Pangloss

The words "at least" are an indication of agreement with your premise, which I subsequently agreed with again. And there's no need to be rude -- we're not that far apart. I agree completely, and it is one of the main reasons why I voted for President Obama. I didn't say it started under Clinton, I said he pushed it. Which he did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22 Here's a typical example of the kind of politics that were revolving around the program in 1999: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/july99/fighterjet22.htm Politics is more complicated that Democrats good, Republicans bad.

Hm, we need to talk to blike about the user agreement at SFN. Clearly we can be doing a lot more with that.

I agree with the carry-over premise, I just think it's got a couple of blinders attached to it (one for each eye). One of the reasons defense spending is so high during the Bush administration is that so many programs were pushed by the Clinton administration (F-22, F-35, etc). By avoiding making a decision he couldn't be accused of killing those programs, but he greatly increased the costs, especially when looked at per unit. Which, oddly enough, is exactly what President Obama seems to be doing with the space program. Although certainly there the scale is tiny in comparison, but there isn't a lot of defense spending that can be pushed anymore so I guess he figured the $1.56 trillion in red lettering would be enough. (Although some interesting delays seem to have appeared in the F-35 program recently.)

I didn't put words in your mouth, I asked you a question. You've been posting cheesy pictures of marginal, unrepresentative right-wingers acting foolish all over this subforum and telling everyone that they represent an actual danger to the country. Did you really think nobody would call you on it?

At least until Obama, who just submitted a budget that spends at least $1.56 trillion more than it takes in. Assuming no other spending will be necessary for that year. But I guess that is the conservative bias of life.

Finally got this off the Tivo tonight. Fantastic show. One thing I think Frontline seemed to confirm is that opposition to the House bill (with public option) last summer was not a simple matter of crackpots and CTR slogans, but in fact a massive grassroots movement that Republican politicians actually had no choice but to acknowledge and respond to. It seemed to completely undermine the notion that misguided, CTR-lead morons drove out the country's best hope for health care reform, and instead offered a much better-reasoned analysis about the will of the people and the complexity of modern politics. Frontline also strongly supported the notion that the September fight over the Senate bill was not a bipartisan effort at all, and the subsequent, unexpected battle was primarily between liberal and moderate Democrats. At one point one of the interviewees (a Democrat) accusingly called Chuck Grassley's response "not a profile in courage". I just love it when political operatives accuse politicians of being cowardly for not supporting what everyone just knows is the right thing to do. And from there the program went down an even goofier rabbit hole, suggesting that nobody could understand why some Republicans didn't jump on board out of sympathy after Kennedy died. (WTF? That is some serious space-cadet reasoning there.) But on the whole this was a well-done report, with both sides getting their points across. I was surprised at how many Republicans were interviewed, and that they included Orin Hatch's condemnation of the "you lie" outburst. I was also surprised to see the White House Communications Director on the interview list -- major kudos have to go to the Obama administration for providing such a high-level participant for this story (especially given how tight and close the previous administration kept things). On the whole, massive kudos to Frontline for another terrific job.

So you are saying that those guys should be arrested, but that it was okay for protesters to threaten President Bush's life? And to justify this you show us pictures of people doing nothing other than carrying weapons. We're supposed to see that as threatening in contrast to, say, actually burning the president in effigy. I just want to make sure I'm reading what you're writing. Yeah, I can't really imagine what I was thinking there. Those anti-Bush protesters being so peaceful and obviously not meant to be taken seriously. e-RV2MHNwnM Oddly enough, I don't think I've seen a single video of President Obama being burned in effigy in an American protest (though certainly some from overseas). Have you? I suppose that would be seen as racist, but then aren't your ideological colleagues trying to tell us that these protesters ARE racists? IMO it's not okay that people are threatening President Obama, and it's not okay that people threatened President Bush. Neither are justified just because one prefers their ideological bent.

Here's one I liked, from a CBS News story: And this one seemed tailored right to one of my personal pet peeves. (lol) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002659-503544.html

So you're saying that public threats by protesters against President Obama are to be taken seriously, but that it was appropriate not to take public threats by protesters against President Bush seriously?

That's a good one. (Wouldn't you just hate to be the clerk who works Monday mornings in the jury room?)

I agree with this. I've no problem with holding this guy to his oath, though. By all means, remember what he said and consider it at the ballot box (what jryan said in post #2).

There's no earthly way of knowing Which direction we are going There's no knowing where we're rowing Or which way the river's flowing Is it raining, is it snowing Is a hurricane a-blowing Not a speck of light is showing So the danger must be growing Are the fires of Hell a-glowing Is the grisly reaper mowing Yes, the danger must be growing For the rowers keep on rowing And they're certainly not showing Any signs that they are slowing

Ah. Well the parameters used by the President for a Supreme Court nominee are pretty heavily scrutinized. A religious means test could probably be used, but of course you'd be handing some pretty live ammunition to the conservative pundits. You'd have to weigh that pretty carefully against the benefits, and I'm not sure that there are any. Of course if it were true that the Pope actually leveraged authority over the justices, then that would be a pretty serious matter, and then all bets are off.

