The Goat Pen

While I think wealthier seniors medicare may be able to afford it, NOT IN AN Election year. The message that will go out, Republicans want to protect the rich while trying to stop the wages of the middle class and/or attack medicare.

its a crazy position to take.

you're going to raise taxes on 60% of the population because you won't raise taxes on 1%?

The Democrats know all they have to do is wait this one out. The protests of the Republicans blaming the Democrats for it happening will fall on deaf ears.

Really? PC has gotten this bad?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/cnn ... 22269.html

The Republicans have been trying vainly to find an issue on which to make a bid for the control of the Congress for next year. They tried "statism." They tried "welfare state." They tried "socialism." And there are a certain number of members of the Republican Party who are trying to dig up that old malodorous dead horse called "isolationism. And in order to do that, they are perfectly willing to sabotage the bipartisan foreign policy of the United States. And this fiasco which has been going on in the Senate is the very best asset that the Kremlin could have in the operation of the cold war. And that is what I mean when I say that McCarthy's antics are the best asset that the Kremlin can have.

- Harry Truman, March 1950

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... te/252740/

sardis wrote:Really? PC has gotten this bad?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/cnn ... 22269.html

They're basically making their own interpretation of his tweets and then prescribing a sentiment that may or may not be there. But the indisputable truth, whether Martin meant his tweet to be homophobic or not, is that most pure football fans have less than zero interest in David Beckham standing there modeling draws. They half give a shit about beer commercials and many of those have half naked women in 'em.

Also, pink has no place in football unless its to promote something serious like breast cancer awareness. Some jackass randomly wearing pink during a football game is just that: a jackass.

If I were Martin, I'd raise up. It's hard to take fuckers seriously when they take things that far.

Twitter is a bunch of people cracking jokes. I see no problem with what he said. Damn. Everything is always taken so seriously anymore.

Bklyn wrote:

The Republicans have been trying vainly to find an issue on which to make a bid for the control of the Congress for next year. They tried "statism." They tried "welfare state." They tried "socialism." And there are a certain number of members of the Republican Party who are trying to dig up that old malodorous dead horse called "isolationism. And in order to do that, they are perfectly willing to sabotage the bipartisan foreign policy of the United States. And this fiasco which has been going on in the Senate is the very best asset that the Kremlin could have in the operation of the cold war. And that is what I mean when I say that McCarthy's antics are the best asset that the Kremlin can have.

- Harry Truman, March 1950

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... te/252740/

that is a great find

Finally , there are some real Americans in politics


State and local resistance to the detention provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act continues to grow, rapidly emerging as a nationwide movement.

The Tennessee legislature will consider HB1629 and SB2669 in the 2012 session. The legislation would effectively nullify the detention provisions in the NDAA and would also require federal agents making an arrest in the Volunteer State for any reason to first obtain written permission from the county sheriff.

This bill declares that any federal law purporting to require local or state law enforcement agencies to act at the direction of the federal government or the United States military is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state. This bill further declares that any federal law purporting to give federal agents or employees, including any members of the United States military, the authority of any state or local law enforcement agency of this state, without the express permission of this state, is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and is declared to be invalid in this state.

The act takes aim at indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA. Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey called language in the NDAA vague and overbroad, pointing out that Americans should never simply trust in the good intentions and moral clarity of the president or federal judges to protect their rights.

“It falls on the states to step in and protect their citizens,” he said. “I can’t imagine a more clear-cut application of state and local interposition as a check on federal power. What could be a more palpable, deliberate and dangerous unconstitutional act than the federal government indefinitely detaining an American citizen without due process?”

The Tennessee bill also “makes it a Class E felony for any official, agent, or employee of the United States government to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal law, order, rule or regulation that is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution,” and includes provisions for kidnapping charges if a federal agent were to detain a U.S. citizen in Tennessee under the NDAA.

Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) and Rep. Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) sponsor the House version of the bill. Sen. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) sponsors the Senate bill.

The Volunteer state joins Washington and Virginia considering legislation to nullify detention provisions in the NDAA. And local governments have also stepped up, including El Paso and Fremont Counties in Colorado. While some argue the NDAA doesn’t apply to American citizens, Maharrey said that notion should not stop state and local governments from following James Madison’s admonition to interpose and draw a line in the sand.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... al-agents/


I wrote these men and thanked them for their dedication to protecting American citizens

rep.bill.dunn@capitol.tn.gov

rep.cameron.sexton@capitol.tn.gov

sen.stacey.campfield@capitol.tn.gov

eCat wrote:

heh

[youtube]2yL7t0j_4tQ[/youtube]

eCat wrote:Finally , there are some real Americans in politics


State and local resistance to the detention provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act continues to grow, rapidly emerging as a nationwide movement.

The Tennessee legislature will consider HB1629 and SB2669 in the 2012 session. The legislation would effectively nullify the detention provisions in the NDAA and would also require federal agents making an arrest in the Volunteer State for any reason to first obtain written permission from the county sheriff.

Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) and Rep. Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) sponsor the House version of the bill. Sen. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) sponsors the Senate bill.

The Volunteer state joins Washington and Virginia considering legislation to nullify detention provisions in the NDAA. And local governments have also stepped up, including El Paso and Fremont Counties in Colorado. While some argue the NDAA doesn’t apply to American citizens, Maharrey said that notion should not stop state and local governments from following James Madison’s admonition to interpose and draw a line in the sand.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... al-agents/


I wrote these men and thanked them for their dedication to protecting American citizens

rep.bill.dunn@capitol.tn.gov

rep.cameron.sexton@capitol.tn.gov

sen.stacey.campfield@capitol.tn.gov

That is good. I've been waiting for someone to stand up for this for ages.

I do have a couple of questions that have been nagging me, though:

• Who wrote Section 1032 of the NDAA Bill?
  Why did it take this bill signing (and the Signing Statement) to actually get people to get upset?
  Why weren't pols on the Hill complaining about this in 2004 (SCOTUS) or 2006 (POTUS) when it first was being adjudicated/legislated?
  Why did the bill pass thru the Senate with a 93-7 vote?

Politicians are all pieces of shit.

eCat wrote:

I don't care who you are that there is a big LOL...

eCat wrote:

lol Amen

check out this video of Santorum

just watch the first minute or so, its all you need

[youtube]RyYKjoZV1Rs[/youtube]

[youtube]AQUsHiaS1Lc[/youtube]

wow, I know I'm out of step with the educated modern society here but I can't agree with that woman.

I don't think you have to be a christian to raise a child, but I still think there are advantages afforded to a child coming from a traditional household. Clearly I am not a deeply religious person.

I don't like the idea of a child being raised in a single parent household, or a child being raised by a junkie, or a child being raised by someone whose secular views are so extreme they isolate the child from experiencing society as a whole. I know in some of those examples, its clearly wrong for the state to step in and impose some draconian law forbidding it, but I don't see the need for the state to legitimize non traditional households either.

now is a child better off with a loving same sex couple who can provide their needs over being shuffled in and out of foster care and state run facilities? On the surface I'd have to say yes, but is a child better off in a traditional marriage home over the same sex couple? I'd say yes to that as well.

Do the numbers bear that out? Are children from stable, engaged same sex households any more or less advantaged than kids from stable, engaged opposite sex households?

oh I have no idea, probably not to be honest. I know I won't win any argument with my way of thinking.

but what motivates my thinking isn't based on some christian view of marriage, its a belief that as a parent, one of my obligations is to raise my child to be a productive and well adjusted member of society. Its not the job of the government to promote that belief however I don't think they should promote rights to individuals that potentially work against that as well.

So should the government say, provide a huge tax break for a traditional family raising a child over a same sex couple or a single parent? of course not, but at the end of the day, I don't want a child being in a situation that potentially handicaps them , either emotionally, financially and promoted by the government.

and I'll just go ahead and say it, I think a child being raised in a same sex marriage is going to be handicapped in society to some degree moreso than in a traditional family.

I'm a bit confused. A state allowing a couple of consenting adults to marry (and have a kid in the confines of that union..or bring a "previously conceived - under 'normal' circumstances - in traditional wedlock" child into that household) is somehow equating to the government promoting the union? Are you saying affording those individuals division of property, spousal consent in dire medical situations and Family Protection Act rights mean that the government is promoting same sex marriage (and kids raised in that environment)?

I would argue that families raising kids in that environment (which will happen, whether a state recognizes same sex marriage, or not) without those protections mean the kids are being disadvantaged. So, in that case, it's not the family structure itself that is harming the kids, it's the government position that is.