Politics

[GoIrish41]

How's everyone feeling about this situation?

Putin warns U.S., West against arming organ-eating Syrian rebels - CNN.com

getting involved in another Middle East war? ugh!

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Gotta love those Obama/ peace bumper stickers next to each other on subaru's and toyota prius cars

 

[BobD]

Gotta love those Obama/ peace bumper stickers next to each other on subaru's and toyota prius cars

So you believe if a republican was in the white house things would be different in regards to Syria? If McCain had his way, we'd probably already have boots on the ground.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

So you believe if a republican was in the white house things would be different in regards to Syria? If McCain had his way, we'd probably already have boots on the ground.

They all suck.

 

[phgreek]

How's everyone feeling about this situation?

Putin warns U.S., West against arming organ-eating Syrian rebels - CNN.com

its Putin 1) defending his own stupidity, selling arms to a monster; 2) making good on a promise to defend an ally so others don't question having the Soviets as an ally; 3) taking the opportunity to not have the arms he sells devalued when American Arms win the day; 4) taking the opportunity to keep a client afloat; 5) taking the opportunity to pre-emptively paint US as the aggressor.

Putin is a Tyrant to his people...which proves he hasn't a humanitarian bone in his body. He is nothing more than a hypocritical a$$hole on the international scene.

We should have been in Syria a looooong time ago if wee were going at all. You can't get in it now because you can't guarantee or even hope to have an outcome that is beneficial to America's Security. From a humanitarian perspective...offer food and aid to refugees...but stop talking about crossing lines, and saber rattling...make sure no chem/bio leaves the country and watch Syria burn down.

 

[BobD]

Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voting law - CBS News

 

[Grahambo]

Curious on people's thoughts on this Thomas Jefferson quote:

“…Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully, and in their own right. The 2nd generation receives it clear of the debts and encumbrances of the 1st, the 3rd, of the 2nd and so on. For if the 1st could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right. It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent…” -

I'm not in the political battle here but came across this while doing research for one of my classes and found it interesting. Just curious on thoughts from those who are more invested in politics.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Curious on people's thoughts on this Thomas Jefferson quote:

“…Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully, and in their own right. The 2nd generation receives it clear of the debts and encumbrances of the 1st, the 3rd, of the 2nd and so on. For if the 1st could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right. It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent…” -

I'm not in the political battle here but came across this while doing research for one of my classes and found it interesting. Just curious on thoughts from those who are more invested in politics.

Which of his writings is this from?

 

[BGIF]

Which of his writings is this from?

Jefferson letter to James Madison 6 Sept 1789

Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Jefferson letter to James Madison

Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Thanks!

 

[Black Irish]

Curious on people's thoughts on this Thomas Jefferson quote:

“…Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully, and in their own right. The 2nd generation receives it clear of the debts and encumbrances of the 1st, the 3rd, of the 2nd and so on. For if the 1st could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right. It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent…” -

I'm not in the political battle here but came across this while doing research for one of my classes and found it interesting. Just curious on thoughts from those who are more invested in politics.

I think this quote speaks to sunset provisions in laws, which I'm a fan of. I think most, if not all, legislation should be revisited to see if it needs review and updating. For instance, the debate over the expiration of the Bush tax cuts 2-3 years ago may have been ugly and vitriolic, but it was good to see Congress be forced to act on something rather just let things go on autopilot.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I think this quote speaks to sunset provisions in laws, which I'm a fan of. I think most, if not all, legislation should be revisited to see if it needs review and updating. For instance, the debate over the expiration of the Bush tax cuts 2-3 years ago may have been ugly and vitriolic, but it was good to see Congress be forced to act on something rather just let things go on autopilot.

I think the benefits can go even further than that.

Think about all the duplication that exists in laws and the agencies that enforce them. If attention was brought forward every 20 years on whether or not laws/regulations were still worthwhile, it would help eliminate rudundancies that plague government today.

 

[Black Irish]

I think the benefits can go even further than that.

Think about all the duplication that exists in laws and the agencies that enforce them. If attention was brought forward every 20 years on whether or not laws/regulations were still worthwhile, it would help eliminate rudundancies that plague government today.

The "rudundancies" of government bother me too.

Sorry, I had to do it. I agree that there is too much duplication of service in government. But it grabs voter attention so much better to roll out shiny new programs and/or agencies rather than do the unsexy work of fixing what you have in place.

 

[irishpat183]

So you believe if a republican was in the white house things would be different in regards to Syria? If McCain had his way, we'd probably already have boots on the ground.

No, but running on the premise that he's a POTUS of peace that is different from the other side of the aisle is the problem.

I thought you voted for him because he would be "different"?


IRISHPAT HAS RISEN!

 

[BobD]

Republicans will be disappointed that the IRS apparently practices equal opportunity targeting.

IRS targeting included liberal groups - CNN.com

 

[chicago51]

Republicans will be disappointed that the IRS apparently practices equal opportunity targeting.

IRS targeting included liberal groups - CNN.com

Post something along these lines earlier.

Been wrapped up in my Chicago Blackhawks but once the Stanley Cup is done I'm going to jump back in the political game.

 

[Black Irish]

As long as they are screwing everyone over equally, I guess we're okay.

 

[chicago51]

Blackhawks win the Cup!

I'll be posting on the immigration bill when I recover.

 

[Black Irish]

Blackhawks win the Cup!

I'll be posting on the immigration bill when I recover.

You mean about all those Canadians who are taking hockey jobs away from hard-working Americans?

 

[chicago51]

http://cbsnews.com/m/8301-250_162-57590890/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-of-voting-rights-act/

Supreme Court violates 15th amendment strikes down part of Voting Rights Act. More legislating from the bench.

Regardless rather one thinks the voting rights act is an unfair burden to states you can't possibly read the 15th amendment and then say the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. You can say it is out of date but that is not the place of the Supreme Court. Not even sure you can say it is out of date as Congressit not that long ago back in 2006.

 

[Ndaccountant]

http://cbsnews.com/m/8301-250_162-57590890/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-of-voting-rights-act/

Supreme Court violates 15th amendment strikes down part of Voting Rights Act. More legislating from the bench.

Regardless rather one thinks the voting rights act is an unfair burden to states you can't possibly read the 15th amendment and then say the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. You can say it is out of date but that is not the place of the Supreme Court. Not even sure you can say it is out of date as Congressit not that long ago back in 2006.

You really think ANYONE in Congress would vote against that? I don't. It would be political suicide. The moment you do, you are a racist.

Attached is a good summary on how to proceed.

Here’s how Congress could fix the Voting Rights Act

 

[chicago51]

You really think ANYONE in Congress would vote against that? I don't. It would be political suicide. The moment you do, you are a racist.

Attached is a good summary on how to proceed.

Here’s how Congress could fix the Voting Rights Act

Being political suicide to vote against the bill doesn't make it unconstitutional. Section 2 of 15th Amendment says Congress can enforce voting rights through appropriate legislation. You can't justify it being unconstitutional. You can say it is bad if you want but Congress puts out bad legislation all the time that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

I don't disagree with changing the voting rights act to make it better and fair. Although it should be noted that many states with clean records have actually gotten out of Voting Rights Act. If they did I hope changes would deal with college students living on campus out of state, as they are often denied the chance to vote because they don't have a state ID.

Let's be real though Congress won't do anything. Not this Congress.

 

[pkt77242]

Being political suicide to vote against the bill doesn't make it unconstitutional. Section 2 of 15th Amendment says Congress can enforce voting rights through appropriate legislation. You can't justify it being unconstitutional. You can say it is bad if you want but Congress puts out bad legislation all the time that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

I don't disagree with changing the voting rights act to make it better and fair. Although it should be noted that many states with clean records have actually gotten out of Voting Rights Act. If they did I hope changes would deal with college students living on campus out of state, as they are often denied the chance to vote because they don't have a state ID.

Let's be real though Congress won't do anything. Not this Congress.

