do they have the 2/3rds majority to override the veto?

heh, so much for will of the people

7/6/2010 9:54:05 PM

They have the votes to veto in the senate, in the house maybe, maybe not (although since there is majority public support in the polls I'd imagine it would be a decent shot), but the house already declared they will not reconvene to try to override any decisions made by the governor. Luckily this GOP governor who just vetoed the civil rights bill in Hawaii is term limited. They'll have to elect a Democratic governor if they want civil unions to happen even with public & legislative support.

Not that it matters now, but that republican governor has been divorced twice, and is now protecting a state that wants civil unions from having civil unions to preserve marriage.

[Edited on July 6, 2010 at 10:25 PM. Reason : .]

7/6/2010 9:59:14 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/rick-perry-oil-spill-may_n_562491.html

Texas gov. says the oil spill was the will of God, and that BP et al aren't to blame.

7/6/2010 11:25:24 PM

^

7/7/2010 7:50:54 AM

Keep in mind this is the same governor who covered up the state-sanctioned murder of an innocent man.

7/7/2010 8:29:49 AM

Moron I wish I was surprised but it is after all Texas.

7/7/2010 6:10:55 PM

Quote :

"Texas gov. says the oil spill was the will of God, and that BP et al aren't to blame."

So maybe he is proposing that the churches in the area should be held financially responsible?

7/8/2010 3:43:03 PM

Trust on Issues
Voters Still Trust GOP More on Most Key Issues
Friday, July 02, 2010

Quote :

"Voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on nine out of 10 key issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

7/10/2010 2:54:25 AM

7/12/2010 6:31:40 PM

The Republicans don’t have any credibility whatsoever. They squandered whatever they had when they enacted a massive UNFUNDED expansion of Medicare in 2003. Yet they had the nerve to complain about Obama’s health plan, WHICH WAS FULLY PAID FOR according to the Congressional Budget Office. The word “chutzpah” is insufficient to describe how utterly indefensible the Republican position is, intellectually.

Furthermore, Republicans have a completely indefensible position on taxes. In their view, deficits cannot arise from tax cuts. No matter how much taxes are cut, no matter how low revenues go as a share of GDP, tax cuts are never a cause of deficits; they result ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY from spending—and never from spending put in place by Republicans, such as Medicare Part D, TARP, two unfunded wars, bridges to nowhere, etc—but ONLY from Democratic efforts to stimulate growth, help the unemployed, provide health insurance for those without it, etc.

The monumental hypocrisy of the Republican Party is something amazing to behold. And their dimwitted accomplices in the tea-party movement are not much better. They know that Republicans, far more than Democrats, are responsible for our fiscal mess, but they won’t say so. And they adamantly refuse to put on the table any meaningful programme that would actually reduce spending. Judging by polls, most of them seem to think that all we have to do is cut foreign aid, which represents well less than 1% of the budget.

Consequently, I have far more hope that Democrats will do what has do be done. The Democratic Party is now the “adult” party in American politics, willing to do what has to be done for the good of the country. The same cannot be said of Republicans, who seem unwilling to do anything that would interfere with their ambition to retake power so that they can reward their lobbyist friends with more give-aways from the public purse.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Democrats have the guts or the stamina to put forward a meaningful deficit-reduction programme because they know—as I do—that it will require higher revenues. But facing big losses in the elections this fall I can’t blame them. That leaves us facing political gridlock between the sensible but cowardly party and the greedy, sociopathic party. Not a pleasant choice for those of us in the sensible, lets-do-what-we-have-to-do-for-the-good-of-the-country independent centre.

7/26/2010 11:30:51 AM

the party that commits itself to making government smaller and cutting our debt is the party that will get my vote.

I dont care how they do it, as long as the policies are fair to everyone. even the EVIL RICH.

that is the most important issue to me and trumps all others.

[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 11:48 AM. Reason : ..]

7/26/2010 11:48:24 AM

You do realize that 20% tax is a lot harder for a person who makes $20000 a year to pay than someone who makes $20,000,000, right?

