|
|
Sweet.
Another Ivy Leaguer (w/ Stevens leaving, this will make 9 of 9!) justice from NY/NJ! Good to see some diversity on the High Court. |
Quote:
While I appreciate the bold move from Obama, I fear this nomination of Larry Summers to the high court will be seen as pandering to the transgender lobby. |
Quote:
This. Obviously she won't make it through 100-0, but they won't be able to defeat her or even filibuster her. She's too obviously qualified like Roberts and Alito (despite John Kerry's idiotic attempt to try and start a filibuster from overseas). |
Quote:
We do need a tg on the court, but we also need an Asian. So I hope they're looking for a good tg Asian to put on the court of appeals. |
Quote:
 |
Quote:
I don't think the supreme court needs that kind of diversity. It needs brilliant legal minds and skillful legal writing, and you find that at the ivies, for the most part. Kagan is perfectly qualified. I'm sure there will some be opposition, just as there was for John Roberts. But both are really unbelievable, brilliant people whose qualifications can only be questioned by those using the confirmation process as a political convention or something. |
Quote:
|
And for the people criticizing her appearance - give me a fucking break. Sexism is so accepted in this country its ridiculous. When a woman is appointed, or runs for something, her appearance, positive or negative, is a discussion point - maybe the most talked about discussion point.
|
I would say that anyone criticizing her appearance should at least have the guts to post in the "What do you look like?" thread.
|
Quote:
|
I agree. We need more Kathy Griffin's in power!
|
Quote:
I'm no legal expert and I know that the best law schools largely reside in the Ivy League. I'm not sure exactly how to articulate this, but for lack of better terms, it seems sort of inbred to have the Supreme Court made up, entirely, of graduates from (almost literally) the same 3 or 4 schools who were likely trained and mentored under the same handful of legal scholars. Aren't there any equally qualified candidates that are not from Yale, Harvard, or Columbia? Perhaps someone from Stanford or Michigan or Duke or Georgetown? I don't know -- maybe it doesn't matter in the end, but it seems like if we are going to be pushing for diversity, we could get a little regional diversity, so that the court is a little bit more representitive of the country. |
Quote:
Then again, people made fun of Ross Perot's ears too. |
In fairness to those making fun of her appearance, even if she dressed up pretty and wore nice clothes, it wouldn't help.
|
Quote:
Linking to Wiki here, not as a definitive source in & of itself but rather as a compilation of links to the various ranking systems. I've looked at about half the ones mentioned on the site & it does appear that the "Top 14" are pretty much the same in each credible method, just in some different order. Yale & Harvard are typically 1 & 2, but Stanford actually ranks 3rd ahead of Columbia in the better known lists. And some specific measures put the Univ. of Chicago ahead of Columbia as well. Notably though, I'm talking about the latest rankings ... which really wouldn't be applicable to SCOTUS candidates today, only (theoretically) some years down the road. |
Snippet from Roland Martin:
Quote:
|
That's pretty much the distribution of race/gender at the upper levels of the legal profession now. Minorities and women didn't really break into law schools to any significant degree until the 70s. And it takes 20-30 years to get to the top of the legal profession. So who knows what the race/gender of any other applicants that were turned down those jobs even was.
I happen to be, right now, at a legal education thing in D.C. - one of the supplemental handouts is entitled "How to write like Elena Kagan". She's very respected in the legal community. And though she's an east-coast ivy-leaguer, she is an interesting, bold, pick because she's never been a judge. And while we know her politics (staunch democrat), we don't know anything about her appellate law philosophies, because she hasn't been a judge. I think thdere's a good chance she's a "centrist" when it comes to judicial philosophy. Great pick by Obama, IMO. |
So I read this scathing blog post, instead of Roland Martin's opinion of it. He does actually pose some interesting questions about her resume, but he completely loses it with this ad hominem nonsense:
Quote:
No need to actually, you know, try to do research on the issue. It takes much less time to just call people racist. I do love that they're bringing up the lack of female hires to support their point, as if she's sexist and doesn't think women should attain high levels in the legal profession. I guess she failed miserably at that, what with getting herself nominated to the Supreme Court and all. |
Quote:
Bwahahahaha. If there was any real chance of that, Obama wouldn't have picked her. |
Quote:
Except, it is true. Maybe not so conservative that she'd be embraced by the firebreathing right, but she's going to get absolutely no love from progressives and hasn't yet. Because this was a middle of the road pick for the President. There are liberal jurists out there that would've been far more controversial. Picking the former dean of HLS is not some thumb to the nose of jurisprudence, no matter how much NRO wants you to believe otherwise. Kagan is an establishment pick by a President owes too many people his political existence to make bold choices on much of anything. This article begins to explain it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/us...minees.html?hp |
Dola:
Here's an article that discusses it. News Analysis - Kagan Nomination Leaves Longing on the Left - NYTimes.com |
Glad to see a bipartisan bill coming through that addresses Obama's State Of The Union speech demand for a single website where all pork spending is available for everyone to view.
