caeron

The whole concept of the bill of rights is that the will of the majority is not supreme. FSM help us if it ever becomes supreme.

I think he lost because the republicans controlled the messaging. A fiscal stimulus in a huge recession and requiring people to buy health care insurance from private companies is hardly radical. But the republicans very effectively painted it as radical, and the democrats couldn't message their way out of a wet paper bag. I think Obama's problem was that he _was_ the type of politician that he said he would be. The Republicans beat him up, but he didn't return the favor soon enough and often enough. In our sharply partisan political world, he needed to deal with the world as it was, not as he wished it were. The publically televised health care debate was moronic. The suggestion that all debates would be in the open was moronic. Deals get made behind closed doors. I think he was naive. Time will tell if he learns his lessons. I think the Republicans are in for a tough road. They've won enough that I think people will hold them accountable, but not enough that they can drive their agenda. We'll see how it plays out. Maybe someday we'll have a republican party that isn't thrall to the religious right and I'll be able to vote for one who actually believes in fiscal responsibility and individual liberties, including sexual ones.

Of course. Do you really want tyranny of the majority in this country? Go read some history of Athens to learn what happens when you have no checks on the will of the majority. You use the word accountability, but really it is a thinly veiled threat that the majority will remove you if you do your job and make an unpopular ruling. The Supreme Court has decided any number of things incorrectly in my opinion. I've never thought that that should give me a reason to recall them.

Boehner's writing checks he can't cash. He doesn't have the votes to repeal the healthcare legislation. He can keep up the congressional gridlock, but for now that ship has sailed.

I agree. One of the key roles of the court is to protect the minority from the majority. If the court can be brought to heel by the majority, it fails in that critical purpose.

I won't get into it in this forum, but I think this is not true. The republican machine is much, much better than the democratic machine and they controlled the message. People were seriously talking about death panels when the proposal was just to give people a chance to honestly consult about the end of life wishes. I think that was symptomatic of the whole debate on healthcare.

You lost me at "I"

I agree. I wish we'd elected hillary.

Juan was a reporter, not a commentator. His job was to be neutral and report the facts. He got fired because he didn't respect that job requirement. At least some news organizations still strive for objectivity. I was listening to Rush rant about this earlier today and he read an internal letter about the firing which said that Juan had been crossing the line repeatedly while told not to. The New York Times is liberal. NPR, at least to this listener, isn't particularly. The problem is that most people that scream about the liberal media think Fox is a little too far left. Your mileage may vary, but I don't see anything wrong with a news organization telling its reporter to shut his or her mouth and respect the need for objectivity.

Good for Google. We need to get over our 'soak it to the corporations' attitude. All it does is drive businesses away.

I hate it, but I agree with you. Laws need to be defended or chaos reigns.

Four Aces, Sounds like a great plan to me. I'm bored out of my mind at my job, but hard to walk away from ~$200k a year with no plan to replace it. I'm envious of those who find better options.

I think cats not being loyal and affectionate is a myth that dog lovers like to tell. We have cats, and we can't keep them off us. They follow us around the house, they're always very loving and affectionate. Cats. Because they're as good as a dog and you don't have to take them for walks.

Personally, I found the list very hot. I had to go beat off after reading it!

Ow. I experienced this in high school and I can relate. Poor kid.

He's an attention whore. Those kind of people don't care what it takes to get the attention. If it requires you to be a major asshat, then so be it.

I always view it as "bitch by proxy". Someone has issues in their real life, so they work it out by kicking people online and gaining a bit of the power they don't have to deal with their real world antagonists. It is stupid and petty, but it seems to help them feel better about themselves.

Oh, I don't forgive him, but I still think he'll do more for our cause blowing apart the bullshit of the religious right than anything anyone else could do. So I still think this is great news for us.

I think this is great news for all of us. I'm sorry his road was so long and difficult, but I think the more folks who come out across the whole political spectrum the more this isn't an us versus them issue, because it's all us.

Here's a link to all the things in the same radius of ground zero: http://daryllang.com/blog/4421 This debate is just stupid and shows how much bullshit has replaced substance in the national debate.

No. I have no clue either.

Whiny bitch. Good riddance. Upset that somebody else used their free speech rights to take up dump on her. boo fucking hoo.

Imagine? Just look at 'Daddy's' March MER madness post.... I think I need to go get some weed to understand it.

That's amazing!

My brother was a career army officer. My father was career air force. Friendly fire happens. Nobody likes to talk about it, and certainly not to the families of the soldiers killed this way, but it is a reality of war. What he sees as a 'coverup' is probably pat's fellow soldiers trying to leave the family and the country with a happier, though dishonest, story of his death. Of course they shouldn't have done it, but I am not willing to crucify them for doing it.