Deranged Rhino Posted April 24, 2016 Author Share Posted April 24, 2016 American Democracy is rigged: (from Al Jazeera by way of a Columbia professor-- so fair warning) The question is: What is the result of these undemocratic "closed primaries"? These "closed primaries" are the bottlenecks of a closed political culture, preventing the possibility of any liberating breakthrough into a foreclosed political system. At the heart of this imperial republic that effectively rules the world with its military might (not with any moral courage or political legitimacy), we have an electoral process that systematically bars any critical judgment of its own citizens to disrupt its mindless militarism. American citizens are as much trapped inside this corrupt system as people around the globe are at the mercy of its fighter jets and drone attacks. These two parties, Republican and Democratic, are today functioning like two identical but competing Orwellian Ministries of Truth - systematically, consistently, unabashedly disallowing any critical thinking or nonviolent democratic action to enter and disrupt the always-already rigged election. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/04/american-democracy-rigged-160424071608730.html ************************** Charles Koch: Political System rigged, but not by me As for the American political system, Koch said he and his brother "would like to get the money out" despite the hundreds of millions his political network Freedom Partners have pumped into Republican campaigns over the past decade. "The only way to get the money out is get all the goodies that the government's giving to special interests out and that's what we're trying to do," he said. "We now have two-year presidential campaigns, which is all everybody talks about. It's because we have this system of control and dependency, so everybody is dependent, including big companies, on the government to set the rules to give them an advantage." As for his return on their investment, Koch praised initiatives passed by lawmakers at the state and local levels, but joked that it hasn't all been positive. "I've gotten a lot of abuse out of it," Koch said. https://gma.yahoo.com/charles-koch-political-system-rigged-not-154436511.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Not the Federal government, but hey, you gotta start somewhere............... Michael Graham@IAMMGraham 47m47 minutes ago On now: The mayor of Clarkston, GA wants to de-criminalize pot, but ban e-cigarettes. He joins us to explain. #GAPol @NewsRadio1067 Explain what ? That he's an intrusive idiot ................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 27, 2016 Author Share Posted April 27, 2016 High Court seems poised to overturn McDonnel conviction, making it harder to prosecute government officials for bribery: At issue is a federal law that bars public officials from accepting money or gifts in exchange for "official acts." The court is trying to clarify what distinguishes bribery from the routine actions - setting up meetings, attending conferences - that politicians often do for those they represent. But the justices struggled over how to draw that line. Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer suggested the bribery law could be considered unconstitutionally vague. Breyer said the law presents "a real separation of powers problem" and "puts at risk behavior that is common." "That is a recipe for giving the Department of Justice and the prosecutors enormous power over elected officials," Breyer said. Roberts said it was "extraordinary" that dozens of former White House attorneys and state attorneys general, from both sides of the political aisle, submitted legal papers saying that upholding McDonnell's conviction would cripple the ability of elected officials to do their jobs. "I think it's extraordinary that those people agree on anything," Roberts said. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GOVERNOR_CORRUPTION_CASE_VAOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Really, Justice Roberts? You find it extraordinary that both sides of the political coin in this country want to keep the money flowing into their personal accounts? Good grief. That's like saying you're surprised water is wet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I can’t roll my eyes hard enough: I want all the perks of maternity leave — without having any kids and (of course) Salon, and the Left agree. Salon.com @Salon Yes, non-parents “deserve” maternity leave — we could all use a break for “self-reflection” http://slnm.us/zMG3yYx Retweets 21 Likes 19 THAT'S CALLED A VACATION ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I can’t roll my eyes hard enough: I want all the perks of maternity leave — without having any kids and (of course) Salon, and the Left agree. THAT'S CALLED A VACATION ! Well, why the !@#$ not? My wife and I can't have kids. Maternity leave discriminates against the childless. Equal protection under the law. We deserve government-mandated paid leave above and beyond our regular PTO as much as the child-rearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Well, why the !@#$ not? My wife and I can't have kids. Maternity leave discriminates against the childless. Equal protection under the law. We deserve government-mandated paid leave above and beyond our regular PTO as much as the child-rearing. Child-rearing??? Now that's just disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Well, why the !@#$ not? My wife and I can't have kids. Maternity leave discriminates against the childless. Equal protection under the law. We deserve government-mandated paid leave above and beyond our regular PTO as much as the child-rearing. Unintended consequences.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Well, why the !