rob Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/where-is-grover-norquist-_b_1738960.html This week's most perplexing political flip-flop was Mitt Romney's announcement that he favors raising taxes on the wind industry. Romney's explanation was that he wanted to "create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits." Of course, when asked earlier in the year about proposed elimination of tax provisions favorable to the oil and gas industry, Romney was opposed. So Romney wants a level playing field - well, level for oil, gas and coal, and really, really rocky for everyone else. Once again, the Romney campaign and the hard-but-hired right are demonstrating that none of their values or principals can stand up against one simple fact: they are bought and paid for by coal and oil, by the economy of the past, and nothing else much matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Asshat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 I still can't believe, out of the whole country, they picked him. It's painful to see my conservative friends try to like him when it's obvious their heart isn't in it. Like when a friend starts hanging out with a bad lady but you don't really want to say anything because he keeps saying he likes her even though she's turning him into a total goober. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Asshat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Some of Romney's backers pay top dollar for his thinking [img:center]http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/C/_/4/Koch-Bros.jpg[/img] [img:center]http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/sge/lowres/sgen485l.jpg[/img] [img:center]http://occupyoakland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Koch_Brothers_Fund_TEA_Party.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Well, trying to say something positive here, if Obama isn't reelected at least we can expect to see the banks continue to rip off all the US taxpayers, and our wasteful global military presence that ratchets up anger at the US to continue like the Obama and Bush policies. Same same, no difference. http://www.mybudget360.com/wealth-in-america-corporations-control-grow-income-inequality-top-25-percent-control-87-percent-finanical-wealth/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 Wow you're right, they're EXACTLY the same with NO DIFERENCE. I never realized that before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denalidave Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Wow you're right, they're EXACTLY the same with NO DIFERENCE. I never realized that before. The physical resemblance is uncanny. They must be twins! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 better be quiet, they can now arrest you for being dissidents, and hold you without trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denalidave Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 All politicians on the National level are essentially "the same". Sure, they may vary widely on the topics they campaign on, but in the end, both parties are bought and paid for by big bidness. Go ahead and blame it on the Dems, or Rebubs, in the end, your vote don't mean shiat since the whole system has been highjacked by corporate greed. The "have's" are gonna get more, and the "have not's" will keep increasing and being squeezed harder and harder. Just my simpleton point of view. And three, two, one till trashie proves how stupid I am... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Wow you're right, they're EXACTLY the same with NO DIFERENCE. I never realized that before. You should see a psychiatrist. Don't be ashamed, we are all just one small step from total lunacy!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 *puke* *hurl* i've actually been reduced to reading about gary johnson. the good news is that since i live where my vote won't make a difference i can vote for a random candidate without concern for the 'big' picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougd Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 An interesting article on Mr Romney's refusal to disclose financial information... http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/opinion/kleinbard-canellos-romney-tax/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 ken salazar, the current sec of interior, is at least moderately better than whoever romney would put into the same job, but yeah, sure, both parties are clearly the parties of big business, and until i can walk everywhere i need to go or get gifted a car that runs on my own flatulence, i can't deny i'm part of the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 This discussion is just a pointless drivel. The problem is an outdated constitution, a presidential 2 party system and a role of supreme court. why bother having a legislation, if 9 non-electible old farts can uphold or overturn a majority decision, based upon a 200 year old document! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 This discussion is just a pointless drivel. The problem is an outdated constitution, a presidential 2 party system and a role of supreme court. why bother having a legislation, if 9 non-electible old farts can uphold or overturn a majority decision, based upon a 200 year old document! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 [video:youtube] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_H Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 This discussion is just a pointless drivel. The problem is an outdated constitution, a presidential 2 party system and a role of supreme court. why bother having a legislation, if 9 non-electible old farts can uphold or overturn a majority decision, based upon a 200 year old document! Yeah, stupid Constitutional Democracy. Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers - what pointless ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 This discussion is just a pointless drivel. The problem is an outdated constitution, a presidential 2 party system and a role of supreme court. why bother having a legislation, if 9 non-electible old farts can uphold or overturn a majority decision, based upon a 200 year old document! Yeah, stupid Constitutional Democracy. Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers - what pointless ideas. citizens united- now that is your idea of checks and balances? people writing a constitution did not have a clue about modern media, corporate culture, money in the politics of modern era, lobbying. If they had, they would be prophets predicting future. how the fuck can supreme court decide about constitutionality of something, that did not exist 200 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 i think the idea is to determine if a current law or bill infringes on the rights grated by the constitution. but i do agree that our political situation is basically fucked, but that's due to greedy corrupt politicians, bought and paid for by greedy corrupt corporations. not because of the constitution, but because "we the people" have failed to hold our government accountable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted August 9, 2012 Author Share Posted August 9, 2012 This discussion is just a pointless drivel. The problem is an outdated constitution, a presidential 2 party system and a role of supreme court. why bother having a legislation, if 9 non-electible old farts can uphold or overturn a majority decision, based upon a 200 year old document! Yeah, stupid Constitutional Democracy. Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers - what pointless ideas. citizens united- now that is your idea of checks and balances? people writing a constitution did not have a clue about modern media, corporate culture, money in the politics of modern era, lobbying. If they had, they would be prophets predicting future. how the fuck can supreme court decide about constitutionality of something, that did not exist 200 years ago. That's why the constitution is able to be amended by the majority, to over-rule the supreme court. Congress has done this at least 4 times, as I recall (11th, 14th, 16th, 26th) -- as recently as 1970. Hell, that's why we even have an income tax -- the supreme court said no, and so congress amended the constitution. There have been many other attempts at amending the constitution in response to SCOTUS ruling, but not all of them succeed (obviously). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougd Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 This discussion is just a pointless drivel. The problem is an outdated constitution, a presidential 2 party system and a role of supreme court. why bother having a legislation, if 9 non-electible old farts can uphold or overturn a majority decision, based upon a 200 year old document! While It's tough to disagree with your assertions, I still think the link to the article was pretty cool... d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_H Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 This discussion is just a pointless drivel. The problem is an outdated constitution, a presidential 2 party system and a role of supreme court. why bother having a legislation, if 9 non-electible old farts can uphold or overturn a majority decision, based upon a 200 year old document! Yeah, stupid Constitutional Democracy. Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers - what pointless ideas. citizens united- now that is your idea of checks and balances? people writing a constitution did not have a clue about modern media, corporate culture, money in the politics of modern era, lobbying. If they had, they would be prophets predicting future. how the fuck can supreme court decide about constitutionality of something, that did not exist 200 years ago. Just because you, or I, don't agree with the Court's decision on one case doesn't mean the whole concept of an independent judiciary is flawed. Do you think the system is failed when considering many of the Court's other landmark decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education, New York Times v. Sullivan, Miranda v. Arizona, etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 i think the idea is to determine if a current law or bill infringes on the rights grated by the constitution. but i do agree that our political situation is basically fucked, but that's due to greedy corrupt politicians, bought and paid for by greedy corrupt corporations. not because of the constitution, but because "we the people" have failed to hold our government accountable. Funny- "we the people" isn't even in the constitution. It's from declaration of independence, which has nothing to do with the constitution of the US, kind of ironic that the fucking foreigner has to point this out. Constitution is way outdated and until it is re-written greedy corporations will be having a free ticket to pay to greedy politicians. Do we need electoral college? That is one of the relics, that are fucking this system up. Things change, societies change, times change. How a 200 year old document can rule the modern society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 ops, but it was actually Citizens united amendment, that allowed corporations to be considered people, and there by entitled to free speech, which they express in the form of monetary donations to political campaigns. so again it wasn't part of the original documents that failed. I do agree how ever that the electoral college is unnecessary, and in fact gives the minority more power then the majority, for instance Didn't Gore and Kerry both win the majority vote, yet still lost the election to Bush. I would even argue that with the advance of technology that gives people the ability to be informed and vote in a reasonable amount of time, that the house of representatives is no longer necessary, and should instead be replaced with a popular vote from everyone nation wide. then at-least we could get things that we actually wanted and needed. the senate could write and release bills for a public vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.