7/26/2010 11:50:35 AM

Let them eat cake.

7/26/2010 11:52:58 AM

Quote :

"You do realize that 20% tax is a lot harder for a person who makes $20000 a year to pay than someone who makes $20,000,000, right?"

I dont care and I assure you I am a lot closer to the $20k than the $20mil. everyone needs to have an equal part in taking care of the 'common areas.'

although there should be a minimum income requirement and I am a lot more inclined to favor the FairTax than a flat tax.

7/26/2010 11:56:31 AM

Extremely wealthy people must love you.

Open your mouth, here it comes!

7/26/2010 12:05:13 PM

^ Is that the Monopoly Man?

7/26/2010 12:08:31 PM

Missing the iconic hat & cane.

7/26/2010 12:13:52 PM

Quote :

"Extremely wealthy people must love you. Open your mouth, here it comes!"

I dont care how you put it or what cute pictures you can find to completely distort the point. we all know your MO.

more people in this country need to be invested it. more people need to have a stake in whats going on, and taxes need to stop being the carrot dangled by the politicians to get votes. it is disgusting.

7/26/2010 12:14:12 PM

^^ Yeah, I was establishing that a tired old stereotype was being used--again.

7/26/2010 12:17:47 PM

Quote :

"You do realize that 20% tax is a lot harder for a person who makes $20000 a year to pay than someone who makes $20,000,000"

but the work performed to gain that money may not be. it may also be the case but i don't recall any science journal claiming that managing a multibillion dollar company has been proven to be harder than a janitorial position or vice versa. we assume it is because of the "greater" responsibility that being a CEO brings but his 20,000,000 salary that year might just be because he did good and got a $19,500,000 bonus. Meanwhile the janitor gets a gold star in his employee file for the same "scale" of recognition.

taxes should be fair and universally applied. and get rid of cuts altogether. the only reason we have cuts is to entice people to come back after someone else enticed them to leave or never setup in the first place with their cuts. now its just a crazy game of whose turn is it now.

[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 12:39 PM. Reason : "or vice versa" added]

7/26/2010 12:38:14 PM

Quote :

"but the work performed to gain that money may not be."

Ah yes, the backbreaking work of a Wall-street banker or day trader compared to the easy going life of a garbage man or a janitor.

7/26/2010 1:27:56 PM

Quote :

"Ah yes, the backbreaking work of a Wall-street banker or day trader compared to the easy going life of a garbage man or a janitor."

seriously? you know that just because a job isnt physically demanding doesnt mean squat right? mental demands and stress can have just as much if not more severe consequences on the body. garbage men and janitors dont take their jobs home with them. most professionals do. there is give and take.

i would tell you to stop being unreasonable, but you cant help it.

7/26/2010 1:32:00 PM

Ask me about my knowledge of hard day labor based on my experience as a college kid.

Yessir, when you come home from a hard day of physical labor, the pain and extra medical bills are nothing compared to the mental anguish you may suffer because you can't come up with the perfect new way to market some useless product.

7/26/2010 1:34:59 PM

^^

My point is that for a person making $20,000, having to pay a large amount of income tax may mean the difference between paying medical bills, being able to put food on the table, or getting their kid new clothes each year.

For a person making $20,000,000, having to pay a large amount of income tax means that they may not be able to get that new Yacht with the two car garage built into it.

7/26/2010 1:41:38 PM

^ You referring to Democrat John Kerry's yacht?



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38378992/ns/politics/

[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 2:30 PM. Reason : The yacht Kerry avoided paying about $500,000 in taxes on? ]

7/26/2010 2:03:53 PM

Quote :

"Ask me about my knowledge of hard day labor based on my experience as a college kid. Yessir, when you come home from a hard day of physical labor, the pain and extra medical bills are nothing compared to the mental anguish you may suffer because you can't come up with the perfect new way to market some useless product."

you know nothing about me, sir. I have worked, for many years, doing hard labor on construction sites. I also know that working as a garbage man or a janitorial person doesnt come close to what I did. save your tears for someone who gives a shit. the point is, when I went home from those jobs I didnt have to worry about work until I went back. Now I am basically on call 24 hours a day. I dream about my job. I lose sleep over the stress. Most professionals do too. I cant leave "work" at work and I am ok with that because that is what I signed up for.

Im not sure what the marketing comment was all about, but thats not what I do either.

Quote :

"My point is that for a person making $20,000, having to pay a large amount of income tax may mean the difference between paying medical bills, being able to put food on the table, or getting their kid new clothes each year."

i understand, which is why I said

Quote :

"although there should be a minimum income requirement"

further, dont cry about someone's income. they can choose to get a second job. they can choose not to have children. you still have social responsibility.

7/26/2010 2:49:50 PM

you both missed my point. think about where you work now (although this works best in an office or building setting and not out in the field). you absolutely 100% need someone to get rid of waste and trash, unless you find some magical way to not produce it. you also absolutely 100% need someone in charge, could be one person or could be a committee.

so knowing that both are absolutely essential to any business, aren't they contributing equally to the success or failure of the company?

If you have a great janitor and nobody in charge, the place looks great but nothing's getting done.
If you have no janitor and a great CEO, the money's coming in but how long until all your employees leave because you're working in a shithole.

you have the freedom of contract to reward people in charge with higher salaries at your discretion but why the hell are they taxed differently? That's the government saying that one deserves to keep more of it's money than the other.

7/26/2010 3:19:28 PM

@God:

Quote :

"The Republicans don’t have any credibility whatsoever. They squandered whatever they had when they enacted a massive UNFUNDED expansion of Medicare in 2003. Yet they had the nerve to complain about Obama’s health plan, WHICH WAS FULLY PAID FOR according to the Congressional Budget Office. The word “chutzpah” is insufficient to describe how utterly indefensible the Republican position is, intellectually. Furthermore, Republicans have a completely indefensible position on taxes. In their view, deficits cannot arise from tax cuts. No matter how much taxes are cut, no matter how low revenues go as a share of GDP, tax cuts are never a cause of deficits; they result ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY from spending—and never from spending put in place by Republicans, such as Medicare Part D, TARP, two unfunded wars, bridges to nowhere, etc—but ONLY from Democratic efforts to stimulate growth, help the unemployed, provide health insurance for those without it, etc. The monumental hypocrisy of the Republican Party is something amazing to behold. And their dimwitted accomplices in the tea-party movement are not much better. They know that Republicans, far more than Democrats, are responsible for our fiscal mess, but they won’t say so. And they adamantly refuse to put on the table any meaningful programme that would actually reduce spending. Judging by polls, most of them seem to think that all we have to do is cut foreign aid, which represents well less than 1% of the budget. Consequently, I have far more hope that Democrats will do what has do be done. The Democratic Party is now the “adult” party in American politics, willing to do what has to be done for the good of the country. The same cannot be said of Republicans, who seem unwilling to do anything that would interfere with their ambition to retake power so that they can reward their lobbyist friends with more give-aways from the public purse. Unfortunately, I don’t think Democrats have the guts or the stamina to put forward a meaningful deficit-reduction programme because they know—as I do—that it will require higher revenues. But facing big losses in the elections this fall I can’t blame them. That leaves us facing political gridlock between the sensible but cowardly party and the greedy, sociopathic party. Not a pleasant choice for those of us in the sensible, lets-do-what-we-have-to-do-for-the-good-of-the-country independent centre."

Good lord dude, stop plagiarizing already. Just get the fuck off the Soap Box and go back to dicking around in Chit Chat. You can't possibly post something word for word from The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/07/bruce_bartlett_deficit_economy_and_vat) that uses British spellings like "programme", with capitalized words intact, and think no one will catch you on it. Do you have an original thought to contribute, or are you just going to keep making unattributed soliloquys from other sources and thinking that you're "informed" on something because you read a wikipedia page about it?