Coburn Bill Targets Earmarks - Roll Call |
Quote:
Well, it's the middle of the road for this President, hell it's probably right of center for a lot of his supporters. But that doesn't make her actually centrist either. Remember, Dan Rather believes he's a moderate, but it doesn't make it so. |
Quote:
Great article. Key quote for me was: Quote:
And note, this is Posner's conclusion, not some left-winger. |
Quote:
It's all relative to where you stand, no? When you're as far right as you are, center-left is still far-left because you probably view center-right (RINOs you call them) as left-wing. All I know is that if the far-left and the far-right are complaining about the pick, he's done a decent job. |
Quote:
I'm sure Arlen Specter isn't happy about it. I saw a discussion last night where they noted that he came out against her when she was initially approved for Solicitor General. Now, it will be interesting to see if he continues to have those same concerns. |
Quote:
Doesn't look like it. |
There is a pretty good chance that Specter could be defeated in the PA Dem. primary today. It will be interesting to see if he goes quietly, since his roots in the Democratic Party are obviously not very deep, or if he decides to run as an independent.
If he decides to "retire," we'll get to see how he really feels with his votes over the next few months. |
Quote:
I believe they actually vote next Tuesday instead of today. |
Kagan will be largely irrelevant overall. The game changer will be when Kennedy retires.
Also, this won't be Obama's last SCOTUS appointment. I highly doubt Ginsburg stays on through the end of his first term. |
I'm in favor of non-extremists on the court from both sides. Lets just get some smart people in there.
Although for those on the far left, I can understand the frustration. I mean Obama could nominate a clone of Scalia and the right would say it's an extreme liberal. So if you're going to be labeled that no matter what you do, why not get the person you want in best? |
Meanwhile, the 3rd most R-leaning district in the country (GA-9) is voting today, with a crowded field of 8 contenders vying to complete the term of Nathan Deal who resigned to focus on his campaign for governor.
With about 3/4ths of the votes in, looks like it'll come down to a runoff between former state Rep Tom Graves & former state Sen Lee Hawkins, with Graves pulling around 35% today to Hawkins 25%. That sets up a bit of a Northwest vs Northeast battle with Graves stronger toward the TN border and Hawkins base in the easternmost part of the district in Hall County. The lone Dem in the field finished 5th, with 5.6% at the moment, the lone declared Indy is headed for a last place finish unless he picks a couple of dozen votes more than the other backmarkers. The race was being seen by some as another test of Tea Party influence, as Graves had their support. Personally, it looks a lot more to me like geography keyed a lot of votes and Graves probably got a little extra play from getting a tax cut through the recent legislative session. Also today, former President Carter's grandson is rolling to a state Senate seat in the liberal enclave of Decatur & the former county extension agent where I grew up picks up a state House seat (Graves' old seat) with around 80% of the vote in his race. |
Quote:
Even a hot button issue like abortion I don't see changing even if Kennedy is replaced by a hardcore conservative. |
Quote:
Good call -- I thought it was now because we voted in West Virginia today. I kept checking for results from PA and then finally read that it wasn't until next week. :) On a semi-related note, incumbant Rep. Alan Mollohan, one of the three WV representitives, lost in the Democratic primary today to State Senator Mike Oliverio (who is from Morgantown and I know from my Little League days). Mollohan had been in congress since 1982 (and his dad held the seat from 1968 to 1982). Oliverio will likely be the favorite to win in the general election. |
Quote:
Glad to see these incumbents (Bennett out earlier this week) get tossed out. Oliverio seems like a hybrid rather than a true Democrat. |
Quote:
Agreed. Quote:
While I would prefer a left-wing counterweight to Scalia (hence my lobbying for Diane Wood), I can see what Obama's doing here. Basically he's trying to put in a few politically-saavy, centrist consensus-builders to build a strong center-left coalition to combat the right-wing ideologues (Scalia, Thomas, Alito) and there supposed minder (Roberts). It's a pretty typical move from the Obama playbook. I'm fine with Kagan, but the fact that she's clearly an unabashed careerist and seems more interested in winning than principles means I'm not going to be a full-throated supporter. Stevens, after all, managed to focus on both of these aspects (the political and the principle) on the Court. And Wood manages to get Posner & Easterbrook to reconsider their preconceived notions, and even decisions every once in a while. Quote:
If Kennedy gets replaced by a hardcore conservative Roe v. Wade gets overturned in all but name. Other than that, perhaps not much would change, but that would mainly be a factor of the SCOTUS not being interested in backing up progressive social legislation (gay marriage being an obvious example, but there are others). It goes without saying that this would be attractive to a good number of folks, though. |
Quote:
Quote:
Roberts seems to love how Marshall ran the court and I believe he understands how bad division is amongst it. He has stated on numerous occasions that Roe vs. Wade is settled law and seems to respect precedents set by previous courts. I could be wrong on this, but I just don't think Roberts is the kind of guy who is going to tip the scales on a hot-button issue like this. I think it will be avoided for a very long time due to the nature of what overturning it would do. And the irony of the abortion debate is that it wouldn't outlaw abortion. It would just turn it over to the states. And while gay marriage is an important issue too, it's not as serious as decisions made decades ago that changed the entire landscape of our country. If gay marriage is legalized, nothing much will change. And the fact is, it will be legalized regardless someday as younger generations are growing up with it in their lives. |
Well Roberts was at the heart of overturning the corporate political money ban, even expanding what the court was looking at so they could make a much broader ruling.
|
Quote:
That's so easy to answer that you ought to be ashamed of not thinking of it yourself. This particular left-winger doesn't seem (IMO or anyone else's that I've read) likely to be fillibustered. Grilled, with a lot of votes against, but ultimately approved with relative ease. Pick a completely over the top nutjob (as opposed to a run of the mill lefty) and you run into a much better chance of serious opposition instead of the token stuff that we seem most likely to see. |
Quote:
LOL Jon answered for me. :D But to elaborate: disparage Senate Republicans as I might, there are enough with a shred of realism left who wouldn't really filibuster a centrist judge but would absolutely filibuster a far-left judge. Or at least not vote for cloture / vote for cloture. Snowe, Collins and even Brown spring immediately to mind, but there are others. Quote:
??? I refer you to what I wrote: Quote:
Roberts was an incredibly saavy pick by Bush, especially as Chief Justice. Sure, he's somewhat of an ideologue, especially on particular issues, but his main value will be to organize and consolidate conservative opinion on the bench for decades, something at which he's already proving adept. Someone in the Bush Administration got this and clearly Roberts was aimed at the CJ role for them from the beginning (had Rheinquist not died when he had, Roberts would have been confirmed as an AJ and then elevated to the CJ later). Contrast this to the selection of Alito once the Roberts business was done. Alito is clearly an ideologue. Quote:
Roberts won't have to overturn Roe. If Kennedy retires and is replaced by a hardcore conservative then either: 1. Another justice will lead the charge to overturn Roe when the inevitable case gets to the SCOTUS and Roberts will merely join the majority or 2. Through a series of decisions Roe will be overturned in all but name (perhaps the only excepts left would be ones when the life of the mother and/or fetus is clearly and unambiguously in danger). |
Quote:
. |
Scandal trifecta day.
Blumenthal(D) running for Senate in CT has been embellishing his Vietnam era service over the past several years. Lowden(R) Reid's main competition in NV had a bus donated by a supporter which breaks the contribution cap by tens of thousands of dollars and Rep. Souder(R-IN) isn't as family friendly as he's been saying over the years. He's resigning because an affair with a staffer(at least it's a she) has come to light. |
Quote:
You know you're in trouble when the New York Times leads with a 3 (online) page, multi-reporter story detailing exactly how you've been lying.... Seriously, what an idiot. |
And yet his staff members are already condemning the "gross misrepresentation" of his statements.
Where is Animal Planet when you need it? Morgan Freeman: "This is the all too common American Weasel in it's natural habitat..." |
Quote:
Best part of his resignation statement: "In the poisonous environment of Washington D.C., any personal failing is seized upon, often twisted, for political gain." He's all pissed that people won't let him just boink his assistants without bothering him. |
Rand Paul has his Kentucky Senate primary today. The media still doesn't understand the Tea Party movement or it's anger as all of the mainstream articles are written focusing on Republican candidate Trey Grayson and the Democratic candidates instead of Paul who should win today and will probably win the senate seat. Oh well at some point they will realize that the people are actually pissed off and Fox News and CNN can longer spin things to keep the Republicrats in office.
|
Quote:
Come again? It took me about 1 minute to find a CNN article picking this as one of the races to watch and mentioning that Paul is kicking Grayson's ass in the polls. |
Quote:
So are you coming out as a Tea Partier now? :confused: |
Quote:
The Grayson-Paul race was also one of the lead stories on this morning's Morning Edition and last night's All Things Considered (both on NPR). |
Quote:
I'm not sure what media you are following, but in the limited amount that I see, this race (and Paul, in particular) have been getting a lot of press. I'm not sure that he is a slam dunk to win the general election (Grayson is considered more electable). Grayson has some pretty extreme views on government, so it will be interesting to see if the electorate (and I'm assuming that he is going to win the Republican primary) likes him once they learn more about him, as opposed to him being the alternative candidate. |
Quote:
We're definitely seeing different articles, as I haven't seen anything on this race that didn't focus specifically on Paul & his Tea Party connections. Now whether news organizations are wishing for certain outcomes, that's a different story but I haven't seen anything lately that has discounted him nor the support he's getting from the movement. |
Quote:
No. But I am a huge fan of Rand Paul. (For obvious reasons) I could do without his endorsment from Sarah Palin or some of his views on foreign policy but I think he is about as close as we are going to get to a Libertarian in the Senate. |
I guess I have been on different sites/tv stations. Every station I have seen is talking about the all of the primaries and when they small a small amount of time on Kentucky it is purely Grayson. Maybe I need to be looking more speicifically for Kentucky stuff?
|
Quote:
You do know his dad's in Congress, right? |
Quote:
yes. i.e. I am a big fan of Rand Paul. (for obvious reasons) Re-reading: I guess I should have said the Senate and not Congress. I get what you are saying. |
So, er, is Ron Paul not a Libertarian?
|
Two days ago in none other than the New York Times (whose in-house politics blog has posted on the race this morning): Kentucky Senate Primary Is Vital Test for Tea Party - NYTimes.com
Start reading better news outlets, panerd. :p |
Quote:
I will admit that the NY Times is not one of my main sources for (dis)information. Paul Krugman did have a real interesting blog about why Libertarianism doesn't work because of regulations that didn't make a whole lot of sense the other day. About par for the course for him defending why we need more regulation. Why Libertarianism Doesn’t Work, Part N - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com |
Yet the New York Times is covering the race and the candidate in which you have a great interest, while your chosen news sources do not.
|
Quote:
Ah, OK, that makes more sense... although I was hoping you were going to make a case for why Ron Paul wasn't actually a Libertarian. :D |
Quote:
Well LESS regulation has certainly worked out just GREAT lately (Wall Street, Gulf of Mexico oil spill). I say bring on the motherfucking regulations! |
Quote:
Here he is being interviewed by his alleged mistress about, of all things, abstinence: |
Quote:
All accounts I have read have said the BP thing was an accident. Not sure (in this case at least) how more regulation would make any sense. It would have just been more red tape and costs that would have led to the same thing. Maybe no off shore drilling, but that has nothing to do with regulation. You do understand the oil companies have bought off both the Repulbicans and Democrats? As far as Wall Street goes. LOL. Maybe if Goldman Sachs/Wall Street execs didn't make up a sizable percentage of both Bush and Obama's administrations some of these problems could be avoided. Nah! Regulate, baby regulate! |
Quote:
But I though we had already established that your sources for news suck? Are these the same media sources you denigrate for not understanding today's KY-SEN GOP primary? Edit: :p |
Quote:
Amen. |
Quote:
Not an accident. And yes...I understand the oil companies have bought off everyone. But thanks for the condescending tone in your reply. Quote:
Oh as someone who works in finance I'm quite aware of how much influence GS has over things. But throwing up your hands in the air and saying "well the big companies have too much influence...regulation just won't work so let's just not even bother" isn't the solution. The solution is to reduce their influence (campaign finance reform, strict controls on lobbyists and political donations) and then to regulate. |
Krugman's point was that Milton Friedman's idea of economic policy relied on a strong threat of lawsuits. Companies wouldn't engage in reckless behavior because the threat of massive lawsuits would stop them. If, however, you cut regulations and impose caps on lawsuits there's nothing stopping companies from engaging in reckless behavior.
A libertarian regulatory/lawsuit structure(as currently defined) won't work. |
Quote:
Except that libertarians don't support caps on lawsuits. That would be an important point, no? It would be like saying Democrats don't support caps on lawsuits and don't want any regulation. The second part of the statement is completely false and therefore makes this whole argument dumb. It is attributing a principle to the Democrats that they don't believe in. |
Just looking around a bit seems to show that libertarians are split on tort reform. Even Ron Paul seems to have been for it at various times.
|
Quote:
I will just go off the national party which does not support tort reform. The Libertarian party basically thinks one of the government's few purposes is to have absolutely no intervention in the markets short of prosecuting fraud, tort and negligence. I am generally not a big fan of going off one set of rules for everyone but this is the best I can come up with and Krugman seemed to be going after the national party. Unless you can show me some major instance otherwise I don't really care what some guy running for office in Arizona or Deleware decided his own view was. Remember I don't agree with the Republican's warfare, corporate welfare, and everything opposite the Democrats stance on the issues. |
Fair enough.
I still think the larger point, that tort reform and deregulation together leads to reckless behavior, is true. |
Quote:
No doubt. In fact I will go a step beyond and say that I would rather have what Daddytorgo talked about (no lobbyists, campaign finance reform, tort reform, and intense regulation) than what we have. Optimal: None of any Second: All of them Worst: A mixture like we have now I feel the same way about health care. Optimal: No government involvement (including medicare/Medicaid), HSA's, charity helps the poor Second: One payer system like European countries Worst: A mixture like we have now Taxes Optimal: National Sales Tax and no individual taxes Second: IRS simple tax brackets without thousands of pages of exemptions Worst: What we have now But instead we get a compromise that really only helps the elite rich and just makes up senseless rules and regulations for the rest of us. (The big money will either find loopholes or lobby for loopholes to be written in) Mercantilism, corporatism, Republicrats are all good descriptions of what we have right now. |
Both CNN & Fox News now projecting Rand Paul as the clear winner of his primary race in KY. He leads Grayson 60-36 with about half the votes counted.
|
Does he have the same beliefs as his father? Would be pretty cool to have a libertarian Senator in there.
|
Quote:
Yes. Except for meddling in the Middle East. He seems to still think the war in Afghanistan is a good idea. He does have the same economic beliefs as Ron and a similar background. (doctor that knows how the health care system works, specifically Medicare/ Medicaid) |
Quote:
I pay a lot in taxes and I do get angry that there are so many people who get off without paying anything. But I think a national sales tax would be disastorous on it's own. I could see it if our income tax remained progressive and dramatically reduced percentages while having a sales tax. But I don't like the national sales tax thing. I'd rather see a flat tax. And when I say flat tax, I mean it for everyone and everything. None of this bullshit capital gains crap. You make money, you pay the same rate. |
Quote:
Umm ... yeah, moreso than the current one at least. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yeah, I will admit that my knowledge of the tax system is pretty limited. I guess I kind of thought a national sales tax was similar to a flat tax. I really don't mind paying the amount I pay for what this country provides me. I just think it is stupid that I get credit for owning a house, can get credits for union dues, get credit for being a teacher, don't get extra credit for being single or and not having kids, don't get credit for driving to work while others do, have a friend who works from home and calls his den a "home office" with an attorney who says it is fully within the legality of the tax code to do this,... None of it makes any sense. Don't know what the solution is but what we have now is insane. And don't even get me started on the tax breaks to religious institutions. Molest a few kids, make up a religion that is obviously not true, spew hatred worse than hate groups? Sure here is your tax break. Not saying every religion does these three. But the Catholics, Mormons, and extreme Christians (like the "God Hates Fags" guy) all get huge tax breaks. |
I'm with you on tax breaks. Never understood why if I stay single and use less resources than a family of 5, I have to pay more. Shouldn't it be based on how much you use?
If anything, we should promote people who can afford to have kids to have kids. How about giving tax breaks for children for people who make over a certain amount? They are the ones who won't need government assistance or grants for their children to attend college. It just feels like the system promotes people who shouldn't be having kids to have them. |
Quote:
The Fair Tax proposal includes the idea of a "prebate" in which everyone below the poverty line will essentially will be paying no taxes, and the closer to that line you are the fewer taxes (as a percent) you will be paying. It's about as non-regressive as our current system and much simpler. Flat tax also has the benefit of making American made goods more competitive at home. What I don't get is that you seem to hate regressive taxes, but propose an uber-regressive flat tax? |
It's not an uber-regressive tax. Everyone pays the same amount of their income. It's simpler to figure out too.
The problem with things like the prebate is where is the money going to come from? The rich pay a ton in income and capital gains taxes right now because they make a ton of money. They make up the majority of our tax revenues. In a system where they don't pay on what they make, they pay a lot less. So who is making up the difference? If the poor isn't paying anything and the rich are paying much less, where are you getting this money from? The middle class? It's why this idea is a pipe dream. No one can figure out where you are going to get money from. |
Sestak wins in PA. That switching parties ad he used against Specter was incredible.
As expected Paul wins in KY and Dems hold on to PA-12(Murtha's old seat). AR Dem primary is still close, but looks headed for a runoff. |
Sad to see Specter go.
Actually, no, I'm not. |
dola-so somehow I hadn't seen the Specter ad. Man, that was good.
Re-elect-teddddd. Not. |
Hey panerd, NPR's All Things Considered interviewed Paul yesterday: Rand Paul Says He Has A Tea Party 'Mandate' : NPR
Yes, I'm trying to convert you to an NPR listener and NYT reader. Why do you ask? :D |
When do I get my check??
|
When you stop being a whiny bitch.
|
Does that apply to everyone?
|
No, there's a mandatory 4-year cooling-off period after your guy was President for 8 years.
By the way, we did ship the pony via certified mail. Did you not get it? |
I think the tea party (or a more sane version of it) is a double-dip recession/public debt crisis away from really taking off. Which seems inevitable once the stimulus dries up.
|
Quote:
We'll see. I'm still not sure there's a lot of consensus ground in our national politics these days. For each person whose response to a massive budget deficit is to cut spending across the board, there's one person who wants to cut social program spending and there's another who wants to cut defense spending. I could see inroads at the local and state levels, though, especially in places where bankruptcy is going to happen. They'll need to put up people with actual solid financial experience to make this happen (referring to your "sane" comment here). People are going to be wary of candidates who plan to balance the books based on ideology as opposed to accountancy, and the tea party has more of the former than the latter in its most visible ranks. |
Quote:
I think the real problem with any genuine taking-off scenario for a single "tea party" (or similar under whatever name) is that while the phrase is used in the media as a catch-all, I see very little in terms of structure or organization and the membership (and motivations) are so varied that it would seem very challenging to unite the supporters behind much beyond the general notion of "not the R's and not the D's". If anything, I think the tea party movement "membership" is more fractured than even the current GOP. |
Quote:
Take a few seconds and go look at the worst President in your lifetime vote, and send the appropriate apology. |
Yeah, the Tea Party can be all things to all people right now because they don't have any platform. Once they start running candidates they develop a platform that will cause schisms and alienate a lot of people who didn't realize the Tea Party was for this or against that.
At the local level there are already a number of stories of schisms over trivial and substantial matters. It would just multiply as official stances on issues became clear. |
Quote:
I apologize that lots of people hate your own personal hero, George W. Bush. To make up for your suffering, on behalf of the Obama Cabal*, I will be sending you another pony. Please remember to feed the pony this time, possibly with the generous federal feed subsidy we send your "great" state each year. :p *There is no cabal. |
Quote:
Cool, thanks for the link. I actually listen to NPR quite a bit on satellite radio. (Car talk, Wait wait don't tell me, the morning edition...) I don't mind differing points of view and think the only way people learn and grow is by being exposed to other people's viewpoints. While I disagree with Dennis Kucinich on a lot of ideas I feel like he is very principled and a stand up politician and get a lot out of listening to what he has to say. My outrage is at people (possibly every other politician outisde of Paul and Kucinich, though some are better than others) that sell out to the money and power and not only do things that aren't in any American's best interest but spin this to Fox News, NYT, CNN and get them to convince the masses this is the case. |
Quote:
The problem the tea party is going to face is that to solve the problem of high debts and deficits you have to bite the bullet. And seeing what friends of mine have been like when trying to get out of personal monstrous debt I can imagine the country won't be happy with the real solutions for getting out of ours. (See Greece for just trying to solve some of their problems) I have a feeling some Republican or Democrat will come along in a few years and have a way to spend ourselves out of it when people aren't patient with the tea party actually really trying to fix the problem and it will be back to business as usual. I see no way this country will ever be able to solve our high debt without having their hands forced by a complete collapse of the system or a major world war. |
I find it interesting that you keep bringing up Kucinich since he sold out his position on abortion so he could run for President in the Dem primaries.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.