Rob's House

I realize that nowadays it's pretty much a moot point, but the tax & spend power is limited. I'm not sure which provision of Article 1 it would fall under.

Kind of quasi-constitutional. I'm not sure exactly what provision you'd point to for the basis of authority. I'd put it in the category of extra-constitutional actions like the Louisiana Purchase. Probably something that was for the best, but kind of outside the law.

I'm really not sure why you'd be all that happy about this or how you defend the decision. It's kind of like resigning Chan for 4 more years because you don't like the coordinator that would have replaced him.

Is MDP another who has fallen on the scrap heap of banished posters?

I must have missed this one the first time around, but when determining if Federal action is constitutional the first question is where does the constitution grant the authority.

It's your beloved leader who wants to punish the achievements of others. Personally, I'm relieved he won. I was afraid we might have an economic recovery. Now we can look forward to 4 more years of stagflation & decline. All hail Beloved Leader!. They'll create one & their fans will buy it b/c they want to. Never underestimate the power of denial.

Chan Gailey. And in 2014 we should sign him to a 4 year extension.

If Obama can get 4 more years, why can't Chan Gaily?

Whatever. I'm feeling pretty misanthropic today. If they want to blow it up, I'm cool. Better than a slow death.

Seems pretty idealistic.

It depends on who you mean by "we". Millions of us do deserve better. But as a society we deserve what we get.

So then what's the benefit of cutting it in half?

I'm no QB guru, but as a layman watching the TN v SC game (b/c I'm not going to watch anymore election coverage, & it's on) Tyler Bray looks amazing. Not polished, but good God, the kid has a rocket.

Don't be simple. The rest of the world isn't reducing their nukes. That's the reality. & There's no harm in us having them as long as we don't use them. Why reduce your arsenal enough to enable someone else to beat you in a nuclear war? MAD worked.

You'd be surprised. Most politically active conservatives & libertarians are all about the philosophies & ideas. I went to YAF in '03 & the headliner who everyone was most excited to hear (more than Ann Coulter, Fred Barnes, Jonah Goldberg, or The Ultimate Warrior - all of whom spoke) was Walter Williams. Why? Because WW is !@#$ing sweet. It was genuine admiration, not like the **** you see from moderates who love(d) to talk about how they had as much or more respect for Colon Powell than anyone, to show how fair minded & not racist they were.

It's politics regardless of party going back centuries. It's just how it goes. Sen Obama was waaay more liberal than Pres candidate Obama was in 08.

Wouldn't work. They'd find some chick he !@#$ed, or tried to !@#$, call it sexual harassment, & that's all she wrote. Not to mention you might as well tatoo " Uncle Tom" on the forehead of any black guy who forgets his place & gets uppity enough to challenge the Dems. It was the 2nd prez election in a row where the Republicans went with the "safe" candidate.

That's the nature of primaries. You go hard to your side, then race to the middle. He never struck up passion in conservatives or libertarians b/c he was too liberal. But to liberals posing as moderates he , like McCain, was too Republican. And you can take "too" out of that last sentence & it still works.

I don't have any sympathy for them. I'd like to smack them across the face real, real hard and say "HEY !@#$! WTF ARE YOU THINKING?" The problem is, we end up paying the price when people who think coerced cooperation is virtuous get the power to impose their will on us.

I really hope this is true, but I just don't see it. I know a lot of otherwise intelligent people that vote straight Dem. And those people are fond of saying "I'd vote for a Republican if..." but the only end of that sentence that makes it true is "he were a Democrat". Failed Dem prez v the most moderate Republican you could find, & they vote D. And an ever increasing % of our electorate votes according to their race or genitalia rather than reason.

I agree. I wish I could say I had any optimism for our country, but the problems in our politics are structural. We've eliminated the most essential factor responsible for American success - separation of powers - and I don't see any way we come back from that. It doesn't matter who wins. The problem isn't the candidates, it's the electorate.

You must be pretty excited.

Doubt it. Our society has become overrun with people who view the government as the solution to their problems. That's not going away.

Not looking good at this point.

There are practical consequences. If Obama wins, which I don't think he will, but he might, the less Dems there are in the house & senate, the less power he'll have. I'm still curious what you don't like about Allen.