That seems completely unConstitutional! I cannot believe that could be at all binding, considering one of the principles of American Democracy is the secret ballot - duh!
Printable View
And yet a little thing like asking for a photo ID when one resisters to vote is being tossed out by some courts in the US!!! :rolleyes:
Congratulations to the entire field of the Republican primaries.
You couldn't have self-destructed more completely had it been planned.
5 candidates who rail against judicial activism and overreach sue to get on the ballot in VA.
Mitt, you're a used car salesman in a nice suit.
Ron Paul.....well........frankly, your foreign policy concepts scare the hell out of me.
I'll say it again.....
We need an additional choice on every ballot: None of the above.
If none of the above wins, then the pool gets flushed and you start over.
Okay, I dated myself somewhat tonight on another forum....
Someone started a thread asking how you prep quail.....
My answer?
Give him spelling lessons and don't let him stray from the teleprompter.
My answer went over most of their heads....then I realized I was dealing mainly with 20 somethings.
Hee hee! Yes, I have to check my cultural references from time to time, to fit the age of the audience!
Now, do we really really really have to listen to politics on the radio ad nauseum from now until November? Really? I could seriously do without constant dissection of the minutiae of the campaigns, and movements in the polls by one or two points, I really could!
Speaking of Quail, I met someone recently who was with him as he
prepared to give a speech. An aide handed him a copy of highlighted
points of the talk & Quail held the paper 2 inches from his face to be
able to read it. He's blind as a bat, but is to vain for glasses.:)
His poor eyesight explains a lot. Not everything, but a lot.:)
So I'm reading an article on Politico, and come across this -
I love it - wish I were clever enough to write like that :DQuote:
With a clear opportunity to win the gold medal of American politics — knocking off an incumbent president — Republicans produced a field of dwarves.
So not a ooops, McCain was right the first time.:) Is this what is called
a freudian slip? :D
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#...obama-flub.cnn
Props to Barack for playing politics and rescue missions at the same time.
"America is back" -- Pres. Obama
Really? Sure doesn't feel like it to me. I've seen my property value almost double and then return to exactly where it was when I bought it. Everything costs more, gasoline, milk, my health insurance. And I'm getting less. I'm paying the same price for ice cream and getting 1 1/2 quarts instead of half a gallon. Lots of people are still unemployed. Lots of people can't get the health care they need. America will be back when people are working and the economy is robust again.
Also -- I don't think it is right that in an election year the current President uses the State of the Union address as a campaign speech. That is not the purpose of the address.
Thanks for letting me rant!
Agreed - 100+%
If you look back in recent history, every sitting President who was up for reelection used the State of the Union for that purpose. This is nothing new.
100% agree also. The current administration doesn't get it. They have no plan -- except to recycle ideas that have failed before. All my Hope for Change has disappeared. My faith is gone also.
It occured to me during the last election -- Is this the best we've got? I couldn't get excited about any of the candidates last time, and I'm feeling the same way these days.
I merged the State of the Union thread into this one, as of course, it's all Politics!
OK, I admit I don't know much about US politics, but my impression of B. Obama is very positive - the American people who live here also seem to prefer him. :) It seems a lot of you don't like him. Do you think another president would have done better? In the light of the financial crisis (which is not B. Obama's fault, and that is an entirely different discussion), I think the outcome could have been far worse. At least B. Obama is trying to do something for the less wealthy people and he withdrew the troops from Iraq.
Can you imagine what would have happened if any of these other ignorant candidates had made it into politics! I think you got a good deal with B. Obama. :) If only we were so lucky here! :p
It was former Pres. Bush who set up the troop withdrawal timeline for Iraq, not the current President.
Frankly the last three US Presidential elections could have been handily won by "none of the above".
President Obama has been severely criticized by "leading Republicans" for following the troop withdrawal timeline established by President Bush. His critics have included Romney, Cain, Perry, McCain, Bachmann (who called it a complete failure...)
Perhaps why somepeople feel if Presient Obama found a cure for cancer he would still be criticized....
I think it was Malcolm Gladwell in "Blink" who wrote that although Herbert Hoover had the appearance and bearing of a President, that after he was elected he had a lot of struggles.
The first problem with that statement is referring to McCain, Perry, et. al. as leading Republicans. The only way they can comprehend leadership is with a dictionary (which leaves Dan Quayle out of the running.... :p)
I had issues with the timeline. I still have issues with any military leader publishing a timeline for action for strategic reasons.
That having been said, however, when the country you're assisting gives you a date and says be out by then, you move. Only time will tell whether it really worked, it's far to soon to pass judgement, but somehow I doubt you've seen the last of the insurgents in Iraq.
And who shook Nutsy Pelosi's tree?
What does she know about the "Neutster" that we all don't.
I wonder what it feels like to put a high heel in your mouth?
Getting rid of the insurgents! Oh so THAT'S why we were there...(It has always seemed as bit confusing. WMD...regime change...bogey man...insurgents)
Even scorched earth and the elimination of every person living in that country would not put an end to "insurgents." Sadly.
I'm really ticked off about the 'blood for oil' deal.
The initial reason we were there had nothing to do with insurgents, unless you count the Bath party as insurgents. After all, when you invade, you ARE the insurgents.
However, the resulting 3 hour tour of Iraq came under the heading of we broke it, we fix it.
The reason we've still had troops in the country since the invasion was an attempt to stabilize an inherently unstable political construct. Since that we've seen multiple rewrites of the SASO (stability and support operations) manual, changing acronyms (which unless you've been part of a staff you have no idea what a semi-humorous PITA that is) changing TTPs, (tactics, techniques and procedures), ad nauseum.
The initial reason we were there had nothing to do with nothing and certainly nothing to do with the US.
Yea!!!!
Tacos!!!
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...ve-tacos-mayor
What is a right to work (or right-to-work?) state? That phrase has been in the news around here lately because the Indiana state government is addressing either making or not making Indiana a right to work state. I don't really get it although I know it has something to do with labor unions. Up in Wisconsin people are signing petitions to have their governor recalled. They just had big legislation up there with labor unions.
Should you belong to a labor union if you have a government job? When I was a temp nurse in the Cook County health care system, the RNs were unionized under the Illinois Nurses Association. They had strict rules for nurse to patient ratios, overtime, new hire orientation, assignments, breaks, uniforms, holidays - you name it, they had a rule for it. Those nurses made big bucks and they worked a lot of overtime. And every nurse had been there for a long time.
When I worked for the auto mechanics' union welfare fund, you didn't have to join the union - but the union was providing benefits to the fund office employees, so if I wanted health and dental coverage, I had to sign up and pay dues, which in turn paid for the benefits. The cool part of that job was that they had a yearly car show because a lot of the members were car enthusiasts. They also had a motorcycle ride for cancer-- which started at one of the dealerships and ended at a huge forest preserve, where there was a picnic, games for kids, volleyball and fun. You could just come to the picnic if you weren't a motorcyclist, and there was a car pool from the office.
Right -to-work state is a state in which union membership cannot be required as a condition of employment.
There are always three sides to every story.
To the unions - this means employees can receive the wages and benefits negotiated by the union without paying union dues. They must be represented (although perhaps not vigorously ;) ) by the union in any dispute with management without paying union dues.
For employees - they do not have to pay union dues if they do not want to or do not believe in unions.
To the Company - it is a very useful wedge between employees.
It can make for stressful relations - employees who pay union dues vs. those who do not.
Disclaimer - much of my career has been fighting against unions. I do not take a position on this issue. Just the facts.
When is May Day?
Facepalm!
Would someone explain to me again how the Canadian oil pipeline would reduce our dependency on foreign oil?
TPM
Romney on Trump Endorsement: This is Awesome
Josh Marshall-February 2, 2012, 4:05 PM1068
Mitt Romney ecstatic over Trump endorsement: “There are some things that you just can’t imagine happening in your life — this is one of them. Being in Donald Trump’s magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight.”
Does this mean Mitt gets a Tiara & Sash. LOL :D
Had to laugh at the story about the SC justice being robbed by a machete wielding man.
I thought "oh, crap! That is crazy story, must have happened in DC...."
No, the moron was robbed at his vacay home - that's what he gets for not buying American.:rolleyes: