Politics

[Lithium]

I don't even need to crack a joke it speaks for itself.

[Fuse]

Hillary?

Yes. Liberal support of the BigO is at an all time low, and I think a democratic contender emerging is only dependent on who the final few GOP candidates will be.

Two days after I made that suggestion here, Steve Chapman (a liberal himself) wrote a piece for the Chicago Trib about the BigO withdrawing from the 2012 race - and who does he suggest take his place? Mrs.Clinton.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-18/news/ct-oped-0918-chapman-20110918_1_obama-iran-contra-scandal-house-spokesman-bill-burton

[likwidtek]

Fuse, whaow.  I didn't even consider that a possibility.  There's no way though.. right?  Has that ever happened?

[Fuse]

Which part? An incumbent not running, or being challenged by a member of his own party? I'll have to look up the history of both situations.

[Da6onet]

Has an incumbent president ever lost the nomination to run for a second term?

As far as simply running against the incumbent, there have been numerous examples, a famous one that comes to mind would be Teddy Roosevelt vs Taft. Roosevelt beat him, but the split caused Woodrow Wilson to win.

[likwidtek]

crazy

[Lithium]

Ted Kennedy gave Jimmy Carter a run in his reelection primary and did moderately well.

[Fuse]

Billy C. just made a couple neutral comments abouts BigO's new plan - considering how his comments were quite centrist, it's perceived mostly as non-support for BigO's proposal.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bill-clinton-calls-obama%E2%80%98s-deficit-approach-%E2%80%99a-little-confusing%E2%80%99-says-tax-increases-are-a-bad-idea/

BTW, has anyone read this new jobs plan? The new hoopla is revolving around section 376 - Federal and State Immunity in relation to the 11th amendment. Basically saying if a state receives any money from the federal government, that state waives it's sovereign immunity. I'm not sure how I feel about the 11th amendment, because I think if a government body, even a state, does wrong they should be able to be held accountable - but I also understand the extreme abuse of the ability to sue - and certainly I would prefer states to have varying power than to have all the power and decisions on a federal level. Even with the current system exceptions have been made in the past on a federal level too.
My main concern is questioning why this is even in this proposal.

[Da6onet]

My main concern is questioning why this is even in this proposal.

The way I interpret it is it's in there so the federal government can properly enforce the specific restrictions of its own program. It isn't saying the 11th Amendment is flat out invalid, just that if states are participating in this program, they have to abide by certain guidelines, and that they cannot simply ignore those guidelines and claim that the 11th Amendment allows them to do so. That said, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I don't know if this is standard language, a modern update to the language or what.

[likwidtek]

A bit more respect for Penn after watching this.  hehe

[Fuse]

I've always respected PG... I don't agree with all of his beleifs, but I've always respected the way he presents them.

[likwidtek]

Would you guys sign my petition on whitehouse.gov if you agree please?


End the wars, bring the troops home and put an end to policing the world.
The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world with over 900 overseas military bases.

This is not financially sustainable and we must bring the troops home. We can no longer attempt to police the world nor can we afford it. It must end.

http://wh.gov/g8v

(The site is pretty slow today so please be patient but if you agree, please stay with it and sign)

[Broin]

No

[Enoch]

As much as I agree with the sentiment of ending all wars, it's unrealistic to think that will solve the world's problems. The truth is, in many of those places, removing U.S. military presence from one day to another would cause instability as the remaining factions fight among each other without the U.S. there to keep people in check. I do heavily support not adding any more conflicts that we're involved in, and smartly ending the ones that currently exist, but saying pull everyone out isn't the way to go about it.

[Ghisteslwchlohm]

Personally, I feel that if you have reached a status in which you can control other contries, and your population has gone through any sort of "enlightenment" in which you ponder your own (and your world's) moral state, then you can attempt to uphold other countire's to that state yourself.

Now, I'm kind of drunk so let me reiterate myself in my meaning. If we have gone through so much philosophical civil dispute to doubt even our own actions as a country,  I believe that our country has a leg-up on the rest of the world. Knowing that we were one of the first to reach an economic and technologically age much earlier than the rest of the world, is it not reasonable that we also reached a moral, and possibly philosphically supirior state before much of the rest of the world?

Granted, I don't necessarily think that our current 'moral,' or even for you non-religous, 'ethical' standpoint is the highest we could ever achieve, I do believe that we may possibly hold the highest out of the nations we currently "occupy."