Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Five years of Obama and what do we get? [View all]oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)15. The answer my friends
is not blowing in the wind. It is in the ballot box. Turn the House blue. Get a jobs bill.
PLEASE!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
110 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You point out a rational path. I find it interesting that NO ONE replied to you before me.
bluestate10
Jan 2014
#91
The sequester has very little to do with the deficit reduction. The overwhelming majority of it came
okaawhatever
Jan 2014
#64
IIRC, they did what no other Congress has done; shut down all government spending stimulus, even to
freshwest
Jan 2014
#84
Brutal, your right Grumpy McCain or Money Bags Romney in hindsight was the clear choice
mikekohr
Jan 2014
#97
Those unemployment numbers and median income numbers are also AMAZING, considering that
TrollBuster9090
Jan 2014
#75
And the re-inflation of a bubble in the stock market is nothing to celebrate. Also those aren't
pam4water
Jan 2014
#83
80% of the items on the list have a DIRECT bearing on the economy and working people.
bluestate10
Jan 2014
#93
This may not be the worst time for the Supreme Court to consider this issue.
JDPriestly
Jan 2014
#49
How does that case apply to the issue of whether a religious organization has to pay for
JDPriestly
Jan 2014
#99
I think in the terms you're looking for Amos is the better case to study.
last1standing
Jan 2014
#100
In the Amos case, again, the issue was whether Section 702 of the civil rights law
JDPriestly
Jan 2014
#101
Yes, and I believe a majority will look to expand Amos here based on accomodation.
last1standing
Jan 2014
#102
But, as Scalia pointed out in Smith, people who object to war based on religious beliefs must still
JDPriestly
Jan 2014
#103
As I said, I find Scalia's opinion in Smith to be hypocritical at the least.
last1standing
Jan 2014
#104
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that EEOC was directly implicated in this case.
last1standing
Jan 2014
#106
Would've been better if the House wasn't standing firmly in the way at all times. [nt]
Jester Messiah
Jan 2014
#46
Nothing in that list shows that the last five years have been any better for the 99%.
last1standing
Jan 2014
#52