YOU have no credibility whatsoever. I imagine you've probably been doing this for some time and feel pretty clever about it.

7/26/2010 3:40:46 PM

Quote :

"Yet they had the nerve to complain about Obama’s health plan, WHICH WAS FULLY PAID FOR according to the Congressional Budget Office."

if you'll buy that, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...

7/26/2010 6:50:29 PM

Obama Assails Republicans on Campaign Finance
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/us/politics/27obama.html

Why exactly are republicans against these reforms? It seems like everyone would be in support of better accountability on donors.

7/26/2010 7:27:23 PM

well, for one, Obama is proposing it, so 'pubs will prolly be against it.
but, there are other reasons to oppose it, namely the gifts that are given to AARP and unions, two big supporters of democrats, at the expense of corporations...

7/26/2010 7:34:35 PM

^^^ Pay no mind to God, he's just plagiarizing The Economist without reading or understanding what he's pasting.

7/26/2010 9:11:47 PM

can't wait for the response on this or CC

add to my topics

7/28/2010 12:20:58 AM

okay, that's pretty fucking pathetic.

the least God should have done would be to change the British spelling to American English.

what a loser.

7/28/2010 2:05:35 AM

^ LOL! We agree, schmoe.

And thanks to Shadowrunner for the good catch. I should've caught it, but I honestly try not to read God's posts.

7/28/2010 2:51:36 AM

Funny stuff, I actually have a copy of The Economist on my dresser right now. It's still one of the best pieces of print journalism out there today, even if God does rip it off to further his own asinine points.

7/28/2010 3:32:07 AM

Man, I didn't realize the HUGE difference between

The Republicans don’t have any credibility whatsoever. They squandered whatever they had when they enacted a massive UNFUNDED expansion of Medicare in 2003. Yet they had the nerve to complain about Obama’s health plan, WHICH WAS FULLY PAID FOR according to the Congressional Budget Office. The word “chutzpah” is insufficient to describe how utterly indefensible the Republican position is, intellectually.

Furthermore, Republicans have a completely indefensible position on taxes. In their view, deficits cannot arise from tax cuts. No matter how much taxes are cut, no matter how low revenues go as a share of GDP, tax cuts are never a cause of deficits; they result ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY from spending—and never from spending put in place by Republicans, such as Medicare Part D, TARP, two unfunded wars, bridges to nowhere, etc—but ONLY from Democratic efforts to stimulate growth, help the unemployed, provide health insurance for those without it, etc.

The monumental hypocrisy of the Republican Party is something amazing to behold. And their dimwitted accomplices in the tea-party movement are not much better. They know that Republicans, far more than Democrats, are responsible for our fiscal mess, but they won’t say so. And they adamantly refuse to put on the table any meaningful programme that would actually reduce spending. Judging by polls, most of them seem to think that all we have to do is cut foreign aid, which represents well less than 1% of the budget.

Consequently, I have far more hope that Democrats will do what has do be done. The Democratic Party is now the “adult” party in American politics, willing to do what has to be done for the good of the country. The same cannot be said of Republicans, who seem unwilling to do anything that would interfere with their ambition to retake power so that they can reward their lobbyist friends with more give-aways from the public purse.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Democrats have the guts or the stamina to put forward a meaningful deficit-reduction programme because they know—as I do—that it will require higher revenues. But facing big losses in the elections this fall I can’t blame them. That leaves us facing political gridlock between the sensible but cowardly party and the greedy, sociopathic party. Not a pleasant choice for those of us in the sensible, lets-do-what-we-have-to-do-for-the-good-of-the-country independent centre.

and

Quote :

"The Republicans don’t have any credibility whatsoever. They squandered whatever they had when they enacted a massive UNFUNDED expansion of Medicare in 2003. Yet they had the nerve to complain about Obama’s health plan, WHICH WAS FULLY PAID FOR according to the Congressional Budget Office. The word “chutzpah” is insufficient to describe how utterly indefensible the Republican position is, intellectually. Furthermore, Republicans have a completely indefensible position on taxes. In their view, deficits cannot arise from tax cuts. No matter how much taxes are cut, no matter how low revenues go as a share of GDP, tax cuts are never a cause of deficits; they result ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY from spending—and never from spending put in place by Republicans, such as Medicare Part D, TARP, two unfunded wars, bridges to nowhere, etc—but ONLY from Democratic efforts to stimulate growth, help the unemployed, provide health insurance for those without it, etc. The monumental hypocrisy of the Republican Party is something amazing to behold. And their dimwitted accomplices in the tea-party movement are not much better. They know that Republicans, far more than Democrats, are responsible for our fiscal mess, but they won’t say so. And they adamantly refuse to put on the table any meaningful programme that would actually reduce spending. Judging by polls, most of them seem to think that all we have to do is cut foreign aid, which represents well less than 1% of the budget. Consequently, I have far more hope that Democrats will do what has do be done. The Democratic Party is now the “adult” party in American politics, willing to do what has to be done for the good of the country. The same cannot be said of Republicans, who seem unwilling to do anything that would interfere with their ambition to retake power so that they can reward their lobbyist friends with more give-aways from the public purse. Unfortunately, I don’t think Democrats have the guts or the stamina to put forward a meaningful deficit-reduction programme because they know—as I do—that it will require higher revenues. But facing big losses in the elections this fall I can’t blame them. That leaves us facing political gridlock between the sensible but cowardly party and the greedy, sociopathic party. Not a pleasant choice for those of us in the sensible, lets-do-what-we-have-to-do-for-the-good-of-the-country independent centre."

The internet will literally explode if you don't use eleven characters

7/28/2010 9:17:34 AM

don't be fucking obtuse. you got caught.

If you had even the tiniest amount of integrity you'd stop trying to deflect, and learn something here.

7/28/2010 9:37:04 AM

^ +1

can't say i expected anything other than the reaction he gave anyways

7/28/2010 9:45:05 AM

More like the GOD's credibility watch, am I right?

7/28/2010 9:53:06 AM

I mean, I frequently think James Taranto from Best of the Web (WSJ.com) makes some brilliant posts, and I sometimes copy-paste them, but at least I always credit him and link back to his blog.

WTF God. wtf.

7/28/2010 10:13:46 AM

well, yeah, it's never plagiarism if you cite your source.

God just really, really sucks. not that it matters, i can't ever remember reading a single one of his posts .

but now that he's come to my attention, what i'm really troubled by is how did such a braindead dipshit get in to NCSU grad school.

7/28/2010 11:21:22 AM

Holy shit, what is everyone getting worked up about? People have done far less intellectually honest things on this board on a regular basis, not quoting and linking is petty as it doesn't really change the substance of the argument. Stop being fags.

7/28/2010 12:58:54 PM

i don't think its the action, its the poster himself.

a lot of people dislike him, so they're savoring an opening to bash him.

though flawed, Gronke's a good dude.

7/28/2010 1:03:14 PM

Quote :

"People have done far less intellectually honest things on this board on a regular basis"

Soap Box credibility watch

7/28/2010 1:37:15 PM

^^Yeah guys, stop asking for sources to be referenced, that isn't the heterosexual thing to do.

7/28/2010 1:38:14 PM

references are a reasonable expectation, but people are using his fuck-up as an opportunity to attack him personally

that's not all that necessary

7/28/2010 1:50:56 PM

^^ stop being so sensitive, no one here has a problem with the fact that you like dicks, women don't start crying whenever I use the terms bitch or slut, so like those words I will continue to use fag and faggot to describe someone acting effeminate.

7/28/2010 3:36:51 PM

Expecting people not to plagiarize is effeminate?

7/28/2010 3:59:00 PM

I always thought Kris was a feminine form of Chris, as in short for Kristen, Kristine, etc.

7/28/2010 4:05:48 PM