July 17, 2013

but being on food stamps is supposed to be evil now too

Republicans think that food stamps aren't necessary because some poor people are fat, right?

July 16, 2013

Why should this be seen as a "cave"?

We're getting the nominees we wanted and if the Republicans don't keep their end of the bargain, Reid can STILL push the nuclear button. That being said, I think that some serious reform of how the filibuster can be used needs to be done (and should be done soon). Personally, I'm in favor of keeping the filibuster intact but requiring more votes to keep it going over time- thus ensuring that both the will of the minority AND majority is respected. It gives opponents the opportunity to state their case (if they have one) and get other people to agree with them but still (eventually) allows an up-or-down vote to be held. The use of the filibuster for the sake of obstruction for obstruction's sake has GOT to end IMHO.

July 15, 2013

Uh..............

My whole feeling about this whole situation is this: If what Snowden exposed is "illegal" or "unconstitutional", then people need to put their money where their mouths are and push for impeachment of President Obama and/or criminal charges for anybody involved in illegal activities within the NSA.

If it's a matter of just "not liking" what the NSA is doing, then we need to get Congress to change the laws and/or elect new people to change the laws. It's sort of bizarre that Congress has been passing laws about surveillance since 2001 and, although there have some people protesting them all along, it strikes me as weird that some people are acting as though it's so much worse under President Obama than it was, say, under Bush, who WAS actually operating outside the confines of the law as it existed at the time.

As for Snowden, he has been lawfully charged with a crime (it is still a crime to take classified information and potentially disseminate it) and should return home, lawyer up, and fight the charges if his cause is just and proper.

July 12, 2013

My bad

I mis-remembered that period of time. The Republicans have made things so bad in the Senate, I just naturally assume that they're filibustering anything and everything (and everybody). She was NOT, in fact, filibustered- though Republicans and financial institutions opposed her appointment, NOT President Obama nor any Democrat I'm aware of. I think it's fair to say that she would've been filibustered had she been put up for nomination as Republicans hated her and are refusing to allow a confirmation vote on ANY nominee for CFPB. On an up-or-down vote- had she been nominated- I believe that she would have been confirmed. President Obama DID appoint her to help set up the CFPB as was his prerogative. My point still stands that her lack of nomination had nothing to do with President Obama or Democrats in general.

July 11, 2013

Why don't they, you know, just try to promote some policies that do some good for people

regardless of their race? Wow, what an original idea, I know.

However, apparently, it's too difficult for most of them to grasp, let alone advocate for...........

July 10, 2013

I don't think the analogy is good

Al-Awlaki was living in a remote part of the world organizing terrorism against the US. Snowden is definitely in trouble for what he has (allegedly) done but I doubt that the government is going to kill him over it- and it's not like it would've been that hard for a special forces team to get him in a Russian airport if they really wanted him to. It must be a pretty scary place in your head to live in where it is even likely or probable that our government, particularly under President Obama, would resort to such extreme measures with Snowden. With that sort of thinking, I'm not sure where it would end.

July 10, 2013

What "extreme punishment" are you referring to (re: Snowden)?

Anybody threatened Snowden with a drone strike? Anybody threaten to torture him? Anybody issue a fatwah against him? All I see are the filing of criminal charges against him for (allegedly) breaking the law. Try with another analogy, please.

July 9, 2013

Agreed

this is not to even mention their deliberate sabotage of how Congress functions, especially in the Senate, where they can tie up Cabinet and judicial nominees and legislation indefinitely unless their supporters manage to cobble (and hold) together a 60-vote supermajority at all times. Additionally, and what should be even more concerning, is that they are basically using extortion tactics to get laws passed or policies implemented outside the ordinary legislative process such as their refusal to approve ANY nominee to the CFPB unless certain changes are made to that law despite the absence of any genuine objection to the nominee President Obama presented to Congress and their previous (and current) refusal to raise the debt ceiling unless cuts and other changes are made to spending policies that are, once again, not being pushed through the normal legislative process. I don't know the historical precedent for it and maybe the Democrats did it too but I don't think that the Republicans' "Hastert Rule" (majority of the majority) is very democratic either. I thought that laws should be passed if the majority of the public supports them, not whether or not the majority of the majority party supports them.

July 9, 2013

One can be *uncomfortable* about it

without wanting to light one's hair on fire and run around madly talking about Obama potentially ordering Snowden to be droned and/or tortured and/or how evil Obama is or how totalitarian the US government has apparently become.

I say, lets have some hearings, decide what we want to keep and get rid of in terms of intelligence programs, pass some new laws to curb any excesses, and let's move on. Too much to ask for?

July 8, 2013

How do we stop letting this happen?

Our leaders should really start demanding that a full and objective investigation occur before anybody loses their careers, livelihoods, etc. I know that, politically, President Obama probably did what he had to do but I wish that he'd be a little less reactive when the right starts in on another one of their scandals or manufactroversies.