Me too, although I'd rather stay away from them both.
I like to consider myself an athlete.
I don't do them either. But I'm not some crazy prohibitionist whose terrified of substances like Terek.
Me too, although I'd rather stay away from them both.
I like to consider myself an athlete.
I don't do them either. But I'm not some crazy prohibitionist whose terrified of substances like Terek.
I ended up being suckered into the DARE program around elementary school as well. Though in a way I kinda liked it because I learned that the answer to everything was "DRUGS ARE BAD MMKAY", and I'd get credit…..which ended up not amounting to a whole lot.
I would rather have my kids toke it up on the occasional, then smoke as much as one cig.
People are going to do drug if they are legal or not… I should know I'm a 2 year sober recovering heroin addict. If people are going to do drugs they don't care if they are legal or not like how many of you would go shoot up heroin tommorow if it was suddenly legal? thats what i thought.
Weed should stay illegal.
But possession & growing for personal use should be rather lax. After all if someone is that determined to get hold of it they will.
Weed should stay illegal.
But possession & growing for personal use should be rather lax. After all if someone is that determined to get hold of it they will.
Why should it be illegal if you feel it's alright for people to use it?
Your comment reminds me of this quote from The Godfather:
I also don't believe in drugs. For years I paid my people extra so they wouldn't do that kind of business. Somebody comes to them and says, "I have powders; if you put up three, four thousand dollar investment, we can make fifty thousand distributing." So they can't resist. I want to control it as a business, to keep it respectable. [slams his hand on the table and shouts] I don't want it near schools! I don't want it sold to children! That's an infamia. In my city, we would keep the traffic in the dark people, the coloreds. They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls.
Why should it be illegal if you feel it's alright for people to use it?
Your comment reminds me of this quote from The Godfather:
I love weed, but I can't deny the list of bad effects it has on people. Mainly mental health issues and even how it tends to totally demotivate you…though in truth it can also inspire.
In short it shouldn't be so easily available to the public, though I think if someone decides to grow it for personal use then fairplay. Just as long as we can keep it out of the hands of kids then I'm not too fussed. Pretty much how they have it in a few states in Australia.
Side note: i've got two old mates that gained schizophrenia in theirs late teens caused by weed. This probably would'nt have happened if they were past puberty, hence my concern about young people getting hold of it.
I love weed, but I can't deny the list of bad effects it has on people.
And yet you can deny the net negative that comes from outlawing it, while at the same time giving a seeming pass to alcohol and tobacco products. Keeping it outlawed is not going to make the use any less prevalent, making it inaccessible within state is not going to keep people like Al Capone from popping up and taking advantage. You are not going to make a child give up on looking for the cookies because you hid them, and you are not going to influence people on staying clean by adding more and more restrictions. Condescending takes on the subject are only going to make it worse, and it'll make no more improvement than, say, making it so poor people can't buy soda with food stamps, or not allowing aboriginal Australians to buy alcohol because a bunch of crooked old cocks think it'll make them beat their wives and children mo-
Pretty much how they have it in a few states in Australia.
god fucking dammit.
And yet you can deny the net negative that comes from outlawing it, while at the same time giving a seeming pass to alcohol and tobacco products. Keeping it outlawed is not going to make the use any less prevalent, making it inaccessible within state is not going to keep people like Al Capone from popping up and taking advantage. You are not going to make a child give up on looking for the cookies because you hid them, and you are not going to influence people on staying clean by adding more and more restrictions. Condescending takes on the subject are only going to make it worse, and it'll make no more improvement than, say, making it so poor people can't buy soda with food stamps, or not allowing aboriginal Australians to buy alcohol because a bunch of crooked old cocks think it'll make them beat their wives and children mo-
god fucking dammit.
Another person with an opinion on a subject he knows nothing about.
The alcohol and cigs assumption was laughable.
So do you support outlawing alcohol and tobacco?
All the negatives you're listing won't change whatsoever with legalization. You act as if it being outlawed is avoiding these. It isn't.
And you act like it isn't already easy for public consumption. It is.
A fellow student in SCAD was shot and killed yesterday because he was dealing weed out of his house and got into a squabble with what I guess were customers.
The reality is that illegailiztion does really nothing but fund Latin American drug cartels and get a ton of inner city kids locked away for ridiculous sentences while suburban kids make wild stabs at selling and end up gutshot bleeding out on their ambitious film dreams.
As an inhabitant of that country that legalised softdrugs, the only problem is that shop owners are filthy rich, because they ask way too much money for their shit. That's why political parties want all coffee shops to be taken over by the government.
But there's really no big problem with drug abuse. We have a ton of alcoholics though.
No see schizophrenia is rampant in Holland because
I love weed, but I can't deny the list of bad effects it has on people. Mainly mental health issues and even how it tends to totally demotivate you…though in truth it can also inspire.
In short it shouldn't be so easily available to the public, though I think if someone decides to grow it for personal use then fairplay. Just as long as we can keep it out of the hands of kids then I'm not too fussed. Pretty much how they have it in a few states in Australia.
Side note: i've got two old mates that gained schizophrenia in theirs late teens caused by weed. This probably would'nt have happened if they were past puberty, hence my concern about young people getting hold of it.
I'm sorry to hear about your friends, but that may have been prevented if weed was legalized and regulated. Assuming people are more likely to obey the law (and the laws are easier to enforce, because police will know where distributors are), under proposition 19 only adults over 21 can buy weed, and only in limited quantities. That's a lot better than "meet a shady guy in the park and buy as much weed as you want, no matter how old you are."
And tomorrow begins the second round of elections
(Now only for president)
The dispute is now between
Dilma and Jose Serra
Dilma party (PT) is against foreign privatization of public agencies,
and the party of José Serra(PSDB) is in favor.
Serra's party claims
that the PT has sold oil from the "pré-sal" for many foreign companies ..Ouvir
Ler foneticamente
and PT
confirms the lack of responsibility (not to mention the rumor ..
"The public money that Jose Serra used to make their election campaigns")
to attack the PSDB
I sincerely wanted to vote blank / null
but…
since this is considered "careless with the future country"
I'll have to choose one.
Isn't Dilma Lula's protege, and already fairly certain of her election?
55% porcent sure
all right..already voted..
the only "bad thing" is that i wasted this voted..
because i know that dilma will win,
and know is official
Dilma is the new president..
more 4 years of Lula..12 years already
I'm sorry to hear about your friends, but that may have been prevented if weed was legalized and regulated. Assuming people are more likely to obey the law (and the laws are easier to enforce, because police will know where distributors are), under proposition 19 only adults over 21 can buy weed, and only in limited quantities. That's a lot better than "meet a shady guy in the park and buy as much weed as you want, no matter how old you are."
Legalisation would be great, but only if a large amount of the taxable money was used for healthcare an educational purposes. (focusing solely towards users and kids)
I just don't have much faith in the government to do a decent job of it, hence the above posts.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Republicans! Make Sarah Palin the face of the presidential nominee for your party! There is nothing I'd wish more for the Tea Baggers to shoot themselves in the foot.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
LOL! More proof there are more good Muslims than bad. The very very few bad compared to the whole population (1.5 billion).
Edit: Well looks like the Republicans have the majority of the House. This should really show us what Obama is made of in his 2 more years of office. Can he swallow his pride and work with a majority House of Republicans for the good of the nation, or will he continue to push for far left agendas and get blocked by the Republicans? This will also test the morals and agenda of the Republicans. Its been obvious enough how they've have turned their backs on anything Obama these past 2 years and effectively made every bill passed fought tooth and nail. Now we'll see if they'll stop opposing Obama for political reasons and start working on actual policies. They could just sit back and screw Obama over in his last 2 years of office and have their eyes set on the 2012 elections. All at the demise of the nation of course, or they can find a common ground with their Democratic leader and push us forward. The direction of the nation is on both parties' shoulders now and I hope they won't let differences set us back. The president is more responsible but the Republicans share that responsibility. Damn the hate from both sides. I can't understand why one party thinks they can move forward without the other! We're a purple country! ~_~
Like Barney…good grief. That's a terrible comparison.
Edit: Well looks like the Republicans have the majority of the House. This should really show us what Obama is made of in his 2 more years of office. Can he swallow his pride and work with a majority House of Republicans for the good of the nation, or will he continue to push for far left agendas and get blocked by the Republicans?
What?
I…buh....
What?
Obama hasn't been pushing his agenda. If anything, he's been asking nicely for the Republicans to take his side and ended up getting squat for it.
He's been getting beat down for being too nice.
Reaching across the aisle is a bunch of bullshit.
Someone get Lyndon Johnson in there.
This will also test the morals and agenda of the Republicans. Its been obvious enough how they've have turned their backs on anything Obama these past 2 years and effectively made every bill passed fought tooth and nail. Now we'll see if they'll stop opposing Obama for political reasons and start working on actual policies. They could just sit back and screw Obama over in his last 2 years of office and have their eyes set on the 2012 elections.
