Mad_Machine76
Mad_Machine76's JournalDoes he have a better idea of where the drone is/was
than Bush did of where Iraq's WMDs were? Unless Obama knew where the drone was, any attack would've been a futile gesture and just led to needless provocation. It's not great that Iran got a drone (if they did) but it would've been worse to invade their airspace and attack them over it IMHO. 
It's situations like this for which we should DEMAND somebody like Barack Obama be President!
Repubs (all of them except for maybe Paul) seem to be jonesing BADLY for a war with Iran!
Bookmark feature?
Is there currently no way to bookmark threads for reading later? If there is, how do you do it?
Sounds sort of like Sarah Palin's "real Americans" line from 2008.
Anyway, given the higher standard of living that Europeans enjoy(ed) in a lot of important respects (i.e. healthcare, childcare, college, etc.), I don't understand people who DON'T want us to be more like Europe anyway. WTF is it with Republicans and their demands that everybody (but them) suffers (needlessly)?
Right
Vetting is entirely appropriate and within the scope of congressional authority but I think that, generally speaking, Senators, if they are refusing to confirm somebody, should be required have some substantive (i.e. REAL) reasons to vote against them. There's almost no reason I can think of to filibuster most nominees (though the Dems were certainly right to filibuster Bolton, who got put in with a recess appointment nonetheless). It is mind-boggling that they are able to manipulate things so that, even though they admit that they have no problems with Cordray specifically, they can still feel completely at ease with refusing to confirm him in order to kneecap a federal agency ESTABLISHED BY LAW and/or force changes to the law that they weren't able to achieve during the normal legislative process last time. IMHO they need to allow an up-or-down vote on the nomination to be held ASAP and then, if they want to change the law more to their liking, they need to put together relevant legislation and put it to a debate/vote. The way that the Republicans have been kneecapping the federal government, the economy, and Obama's Presidency in general is (or should be) nothing short of scandalous.
I didn't think about it at first but you're also right about the Republicans trying to make it seem like the agency doesn't even exist and/or that the agency has some kind of extraordinary unchecked powers. Actually, if anybody is trying to achieve something through extraordinary means, it's the Republicans in the Senate! They want to win changes that they know (or figure) that Congress and President Obama won't approve. In general, I'd say that the Republicans are basically trying to "run out the clock" until next November after which they believe (or hope) to have another Republican "trifecta".
The agency already exists
Republicans may not like it but IMHO until or unless they submit legislation to alter or abolish it and said legislation becomes law, they need to quit playing games and preventing the agency from functioning as it currently exists BY LAW at this time. Senator Lugar (R-IN), when I once wrote him a letter applauding his confirmation of Jocelyn Elders for Surgeon General under Clinton, wrote back to me in response that he believed that a President was entitled to his nominees. Unfortunately, assuming that he is part of the GOP caucus participating in the filibuster against Mr. Cordray, Lugar doesn't seem to believe in this high-minded principle any longer. From what I can recall, the Democrats gave GWB most of his nominees as well, at least the ones necessary for keeping critical government agencies functioning and the Republicans, for the most part, didn't put up these kind of hurdles for most of Clinton's nominees. There needs to be some kind of general agreement on the part of the Senators that, absent some kind of extraordinary circumstances, whoever assumes the Presidency really should be able get his/her nominees confirmed, or at the very least, they should not be subjected to filibusters, secret holds, etc. It's really kind of scary when, earlier in his Presidency, it took an outbreak of Swine Flu for Obama to get his HHS Secretary (Sebelius) confirmed. The Republicans had better be thankful that THAT situation didn't turn out worse for the public and that federal intervention wasn't hamstrung by petty politicking. 
Looking at this from a Social Work perspective
I strongly believe in the principle of "informed consent" and, in the context of sexual activity, both partners should, ideally, be open and honest with each other about things like HIV+ diagnosis, STDs, etc. prior to engaging in sexual activity so that both partners can make a decision about whether or not to engage in sexual activity and/or what kind of sexual activity they want to engage in and ensure appropriate protections. At the very least, everybody should consistently be utilizing safe(r) sex practices with new/non-monogamous partners. However, I have mixed feelings about whether or not disclosing HIV+ status prior to engaging in sexual activity should be considered criminal, unless, perhaps, there is provable malicious intent. People should ultimately make sure that they are protecting themselves and others when engaging in any kind of sexual activity and there is a legitimate public health interest in stemming the spread of HIV but I'm not sure that criminal sanctions are the best or most appropriate way to manage it, particularly since the fear of criminal sanctions might inadvertently inhibit communication/disclosure rather than encourage it.
Profile Information
Name: Mara Alis ButlerGender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,407
