You said "the topic of impeaching judges was brought up in direct reference to this case." Now you're bringing up Terry Schiavo?

Just goes to show that the calls for impeachment weren't limited to the outer fringes like WND and were still going strong two years later by elected officials.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Another would be that you had to find another case that had nothing to do with a right to sodomy that was decided two years later to find a politician calling for judicial impeachment. If you'll recall (or care to read earlier in this page) I said there was no serious "debate" over impeachment.

But yeah, if you don't want to pay attention to a word either of us have said before now, you totally pwned me.

True, there were no articles of impeachment against a judge introduced. But the topic was broached repeatedly by a senior Congressional official which is something that you can't ignore.

And why the artificial wall with cases only involving rights to sodomy? The conservative majority was very vocal about many judicial decisions they didn't like, and the rumblings were quite loud to do something to enforce the "tyranny of the majority" via changes to the judiciary.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm acknowledging the absolute irrelevance to everything we (including you) have been talking about up to this point. This was about Lawrence v. Texas, not Terri Schiavo. This was about the Lawrence v. Texas decision coming down in the midst of our 8-year reign of "conservative authoritarianism". If you're trying to make the point that a senior Congressional official broaching the subject of impeachment without being able to muster up the support needed in the House for impeachment is evidence of that "conservative authoritarianism", I'd suggest you've got an odd idea of what an authoritarian-style government looks like.

But like I said, other than that you've completely pwned me. I bow before your mad intertube skillz.

That's exactly the point. You were trying to make the claim that Lawrence v. Texas shows there wasn't an environment of "conservative authoritarianism". What I'm saying is that there was definitely an attempt to move towards that, with Rove's plan for a permanent majority and DeLay's involvement with redistricting, etc.

The courts were set up to be buffered against the ebbs and flows of popular opinion, and the bellowing about "judicial activism" and veiled threats of impeachment from Congressmen were certainly intended to circumvent those buffers.

Sorry to steer the discussion away from sodomy, but Obama's speech and Q?A with the Republican Caucus today was extraordinary. I'd love to see more of this public debate between our leaders.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/20...20Retreat.aspx

Yeah, I hadn't heard about it until I watched TV. But I gotta say (not being a Democrat or someone who voted for the President) that it was well done and a home run if you're on the left, for simply having him face his critics. No, nothing productive will come out of it of course on a political tip.

But in the same week where you've given the State of the Union, to have the President -- a year into his term -- do something like this and handle it as deftly as he did, the ex-politico in me just claps at his team for getting it done and getting cameras there.

I'm not arguing any of those issues, just that the anti-gay movement is not centered around Fred Phelps. It's a large percent of the rights voting block and the reason they included it as a wedge issue in elections.

To anyone who says that homosexuality is not a major Republican issue... Proposition 8, anyone?

Now see, I'd be hard pressed to disagree substantially with anything I think you said in the above quote.

I might disagree with what you think of the general position, even maybe with how you might characterize it, but something along the line of "overall topics in the niche are definitely a top 10 (or higher) issue with a significant portion of the GOP core voters" is something I'd back you on without any hesitation.

After the unprecedented give and take session the administration held at the GOP's place last week today the train keeps going and Obama will field questions from youtuber's at:

http://www.youtube.com/CitizenTube#p/c/EB843ABAF59735FD

It begins at 1:45 and he supposedly doesnt know what questions will be asked ahead of time.

If the openness by the administration AND the willingness to work together ramps up for the next year by both parties and the Executive, This could be a very good year for the American people.

IF, AND

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride,
If 'ifs' and 'ands' were pots and pans
There would be no need for tinkers hands!

aka "consider me skeptical that will happen"

I'm thinking more likely it's just a dog and pony show.

I'm pretty sure Citizen tube has something to do with soylent green.

Agreed. If a policy is a shit sandwich, it doesn't matter if you promote it as a new and improved shit sandwich. It's still a shit sandwich.

Agreed, if the policy is to be obstructionist or bully-headed than that really is a shit sandwich. However, if collaboration and compromise is in the cards than thats good for everyone, IMO.

It gets us our largest debt ever and even more government spending, according to the budget just released...

another good example of the hypocrisy and obstructionism - the proposed bipartisan budget committee that had republican co-sponsors who then turned against it after Obama said he supported the idea

When Leadership Isn’t « The Washington Independent

It's laughable. It's hard to take the administration seriously when they write up a budget relying that heavily on borrowed money in addition to what is already owned. How the heck do you explain that's good management of funds?

It seems like the Democrats can't even get out of their own way at this point.

and your last sentence is a joke.

Best week for Dems in a long time politically and you write that.

That makes it hard to take you and your opinions seriously.

Fiscal responsibility isn't really the hallmark of either major party - look at the massive deficit spending by Bush.

At least Clinton balanced the budget after the Regan+Bush years and got us to a surplus.

That being said - I'm all for a balanced budget amendment - it's the only way we'll see real fiscal responsibility. Otherwise it's "party in power spends...other party campaigns against it...gets into power and lo-and-behold has to spend in order not to cut programs and piss off its voters"

wait - you were still taking his opinions seriously? :lol:

You're making the false assumption that I was any happier with the spending when Bush was in charge. I've repeatedly hammered his adminstration for their defecit spending. I'm just annoyed that Obama is making Bush look like a small-timer in comparison. Both are brutal in that regard.

Perhaps you are able to justify the deficit spending on a partisan basis. I think it's embarrassing no matter who's doing it.

who's trying to justify it on a partisan basis? :confused: did you miss the part where i called for a balanced budget amendment and decried the general lack of fiscal responsibility by either party that was also in that post that you (selectively) quoted. or did you just selectively quote from it because it better fit your narrative?

I think people are just pointing out that while you say you were upset, you rarely posted about it. Now you release the daily talking points from the right. Just seems very partisian since you did none of this while Bush was in power.

I'm not even on board with a 'balanced budget' amendment. That's a joke because it only balances the budget for that year. I want a 'deficit elimination' amendment. Anything else is worthless.

I must have missed something; what went on that changed direction so fast? Was it Obama tweaking the Supreme Court incorrectly? The rest of the State of the Union where after a year of ignoring his campaign he trotted his talking points out again? The massive budget he just released (that doesn't go after defense spending like Dems have been pushing for, *phew*)? Or were the dog-and-pony shows enough for you?

Washington as a whole remains pretty disgusting these days in general. Time to vote third-party on principal this next time around...

One, a balanced budget or deficit elimination amendment is unworkable and unenforceable outside of being a bad idea.

Two, while I'd like to see a big reduction in the structural deficit there isn't any good way to get to a balanced budget this year. Does anybody think it would be a good idea to pull a trillion+ dollars out of the economy right now either through spending cuts or tax increases? And if that happened it seems almost assured that tax revenues would be further reduced leading to more of a deficit that would require more spending cuts or tax increases.

I've been vocal in the past for eliminating the structural deficit, but can anyone explain how to do that in this economy in the short term? This is going to take years.

Simply speaking comparably and based on what the pundits grade of the last week it seems to be a good week. Im not sure it changes any longer term direction BUT it certainly is faux-shocking to have a commentary about the Dems stepping on themselves during their 'good' week. I have no doubt MBBF has all kinds of talking points to regurge on here however the overall concensus is that, the SOTU, the GOP face to face, and today's internet face time, as a PR issue, alone is 'positive' for the dems. Perhaps when the budget starts to be a daily or hourly headline things'll continue the trendline MBBF wanst...however, today, his comment is just, well, MBBF.

Not necessarily. The deficit is a projection based on given commitments. Those commitments can be changed or restructured significantly to avoid running up the deficit to its current projected level. It will take some work, but the number you see is not a hard number. In some ways, it's a big reason why politicians don't get anxious about it. Much of the money is projected far down the line, when they may or may not be in office. As a result, they're able to distance themselves from the responsibility that they should be taking to make a realistic attempt to balance the budget and reduce the projected deficit.

I guess it's easier to make it about someone else than to address the real issues at hand. You mirror the current administration in that regard.

It's just tiresome debating a partisian because you know what "their" point of view is on every matter before they even speak. I can run through the right wing blogs tomorrow and know exactly what you'll be posting.

It's one thing to debate an issue with someone who has independent thoughts on a matter and real emotion toward something, and another who is just regurgitating talking points they were told to be mad about.

And the dismissal of people as partisans if they oppose the administration's policies is what got them into this mess and it's going to continue to be a problem as they continue towards November.

Obama doesn't have a clue right now why he's getting so much resistance from the voters. He THINKS he does, but it's blatently obvious that he does not. I actually think he's a really nice guy who's an idealist, but it's becoming very obvious that makes for a lousy commander-in-chief during lean times.

that's splitting hairs, because it's not about what it's called, it's about what it contains, and as it's a hypothetical at this point a "balanced budget amendment" could well = a deficit elimination amendment. an amendment that accomplishes deficit elimination sounds good, whatever you want to call it.

fwiw people don't dismiss you as partisan because you oppose the administration's policies.

+infinity..................................................

When the post I responded to did exactly that, it's hard to argue otherwise. But I shouldn't bother arguing it. RainMaker is well-known on this board for lumping people into groups. I probably should have just let it go and speak for itself.

Here's a very cool budget graphic from the NYT: Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal, Department by Department - NYTimes.com

That has nothing to do with it. It's just that arguing with a partisian isn't arguing with the person, but the site/people that told them what to think. There is little independent thought behind true partisians, just following the leader. I wouldn't be arguing with you but with Michelle Malkin or whoever else gave you the daily talking points.

Sort of makes you realize that many of the squabbles over particular projects is so minor in the grand scheme of things. Will be tough to really cut the deficit without cutting into defense.

And as long as you continue to think that, you will be working on false assumptions. I've never read Michelle Malkin and didn't even know who she was until you introduced me to who she was a year ago. I prefer to not be dismissive of one side or the other when it comes to gathering information. It allows some people to ignore viewpoints to make themselves feel they're more right, but doesn't enhance critical thinking skills in any way and certainly doesn't give a full knowledge of the issues at hand.

Great, now I have a line from a movie ("It's time for the dog and pony show"), and I can't remember what movie it's from. This is gonna drive me crazy until I find out.

Or Social Security
Or Medicare
Or Government Health programs
Or Government Subsidies

There's plenty of places to cut. If all you saw that could be cut was defense, we have little to discuss.

It's a bit scary, when you press the "hide mandatory spending" button, to see just how much money the government is forced to pay due to all of the programs and laws passed, but also pretty telling in how much control the President and Congress don't have over how much money is spent each year.

It would also be nice if they had a similar map for Income.

His approval ratings are generally equal to or slightly higher than his 2008 vote %.

btw- When did you go from Obama is a socialist to Obama is a really nice guy?

I've stated from before he was even President that he seemed like a good guy. He's just a naive idealist. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you're not running our government.

It's only mandatory if you don't want to make the hard choices to curtail spending. Someone needs to find the balls to cut some bills that will make the hard decisions that others won't make.

Like the $200 billion we spend yearly on Afghanistan & Iraq?

(and hey, that's not even mandatory spending!)

:D