not intimidated by you or anyone else here.
It is very entertaining though.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:34 pmjay Says:
“I just asked for her to provide some proof that Bush worked to make sure the Government didn’t work.”
What worked under the Bush Administration? Start with: Who he put in charge of whichever Agency (choose one) and what were their backgrounds, for instance?
May 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pmIt seems that Obama has employed some of those same people.
That alone still offers no proof to her statement, “Bush wanted to prove government couldn’t work by working to make it not work.”
Sorry but it doesn’t.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:39 pmYep, so be it.
Here’s an old thread that may back up the “opinion” that W was doing his gosh darndest to make sure government didn’t work.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/17/bush-43-worst/
But then again… it comes from a “liberal” source.
Judge away, cowboy.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:39 pmYour right Alpuz. It did nothing to prove the statement.
Funny though. You quoting TP as a source of credible information.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
May 29th, 2009 at 1:40 pmOh crap, another jay thread. Now it’s going to go to 500 posts, each averaging 3 words, none of them remotely related to any topic at the top of the page. Only one topic will now be allowed here: jay.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:41 pmI was told yesterday that there are no specific topics on “Think Fast” so you can’t go off topic.
I started with a reasonable post and now Alpuz and yourself have made it all about me.
You people need to get out of that habit or at least stop whining about it.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pmebbAndflow Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 11:09 am
May 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm~~~
Jay – it’s Think Fast (granted you don’t), an open thread so how can RT be ‘off topic’?
Well then… there you have it. You did realize there were links to other sources on that page, Jay.
But, I can see you’re blinded by dogma.
LMAO… intimidated.
what a victim.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:53 pmjay… it’s kind of a saying (well, understanding) regarding Republicans in general… They want smaller Government because they think it doesn’t work, so they get into power just to prove it.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:53 pmSorry but I did my own research and not on TP or its sources, and your premise is false.
It’s your own dogma that is blinding here.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:56 pmCop out. Sorry but that dog won’t hunt.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pmAfter years of Republican rule and it’s subsequent and obvious failure, the burden is on you to show how it isn’t true… sorry.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:00 pmI didn’t make the statement, she did. Sorry but I don’t have to prove anything. She does.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:01 pmSo, I’ll ask again… what worked under the Bush Administration? Hmmm… the IRS was still taxing me… I guess that was working pretty well… ironic, no?
May 29th, 2009 at 2:02 pmIf you think you were taxed under Bush, wait until the new head of the IRS (a proven tax cheat) gets through with you.
I think Obama is President now, or did I miss something?
May 29th, 2009 at 2:05 pm“Sorry but I don’t have to prove anything. She does.”
What part of her statement don’t you agree with? Our country is bankrupt, our military is exhausted, we’re just beginning another Great Depression, we’ve lost liberties as individual citizens, we’ve lost protections from many industries as consumers, we’ve had lands looted, given away and destroyed by deregulation… the list goes on forever.
Her statement is born by reality. If you disagree with it, you have to at least explain why.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:07 pmjay Says:
“If you think you were taxed under Bush, wait until the new head of the IRS (a proven tax cheat) gets through with you.”
So, being taxed, as long as it’s under Republican rule, is okay?
Also, I think we have this backwards… shouldn’t your argument be that there is no such thing as a tax cheat, since there is no actual law mandating an income tax? You’re screwing this one up, dude.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:11 pmMaybe you should go back and read her statement.
Most of the deregulation that you are complaining about happened on Clintons watch.
Some on Bush’s watch but you are in power now and I don’t see much of a change in those areas. I can’t explain why nothing has changed.
I’m still waiting for the change, so far it’s the same old Washington insiders running things.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:12 pm“I’m still waiting for the change, so far it’s the same old Washington insiders running things.”
Who were okay for you under Bush?
May 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pmWell under the SCOTUS Section 8 of the Constitution allows taxes.
I’m sure you already know this, right?
May 29th, 2009 at 2:15 pmNow if they want to overrule their decisions in this area, I’m all for it.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:16 pmInternal Revenue Bulletin – April 4, 2005 – Rev. Rul. 2005-19
Quotes the SCOTUS ruling.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:18 pmI think the argument goes something like there is no law on the books requiring an income tax… or defining income… etc. It’s a right-wing argument that I wasn’t necessarily making, so, go ahead… prove them wrong.
tee-hee
May 29th, 2009 at 2:24 pmNot exactly but you keep that thought. A ruling has been made to the contrary.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:29 pmSo you have proven to me that you know nothing about what you are trying to say.
Typical.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:30 pmGo back and look at how it was initially brought up… it was a joke and not something that I said in any kind of seriousness, but I guess I can understand how that could be lost on you while you have also proven yourself to be totally incapable of answering any of the questions posed to you.
Keep it up, though, it’s kinda funny.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:37 pmArticle I Section 8 sets up the ruling, The 16th Amendment affirms it.
If you want to make that argument before the Supreme court then I’m behind you.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:37 pmAlso prove that “most of the deregulation that you are complaining about happened on Clintons watch.”
The burden is on you, remember?
May 29th, 2009 at 2:38 pmhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml
May 29th, 2009 at 2:40 pmToo easy.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:40 pmThe 16th Ammendment was never ratified by the appropriate amount of states.
Too funny!
May 29th, 2009 at 2:44 pm“Too easy.”
Try again. I was talking about environmental deregulation, not the veto-proof repealing of an Act that was passed by a Republican led Congress.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pmSorry but The 16th Amendment was ratified and couldn’t be used to argue the above mentioned actions.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:48 pm“Sorry but The 16th Amendment was ratified.”
The right-wing argument is that it wasn’t. Do you disagree?
May 29th, 2009 at 2:51 pmI certainly didn’t mention it in the post that you asked me to back up.
Neither did you.
You are funny though.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:54 pmYes. I have a copy of it on my desk.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:56 pmAlso, since you obviously “know everything about what you’re trying to say” and initially used Section 8 to argue for a legal income tax… why would the 16th ammendment have been necessary?
May 29th, 2009 at 2:57 pmYou should get a copy of the Constitution and the Amendments and keep it on your desk, as I have done.
It might help you when you try to argue something that you have shown to have no knowledge of.
Then come back.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:58 pmYou tell me. It just happened to be the argument used before the SCOTUS. As you should know, it’s the Supreme Court who rules on such things, right?
May 29th, 2009 at 3:01 pm“I certainly didn’t mention it in the post that you asked me to back up.”
Uhhh… Then what was the link you posted all about? You have to employ at least a certain level of honesty…
But now that it’s in the conversation, do you agree or disagree with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act “by Clinton”?
May 29th, 2009 at 3:02 pmjay Says:
“You tell me.”
So, you’re the Constitutional Scholar… Congratulations. No really. Every American should be.
However, I’m simply proving to you that Section 8 (what you used for your initial argument) was not sufficient to back up your claim.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:06 pm666cicadas Says:
Didn’t you read it? If you did then you wouldn’t be asking the question.
I kinda disagree with it. It has shown to be one of the root problems with the economy. But everything is 20/20 in hindsight.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:07 pm…for an argument I’m making on behalf of your right-wing bretheren.
This is hilarious.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:07 pmYour comedic attempt to prove something that you haven’t been able to is hilarious.
Yes you are amusing. So far you haven’t made one point in the argument.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:09 pmYou’re too easy.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
May 29th, 2009 at 3:12 pm“Didn’t you read it? If you did then you wouldn’t be asking the question.”
Yup… and it talked about repealing the Glass-Steagall Act which you said your post including that link didn’t. Did you not read your own link?
“I kinda disagree with it. It has shown to be one of the root problems with the economy. But everything is 20/20 in hindsight.”
Very well. I like that you’re at least starting to somewhat begin to answer questions somewhat directly… So, if hindsight is supposedely 20/20, at which point should people be held accountable for their actions?
Who is more responsible for passing it… the Republican led Congress who had a veto-proof majority, the Republican who wrote its repeal and was initially tapped by the most recent Republican nominee for President as Treasury Secretary, or Clinton who was forced to sign it because it was veto-proof?
May 29th, 2009 at 3:12 pmjay Says:
“Your comedic attempt to prove something that you haven’t been able to is hilarious.”
My point was to prove that the right-wing is so ridiculous that even a right-winger wouldn’t agree with them out of context… so okay… whatever you say ;)
I did attempt to make it as obvious as possible for you.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:16 pm#
#
666cicadas Says:
“Didn’t you read it? If you did then you wouldn’t be asking the question.”
Yup… and it talked about repealing the Glass-Steagall Act which you said your post including that link didn’t. Did you not read your own link?
I didn’t mention say any such thing. Now if you could show me where I mentioned “Glass-Steagall” in any of my post prior to you bringing it up I’ll admit that I was wrong.
All my post have been direct with you. I’m sorry that you didn’t see that but that’s not my problem.
