The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Peregrine]

I'm really glad this finally got passed. Liberals have given Lieberman all kinds of shit for his antics in recent years but no doubt he stood tall and pushed this one through, even in a lame duck session with other bills to consider. Glad to see eight Republicans voting with the Dems, also.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

With Jon's feelings about trying to reduce the population you'd think he'd be for teh gay. The hypocrisy of it all.

That's "decrease the surplus population", Flasch! Geez, get your Christmas quotes right

SI

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll bite on this one, just briefly though.

Free will generally allows for anyone to be capable of pretty much anything.
Being capable of conceiving something doesn't equate to "God put this in my head".

For an example, I can quite easily conceive, say, mass homicide. If I act on that impulse, do you blame me or God?

Are you comparing the notion of one committing mass homicide to one being a homosexual?

If we are all free, how is homosexuality still "wrong"? How is loving another person "wrong"?

[Crapshoot]

Why do people continue to take Jon seriously? This is a guy who thinks the South was right in the Civil War for god's sake. He's perfectly useful talking about advertising (where he knows a heck of a lot) - politics, its like talking to your racist, 175 year old great-grandpa.

[panerd]

It makes them feel good about being liberal, they can paint any opposition to Democrats as JiMGA and feel good about themselves. "Who could possibly think like him? Republicans! Har har har"

[JPhillips]

Aah, irony.

[sterlingice]

Just like being libertarian allows one to point to any decision and go "hey, my guys didn't do something that stupid" because you have, well, nobody on the field?

Again, I always equate it to indie band fans: "I hate U2 because Bono sells out. The Lace Disco Bears (Alcides Escobar anagram) are where it's at!" It's easy to say everyone else sucks when you don't have to defend your picks.

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Just like being libertarian allows one to point to any decision and go "hey, my guys didn't do something that stupid" because you have, well, nobody on the field?

Again, I always equate it to indie band fans: "I hate U2 because Bono sells out. The Lace Disco Bears (Alcides Escobar anagram) are where it's at!" It's easy to say everyone else sucks when you don't have to defend your picks.

SI

Not true. I just choose not to engage Jon and his ridiculous viewpoints. When he basically says nuke em as the solution to the Arab problem (or quite frequently anyone with a different viewpoint) why does the conversation need to go any farther? Come on, I like to think that I take the conversation a little deeper than that. You may not agree with me, I don't agree with a lot of the liberal crowd on here but they have thought out viewpoints. He is just a bigot. But I don't think a lot of people on here engage him looking for any sort of debate, they just like to laugh and think he is the typical conservative. That's what my comment meant. Never said you or even JPhillips (who is quick to pile on me for some reason). But there are people who continue to take his bait and allow him to spew his venomous garbage. And like someone said above he seems to be quite knowledgeable about marketing among many other things. His persona is political threads are a bit over the top.

[JPhillips]

Just to be clear, I'm quick to pile on anyone who goes down the road of, "Look how stupid all of those X are for stereotyping."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not true. I just choose not to engage Jon and his ridiculous viewpoints. When he basically says nuke em as the solution to the Arab problem (or quite frequently anyone with a different viewpoint) why does the conversation need to go any farther? Come on, I like to think that I take the conversation a little deeper than that. You may not agree with me, I don't agree with a lot of the liberal crowd on here but they have thought out viewpoints. He is just a bigot. But I don't think a lot of people on here engage him looking for any sort of debate, they just like to laugh and think he is the typical conservative. That's what my comment meant. Never said you or even JPhillips (who is quick to pile on me for some reason). But there are people who continue to take his bait and allow him to spew his venomous garbage. And like someone said above he seems to be quite knowledgeable about marketing among many other things. His persona is political threads are a bit over the top.

Not that I'm under the impression that he cares or even reads it or whatever, but I'm just sick of letting him spew his bigoted venomous garbage without offering the counterpoint.

If one doesn't confront a bigot and point out his bigotry to him then one is complicit in allowing it to a degree.

He needs to be called on his hateful bullshit every so often (not all the time, that'd be just tiresome), but he needs to be called on it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just to be clear, I'm quick to pile on anyone who goes down the road of, "Look how stupid all of those X are for stereotyping."

That's fine I was just explaining what I saw to be the reason why some people respond to him in a serious way. Some people make fun of him, some ignore him, some actually try to debate him. Can't imagine any reason one would debate someone who often calls for the extermination of his rivals. It must make people feel good about themselves was what I came up with. ("Maybe I can change him?" being the other option, but nobody is that foolish are they?)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

That's fine I was just explaining what I saw to be the reason why some people respond to him in a serious way. Some people make fun of him, some ignore him, some actually try to debate him. Can't imagine any reason one would debate someone who often calls for the extermination of his rivals. It must make people feel good about themselves was what I came up with. ("Maybe I can change him?" being the other option, but nobody is that foolish are they?)

I agree that it's pointless to engage Jon. However, framing it as proof of liberal elitism is just garbage IMO. I'd imagine people engage others in this thread for a variety of reasons and trying to find generalizations about all Dems or GOPers or Libertarians based on a few posts is a fool's errand.

edit: rereading that it came off harsher than I intended. I'd just encourage everyone to resist the easy stereotyping of those we disagree with.

[JPhillips]

Fuckers. From the Washington Post.

Overall, congressional payroll expenses have climbed much faster than the civilian federal work force costs that lawmakers are now clamoring to freeze. Many of the most vocal federal critics have overseen growth that rivals or outstrips the executive branch's, according to data from Legistorm, a website that tracks congressional salaries. For example:

- Firebrand Republican Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has for months pushed legislation to freeze what she calls "unconscionable" federal salaries. Meanwhile, her own payroll jumped 16 percent between 2007, when she came to Congress, and 2009.

- Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican set to chair the House subcommittee overseeing the federal work force, says Washington must "figure out how to do more with less." But the freshman lawmaker gave his own employees an average raise of about 9 percent this year.

- Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has long criticized federal pay, has overseen an average jump of 8 percent per year in his office employee costs between 2006, his first full year in the Senate, and 2009.

[JPhillips]

Census apportionment data for the next decade.

Texas +4, FL +2, AZ, GA, NV, SC, UT, WA +1

NY -2, OH -2, IL, IA, LA, MA, MI, MS, NJ, PA -1.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Census apportionment data for the next decade.

Texas +4, FL +2, AZ, GA, NV, SC, UT, WA +1

NY -2, OH -2, IL, IA, LA, MA, MI, MS, NJ, PA -1.

DC increases it's population for the first time since Truman was President. We are up to 601,000.

Our Congressional representation remains the same.

[Passacaglia]

To be fair, if you'd been decreasing in population, then increased for the first time in a while, you wouldn't expect Congressional representation to increase, unless it fell during that population decline -- and I don't think that happened.

[ISiddiqui]

I think he's referring to the fact that D.C. Congressmen are non-voting.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think he's referring to the fact that D.C. Congressmen are non-voting.

Me too. I guess I can't find an emoticon with tongue-in-cheek, so I chose tongue sticking out.

[JPhillips]

By my count that's seven free electoral votes for the GOP in the next three presidential elections.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

By my count that's seven free electoral votes for the GOP in the next three presidential elections.

I'd put the GOP up 6 (TX+4, GA+1, SC+1, UT+1, MS-1) and the Dems down 2 (WA+1, NY-2, NJ-1).

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

To be fair, if you'd been decreasing in population, then increased for the first time in a while, you wouldn't expect Congressional representation to increase, unless it fell during that population decline -- and I don't think that happened.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think he's referring to the fact that D.C. Congressmen are non-voting.

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Me too. I guess I can't find an emoticon with tongue-in-cheek, so I chose tongue sticking out.

Yes, just me stepping on to my soapbox. (and I understood that Pass "got it")

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Of course, it's also important to remember that most of these states that are losing representatives aren't losing population, they're simply just not growing as fast as other states and are losing representation because 435 is this magic number that _must_ _not_ change evar~!.

How would the allocation of % of votes/seats turn out any different with any other number?

[DaddyTorgo]

This made me LOL (from John Cole):

I know this topic has been beaten to death, but Barbour’s comment still stuns me:

In interviews Barbour doesn’t have much to say about growing up in the midst of the civil rights revolution. “I just don’t remember it as being that bad,” he said.

Everyone seems to be focusing on the Citizen Council and the other race hate groups of the day, but for me, but when I hear him say it wasn’t that bad, I just can’t get past wanting to scream “BECAUSE YOU’RE FUCKING WHITE, ASSHOLE.”

Sweet jeebus. The Holocaust wasn’t that bad for Hitler, either. Until the very end.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yeah, white rich Southern guy in white privilege shocker.

Yep. I just found Cole's response particularly LOL-worthy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

And like someone said above he seems to be quite knowledgeable about marketing among many other things. His persona is political threads are a bit over the top.

Just for the record, I think you've got it kind of backwards re: persona. The political threads are the closest "real me" you get.

When it comes to, say, marketing, it's much easier to be dispassionate because it's largely straight out of the book or even more typically just passing along some useful resource I've found or whatever. I mean, I could easily enough answer someone's question about the number of Senators in Congress as that's simple fact requiring no interpretation nor. Ask me who those Senators should be & you get to something that involves me rather than a simple number.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

If Congress grew in size (like it did until the start of 20th century) and gained seats for every x people it grew by, each state would simply gain in seats if they grew and wouldn't lose seats simply because they didn't grow fast enough.

Congress added seats and votes when it admitted new states. We're not doing that now.

The House and votes would still be apportioned based on each state's share of the country's population.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Yes, just me stepping on to my soapbox. (and I understood that Pass "got it")

You are right and wrong. I think it takes about 710K headcount per rep. So D.C., if they were a state would still be in the less than or equal to one rep., similar to Wyoming. Every state is guaranteed one rep. minimum. I guess that means it would take about 1,420,000 to get two reps.

So even if you were an actual state that got voting reps., your number of reps still would not have changed.

For now, you still get your shadow rep. and the wasted cost it takes in upkeep.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Congress added seats and votes when it admitted new states. We're not doing that now.

The House and votes would still be apportioned based on each state's share of the country's population.

Sure, but you would have something like one rep. per 35K people. Just think of how that would reduce the level of corruption in lobbying. You would have to buy off about 20 times more poeple. That is pretty cost prohibitive. Not to mention time prohibitive, etc.

[bigdawg2003]

Don't be too sure about those extra seats in Texas being GOP locks.

At least one of them will be in the Central Texas area, which is routinely an oasis of blue in a sea of red on electoral maps by party. Also, much of the population growth in Texas has also been in the traditionally Democrat-voting Hispanic and African-American sectors.

That being said, the supermajority-holding GOP will be drawing the new district lines in 2011, and if history is any guide, there will be some funkily-carved out districts.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Sure, but you would have something like one rep. per 35K people. Just think of how that would reduce the level of corruption in lobbying. You would have to buy off about 20 times more poeple. That is pretty cost prohibitive. Not to mention time prohibitive, etc.

I think you are underestimating lobbyists.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

You are right and wrong. I think it takes about 710K headcount per rep. So D.C., if they were a state would still be in the less than or equal to one rep., similar to Wyoming. Every state is guaranteed one rep. minimum. I guess that means it would take about 1,420,000 to get two reps.

So even if you were an actual state that got voting reps., your number of reps still would not have changed.

For now, you still get your shadow rep. and the wasted cost it takes in upkeep.

Don't kid yourself, we have 0 reps. The shadow rep means nothing. Based on DC's population, we should have 1 member of the House and 2 members of the Senate.

What we do have is 1 individual that goes to the house, hangs out, and is a non-voting delegate to Congress. She can vote in the three committees (and six subcommittees) she is a member of, but not on the floor of Congress. Congress can also strip that ability anytime it so pleases.

[molson]

You should consider it an honor to be one of the few Americans not officially represented by some douchebag.

[cartman]

The Onion, with their coverage of the repeal of DADT (contains some NSFW images and text):

Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Paves Way For Gay Sex Right On Battlefield, Opponents Fantasize | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

You should consider it an honor to be one of the few Americans not officially represented by some douchebag.

Yeah, that'll make me feel better. I'm sure most people would rather have no representation.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Yeah, that'll make me feel better. I'm sure most people would rather have no representation.

If I was a D.C. resident I'd be a billion times more concerned with self-governance (congressional control over local affairs, appointment of prosecutors, etc) than representation.

The myth of congressional "representation" is just that. Most Americans couldn't name their representatives, and very few (if any) representatives have any noticeable impact on day-to-day life in the area they represent.

If I could permantly assign my representative to you (maybe in exchange for a more competent governor) I'd do it in a second. It'd be a net gain.

Edit: "In theory" one D.C. representative could help promote more D.C. autonomy (if that's the goal), but in reality, it wouldn't be that simple. I think there's more pratical ways to improve the city.

[DaddyTorgo]

You could always just move across the river out of D.C. if it's that upsetting?

[larrymcg421]

D.C. residents should not be paying federal income tax when they have no representation in the House or Senate that gets to vote on the rate of those taxes. It's as simple as that.

As for the population changes, bigdawg made a good point about population growth. For instance, that +1 in GA certainly isn't coming from Valdosta or Statesboro. The red states are getting bluer and bluer as their urban areas grow.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

D.C. residents should not be paying federal income tax when they have no representation in the House or Senate that gets to vote on the rate of those taxes. It's as simple as that.

As for the population changes, bigdawg made a good point about population growth. For instance, that +1 in GA certainly isn't coming from Valdosta or Statesboro. The red states are getting bluer and bluer as their urban areas grow.

re: #1 - good point. I hadn't considered that angle of it right now, for whatever reason.

re: #2 - which is a GREAT thing!

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You could always just move across the river out of D.C. if it's that upsetting?

Why should he have to move to obtain a right so fundamental that it was one of the major themes of the very revolution that started the country?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

If I was a D.C. resident I'd be a billion times more concerned with self-governance (congressional control over local affairs, appointment of prosecutors, etc) than representation.

Oh, don't worry, that's my soapbox as well. It just wasn't directly relevant to the conversation.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You could always just move across the river out of D.C. if it's that upsetting?

So that's our solution to equal rights in this country now? If you don't like that you aren't treated equally, then move? If your schools are segregated, why don't you just move to the northeast (sorry to pull such hyperbole, but I feel it is a valid comparison)? Don't like taxation without representation? Go back to England.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

D.C. residents should not be paying federal income tax when they have no representation in the House or Senate that gets to vote on the rate of those taxes. It's as simple as that.

+1

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Oh, don't worry, that's my soapbox as well. It just wasn't directly relevant to the conversation.



So that's our solution to equal rights in this country now? If you don't like that you aren't treated equally, then move? If your schools are segregated, why don't you just move to the northeast (sorry to pull such hyperbole, but I feel it is a valid comparison)? Don't like taxation without representation? Go back to England.



+1

No no...I wasn't saying that was the long-term solution to equal rights...just stating in your particular case if it's something that's causing you an amount of irritation that makes it so that you can't really enjoy your life...

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

No no...I wasn't saying that was the long-term solution to equal rights...just stating in your particular case if it's something that's causing you an amount of irritation that makes it so that you can't really enjoy your life...

You are greatly overestimating my level of irritation. I love life and I am a very happy and content individual. That doesn't mean I don't think it is a travesty that DC residents don't have voting representation in Congress or the ability to fully control their own city.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

You are greatly overestimating my level of irritation. I love life and I am a very happy and content individual. That doesn't mean I don't think it is a travesty that DC residents don't have voting representation in Congress or the ability to fully control their own city.

fair enough

FWIW - i agree it's ridiculous and makes no sense.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

fair enough

FWIW - i agree it's ridiculous and makes no sense.

That's because you're a dirty liberal.

[SirFozzie]

Nah, with the red states getting more representation in the just-finished census, he just wants a government bailout of government

[lordscarlet]

How timely..

When Democrats have controlled the House, they have allowed Norton and her fellow delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole -- a parliamentary term that describes when the full House becomes a committee for the purposes of considering legislation. That has allowed Norton to cast votes on amendments to tax and spending bills, though technically her vote could be considered symbolic since it does not count if it is the deciding one on an issue.

Republicans took away that right when they controlled the House from 1995-2007, and Norton had hoped they would not do so again. She wrote a letter to presumptive Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in November pleading to keep a privilege that "is significant to the American citizens who live in the nation's capital and pay full federal taxes annually to support our federal government."

But her plea appears to have fallen on deaf ears. House Republicans released a summary Wednesday of their proposed changes to House rules, and the summary includes the line, "Delegates and resident commissioners (those not representing states) will not be able to vote in the committee of the whole."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/...ity_to_vo.html

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

How timely..



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/...ity_to_vo.html

Color me unsurprised. Douchey Republicans.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Shouldn't DC be free of taxation if it does not have representation? I recall revolutions beginning on such premises.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Shouldn't DC be free of taxation if it does not have representation? I recall revolutions beginning on such premises.

They're a bit miffed about that, to this day. I always chuckled at these license plates when I was in DC. It's such a great protest: "Yes, our government issues license plates have a protest message on them".

SI

[molson]

I've always thought that if they want to be treated like a state, let 'em be a state. The federal buidings and monuments can be the "district" and the rest can be the 51st state of Columbia. That's closer to the intention of the original setup.

Of course then, someone would start to reside in a Congressional utility closet and demand representation, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.