^This. A somewhat flawed law doesn't make it unconstitutional.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Being political suicide to vote against the bill doesn't make it unconstitutional. Section 2 of 15th Amendment says Congress can enforce voting rights through appropriate legislation. You can't justify it being unconstitutional. You can say it is bad if you want but Congress puts out bad legislation all the time that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

I don't disagree with changing the voting rights act to make it better and fair. Although it should be noted that many states with clean records have actually gotten out of Voting Rights Act. If they did I hope changes would deal with college students living on campus out of state, as they are often denied the chance to vote because they don't have a state ID.

Let's be real though Congress won't do anything. Not this Congress.

I was just simply responding to your comment that the law being continued in 2006 made it okay. You can't take that view since nobody would have voted against it.

As far as being unconstitutional, I am not qualified to argue for or against it. Although this guy takes the CBS analyst to the woodshed.

Hyperbole Much? CBS Legal Analyst Compares Voting Rights Act Ruling to Dred Scott, Plessy Cases | NewsBusters

 

[GoIrish41]

Congrats to the Supreme Court for ripping out the guts of the abomination known as the Defense of Marriage Act. This was a giant leap forward for civil rights in this country.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Being political suicide to vote against the bill doesn't make it unconstitutional. Section 2 of 15th Amendment says Congress can enforce voting rights through appropriate legislation. You can't justify it being unconstitutional. You can say it is bad if you want but Congress puts out bad legislation all the time that doesn't make it unconstitutional...

The Court actually didn't strike down the VRA at all -- just the Pre-Clearance methodology used in Section 4. They didn't even say that you can't force states to be 'pre-cleared', just that your numbers are so out-of-date that that Section is not "appropriate legislation" anymore.

The easiest fix would be to just say that all states have to be pre-cleared before they get to pass changes in voting laws or redistrict. I mean, if pre-clearance is so great, why not just make everyone do it?

 

[GoIrish41]

The Court actually didn't strike down the VRA at all -- just the Pre-Clearance methodology used in Section 4. They didn't even say that you can't force states to be 'pre-cleared', just that your numbers are so out-of-date that that Section is not "appropriate legislation" anymore.

The easiest fix would be to just say that all states have to be pre-cleared before they get to pass changes in voting laws or redistrict. I mean, if pre-clearance is so great, why not just make everyone do it?

I actually think this is what should happen. Even though I think the court's ruling is going to mean the affected states are going to begin making it difficult for more people to vote and I might not like the consequences that may come, it wasn't right that states were being singled out for the sins of their fathers.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Another Liberal strawman goes up in flames.

Treasury investigator says no evidence IRS gave progressives tough treatment

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department watchdog who detailed Internal Revenue Service mistreatment of tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status says he has no evidence the IRS also mishandled progressive groups’ applications.

In a letter to Congress, the inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, acknowledged that the term “Progressives” appeared on a list of terms used by IRS screeners from 2010 to 2012 to look for applicants with potential problems that would merit close scrutiny. But he said there was no evidence the IRS set aside progressive groups’ applications because they appeared on that list, which was aimed at finding groups that may have engaged in political activity — which could affect whether they were granted tax-exempt status.

George said his investigators have “multiple sources of information corroborating,” including interviews with IRS employees, emails and other documents, that tea party groups’ applications were set aside for close examinations. But he added, “We found no indication in any of these other materials that “Progressives” was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.”

George’s explanation did not satisfy Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

At a hearing of that panel Thursday at which IRS chief Danny Werfel was testifying, Levin said he wanted that committee to have George testify at a future session. Levin and other Democrats say George’s report last month revealing IRS mistreatment of tea party groups unfairly focused on conservatives and omitted mention of progressives.

“Our committee, in its oversight role, has an obligation to fully understand the manner in which the inspector general conducted his audit, and at what direction,” Levin said.

The congressman, to whom George sent his letter, said that applications from progressive groups were sent to a different group of screeners within the IRS and that George failed to investigate that.

Under questioning from Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., Werfel said his own investigation of his agency’s behavior had produced no evidence to contradict George’s finding that progressive groups’ applications were not set aside so their political activities could be examined. But he later said there was “a diversity of political labels” among the groups whose applications were set aside for further review.

Some progressive groups seeking tax-exempt status have complained about facing lengthy delays and detailed questions from the IRS.

It is unclear whether progressive groups faced the same extent of mistreatment as conservative organizations. Dozens of them ran into delays exceeding a year, and many received scores of detailed questions that officials have since said were overly intrusive, including demands for information about their donors.

The back-and-forth came as Werfel answered questions from Congress for the first time since revelations that progressives joined the tea party on a list of groups whose applications for tax-exempt status drew extra scrutiny.

Camp criticized a report that Werfel issued this Monday, six weeks after President Barack Obama named him to head the troubled agency.

Werfel wrote that he found mismanagement but no purposeful wrongdoing at the IRS in a report that also pointed to the officials who have been replaced and other changes he has made. Camp said that conclusion was “incomplete” because Werfel did not interview several former top IRS officials, including former commissioner Douglas Shulman.

Democrats seem determined to shift the focus to this week’s disclosure that the term “Progressive” was also on the agency’s watch lists.

IRS regulations allow tax-exempt social welfare organizations to engage in some political activity but it cannot be their primary mission. The agency must decide whether each applicant’s activities meet those vague guidelines.

The IRS has been under withering fire since May 10, when an agency official acknowledged that it had targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt designations for tough examinations. Until then, IRS officials had insisted that conservatives had not been singled out for such treatment.

Some Republicans have suggested that the focus on conservative groups came from the White House or other Obama allies.

There has been no evidence of that so far. Instead, according to investigators and testimony from IRS workers to congressional committees, workers in the agency’s Cincinnati office that handled tax-exempt applications developed the lists to help them find groups that merited additional scrutiny.

Obama and members of both parties in Congress have said such targeting is inexcusable. At least five top officials, including former acting Commissioner Steven Miller, have been removed.

Treasury investigator says no evidence IRS gave progressives tough treatment - The Washington Post

 

[Whiskeyjack]

From The Economist's liberaltarian blogger:

Of course, the sequester was ill-timed, and has probably hampered America's economic recovery. That shouldn't stop us from drawing some general lessons from the experience, though. Meat cleavers work, and they aren't in practice so indiscriminate as they may seem to be. They focus attention, clarify priorities, and lead to the swift discovery of previously unimagined economies. That the effect of the sequester has been relatively benign so far strikes me as a data-point in favour of relatively inflexible fiscal rules, such as debt-ceilings and balanced-budget amendments, capable of somewhat offsetting the diffuse-cost/concentrated-benefit dynamic that otherwise drives democracies toward imbalance and ruin.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Just read a compelling argument for Christians to abandon their defense of civil marriage:

Let’s abandon the notion of a single, normative marriage contract which is all that the state will enforce. Let private individuals (or their churches) produce contracts that lawyers can vet, which once signed will be enforced by the state. These contracts can be polygamous, homosexual, or celibate for all I care. Christian marriage can be one of those contracts. Churches that are serious about marriage can make signing a really solid (“covenant”) contract a condition of marrying in their place of worship. Every parish can have the boilerplate on its website: sign here or go find another Gothic building for your ceremony. To protect the liberties of everyone involved in this newly pluralist society, certain anti-discrimination laws also must be changed. If a gay employer doesn’t wish to hire Catholics, he should have that right—and the same for the goose as the gander.

An arrangement like this should entirely satisfy the libertarian demand for freedom of association and contract—and claim it also for Christians. Christians should be satisfied that our model will prevail without the assistance and entanglement of the state. Of course, the Rousseauian left will not be satisfied: they will settle for nothing less than state-enforced “virtue” and mandatory “freedom.” But with this strategic retreat to more defensible ground, Christians and other social traditionalists will gain breathing room. We don’t need a Theodosius, but without a Constantine we may well find ourselves in the catacombs once again.