Honestly the more I ponder it the more content I am with it, at least for the near future, and the more I see it as a change for the better. At the very least I'm going into it with an open mind and high hopes. I am concerned about the potential loophole of a moderate-income worker's no-insurance penalty being less expensive than the price of health insurance, leading to currently-humorous scenarios like an iPhone app that lets you quickly buy insurance from the ambulance on the way to the hospital. But if that does somehow pan out into reality, it's such an obvious loophole that one would assume that it would be high on the list for corrective legislation.

Sure, but what would you propose be done to make that happen?

Has there ever been a case of a Supreme Court decision that was influenced by an external religious dictate or command? But okay, let's say that your fear is legitimate. What do you propose be done about it?

It's been that way for quite a while now. Has it been a problem?

A Fox News poll from just a few days ago found that the tea party movement has a lower approval rating than the Internal Revenue service -- and that's a week before tax day! http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/040810_Obama_HC_2010_web.pdf (see page 4) Other polls have shown many conservatives identifying with some of the movement's ideas, but apparently actually following its lead is another matter. That poll also showed that while amongst Republicans general favorability towards the TPM is around 60% (page 5), they still feel represented by the Republican party 2:1 over the tea party movement (page 6). Certainly still a lot of stuff here to motivate the liberal base. But actual danger to the country? Not so much. BTW, I got that from the Daily Kos, who said: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/12/856483/-Scott-Brown-throws-the-Tea-Party-into-Boston-Harbor

Hey I wasn't trying to ridicule anybody, I just love Star Trek quotes! But I apologize if it came out derogatory. It really wasn't intended. I'm sorry bascule. ---------------- If that's true then ultimately the movement will bear little fruit, just as the anti-war movement incensed liberals but ultimately bore little fruit, and for the exact same reason -- people aren't really radical, by and large. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You yourself also deserve a lot of credit for being open-minded about things like this, IMO. If this movement had not been co-opted by the likes of Palin and Beck, if it were taking a more sensible path in its objections and were more consistent and intelligent in the application of them, I think you'd be right there with them.

I don't agree that this is the case. Corporate personification is a legal convenience intended as an apparatus for the application of binding laws, much like the term "object" in programming. It's not a means by which evil capitalists maintain their sway over the little people (or as you put it, "screw consumers as they see fit"). This is supported by the fact that liberals don't seem to want the same objections applied to "labor unions". Those apparently deserve all sorts of unique rights. Just not "corporations". Which suggests that the problem is profit, not the concept of people operating as a group. Money, of course, being the root of all evil. I do agree that excesses and violations happen, by both corporations and labor unions, but I believe they can be more than adequately controlled through appropriate regulation and legislation.

Hey fair enough, I love to see people with real ideas and a modicum of common sense getting attention. No, he doesn't stand any chance (did you know he's a year older than John McCain?), but at this stage it's really about the ideas, and Paul has a great way of putting forth his ideas without sounding kooky and contrived. Good for him, and thanks for the thread.

I agree. This is really about motivation of the two political bases. The right wants to motivate a base that was a bit shaky in 2008. The left needs a way to bring its base back to the voting booth. And after the election the whole thing will just die a shabby and forgettable death. Kind of a pathetic end for a reasonably noble idea, but that's politics for you. A year from now we'll see some story on CNN about one guy in New Hampshire who runs around political rallies waving tea party banners and getting confused looks from the audience. The moderate middle, which actually put Democrats in power, will be more interested in the track record of Democrats and what, if any, alternatives are offered by Republicans. To that end we'll likely see a much more moderate message from both parties this fall. It's an off-year election, but it follows the usual pattern of appealing to the base for primaries, and coming back to the middle for general elections. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I call your 4200 quatloos and raise you a thousand bars of gold-pressed latinum!

Well, recently we all discovered that Americans are willing to accept change more readily after it has passed. If that can work for something as monumental as health care reform, then surely it might also work for cost-cutting. What's notable about your opening post is that there's that much agreement that costs need to be cut. That's a very long way from the Democrats' perception of a people's mandate for social reform and the ever-expanding role of government. So cut the biggest numbers on that list, explain carefully what that will and won't do, cut through the fear-mongering by the Marxist left and the Orwellian right, and look to see if the polls back you up after the fact. Isn't that what President Obama is teaching us about running a government? Seems like a pretty good lesson to me.

Yes, Americans can celebrate the positive aspects of the history of the southeastern quadrant of the country.

I guess you just missed the part where the gunner's cross hair travels right over other pedestrians, including a woman walking down the street with a child by her side. Lost the war? Near as I can tell the Iraqis are, slowly but surely, winning their country back. This video was shot during the height of the insurgency in 2007. There's certainly still violence in Iraq, but nothing at all like what was going on at that time. Are you sure we're the ones having trouble admitting something?