Though I suppose the fact that there was an interesting little section in the bill - Texas gets over six hundred acres of extremely valuable land for a pittance, in exchange for about two-thousand acres of much less valuable land, for the purposes of...Expanding the Fort Bliss base, which at it's current size, already pumps 1.7 billion dollars into the Texas economy.
I'm curious about this. Do you have a source, or bill section reference about this? I cant seem to find relevant info on a quick google search. Who is Texas getting this land from? NM seems the likely choice, but it's not like the forts land doesn't cross that border anyway. Also Paul is a congressman not a senator, and his district way away from that area. It seems like of all thing to hold against Paul that would be the least.
I'm curious about this. Do you have a source, or bill section reference about this? I cant seem to find relevant info on a quick google search. Who is Texas getting this land from? NM seems the likely choice, but it's not like the forts land doesn't cross that border anyway. Also Paul is a congressman not a senator, and his district way away from that area. It seems like of all thing to hold against Paul that would be the least.
Search the bill text for Land Exchange Texas, and it should come up - the section number is in the 2000s. Texas is getting the land from the DOD.
That said, I don't hold it against paul in the "You earmarked this for your district" sense, but rather in that Texas getting a nice big chunk o'change out of the deal possibly skewing his decision making process. That said, it's not something I hold strongly against him, certainly not as strongly as simply not showing up for the NDAA vote.
Paul is know for adding pork and then voting against the bill.
Oh shit yeah, that's his SOP - Vote against a bill that's certain to pass, and stuff it to bursting with pork. Rand does much the same thing, even though he's nowhere near as bad as his pappy, he's much closer to the republican mainstream as I said.
For a while I thought it might be a good rule that if you vote against a bill all of your amendments get stripped out. Then I thought it through and realized how badly you could fuck shit up with a rule like that.
For a while I thought it might be a good rule that if you vote against a bill all of your amendments get stripped out. Then I thought it through and realized how badly you could fuck shit up with a rule like that.
Just out of interest, how would that fuck things up?
For a while I thought it might be a good rule that if you vote against a bill all of your amendments get stripped out. Then I thought it through and realized how badly you could fuck shit up with a rule like that.
Just out of interest, how would that fuck things up?
Someone might vote yes because of an amendment added by a politician only to see that amendment stripped out when the guy who added it votes against.
Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I suppose, for some reason, I'd made the common mistake of 1-1 associating Earmarks with only pork, when it's more complex than that.
If I was a Democrat media strategist, I would steal the Good Idea, Bad Idea concept from animaniacs and go to town.
Example:
Narrator: "It's time for another Good Idea, Bad Idea. This time on the ban of contraceptives"
Narrator:*Lightbulb on* Good Idea:
*text on screen, read by a good actor in a Shakespearean voice* "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws"
Narrator: *Lightbulb on* Bad Idea:
*video of a Frothy Mixture of Santorum* "The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating right, and they should be left up to the people to decide."
You could probably make a billion of these simply by quoting the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, other writings of the founding fathers, or important Supreme Court cases and juxtapose them against what these Republican candidates are saying. For half of them, the 14th Amendment will suffice even.
Right to privacy? DOESN'T EXIST! 9th Amendment? SCREW THAT! Who's at fault for priests raping children? LIBERALS! What about homosexuality? LEADS TO MAN-ON-CHILD! MAN-ON-DOG!
I have to say, I was watching the Fox news around 11 o'clock and the host was hilarious. He was actively calling out any of the experts out as well as operatives. He was like "I want to go the fuck to sleep" around 1 am. I was way more entertained then horrified. This continues my feelings that the opposite parties primary is the best time to watch right leaning news agencies. It's so fun to watch them eat their own.
I can't wait to get back to the US in June. I will be unemployed, I will have a very fast car and my X220 at my disposal, along with a backpack for a suit and some sundries, and election season will be in full swing.
I can't wait to get back to the US in June. I will be unemployed, I will have a very fast car and my X220 at my disposal, along with a backpack for a suit and some sundries, and election season will be in full swing.
Imagine if she got out before Iowa.... Santorum would have actually won.
Don't necessarily think so. I'd assume the only group Bachmann could really score with was religious conservatives. While Santorum has appeal to them, so does Perry, Paul and Gingrich, perhaps even more so. Factor in that Perry is a protestant whereas Santorum and Gingrich are Catholic, the person who'd have really gained from Bachmann's earlier exit would have been been Perry.
Additionally, if Bachmann would have bowed out earlier, we might have seen more of Santorum pandering to the religious right, which in turn would have sent the more moderate conservatives which voted for Santorum screaming for the Hilltops.
Anyway, Santorum is the flavor of the week. He's just lucky to be on the top of the sine-wave at the right moment.
I think Santorum's second place in this one is where he's peaked, or at least, very close to. I don't think he's going to go so far or do so well in the near future.
Huntsman. He's not crazy and wouldn't attempt to wholesale ruin the US. He's rightwing enough to skim some votes off of the bubbling cesspit that is the Tea Party, but centrist enough to support civil liberties and not openly preach hate.
Chaosof99, So your saying that 9 voters that voted for Bachmann out of 6,000 would not switch their vote to Santorum if she wasn't running :-p I find that hard to believe :-p
Huntsman. He's not crazy and wouldn't attempt to wholesale ruin the US. He's rightwing enough to skim some votes off of the bubbling cesspit that is the Tea Party, but centrist enough to support civil liberties and not openly preach hate.
Huntsman is the only halfway decent human being among the Republican candidates. Before the campaign started I might have said Romney, and I'm not quite sure he would follow up on his pandering to the religious right even now, but the threat of it is too much to take for me.
Comments
Also Paul is a congressman not a senator, and his district way away from that area. It seems like of all thing to hold against Paul that would be the least.
That said, I don't hold it against paul in the "You earmarked this for your district" sense, but rather in that Texas getting a nice big chunk o'change out of the deal possibly skewing his decision making process. That said, it's not something I hold strongly against him, certainly not as strongly as simply not showing up for the NDAA vote.
What the fuck is this, the 1910s?
Example:
Narrator:
"It's time for another Good Idea, Bad Idea. This time on the ban of contraceptives"
Narrator:*Lightbulb on* Good Idea:
*text on screen, read by a good actor in a Shakespearean voice*
"no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws"
Narrator: *Lightbulb on* Bad Idea:
*video of a Frothy Mixture of Santorum*
"The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating right, and they should be left up to the people to decide."
You could probably make a billion of these simply by quoting the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, other writings of the founding fathers, or important Supreme Court cases and juxtapose them against what these Republican candidates are saying. For half of them, the 14th Amendment will suffice even.
Right to privacy? DOESN'T EXIST!
9th Amendment? SCREW THAT!
Who's at fault for priests raping children? LIBERALS!
What about homosexuality? LEADS TO MAN-ON-CHILD! MAN-ON-DOG!
Interview from 2003.
Time to write some fucking political journalism.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57352112-503544/michele-bachmann-drops-out-of-gop-race/
Additionally, if Bachmann would have bowed out earlier, we might have seen more of Santorum pandering to the religious right, which in turn would have sent the more moderate conservatives which voted for Santorum screaming for the Hilltops.
Anyway, Santorum is the flavor of the week. He's just lucky to be on the top of the sine-wave at the right moment.
"Phrasing?"
Huntsman. Not as crazy as the others.