Clinton, nor any President is forced to sign any bill presented to him. To quote so many here, “It happened on his watch” and was so stated in my original post.
So your need for a copy of the Constitution become even more important if you intend to keep up this inquisition.
No one will ever know if it was “veto-proof” if it didn’t actually happen.
Sorry.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:21 pmYou assumed that I was right wing. Sorry, but I’m a Constitutionalists or more of a Libertarian than right wing. I would think that it was obvious to you but you do have pre-conceived notion of people, don’t you?
You are funny though.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:25 pmI’m not a Bush apologist or an Obama worshiper either. I have lived through 10 Presidents and I’m on my 11th. I’ve seen and heard this stuff all before. I’m not impressed by any politician.
There’s nothing new here. Did you think there was?
May 29th, 2009 at 3:29 pm“I didn’t mention say any such thing. Now if you could show me where I mentioned “Glass-Steagall” in any of my post prior to you bringing it up I’ll admit that I was wrong.”
It was in the link in your post.
Wow.
Most Republicans who are too ashamed of what they did are now “Constitutionalists and/or Libertarians” and are still considered right-wing (in case you didn’t know).
“No one will ever know if it was “veto-proof” if it didn’t actually happen.”
So Clinton was most responsible? You still didn’t answer directly. That’s an example in case you were looking for one. You probably do it so often you don’t realize it. So, anyway what part of passing with a veto-proof majority didn’t happen, exactly?
May 29th, 2009 at 3:33 pmjay,
Did you support Ron Paul? (not as loaded a question as it might seem.)
May 29th, 2009 at 3:34 pmYou asked for proof that Clinton was responsible for deregulation. I proved that he was.
In your mind I’m sure.
A fact. If it didn’t happen then it didn’t happen. Fact.
Every President is responsible for the bills that he signs, be it Clinton, Bush or Obama.
If Clinton was opposed to the bill he could have vetoed it. If he did that, then he wouldn’t be responsible for it. He didn’t, so he is.
The Constitution, you know.
Sorry but your logic is flawed. Inquisition is over.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:39 pmNo I didn’t.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:42 pm“In your mind I’m sure.”
Yes. Based on experience, but if you’re cool with the dispensing of labels, then I am as well.
“A fact. If it didn’t happen then it didn’t happen. Fact.”
What was the vote count if it wasn’t a veto-proof majority? Actually, I’ll do it for you: The final bill was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting).
It was written and introduced by Republicans and you are defending them over Clinton as being somehow more responsible and yet you claim to not be a Republican. Why then does it matter to you? Is it just so you won’t have to back-track from your original accusation? I’m truly interested.
And yet, you have proven nothing.
“No I didn’t.”
Who did you support, if you don’t mind me asking?
May 29th, 2009 at 3:50 pmYour assumption that Libertarians are right wing is skewed towards your dislike for the Republican Party. In fact there are many Libertarians who align themselves with the Democrat party. I’m not one of them but you should be aware of that fact.
I’m an Independent who leans towards the Constitution and its principals.
If that is being right wing in your eyes, then so be it.
I’m not as myopic as you are.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:53 pm#
#
666cicadas Says:
“A fact. If it didn’t happen then it didn’t happen. Fact.”
It doesn’t matter. If Clinton wanted to stick to his principals and vetoed the bill he could have. If it was over ridden in Congress then he would have been none the worse for his decision, would he?
I’m not defending anyone and if you are truly reading my posts then you would see that. That’s not my fault, now is it?
My support went to Aaron Russo and Eric Dondero, the same nominations as in 2004.
Ron Paul was too quirky for me.
What does it matter now anyway?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:03 pm“I’m an Independent who leans towards the Constitution and its principals.”
There’s nothing wrong with that. However, in today’s politics, it is considered “right Wing”. Trust me, I was surprised when I first discovered that my beliefs had a label (of left-wing). The myopia you may be perceiving is due to my ability to speak within today’s political paradigm. As I said, I am comfortable dispensing the labels.
I think we need to abide more by the Constitution, as well, so on that we most certainly agree. How is it that you allign yourself more with Republicans when viewing them through a Constitutionalist’s eyes? Because, to me, it seems that they are the most responsible for steering us away from it and is perhaps my biggest, or close to my biggest gripe with them.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:03 pm“I’m not defending anyone”
You have placed all of the responsibility of a law written, fought for and passed by Republicans on Clinton.
To be honest, it’s kind of weird, at this point, that you don’t even see it.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:06 pmAaron Russo made the documentary arguing the points that you were arguing against about income tax.