@#$ not? My wife and I can't have kids. Maternity leave discriminates against the childless. Equal protection under the law. We deserve government-mandated paid leave above and beyond our regular PTO as much as the child-rearing. Take all the leave you want, you deserve it. As far as a scenario of no little dctoms I'm not feeling too sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Americans hate the Republican party more than ever http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/28/gops-favorability-rating-edges-lower/2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Americans hate the Republican party more than ever http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/28/gops-favorability-rating-edges-lower/2/ You might want to link the correct page of the report you dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Is this even Constitutional? Bueller? Obama Orders Fed Agencies to Stop Asking Job Applicants about Criminal History Original Article To make public-sector jobs more accessible to convicts, President Obama has issued a new order prohibiting federal agencies from asking candidates about criminal history when applying for positions. It’s part of the commander-in-chief’s mission to reduce barriers to reentry and employment for incarcerated individuals once they leave jail. The new measure, announced in a Friday media dump, will affect tens of thousands of federal government positions funded with taxpayer dollars. Government often tries to escape fallout by burying controversial or bad news right before the weekend, but it’s difficult to keep this outrageous development below the radar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Is this even Constitutional? Bueller? Obama Orders Fed Agencies to Stop Asking Job Applicants about Criminal History Original Article To make public-sector jobs more accessible to convicts, President Obama has issued a new order prohibiting federal agencies from asking candidates about criminal history when applying for positions. It’s part of the commander-in-chief’s mission to reduce barriers to reentry and employment for incarcerated individuals once they leave jail. The new measure, announced in a Friday media dump, will affect tens of thousands of federal government positions funded with taxpayer dollars. Government often tries to escape fallout by burying controversial or bad news right before the weekend, but it’s difficult to keep this outrageous development below the radar So on one hand he calls financial advisors snake oil salesmen but he also wants to make it easier for convicted felons to get into the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 "It is relevant to find out whether somebody has a criminal record. We're not suggesting ignore it," Obama said. "What we are suggesting is that when it comes to the application, give folks a chance to get through the door. Give them a chance to get in there so they can make their case." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/02/obama-tells-federal-agencies-ban-box-federal-job-applications/75050792/ So some guy with a pot bust won't be hesitant to apply for a janitorial position at the federal building. Of horrible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 4, 2016 Author Share Posted May 4, 2016 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/02/obama-tells-federal-agencies-ban-box-federal-job-applications/75050792/ So some guy with a pot bust won't be hesitant to apply for a janitorial position at the federal building. Of horrible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/02/obama-tells-federal-agencies-ban-box-federal-job-applications/75050792/ So some guy with a pot bust won't be hesitant to apply for a janitorial position at the federal building. Of horrible! This is correct. And what is also correct is that someone with a history of identity theft can get a job at the IRS. Are you cool with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 This is correct. And what is also correct is that someone with a history of identity theft can get a job at the IRS. Are you cool with that? They can? I think you are falling for the propaganda line on this story. No big surprise there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boater Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 I was once a fed employee. A subset of that period, I was a responsible rationale adult. I think it was two months in 2012. Anyway, an experienced political appointee once told me: when the Dems gain power, their illuminati move from the think tanks to become political appointees, and the outgoing Repub appointees go to the think tanks. The cycle repeats. It's a process that repeats itself since 1787. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. It's the government you elected. It's the government you deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 It's obvious why. "Mrs. Clinton, do you have any comment on the rumored pending indictment of you concerning your emails?" "I'm sorry...it's illegal for you to even ask that question." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 They can? I think you are falling for the propaganda line on this story. No big surprise there... Upon further review you're right. I have no problem with this. See how easy that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 (edited) It's obvious why. "Mrs. Clinton, do you have any comment on the rumored pending indictment of you concerning your emails?" "I'm sorry...it's illegal for you to even ask that question." DOJ Replaces 'Criminal' With 'Justice-Involved Individual' In an instance where we all need to stop for a second, sit back and think about the government monster called “political correctness” that has been allowed to grow, this episode of PC Culture is being brought to you by the good people at the Department of Justice (DOJ). Keep the word “justice” in mind. Apparently the DOJ has been phasing out the use of the word “criminal” to describe well, criminals. On the DOJ website the newer term, “justice-involved individual,” can be traced back to 2009. However, the term has seen more and more daylight over the last couple of years. http://www.mrctv.org/blog/doj-using-term-justice-involved-individual-instead-criminal Even U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch got in on the action: The future of our nation depends upon the future of our young people – incl uding young people who have become involved with our justice system. By helping justice-involved youth find decent jobs and stable housing after they return home, these critical grants provide a foundation for a fresh start and offer a path towards productivity and purpose. In the months ahead, the Department of Justice will continue helping justice-involved youth enrich their lives and improve our country. Lynch can’t even say that youths have broken the law. Instead she uses the phrase, “young people who have become involved with our justice system.” . Edited May 4, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts