Prior to SS was the Great Depression. About 50% of the entire population was living in poverty.

8/30/2011 2:07:35 AM

Prior to the SS was the Great Depression. About 50% of the entire population was living in poverty.

8/30/2011 8:54:46 AM

Quote :

"+1 credibility if obama has a primary challenger (hillary). God knows you people wish you'd picked her in the first place."

I wouldn't go that far, but in hindsight, if all else was equal Hillary is better at politics than Obama and probably would have done a better job getting unmolested versions of the health care and stimulus bills pushed through congress. She already went through the health care fight once with her husband and having her leading the charge the second time around would have been helpful.

However, I do believe Obama gives the US a better image on the foreign stage and probably helped the overall psyche of the American populous more than Hillary would have.

8/30/2011 12:27:58 PM

Quote :

"However, I do believe Obama gives the US a better image on the foreign stage and probably helped the overall psyche of the American populous more than Hillary would have."

If there was in a point in time to hate the United States, it would be now, in light of our foreign and economic policies. Obama has done exactly nothing to curb that sentiment.

[Edited on August 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2011 12:30:58 PM

Obviously that's not something you can quantify, but you're wrong. It's pretty clear to me that the rest of the world, unlike yourself, is able to cut through the bull shit and plainly see that 99% of the world's problems today stem from events that happened during the previous administration. And there is also this,



I'll add the fact the POTUS is probably the only person in the world that has a worldwide media presence on basically a daily basis. For the 8 years before Obama, that presence was Yosemite Sam. Simply having someone that can form complete sentences without elementary school grammar errors makes a difference.

[Edited on August 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM. Reason : :]

8/30/2011 12:35:14 PM

Quote :

"Obviously that's not something you can quantify, but you're wrong. It's pretty clear to me that the rest of the world, unlike yourself, is able to cut through the bull shit and plainly see that 99% of the world's problems today stem from events that happened during the previous administration. And there is also this,"

LOL. Is it clear? The United States has been rolling over people for at least half a century. Bush was basically a tyrant, but you can't possibly believe that "the rest of the world" thinks Obama is much better.

8/30/2011 12:50:15 PM

If only there was away to quantify this....
http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=1&survey=7&response=Favorable&mode=table

My conclusion, Western countries and non-Muslim 3rd world countries like us more with Obama than post-2002 Bush.

Muslim countries hate us worse. GG.

8/30/2011 12:59:24 PM

I'll also add a little anecdotal evidence. I have a uh "personal acquaintance" who for 30 years of her life lived outside the United States and had never traveled here. She basically hated the United States and everything about it mostly based on studying our history, which from an outsiders viewpoint, isn't pretty. For reasons that I won't get into, she had started thinking about moving here ~6 years ago, but couldn't bring herself to do it based on her established prejudices and just how bad things had gotten under Bush. After Obama got elected, she went through with the move. Her overall opinion of the US is still negative, but Obama getting elected was enough to convince her to do something that she had sworn she would never do.

8/30/2011 1:23:18 PM

^ ha the muslium brotherhood rebels and foreigners apprehensive about moving cited as evidence of improved world image, with a splash of it's bush's fault. I can't tell if you are serious.

8/30/2011 2:57:57 PM

Yes, you ignorant dumb fuck, it's called perspective. I know there are many of you who would like to just wish away everything Bush did in his 8 years in office, but that's not going to happen. Let's just look at the Iraq War by itself, a 100% GWB endeavor,

~150,000 civilian deaths directly attributed to violence
~at least a half million more due to the deterioration of living conditions directly attributed to the war
~5,000 US/coalition deaths
~1.6 million Iraqi refuges and another ~2.4 million displaced internally
~$3 trillion total cost to just the US economy

and still counting. That ranks up there with not only the most horrific and costly actions committed by the United States, but it's easily one of the worst human atrocities since at least World War II. And for what? So Bush could throw up a mission accomplished banner and China could take control of the vast majority of Iraq's oil fields. Hurray America!

[Edited on August 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM. Reason : more]

8/30/2011 3:46:37 PM

Quote :

"Let's just look at the Iraq War by itself, a 100% GWB + 110 Democrats endeavor"

8/30/2011 4:09:37 PM

Quote :

"~5,000 US/coalition of the willing deaths"

8/30/2011 4:26:55 PM

^^Do you pay attention to recent events at all? Do you know what a chain of command is? Obama has been bombing Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan without any Congressional approval. Do you really think Bush would have just said "golly gee willikers, you folks are right, this is a bad idea " if those 110 congressmen and political opponents had voted no? His own appointed Secretary of State told him it was a bad idea and he didn't care.

The only power Congress has in our military is whether or not to fund it. They have no control over what the military actually does. That responsibility lies solely with the guy at the top of military's chain of command, the President of the United States.

8/30/2011 4:31:57 PM

which by the way I must state is unconstitutional. according to the Constitution, only Congress has the power to wage war. obviously that is not the case any more but we need to get back to that.

8/30/2011 4:38:01 PM

Actually reading the Constitution I'm not so sure. He can't declare war, but nothing says that he can't direct our military in action.

Relevant portions

Congress shall...

Quote :

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Quote :

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Quote :

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

It seems to me like he doesn't have to wait for congressional approval to use the military to uphold treaty obligations, in the least. I don't see anything specifically prohibiting the use of the military otherwise. It's unconstitutional only in the sense that it's not specifically mentioned. Whether it was the Founding Father's intention that he only act as Commander in Chief only when Congress delcares War...I'm not too sure.

By this definition of 'unconstitutional', the Air Force is also unconstitutional.

8/30/2011 5:10:11 PM

Quote :

"It's unconstitutional only in the sense that it's not specifically mentioned."

That's the only sense that matters.

The Air Force isn't unconstitutional - Congress may raise and support armies.

8/30/2011 5:32:27 PM

So is the President allowed to take a shit? I mean, it's not expressly allowed within the Constitution.

What is in the Constitution however, is that he is the Commander and Chief of of the Army and Navy, which to me means he can do with them what he chooses. If Congress disapproves they can impeach him, but not simply because if he orders a portion of the military to attack someone it's not the same as declaring war.

And regarding your "Congress may raise and support armies." thing.

Quote :

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy;"

If "Armies" meant any group of armed forces, then why would they differentiate between Armies and a Navy? Armies clearly mean groups of armed land forces and Navy means groups of armed water forces. They simply didn't conceive of organized groups of air forces, but that's ok. Only cooks think that the President should only be able to do exactly what is written in the Constitution, word for word, and nothing more. Laws have been subsequently passed to grant powers which should only be deemed unconstitutional if they are directly counter to what is written in the Constitution.

Laws passed in accordance with procedure in the Constitution, btw.

[Edited on August 30, 2011 at 11:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2011 11:09:42 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2034697/Lonely-Monica-Lewinsky-trying-play-Bill-Clinton-affair.html

and ol bill is still treated like fucking royalty.

pathetic and disgusting.

9/8/2011 11:02:37 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html

[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 10:06 AM. Reason : useless worms]

9/9/2011 10:06:04 AM

Quote :

"They simply didn't conceive of organized groups of air forces, but that's ok. Only cooks think that the President should only be able to do exactly what is written in the Constitution, word for word, and nothing more. Laws have been subsequently passed to grant powers which should only be deemed unconstitutional if they are directly counter to what is written in the Constitution."

What do you have against cooks?

If you meant kooks, then I guess Thomas Jefferson is one crazy guy, then.

Quote :

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution... They are not among the powers specially enumerated..."

His opinion on the constitutionality of a national bank.

Then we have the Kentucky Resolutions, which he wrote:

Quote :

"Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition Acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created"

And I would have been glad to require a Constitutional amendment to allow an Air Force, or otherwise keep it under the command of the Army. In fact, following the letter of the law on such seemingly inconsequential minutiae would be a very healthy sign of the rule of law.

I'll throw in another Jefferson line: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it." (Letter to Archibald Stuart)

Instead, banks commit widespread document fraud and the courts don't bat an eye, because it would cause too much social and economic upheaval to uphold the law. Little guys need proper paperwork - big guys don't.

George Washington had to change an appointment to the Supreme Court because of the emoluments clause. Multiple attorney generals issued formal opinions on the issue when it came up a few times in the 1800s. They all agreed that the clause had substance.

One Minister to Mexico was prevented from drawing a salary because of it. Yet, the appointment of Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State is even more of a clear-cut violation of it. She is ineligible, by every possible angle. And now, we are to the point that lawsuits against her appointment barely even received a hearing. Three other appointments in the 20th Century were similarly unconstitutional, and yet stood.

Surely it's not a good idea to let expediency or perceived triviality nullify clear law.

[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 11:00 AM. Reason : s]

9/9/2011 10:56:55 AM

Thomas Jefferson was a crazy dude. he loved liberty, hated cities, thought people were corrupted by urban environments, and was a shitty architect.

he pretty much laid the groundwork for urban sprawl. overrated douche bag, in my opinion.






Thanks a lot, asshole

[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 1:18 PM. Reason : ]

9/9/2011 1:12:22 PM

Due to the limitations of period building materials, 18th century cities looked quite a bit like what we today call suburban sprawl. The streets were narrower and the houses closer together, but being wood structures most buildings were one floor, with the tallest only four floors. They were occupied more densely, with whole families in one room, but the same was true of 18th century rural structures.

As such, if you find today's suburban sprawl to be corrupting and worthy of hate, then you and Jefferson are in complete agreement.

9/9/2011 2:18:01 PM

naw man, Jefferson loathed cities. That's pretty well documented. Suburbia is NOT a city. It is a result of the desire to live outside of the city's edge. Suburbs did not form because of advances in building technology (most suburbs are stick-built anyway) and the density (or lack thereof) found in suburbs is precisely what makes suburbs SUB-URBAN. They're not urban. So they don't fit the mold of cities by definition. Suburbs lack the infrastructure, diversity of program and amenities that are found in cities, which are some of the core values of cities that Jefferson believed led to human corruption.

They're not the little agricultural plots of land that T. Jeezy fantasized about either, but they sure as hell don't resemble anything remotely close to an actual city. There was more urban activity in European cities during Jefferson's day than there is today in your typical shitty suburb.



Do me a solid and don't try and double down on that opinion.

[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ]

9/9/2011 2:46:27 PM

You seem to have missed my point. Your entire response overlooks the 18th century versus today dichotomy I brought up, choosing instead to point out that suburbs of today are different from downtown New York of today, a fact I was neither addressing nor unaware of.

Also, I think you have Jefferson wrong. It was not the amenities or diversity of 18th urban life he disagreed with, but that 18th century urban areas (and 21st century suburban areas of today) requires citizen interaction with government on a daily basis, not just when crimes are committed, and it was this interaction he found corrupting, not the presence of high culture.

9/9/2011 6:17:48 PM

Quote :

"Your entire response overlooks the 18th century versus today dichotomy I brought up, choosing instead to point out that suburbs of today are different from downtown New York of today, a fact I was neither addressing nor unaware of. "

Quote :

"There was more urban activity in European cities during Jefferson's day than there is today in your typical shitty suburb."

I addressed your point explicitly. Suburbs of today are less urban than cities of yester-century. Please stop suggesting that todays suburbs are similar to 18th century urban areas. They aren't. At all. When's the last time someone from a suburb walked to a local cobbler shop and then walked to a market and drank a beer at a neighborhood pub? All of those things were common in urban environments 100 years ago that can't be done today. There are entire schools of thought in urban design that would thrash this thinking apart.

And I think Jefferson was wrong on this issue. Urban areas are necessarily democratic, as more density (people) bring a broader range of ideas that need to be accommodated for. Rural areas are not faced with this challenge, and are less likely to adapt and embrace diversity as a result. Suburbs are the shitty in-between areas where people have a parasitic relationship with an urban core while still trying to hold on to the libertarian values of individual property rights, effectively guaranteeing the worst of both worlds.

[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 6:39 PM. Reason : ]

9/9/2011 6:29:21 PM

Quote :

"I addressed your point explicitly. Suburbs of today are less urban than cities of yester-century. Please stop suggesting that todays suburbs are similar to 18th century urban areas. They aren't. At all."

no, you really haven't. If i may paraphrase LS's point (wrongly, probably), he said 18th century cities probably looked a lot like today's suburbs. that's all he said. he didn't say they functioned in the same way or had the same level of city services or amenities. he just said they looked similar. which, given that someone else posted a picture of suburban hell, seems to be an appropriate commentary

9/9/2011 6:32:46 PM

"Suburbs of today are less urban than cities of yester-century." Yet are sufficiently urban that Jefferson would "hate" them, as you put it.

"Urban areas are necessarily democratic," which is what he didn't like about them. As democracy grows liberty must yield.

9/9/2011 6:33:16 PM

Quote :

"If i may paraphrase LS's point (wrongly, probably), he said 18th century cities probably looked a lot like today's suburbs. that's all he said. he didn't say they functioned in the same way or had the same level of city services or amenities. he just said they looked similar. which, given that someone else posted a picture of suburban hell, seems to be an appropriate commentary"

It would only be an appropriate comment if you possessed the most banal, untrained understanding of urbanism, which you probably do. I posted that picture, by the way.

But comparing two things based on how something "looks" is obviously not an appropriate way to compare two things. That would be like me saying the Quran and Bible are the same because they are both books.

Quote :

""Urban areas are necessarily democratic," which is what he didn't like about them. As democracy grows liberty must yield."

This is the attitude that leads me to call Jefferson an overrated douche-bag. Because he was. He was an overconfident cock-sucker who thought that people could survive independently without pooling together basic resources. His hatred of cities undermines the very formation of his intellect that he received as a direct result of living in dense environments with a diversity of resources. And Monticello is a faggy knock-off, anyway.

And suburbs can only be considered urban if you think that two people living within the same quarter-acre is considered urban. That's about the only quality the two share. Even across the time period you suggested.

[Edited on September 9, 2011 at 6:56 PM. Reason : ]

9/9/2011 6:42:19 PM

Quote :

"But comparing two things based on how something "looks" is obviously not an appropriate way to compare two things. "

thats fine, but your initial complaint seemed to be based on looks. forgive me that you did not properly expound on that.

9/9/2011 7:00:57 PM

Governor Bev Perdue (D) NC

"You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that."

9/27/2011 8:20:57 PM

Janeane Garofalo

Quote :

"Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same. People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"

The same woman who said that all Tea Partiers are racists.

So...by her logic, we don't like the President because he is (half-)black and we are racists, and we like Herman Cain because he is (all)black and we are racists.

9/29/2011 9:44:18 AM

Not that I agree with her, but that's not the point at all.

"I don't hate black people, I've even dated one!"

9/29/2011 9:54:31 AM

It actually is true, though, that the GOP party leadership is starting to push Herman Cain, precisely because he is black. While they can't say it, they think it'll take a black guy to beat the black guy.

There's no other explanation. Herman Cain is a complete joke when it comes to the issues.

9/29/2011 10:06:57 AM

Quote :

"He was an overconfident cock-sucker who thought that people could survive independently without pooling together basic resources"

Pooling resources at gunpoint is not automatically a good thing.

9/29/2011 11:02:03 AM

Quote :

"While they can't say it, they think it'll take a black guy to beat the black guy."

This argument has been made in the Herman Cain thread and might be the most retarded thing I've heard. I'm sure GOP headquarters is sweating it out thinking, "we really need the black vote! Its impossible to win an election without it! How are we going to split that 10% of the population that has been hard democrat for decades?"

Or are we saying that Americans actually caring about the economy and good leadership is a facade and it actually all boils down to it having a black guy?

9/29/2011 12:05:27 PM

Quote :

"Or are we saying that Americans actually caring about the economy and good leadership is a facade and it actually all boils down to it having a black guy?"

Americans care about the economy, but most of them have no idea what's wrong, and consequently have no idea how it should be fixed.

Herman Cain thinks that talking about (or auditing the Fed) is "silly" and not worth consideration. That's really all you need to know; he's a Fed shill.

9/29/2011 12:35:11 PM

I can't imagine how running a black guy for the sake of running a black guy would help. Any true racists out there just won't show up to vote in a black guy vs. black guy election, and that's really all it would affect.

9/29/2011 12:48:39 PM

Yes, but the 95% of black people that would vote for Obama no matter what may consider the "other black guy" if he's available. I think that's the strategy.

9/29/2011 1:22:15 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/06/fireworks_msnbcs_lawrence_odonnell_hostile_interview_with_herman_cain.html

goddamn!

10/7/2011 10:26:15 PM

^ he absolutely fucked him up. i hated clicking on it giving msnbc an ad impression or a possible 'view hit' but damn

herman cain just ripped him to shreds like a lion vs a freaking hyena.

10/7/2011 11:05:45 PM

Hey, where's all the Reid hate? Fucker straight up lies and nothing?

Quote :

""It's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it's the public-sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers, and that's what this legislation is all about," Reid said on the Senate floor."

WTF? Is he just trolling? Private sector jobs have shrunk big time, while government jobs have increased big time.

10/21/2011 8:40:11 AM

Quote :

"Recently, Krugman has denounced the "austerity" push of the GOP, arguing that tackling our debt and deficit problem right now with spending cuts is the worst move we can make. Such cuts, Krugman argues, will put more people out of work and shrink the economy. And this, in turn, will increase, not decrease, the deficit. Krugman thinks we should tackle the debt and deficit problem later, when the economy is on more solid footing. He points to record-low interest rates as a sign that the world is still willing to lend us as much money as we want, practically for nothing. And he argues that, instead of cutting back, we should be using that money to build infrastructure, strengthen the economy, and put more Americans back to work. And some Republicans, it seems, are starting to notice. A couple of months back, Republican commentator David Frum made a startling observation on his site: Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Wall Street Journal editorial page between 2000 and 2011, and someone in the same period who read only the collected columns of Paul Krugman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of the current economic crisis? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right? Will Frum be ostracized for that remark? After all, Paul Krugman is supposed to be Public Enemy No. 1. Or will more Republicans begin to agree that, although government spending does indeed need to be cut eventually, and the debt problem does need to be addressed, suddenly chopping, say, $1 trillion of government spending next year is not the best way to get ourselves out of this mess? Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/david-frum-paul-krugman-right-2011-10#ixzz1bkwta000"

10/24/2011 10:23:18 PM

yep. we truly should just keep kicking that can down the road. surely that won't cause any problems...

10/24/2011 10:28:37 PM

Quote :

"New figures show President Obama continues to pull in huge donations from the financial sector, with more money from Wall Street this year than all other Republican presidential candidates combined. According to the Washington Post, Obama has raised a total of $15.6 million from banks and other financial firms, with nearly $12 million of that going to the Democratic National Committee. "

Obama hopes to raise 700mil-1billion for the 2012 campaign. Most of it coming from wall street.

https://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/20/headlines

10/25/2011 8:07:46 AM

Yeah, and if the last few years have shown anything it's that Obama isn't liberal, he's centrist. Get that out of here and into the Obama thread.

10/25/2011 8:09:21 AM

Obama is about as centrist as the 1994 GOP

10/31/2011 11:49:50 AM

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/01/pelosi-heck-yeah-the-government-should-shut-down-that-scab-plant-in-south-carolina/

I swear to God-

Dumbest fucking woman alive.

11/1/2011 1:23:42 PM

http://www.breitbart.tv/60-minutes-ambushes-nancy-pelosi/

video caption:

Quote :

""60 Minutes" challenged Nancy Pelosi on her conflict of interest while Speaker and facilitating financial reform while being involved with credit card companies."

Weird coming from 60 Minutes.

I wonder if that's a result of Andy Rooney leaving.

/shrug

11/3/2011 10:25:18 PM

andy rooney left alright

11/5/2011 5:21:05 PM

Why can't CNN spell? I mean, they can't even spell headlines right:

Quote :

"Barbour supports 'presonhood' amendment"

11/6/2011 6:52:59 AM