I've seen this going around Facebook
Is that actually a real quote? Where did it come from?
Because it's hilarious.
Yup, the debates are going to be amazing. Romeny's response:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-camp-feckless-obamas-bin-laden-talk-cheap
What policies are those?
President Obamas feckless foreign policy has emboldened our adversaries, weakened our allies, and threatens to break faith with our military. While the Obama administration has naively stated that the war on terror is over, Gov. Romney has always understood we need a comprehensive plan to deal with the myriad threats America faces.
What policies are those?
Obama straight up trolling Romney on Bin Laden, wow
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/obama-needles-romney-on-old-bin-laden-quotes.php?ref=fpblg
There seemed to be a concerned effort in 08 to cast Obama's comments on Pakistan as a naive politician with no foreign policy experience attempting to talk tough. Even President Bush joined the gang pile to attack Obama's statement - before he was even the nominee, mind you.
Obama is simply using the same playbook republicans used for a decade on "mommy and daddy" foreign policy, and they're pissed. Romney has no leg to stand on, and this will be even more apparent during an actual debate where Obama will get to do what the media most likely will not do: bring up Romney's previous comments on Pakistan and keep pressing for the world to see.
HahahaRomney and Republican officials have condemned Obamas campaign for campaigning on bin Ladens death. A Romney spokesman called it an effort to divide Americans; McCain said doing so politicizes national security.
Are you this anchorwoman or possibly related to her? Sounds like he hit pretty close to home.
Something Wicked - "I believe a Nobel Prize winner is an idiot."
If Romney is not attacking on the economy, he's losing.....badly
If Romney is not attacking on the economy, he's losing.....badly
Yup, the debates are going to be amazing. Romeny's response:
The question is not why does the Senate exist, it is why should it. The Federalist papers present an argument for it, but that is just an argument. And it is one rooted in 18th century America. The "impetuous vortex" reference explains why an executive branch exists, not why the Senate exists. You'll need to look at 62-66 for that (which do include a reference to the Senate as an "additional impediment ... against improper acts of legislation," but this is in passing and not the primary argument put forward for the Senate's existence. Of course, I've already quoted, long ago, Madison's remarks at the convention as to his opinion (that the Senate would be useful to protect the interests of the landed gentry--i.e., himself).
James Madison said:III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.
In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.
This is so hilarious, switch a couple of names around and this is straight dem talk from a few years ago.
And the best thing is that if Romney attempts to accuse Obama of dividing the country on the issue in a debate, Obama can simply ask him if he meant what he said in 08, or whether he has changed his mind (again).
I just recommend that everybody take a look at peoples previous statements in terms of what they thought was appropriate to go into Pakistan and take out bin Laden, Obama said at a press conference in the White House. I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then I would go ahead and let them explain it.
I don't exactly put too much stock into such subjective awards in general, especially one's not involving the more concrete sciences (i.e., physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).
Obama's making an ass out of himself with this Bin Laden shit.
Even Arianna Huffington calls his ad "despicable".
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_...&utm_campaign=Feed:+cbsnews/feed+(CBSNews.com)
Those parties aren't even that great. Boring as fuck.Gotta earn those beltway invitations to parties at DC townhouses
Obama's making an ass out of himself with this Bin Laden shit.
Even Arianna Huffington calls his ad "despicable".
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_...&utm_campaign=Feed:+cbsnews/feed+(CBSNews.com)
The vortex reference explains why the the legislator is divided into a bicameral existence.
Madison's remarks at the constitutional convention represents a small caveat to his views. The bulk of his views are illustrated in federalist 10.
Speaking of federalist paper 62:
The federalist presents an argument for the existence of the senate, by the people who actually created it. Thus it holds tremendous sway.
Oh come on with this shit. You know how many ads would be flooding the air if it had failed? I mean seriously? Republicans have been using this 9/11 shit for a long time now, so they don't get to cry fowl now.
Except I'm now talking about federalist 62, which deals with the justification for the existence of the senate.No, you don't understand the purpose of Federalist 48. It was not a justification of the Senate, but a justification of the executive branch as a check on legislature (including the Senate).
It is a caveat because the combined writings of Publius as a whole, are more detailed and complex then just protecting the "landed gentry".I don't know what makes you think it a "caveat." It is fully consistent with his views expressed in the Federalist essays. It is just more overtly stated. Nor do I understand anymore what point you are trying to establish.
EV... factions cause tyranny, factions exist in the nature of man, that's a key point in federalist 10. You reduce the effects of faction by having a bicameral legislator and placing a muzzle on monistic thought, this muzzle is the senate.No. 10 is not about the Senate per se (it doesn't even mention it); it is intended to explain how the system as a whole is meant to reduce the effects of "factions,"
I can ask the same as you: I quoted Federalist 62, and posted a large excerpt from it, you ignored it.I quoted this and explained it in the very post to which you were responding. Are you even reading what I am writing?
And, please, restate what proposition you are defending or asserting, because I no longer have any clue. The only assertions I am defending are (1) the Senate was intended to protect the interests of the landed gentry (explicitly stated by Madison); and (2) the founders did not fear the legislative branch nearly as much as the executive branch (as evidenced by the Constitution, which created a more powerful legislative branch than executive branch). If you take no issue with either of these assertions, I don't know what else there is to discuss.
I can ask the same as you: I quoted Federalist 62, and posted a large excerpt from it, you ignored it.
1) the point of the senate is too mediate the effects of faction and prevent tyranny (as evident by federalist 62 and reinforced by Madison's views of human nature in Federalist 10), its sole existence is not to protect the landed gentry.
2) The founders feared an all power legislator which is why it was divided into two parts, separated by different modes of operation and different means of election. If you cannot understand this point then it is pointless to continue talking to you.
If Romney had a modicum of credibility, he would have defended his original point. It's a defensible position to propose that incursions into Pakistan against their will, even to strike high-value targets, does not promote our long-term interests. Of course, it's a bit laughable that the argument's being made by an ardent proponent of the War in Iraq. Nevertheless, it's not an argument he should have abandoned. But Romney doesn't possess the constitution to defend a policy that may incur political costs.Thanks for the link, that was a great read. Great insight into Obama's methodical deliberation process.
his is one of those issues where Romeny's previous position was absolutely crystal clear - he reamed Obama for saying he'd go into Pakistan if they thought Osama was there. He's done a clean reversal, even more so than on the auto bailout. He's running such a sad campaign; a better man would give the president credit for the call and the success and then argue he's have done the same, rather than try to minimize it. It's all just so petty.
Obama's making an ass out of himself with this Bin Laden shit.
Even Arianna Huffington calls his ad "despicable".
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_...&utm_campaign=Feed:+cbsnews/feed+(CBSNews.com)
Obama's making an ass out of himself with this Bin Laden shit.
A Bill has been introduced in Washington to stop employers and schools from demanding access to peoples social network accounts. On Friday, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) presented SNOPA, which stands for the Social Networking Online Protection Act. Under SNOPA, employers cant ask current workers or new job applicants for access to their social networking accounts. If employers ignored the ruling they would pay $10,000 as civil penalty. The ban on such information demands would also apply to schools.
Conservatives are making an ass out of themselves by trying to downplay it.
Besides, we all know damn well that if the mission failed and the Navy Seal team had been killed, Republicans would be running that shit all day every day right up to November.
If Romney had a modicum of credibility, he would have defended his original point. It's a defensible position to propose that incursions into Pakistan against their will, even to strike high-value targets, does not promote our long-term interests. Of course, it's a bit laughable that the argument's being made by an ardent proponent of the War in Iraq. Nevertheless, it's not an argument he should have abandoned. But Romney doesn't possess the constitution to defend a policy that may incur political costs.
If Romney had a modicum of credibility, he would have defended his original point. It's a defensible position to propose that incursions into Pakistan against their will, even to strike high-value targets, does not promote our long-term interests. Of course, it's a bit laughable that the argument's being made by an ardent proponent of the War in Iraq. Nevertheless, it's not an argument he should have abandoned. But Romney doesn't possess the constitution to defend a policy that may incur political costs.
Holy shit.In 2008, the slogan was "Change;" in 2012, it's "Forward." Here's a nice video that hits on pretty much everything he plans to run on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe-wVK9E&feature=g-all-u
Can you imagine them saying
" Well the president tried and we admire him sticking his neck out there to try and kill Bin Laden"
LOL..... McCain would be doing interviews railing Obama on his foreign policy instead of crying in a corner.
Rich.I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of someone with very little financial industry and economics insight calling someone else with quite a bit of financial industry and economics insight "dumb as bricks."
Holy shit.
*applause*
BTW: I could read you guys all day Empty and Atilac. I'm loving this analysis.
"He took on the Wall Street banks."
Uh, what?
He does have a great marketing team, though, I won't deny him that.
Wikipedia: "The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publication"
"He took on the Wall Street banks."
Uh, what?
He does have a great marketing team, though, I won't deny him that.
I think it is just the "broad" thing he does all the time. I could see how it would be offensive to some, sort of like saying trannie or other derisive terms. I am surprised some of GAF's ultra-offended crowd (or RiskyChris) hasn't popped in to express their outrage yet.
Obama's new campaign slogan a common Marxist term. Who's surprised...
http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/i...obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/
Jesus Christ. These guys just don't know when to fucking quit with their nonsense.Obama's new campaign slogan a common Marxist term. Who's surprised...
http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/i...obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/
Poe's law.Obama's new campaign slogan a common Marxist term. Who's surprised...
http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/i...obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/
Ask yourself this - had a Republican did the same, would you have been happy?The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is actually really good. It's one of the strongest pieces of the Reform (not that there was a lot of stuff that should have been included, but eh). Banks weren't too happy about that one. As to its effectiveness... well, it's hard to be effective when the Republicans have blocked it from having someone to lead it.
The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is actually really good. It's one of the strongest pieces of the Reform (not that there was a lot of stuff that should have been included, but eh). Banks weren't too happy about that one. As to its effectiveness... well, it's hard to be effective when the Republicans have blocked it from having someone to lead it.
Team Obama's new Ad against Romney titled, "Swiss Bank Account"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...ma-ads-feature-swiss-bank-account-122108.html
You're saying it's not intentional? I highly doubt it wasn't discussed.Jesus Christ. These guys just don't know when to fucking quit with their nonsense.
It's fucking Wikipedia. You probably added it.You're saying it's not intentional? I highly doubt it wasn't discussed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_(generic_name_of_socialist_publications)
Look. Obama's campaign slogan has already been added to the list of socialist uses of "forward".
I didn't. But one of you guys must have just deleted it.It's fucking Wikipedia. You probably added it.