You're giving those guys WAY too much of a benefit of a doubt. The republicans have already demonstrated time and time again they're in their seats because somebody else bought them and that their goal is to just return that investment.
EDIT: Btw, bad news: Prop 19 didn't pass.
Don't worry. I'm sure that nothing bad will ever come of–
[hide]FUCK YOU YOU COCKSUCKING CUNTSMASHING RETARD BREEDING PISS DRINKING GLUE SNIFFING JESUS BLOWING DILDO STUFFING DOUCHE CHUGGING UNFIT TO LIVE RETARDS!![/hide]
–it.
Although I must express my disappointment when I talked the poll over with two friends of mine.
Me: Just explained every damn reason why pot should be legalized
Person 1: Oh, yeah, but we shouldn't let it loose because it's bad for people.
(Note: This person also said that government run health care is 'mothering people.')
Person 2 (who actually smokes pot): I voted no.
Me: WTF? Why?
Person 2: Because the stores will start charging too much.
Me: You're an idiot.
Person 2: Who says I'm an idiot?
Me: I do.
Person 2: Then keep your opinions to yourself.
GOD!!
wow…California is not doing well in politics tonight..
Legalisation would be great, but only if a large amount of the taxable money was used for healthcare an educational purposes. (focusing solely towards users and kids)
I just don't have much faith in the government to do a decent job of it, hence the above posts.
I really can't argue with that, even the worst druggies handle money better than our government. :/
Our previous government handled the economy like they were J Wellington Wimpy.
Now we'll see if they'll stop opposing Obama for political reasons and start working on actual policies.
Rand fucking Paul is in the government. A man supporting hiring discrimination on the basis of race is officially in.
Stop giving the GOP and their tools credit.
The german newspaper are running wild trying to find stronger adjectives for obamas loss in the election. It's amusing how crazy they become once they've found a little to write about.
@Cuddles:
What?
I…buh....
What?
Obama hasn't been pushing his agenda. If anything, he's been asking nicely for the Republicans to take his side and ended up getting squat for it.
He's been getting beat down for being too nice.
Reaching across the aisle is a bunch of bullshit.
Someone get Lyndon Johnson in there.
What do you mean Obama hasn't been pushing his agenda? He's passed a social health care reform that the Democrats have been wanting for, for decades (around 40 years). A health reform that's not too popular with America at this point in time going by the…polls cough. He just pushed it right on through thanks to the Democratic majority in the Senate and House. He's passed groundbreaking legislation for community service, education, and veteran pay and benefits.
He's stabilized the economy and financial market of this country from its downward spiral. Believe me, he's pushed his agenda. The problem for him is he's thinking long term. He's going for the long term far-sighted goals that are meant for the future growth of our economy and generations to come. His policies aren't popular now because most people don't feel them. I don't see this as bad, it's just not good for politics which is a short sighted system. He's also too far left. I don't know why he thought he could cooperate with the Republicans with such liberal views, not saying liberal views are a bad thing. It's just that he needs to start going for the common ground which I believe he's been trying.
@Cuddles:
EDIT: Btw, bad news: Prop 19 didn't pass.
Don't worry. I'm sure that nothing bad will ever come of–
[hide]FUCK YOU YOU COCKSUCKING CUNTSMASHING RETARD BREEDING PISS DRINKING GLUE SNIFFING JESUS BLOWING DILDO STUFFING DOUCHE CHUGGING UNFIT TO LIVE RETARDS!![/hide]
–it.
Although I must express my disappointment when I talked the poll over with two friends of mine.
Me: Just explained every damn reason why pot should be legalized
Person 1: Oh, yeah, but we shouldn't let it loose because it's bad for people.
(Note: This person also said that government run health care is 'mothering people.')
Person 2 (who actually smokes pot): I voted no.
Me: WTF? Why?
Person 2: Because the stores will start charging too much.
Me: You're an idiot.
Person 2: Who says I'm an idiot?
Me: I do.
Person 2: Then keep your opinions to yourself.
GOD!!
As for Prop 19…
hu6IM02ehXw
What if your nurse was high? o_o
Rand fucking Paul is in the government. A man supporting hiring discrimination on the basis of race is officially in.
Stop giving the GOP and their tools credit.
@Cuddles:
You're giving those guys WAY too much of a benefit of a doubt. The republicans have already demonstrated time and time again they're in their seats because somebody else bought them and that their goal is to just return that investment.
I do believe the Republicans can find the common ground too. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt because I have no other choice. They run the House!!! Lol, no really I do believe they want what's best for this country. I will not be a hard left or a hard right. I'm conservative on some issues and liberal on others. In the end I'm just a sensible American who knows this country can't run divided.
Hahaha Obama a far leftist… I always enjoy it to see how far people are influenced by their countries media.
In Europe Obama will definatelly be situated in the centre-right spectrum of politics, more to the right than the centre.
You'll have to go to Venezuela or Cuba to find far leftist in these times, cause they're a dying breed.
He's also too far left.
It's still quite an amazing sight to see anyone aside from American right-wing authoritarians call Obama 'left'.
hu6IM02ehXw
What if your nurse was high? o_o
Lol, no really I do believe they want what's best for this country.
Until stupid shit like this is posted.
I can't wait for the Republicans to win the presidential elections in two years and then systematically reverse every decision made by the Obama administration and return everything to the way it was during the Bush years.
Hahaha Obama a far leftist… I always enjoy it to see how far people are influenced by their countries media.
In Europe Obama will definatelly be situated in the centre-right spectrum of politics, more to the right than the centre.
You'll have to go to Venezuela or Cuba to find far leftist in these times, cause they're a dying breed.
Rightfully assuming you're in Europe I'm guessing the majority of information you receive on America and president Obama comes from the media whether it be on the tv or the internet. In Europe Obama will be situated to the right according to your media and views. Go figure but really this is alright.
It's still quite an amazing sight to see anyone aside from American right-wing authoritarians call Obama 'left'.
Forget the media folks, look at the policies he's passed before making any judgement calls. Government regulation, spending, and overall increasing the size of the government. Higher taxes on the rich. Gay rights. Abortion rights. Blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. The social health care reform and government's involvement in it.
Are these not liberal politics? I'm not debating whether one likes these policies or not. When I say he's too far left I'm talking about in the eyes of the voters. Why do you think the House just went over to the Republicans? Why do you think moderate Democratic and Independents voted Republican? They weren't feeling the effects of the slowly improving economy and were frustrated with Obama's politics.
For the record I voted Democrat and am now looking at this from a distant point of view. I know Obama has been trying to work with the Republicans and looking for common ground but at the same time he's been pushing liberal policies through Washington. He's a Democrat, it makes sense. It's a fact. Now he's going to be reined in by the House majority of Republicans forcing both parties to cooperate…hopefully.
Until stupid shit like this is posted.
Of course it's stupid. That's why I laughed at it. I'm guessing you were greatly enraged or utterly dumbfounded to the point where you couldn't recognize my sarcasm.
"What if your nurse woke up high? o_o"
You probably did recognize my sarcasm and still thought it was "stupid shit". Won't argue with that.
I can't wait for the Republicans to win the presidential elections in two years and then systematically reverse every decision made by the Obama administration and return everything to the way it was during the Bush years.
That's exactly what we don't want. In the end I don't care if the Republicans win. I just don't want them to set us back by undoing policies that will help our nation in the long run.
I can't wait for the Republicans to win the presidential elections in two years and then systematically reverse every decision made by the Obama administration and return everything to the way it was during the Bush years.
Haha that would be hilarious. To be honest i have no idea how the tea party movement could be so successfull. I'm wondering…
Our previous government handled the economy like they were J Wellington Wimpy.
Wimpy has something like thirty doctorates and an IQ of 200-something; I think he probably would have got single-payer passed.
Anyway, two things to keep in mind as far last night's election goes:
This was the first election after the Citizens United decision, which made it very, very easy for corporations and organizations to funnel money into race's that they would not have been able to otherwise. Russ Feingold in particular suffered from this.
A hefty chunk of the Republican wins in the House were over Blue Dog Democrats, who were in states that were by and large Republican anyway. Out of the Progressive Caucus, three Democrats lost their seats out of a possible 72 with another Progressive Democrat winning an open seat. Running away from the Democratic Party and President Obama was a bad choice for a lot of these Blue Dog Democrats; not only did it not really endear them to Republican voters, it turned off Democrats and didn't help them with Independent voters either. Why vote for Diet Republican if you can just go ahead and get a one-liter of Pure Crazy?
I can't wait for the Republicans to win the presidential elections in two years and then systematically reverse every decision made by the Obama administration and return everything to the way it was during the Bush years.
It's gonna happen.
They broke the Economy, and they spent the last two years convincing people that the same bullshit policies can fix it.
Keeping Bush-era tax cuts for everyone? "Oh no Reginald, if they take away our tax cuts, we may no longer be able to afford to bathe in champagne… Whatever will we DO?!"
I saw an interview Anderson Cooper did with Rep Michele Bachmann (R) where she kept talking about how we had to cut government spending. He kept asking her to name three programs she would cut spending on. She only named ONE thing she would cut spending on, (That Obama is apparently going on an overseas trip to India, and that she claimed it was going to cost $200 Million a Day) and Anderson immediately called Bullshit on it (Rightly so, no numbers have been released, but the most expensive presidential overseas trip EVER only cost $50 million for the entire trip, not per-day) and kept hammering her for what she would cut. She couldn't name anything. She eventually name-dropped "Eligibility Limits", but, Eligibility for what? Was she talking about Social Security? Medicare? She literally used a blanket term that could mean ANYTHING depending on who is watching.
They don't have a plan. They just want their power back so they can make the rich-richer and the poor poorer. Pull their string, they're like a Political Talking Point doll. Pull String "Lower Government!" Pull String "Obama Is Hitler!" Pull String "Keep Your Government hands off my Medicare!" Pull String "Gay people should never be allowed to marry because it threatens heterosexual families for some reason!" Pull Sting "Oh yeah, give it to me hard right here in this airport bathroom stall!" "… How'd THAT one get in there?..."
They want to repeal the Health Care bill now. You know, the bill that will insure 32 million Americans who otherwise would not have been able to be insured. You know, the bill that makes it illegal for companies to pull that "Pre-existing condition" bullshit on you now.
The bill has to go to Republicans, but not because they think its bad. No. It has to go because they think it's good, and NOTHING good can come from Obama. He's not allowed to have any victories.
I just hate this, because now, IF WE'RE LUCKY, we'll just get legislative Gridlock where nothing gets done. That way, at least the policies that were slowly getting us out of the recession will stay in effect, and the economy can grow on the long term. Because if Republicans start passing the Policies they want to pass, you know, the same kinds of policies that got us into this mess again, we'll be at a 20% unemployment rate within a year.
Rightfully assuming you're in Europe I'm guessing the majority of information you receive on America and president Obama comes from the media whether it be on the tv or the internet. In Europe Obama will be situated to the right according to your media and views. Go figure but really this is alright.
This has nothing to do with media and views, in the general global political spectrum that's how things would look.
Forget the media folks,
Shut up about the media.
look at the policies he's passed before making any judgement calls. Government regulation, spending, and overall increasing the size of the government. Higher taxes on the rich. Gay rights. Abortion rights. Blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. The social health care reform and government's involvement in it.
He has pushed every single one of these in moderate fashion while pandering to the Republicans.
Are these not liberal politics?
Some are, some are leftist.
I'm not debating whether one likes these policies or not. When I say he's too far left I'm talking about in the eyes of the voters. Why do you think the House just went over to the Republicans?
Because of bad economy driven anti-incumbency.
Why do you think moderate Democratic and Independents voted Republican?
Cite the moderate democrats plz, thx.
They weren't feeling the effects of the slowly improving economy and were frustrated with Obama's politics.
Number one is true, number two only mobilized people he was against, while his supporters, dissillusioned by how wimpy most of this "FAR LEFT" (loll) legislation turned out did not turn out in the same numbers whatsoever.
For the record I voted Democrat and am now looking at this from a distant point of view. I know Obama has been trying to work with the Republicans and looking for common ground but at the same time he's been pushing liberal policies through Washington. He's a Democrat, it makes sense. It's a fact. Now he's going to be reined in by the House majority of Republicans forcing both parties to cooperate…hopefully.
The Republicans are giant children who want what they want and you're a moron if you think they are going to want to try any consensus.
Nor do I have a clue what you are "hoping" for from this.
That's exactly what we don't want. In the end I don't care if the Republicans win. I just don't want them to set us back by undoing policies that will help our nation in the long run.
That's exactly what they'll do when nutjobs like Rand Paul are getting voted in.
On the personal plus side, CT has elected a dem senator and all House reps.
Only a repub governor. But our local repubs do things like legalize gay marriage so I don't care too much, nor will he effect any shifts on the national stage so whatev.
Bye bye Linda!
I don't know which republican it was that I saw yesterday on the news, but he said the first thing he'd do was reverse all the health care reforms Obama has pushed through in the last years.
@JERK:
Because of bad economy driven anti-incumbency. Cite the moderate democrats plz, thx.
My fault, it seems the Democrats did hold on to the moderate votes. It's just the independents that were lost.
http://themoderatevoice.com/91222/and-now-for-the-next-battle/
It's a Moderate source so it can't be really claimed as the most balanced but whatever.
@JERK:
Number one is true, number two only mobilized people he was against, while his supporters, dissillusioned by how wimpy most of this "FAR LEFT" (loll) legislation turned out did not turn out in the same numbers whatsoever.
Obama's politics played some part in turning off many voters. People wanted immediate and tangible change in a mere 2 years and when their high expectations weren't met they let it show in the polls. In all fairness Obama did help raise those expectations but he also repeatedly stated the change they were looking for would not, and could not, manifest itself immediately. It's a gradual change but people were indeed impatient. His policies are meant for long term effect and that's what I'm referring to which led to the voter rebuke in the 2010 midterm elections. People were frustrated because his politics weren't creating change fast enough for them.
Of course the Republicans ran with this and heightened voter frustration and said Obama hasn't done anything. Unfortunately people believed this and Democrats were dismayed which led to the mentioned lower Democratic turn out at the polls.
@JERK:
The Republicans are giant children who want what they want and you're a moron if you think they are going to want to try any consensus.
Nor do I have a clue what you are "hoping" for from this.
That's exactly what they'll do when nutjobs like Rand Paul are getting voted in.
Well, I suppose I'll have to be a hopeful moron then. The Republicans make up the majority of the House and to lose all faith and trust in them as soon as they get in is about as effective as giving up right on the spot. The majority of Republicans in this nation want what's best for the country, they just have different ways of going about it. Same for Democrats and every other party out there. That doesn't mean Democrats and Republicans can't find a middle ground to work from. That's what I'm hoping for. Even if this particular House of Republicans may like to sit on their ass for 2 years and recite the word, "No."
I don't know which republican it was that I saw yesterday on the news, but he said the first thing he'd do was reverse all the health care reforms Obama has pushed through in the last years.
You're probably referring to Republican leader John Boehner.
I saw an interview Anderson Cooper did with Rep Michele Bachmann (R) where she kept talking about how we had to cut government spending. He kept asking her to name three programs she would cut spending on. She only named ONE thing she would cut spending on, (That Obama is apparently going on an overseas trip to India, and that she claimed it was going to cost $200 Million a Day) and Anderson immediately called Bullshit on it (Rightly so, no numbers have been released, but the most expensive presidential overseas trip EVER only cost $50 million for the entire trip, not per-day) and kept hammering her for what she would cut. She couldn't name anything. She eventually name-dropped "Eligibility Limits", but, Eligibility for what? Was she talking about Social Security? Medicare? She literally used a blanket term that could mean ANYTHING depending on who is watching.
You know the worst part about that story? People actually believe it.
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/11/02/india/
People don't bother to think about the ridiculousness of the story or bother to check the facts. I've sifted through all 93 of those comments and I don't believe 1 person bothered to question the authenticity of the story. It's just people jumping on the bandwagon, and gladly.
It is going to be two hilarious years. Let's see if humans in the 21th century can work together to improve a country or literally destroy it.
Humans in the 21st century are as stupid as those that preceded them.
It is going to be two hilarious years. Let's see if humans in the 21th century can work together to improve a country or literally destroy it.
It's going to be a very tough two years for a lot of people; especially when the current unemployments benefit package runs out. Now, the situation within the Republican Party might be hilarious though.
The GOP has already started bickering with itself apparently; current Senators are rightfully pointing out that nutjobs like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell cost them the Senate. Even a theoretical fifty-fifty would wind up being a one vote advantage for the Republicans when Joe Lieberman stabbed the Democrats in the back. Meanwhile, the Teabaggers and their millionaire overlords point out that the GOP did a pretty terrible job in allocating funds. How much money was wasted in California that could have been put to good use elsewhere?
On top of that, reknowned nutjob Michelle Bachmann made a bid for a fairly appointment GOP position and was promptly shot down by Eric Cantor and Mike Pence. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tea Party doesn't wind up with its own caucus.
That whole thing shows a major problem for Republicans right now. Sure, they got control of the House and added a few Senate seats, but I think that the GOP's notion of the Tea Party being useful idiots is ultimately going to come back and bite them in the ass. Yeah, they got Republican money and, yeah, Republicans voted for them, but these people won't necessarily toe the Republican line just for the sake of competent pragmatism. In the end, a lot of them will wind up being liabilities.
For one thing, how are Earth are these people going to satisfy their constituency beyond the Birthers, Birchers, and other lunatics?
Cutting taxes for rich people doesn't add jobs, the Bush Administration has conclusively proven that. Cutting spending isn't going to work either since the ultimate result is going to be laying off a bunch of government employees. Even then. cutting the two biggest expenditures like Medicare and Social Security are just going to piss off the people who voted for them this time around.
Sure, there's that microscopic portion of the budget that's earmarks, but you're not going to win reelection by cutting out funding for your district. When people talk about cutting spending, they mean for somebody else. I don't think this current crowd quite understands that though.
So the Teabaggers are faced with a choice; compromise to get something accomplished and piss off your nutjob supporters or stick to your rhetoric and piss off everybody else.
At a guess, a lot of the Tea Party candidates who got elected this cycle are going to face stiff primary challenges next time from establishment candidates seeking to take over what would be considered a safe Republican district.
I see some resemblance in how Sarah Palin tries to secure her presidential bid in 2012, with how Ségolène Royal did hers in 2007.
Alot of similarities, hahah it's funny. In this light my geuss is that the teabagger will continue to piss off everybody else.
The Tea Party will be dead in a pool of its own fear-mongering, sensationalist blood by late 2011, I guarantee it.
It's going to be a very tough two years for a lot of people; especially when the current unemployments benefit package runs out. Now, the situation within the Republican Party might be hilarious though.
The GOP has already started bickering with itself apparently; current Senators are rightfully pointing out that nutjobs like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell cost them the Senate. Even a theoretical fifty-fifty would wind up being a one vote advantage for the Republicans when Joe Lieberman stabbed the Democrats in the back. Meanwhile, the Teabaggers and their millionaire overlords point out that the GOP did a pretty terrible job in allocating funds. How much money was wasted in California that could have been put to good use elsewhere?
On top of that, reknowned nutjob Michelle Bachmann made a bid for a fairly appointment GOP position and was promptly shot down by Eric Cantor and Mike Pence. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tea Party doesn't wind up with its own caucus.
That whole thing shows a major problem for Republicans right now. Sure, they got control of the House and added a few Senate seats, but I think that the GOP's notion of the Tea Party being useful idiots is ultimately going to come back and bite them in the ass. Yeah, they got Republican money and, yeah, Republicans voted for them, but these people won't necessarily toe the Republican line just for the sake of competent pragmatism. In the end, a lot of them will wind up being liabilities.
For one thing, how are Earth are these people going to satisfy their constituency beyond the Birthers, Birchers, and other lunatics?
Cutting taxes for rich people doesn't add jobs, the Bush Administration has conclusively proven that. Cutting spending isn't going to work either since the ultimate result is going to be laying off a bunch of government employees. Even then. cutting the two biggest expenditures like Medicare and Social Security are just going to piss off the people who voted for them this time around.
Sure, there's that microscopic portion of the budget that's earmarks, but you're not going to win reelection by cutting out funding for your district. When people talk about cutting spending, they mean for somebody else. I don't think this current crowd quite understands that though.
So the Teabaggers are faced with a choice; compromise to get something accomplished and piss off your nutjob supporters or stick to your rhetoric and piss off everybody else.
At a guess, a lot of the Tea Party candidates who got elected this cycle are going to face stiff primary challenges next time from establishment candidates seeking to take over what would be considered a safe Republican district.
Well, the bickering was to be expected and I also think the Tea Party will prove to be a liability in the future. Especially if they have Sarah Palin run for president which I hope happens. Other Republican parties are already trying to stop it from happening because they know if she runs she'll be fodder.
Speaking of the Bush Tax Cuts they are about to expire and Obama wants to reenact them but only extend them to people making less than $250,000 a year. People making more than $250,000 would not get the tax cuts. Some people argue everyone should get the tax cuts because we're still in tough times and an increase in taxes would stagnate the economy. Others argue taxing the rich is a painful but necessary need for the recovery of the economy and we can't afford to give everyone tax cuts.
I don't make $250,000 a year but if I did I don't know if I'd be complaining about needing a break here. If Obama does extend tax cuts to everyone including millionaires, big oil conglomerates, and so on then I wonder how the economy will play out with all that taxable money staying in the pockets of the rich. Obama needs to go Robin Hood on them.
As for the Government spending…if and when that is cut I wonder what exactly will be cut.
Well, the bickering was to be expected and I also think the Tea Party will prove to be a liability in the future. Especially if they have Sarah Palin run for president which I hope happens. Other Republican parties are already trying to stop it from happening because they know if she runs she'll be fodder.
It'll be interesting to see what happens. Palin is pretty much Christine O'Donnell on a much larger scale and I expect the reaction from establishment Republicans to be the same if she wins the primary.
I'm really not sure who can beat her right now either; Romney's Mormonism won't fly with the Fundies, Huckabee's "Hey, maybe we should consider doing something for poor people" won't work any better this time around with the establishment, and the rest are all C-listers.
Of course, there's a lot of time between now and then for the Teabaggers to completely wear out their welcome.
Speaking of the Bush Tax Cuts they are about to expire and Obama wants to reenact them but only extend them to people making less than $250,000 a year. People making more than $250,000 would not get the tax cuts. Some people argue everyone should get the tax cuts because we're still in tough times and an increase in taxes would stagnate the economy. Others argue taxing the rich is a painful but necessary need for the recovery of the economy and we can't afford to give everyone tax cuts.
The last decade should be a pretty good repudiation of the idea that low taxes for the rich stimulates the economy. If nothing else, there's no reason to think that letting a billionaire keep several more million dollars is going to be better for the economy than taking that money and building a new mass transit system with it.
Ultimately, the fatal flaw in any argument that letting rich people keep more money in the hopes that they'll spend it is the simple fact that people don't get rich by spending money in the first place.
As for the Government spending…if and when that is cut I wonder what exactly will be cut.
Social Security will a popular choice amongst the Teabaggers and Deficit Scolds even though it's paid for separately. That's one of the reasons I expect them to go down in flames relatively quickly since they largely got voted in by people angry over the fact that they didn't get a cost of living increase this year.
Cutting spending is a terrible idea right now anyway.
"Oh, hey, it's a terrible jobs market and people aren't spending enough money. Let's fix the situation by having the single largest spender cut back and lay off a bunch of people in the process!"
Obama's politics played some part in turning off many voters. People wanted immediate and tangible change in a mere 2 years and when their high expectations weren't met they let it show in the polls.
These are two completely different things.
In all fairness Obama did help raise those expectations but he also repeatedly stated the change they were looking for would not, and could not, manifest itself immediately. It's a gradual change but people were indeed impatient. His policies are meant for long term effect and that's what I'm referring to which led to the voter rebuke in the 2010 midterm elections. People were frustrated because his politics weren't creating change fast enough for them.
Your mentioning of "Liberal politics" was what then?
Well, I suppose I'll have to be a hopeful moron then. The Republicans make up the majority of the House and to lose all faith and trust in them as soon as they get in is about as effective as giving up right on the spot. The majority of Republicans in this nation want what's best for the country, they just have different ways of going about it.
And precisely why do you think I trust their ideas are good?
They are increasingly reactionary and have shown absolutely nothing new to their agenda as of two years ago. Aside from the rise of their fringe factor among the tea party.
There is zero sign of the rise of some responsible pragmatic republican mindset ala Eisenhower, it's the exact opposite.
Same for Democrats and every other party out there. That doesn't mean Democrats and Republicans can't find a middle ground to work from. That's what I'm hoping for. Even if this particular House of Republicans may like to sit on their ass for 2 years and recite the word, "No."
This is exactly what they will do.
But I am hopeful, hopeful that a civil war will erupt and create a divide between Tea Party and Republican. Which will likely only result in good.
@JERK:
These are two completely different things.
Two different things they may be but Obama's politics is what led to the voter frustration because it didn't make change happen fast enough for them.
@JERK:
Your mentioning of "Liberal politics" was what then?
The "liberal politics" is what really set off the Republican voters but that's a given (increased government spending, etc…). Independent voters switched because they wanted to give the Republicans another shot and Democratic voters were dismayed because the president was down in the polls and people were still pissed about the economy.
I'm not saying, "Oh Obama you're too liberal for your own good." I'm pointing out his politics factored in to what just happened a few days ago (midterm elections) but we know that's not the only factor.
@JERK:
And precisely why do you think I trust their ideas are good?
They are increasingly reactionary and have shown absolutely nothing new to their agenda as of two years ago. Aside from the rise of their fringe factor among the tea party.There is zero sign of the rise of some responsible pragmatic republican mindset ala Eisenhower, it's the exact opposite.
But I am hopeful, hopeful that a civil war will erupt and create a divide between Tea Party and Republican. Which will likely only result in good.
A civil war huh? I was just thinking along the lines of disagreements on key issues between the two.
Edit: Just found this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40033776/ns/politics-white_house
This thread was pushed waaaay back. Bumping it up for the good news that legislation for the Bush Tax Cuts to be extended for lower and middle income makers has passed the House of Representatives. Now it's on to the Senate. Let's see what happens there. Will the Repubicans throw a hissy fit and vote it down and endangering the opportunity for the Bush Tax Cuts to be extended at all? Essentially voting for tax cuts to be raised on everyone just because the richest in the country don't get jerked off?
We'll wait and see.