Please explain why you would support someone you disagree with so?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:09 pmWho’s making the sandwiches?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:10 pmDocumentary: “America: From Freedom to Fascism”.
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/index.html
Very interesting flick, though.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:11 pm666cicadas Says:
“I’m an Independent who leans towards the Constitution and its principals.”
We’re not that different. Our beliefs are somewhat opposite but as far as being Americans we have that right.
It seems to be the prevailing assumption when I post here. You had that conception of me when you first posted to me.
I deal in sarcasm and come here for the entertainment. Maybe that is why you see me as you do.
It’s rare to discuss things here because of the treatment that I get when I post here. No one is interested in me or what I really think. I am a game for most who post to me and I give back what I receive.
Sorry but I can’t, and wouldn’t try, to change your mind on that one.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:13 pmsandwiches? all I’ve got is burnt pop-corn…
May 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pmIt’s not as contradictory as you might think.
As a citizen I’m bound by the decisions of the SCOTUS as it applies to the Constitution. As far as taxes goes, I think there is a better way of supporting the Government other than the Income tax.
It’s a double edge sword. I never said it wasn’t perplexing. It is. Until the tax codes are changed we have to live by the ones we have. The law and the Constitution, you know.
That doesn’t mean to say that I haven’t worked to change things.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:21 pm“It seems to be the prevailing assumption when I post here.”
That should be understandable while you only attack Democrats for things that Republicans are either solely or also responsible for.
“It’s rare to discuss things here because of the treatment that I get when I post here. No one is interested in me or what I really think. I am a game for most who post to me and I give back what I receive.”
Yeah, there a lot of that, but it also gets tedious when people allign or intentionally appear to allign themselves with something, only to pull a “gotcha, I’m not really ..fill in the blank..”. You should try to include more criticism of Republicans, if you have them and you might begin to get a different reaction, otherwise you appear disingenuous and will be treated as such.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pmjay Says:
“As a citizen I’m bound by the decisions of the SCOTUS as it applies to the Constitution.”
Fair enough… But, do you believe that the SCOTUS decision discounts the whole argument in Russo’s movie?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:28 pmIt all boils down to this. The sitting President is responsible for everything that happens on his watch. I have said that here a dozen times.
It’s as simple as that. It goes for GW, Clinton, Obama and all other Presidents. It’s the duty of the office and responsibility of the office..
Don’t get me wrong, the President doesn’t act alone, that is why we have Congress and the Supreme court but the eventual responsibility is in the Executive Office. It always has.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:29 pm“We’re not that different. Our beliefs are somewhat opposite but as far as being Americans we have that right.”
I heart common ground. That’s what it’s all about.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:30 pmIt has to. It stands until it is either overturned or the Constitution is changed.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:32 pmAs you know, Aaron passed away in 2007 but that doesn’t mean that his ideals have also passed away.
I’ll work within the system as I always have. It’s the American way.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:37 pm“It stands until it is either overturned or the Constitution is changed.”
The SCOTUS decision held that the 16th ammendment was Constitutional (based on content), but the documentary holds that the 16th ammendment was not even ratified by the appropriate amount of states (which I don’t believe was addressed in the ruling), so I’m just a little confused. I’m sure you can understand.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:48 pmI have on rare occasions and no one take me serious. I admit that it is partly my fault. I have a habit of giving back what I receive.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
I don’t mind though.
Confrontation is the name of the game here. If it wasn’t then conversations like ours would happen more frequently.
I enjoyed it. Next time we meet may it be on better ground.
Thanks.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:48 pmPeace
May 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pmHey 666cicadas are you still around????
I was considering your argument about Clinton having the bill shoved down his throat by Republicans. Researching your argument.
It seems that there was a large majority of Democrats who also voted for the bill in both the House and the Senate.
I don’t mean to post this behind your back but It had to be said.
I hope you return to comment on this.
PEACE.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:34 pmYeah, I’m also now seeing that it is reported that Clinton doesn’t necessarily regret signing it into law, even now… Oh well, so much for that argument ;)
have a good weekend
May 29th, 2009 at 6:59 pmYou too. I’m glad that you got the chance to come back.
Have a good one.
PEACE.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:06 pmjay Says:
I was told yesterday that there are no specific topics on “Think Fast” so you can’t go off topic.
Correct. If you must monopolize one thread per day, please make it the “Think Fast” thread. We would appreciate that, at the very least. Awesome.
Nevertheless, there are 9 topics at the top of this thread. It would be most helpful if you could at least address your comments to any one of them.
As we’ve said before, if you want to talk about you, go start your own blog. You will never be the subject of TP, no matter how much of a diva you might be otherwise.
Your exchange towards the latter part of this thread with 666cicadas looks pretty reasonable, but the rest of us aren’t willing to kiss your ass to get you to play nice with us. Given the tendency of wingnuts to come in here and mess with our heads, the tendency to take a boot-party to anybody who doesn’t present themselves respectfully is pretty strong.
.
jay Says:
I started with a reasonable post and now Alpuz and yourself have made it all about me.
This is your excuse every time – you make an inflammatory statement, somebody else goes ad-hominem, and then all of a sudden it’s not your fault that the topic of the thread is how evil/awesome jay is, they started it! Poor me, I was just “defending myself!”
Clue: don’t respond to ad-hominem attacks. If somebody’s picking on you personally, ignore them and engage the other person who’s fairly debating against you on the topic under discussion. That’s what everybody but you does, and it works just fine. Also: if you fail to do this, don’t make excuses and point fingers at everybody else. Hint: we can actually statistically correlate the presence of “jay” with the crappy demise of any thread, and it’s not looking good for you. Blaming other people doesn’t excuse your existence.
.
666cicadas Says:
“It stands until it is either overturned or the Constitution is changed.”
The SCOTUS decision held that the 16th ammendment was Constitutional (based on content), but the documentary holds that the 16th ammendment was not even ratified by the appropriate amount of states (which I don’t believe was addressed in the ruling), so I’m just a little confused. I’m sure you can understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_process
Who says that’s not enough states? Citation?
May 30th, 2009 at 4:56 am#
#
ElBruce Says:
jay Says:
I was told yesterday that there are no specific topics on “Think Fast” so you can’t go off topic.
I don’t monopolize anything. If people choose to post to me all day that’s their right. They can change who they post to at any moment. You play the game, I play the game.
I did. You obviously didn’t read my post. You see only what you want to see. I also didn’t change the subject of my original post, others did!!!!
People like you make it all about me. You’re doing it again right now. I could care less about being a subject on TP. It does seem that many here want me to be.
I could care less about you and the others who choose to condemn people instead of talking with them. It seems that only a few here care about reasonable discussions with anyone. I use their own posts of proof of that.
You don’t have to tell me this. I’ve been around here for quite some time. The people here try and control everyone who posts here if they have a different opinion then they are a “wingnut”. Typical. If you can’t control them (like me) you usually bring out the name calling and spamming.
Sorry but I’m not intimidated by that tactic and can give back what you throw at me.
Of course I’ll never get as bad as some here (RHF) I have more class than that.
.
Jay says:
I started with a reasonable post and now Alpuz and yourself have made it all about me.
Sorry but that is the game here isn’t it? You people set the ground rules. I’m still not intimidated.
Clue, if you don’t like what I post then don’t post to me. It does work both ways, doesn’t it? You haven’t run into RHF and the other bigots who look for my every post so they can attack me.
TP thinks the Vulgarity and hateful posts that RHF and her new sock ARN are just fine but boot people who have an opposing view to their Philosophy because the members here can’t take the same medicine that you give out.
Sorry but hypocrisy is what I fight against here and it’s rampant from the top down..
It is entertaining though.
As you can clearly see, I will discuss anything with anyone up and until the garbage, name calling and vulgarity starts.
Thanks for your comment.
Have a nice day.
May 30th, 2009 at 10:13 amElBruce, your problem, like many others here, is that you think you are better than others. I know you will deny this.
Listen more and talk less. I have had a few very good conversations here with a couple people. But not many. Most can’t seem to get past the political dogma that runs their lives. If stroking each others back because they agree with you is intelligent conversation, then this place does need someone like myself to spice it up.
Have you seen the pictures of the North Korean President before his Government? Everyone in the hall agrees with him 100%.
The ones that don’t are eating bugs and grass in a concentration camp somewhere, or they are pushing up daisies.
Opposing views should stimulate the thought process, not vulgarities, name calling, accusations and hypocrisy.
Think about it.
May 30th, 2009 at 10:27 amElBruce,
google “16th ammendment never ratified” and a lot will come up… not sure how much (if any) is “reliable”, though.
http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm
(Just to re-clarify, I am not necessarily advocating this viewpoint… although I am finding it more and more interesting.)
June 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pmThank You
June 5th, 2009 at 9:26 amseslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat