News Stories

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne

Funny.

The UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Ireland all have these - enforced by the party whips.

It isn't always enforced, at least in Canada.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

It isn't always enforced, at least in Canada.

You haven't seen New Zealand.

http://www.parliament.nz/VirtualTour/9b.aspx

Now, members don't have to be present for most votes. Parties usually declare their total votes, including those of absent members.

[AnimeFan188]

Harry Potter actress was beaten and branded a prostitute by her brother after
dating man 'who was not a Muslim':

"A Harry Potter actress fled her home after her father and brother threatened to
kill her for going out with a Hindu man, a court heard yesterday.

Afshan Azad, 22, who appeared in the blockbuster movies as Padma Patil, was
attacked and branded a ‘slag’ when Muslim relatives found out about her
boyfriend."

See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...an-Muslim.html

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

Harry Potter actress was beaten and branded a prostitute by her brother after
dating man 'who was not a Muslim':

"A Harry Potter actress fled her home after her father and brother threatened to
kill her for going out with a Hindu man, a court heard yesterday.

Afshan Azad, 22, who appeared in the blockbuster movies as Padma Patil, was
attacked and branded a ‘slag’ when Muslim relatives found out about her
boyfriend."

See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...an-Muslim.html

i heard about that, hopefully the rest of the HP cast step up and help her.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_799095.html
The comments are interesting because the HuffPo crowd is supposedly hyper-liberal but all the comments are "burn him, he's a witch!" motif.

Dr. Michael Savage released a nicely-titled book in 2005 that best describes the 'hyper-liberal'

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

Harry Potter actress was beaten and branded a prostitute by her brother after
dating man 'who was not a Muslim':

"A Harry Potter actress fled her home after her father and brother threatened to
kill her for going out with a Hindu man, a court heard yesterday.

Afshan Azad, 22, who appeared in the blockbuster movies as Padma Patil, was
attacked and branded a ‘slag’ when Muslim relatives found out about her
boyfriend."

See:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...an-Muslim.html

Aren't they just a bunch of grownups who love their daughter/sister?(/sarcasm) This sort of bullshit never fails to infuriate me at the shallow asshole patriarch thuggery. They couldn't care less about her.

Originally Posted by flying

Dr. Michael Savage released a nicely-titled book in 2005 that best describes the 'hyper-liberal'

You DO know his "doctorate" is in "Nutritional Ethnomedicine", eh? His birth name is Michael Alan Weiner but changed his name because he was fascinated with someone in history.
That in July 2005, conservative writer Bernard Goldberg ranked Savage number 61 in his book "100 People Who are Screwing Up America"?
In July 2008, Savage claimed that the increasing rate of autism diagnoses was the result of "a racket" designed to get disability payments for "poorer families who have found a new way to be parasites on the government.

I could go on, but seriously the man creates trainwrecks and moves on -- using this guy as a reference is only good for studies of demagoguery and mob instigation.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I could go on, but seriously the man creates trainwrecks and moves on -- using this guy as a reference is only good for studies of demagoguery and mob instigation.

he's not alone

check out Lyle H. Rossiter; Jr., M.D.

he came out with the book similar to Savage's (~2006) but with PC-friendly title & content

[ganbaru]

More snow forecast, cold snap to dent German growth
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...6BI0WZ20101222
Winter is hard on the european this year...

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by flying ^

he's not alone

check out Lyle H. Rossiter; Jr., M.D.

he came out with the book similar to Savage's (~2006) but with PC-friendly title & content

Um.... yeah, maybe YOU should read him more carefully. Rossiter is a raving loonie of the dangerous kind, the kind that white supremacists and fascists like to quote as justification for their 'purification' schemes. He's grandiose with sweeping assertions that lack any foundation, he's misusing science, and he's categorizing anyone that has a slightly different opinion than him as being lost and mentally ill.
You might as well have pointed to Lyndon LaRouche and his 'moonbats'.

By his criteria almost every great thinker of the last three centuries including Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Teddy Roosevelt, and others were mentally ill. Its instructive to read his correspondence with another doctorate about the matter:
http://www.exponentialimprovement.co...shtml#FromRoss
The guy is as wrong about everything as Velikovsky is about physics.

At this point you aren't helping my opinion of you at all.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Senate defeats bids to change START treaty
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...6BD54220101221

Are they still pretending not trying to sabotaging Obama's next 2 years ?

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

when did the repubs ever pretend to do otherwise?

It's no secret Republicans are against 80% + of what Obama stands for. So why wouldn't they try and get in his way? You expect them to just go a long with everything he wants?

Also a good number of these lame duck politicians are about to be replaced in a couple weeks. So they are trying to jam through Congress every single thing that they can before they are officially 'fired'.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

It's no secret Republicans are against 80% + of what Obama stands for. So why wouldn't they try and get in his way? You expect them to just go a long with everything he wants?

me? of course not. It is politics and anyone who doesn't understand that is...to be polite Naive.

Sorta like the people who actually expected Obama to do all those things he promise in his campaign and they are now disappointed that he went back on a lot of them. I always wonder what those people were smoking when they bought into that change crap.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

It's no secret Republicans are against 80% + of what Obama stands for. So why wouldn't they try and get in his way? You expect them to just go a long with everything he wants?

Except they really aren't. They're just saying they are to create partisan divides. A good portion of Obama's policies originated from republicans, until Obama decided they were a good idea. Then they all of a sudden became socialist death panels because it gets them more votes.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Except they really aren't. They're just saying they are to create partisan divides. A good portion of Obama's policies originated from republicans, until Obama decided they were a good idea. Then they all of a sudden became socialist death panels because it gets them more votes.

Examples of these republican policies and who created them?

Just because something came from a Republican, does not mean it was a Republican ideal.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Just because something came from a Republican, does not mean it was a Republican ideal.

You didn't really *write* that, did you???

And do we really need to remind you of recent history and the dozens of items that members of the GOP came up with themselves over the last decade ... who later often contradicted themselves in order to oppose Obama when he incorporated them. News articles? Video clips?

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Vexx

You didn't really *write* that, did you???

And do we really need to remind you of recent history and the dozens of items that members of the GOP came up with themselves over the last decade ... who later often contradicted themselves in order to oppose Obama when he incorporated them. News articles? Video clips?

Oh give me a break Vexx. This is exactly like people saying Bush was a hard right winger, yet disregarding the fact that he had many policies that had nothing to do with right wing politics and were infact liberal.

Hell what good is posting videos or news articles in this forum, when so many in here disregard them anyway?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Oh give me a break Vexx. This is exactly like people saying Bush was a hard right winger, yet disregarding the fact that he had many policies that had nothing to do with right wing politics and were infact liberal.

This is where you've wandered away from your argument. Before you mentioned "ideals", that should be the thrust of your argument since it can be used to compare and contrast against Obama's ideals and policies. But, as soon as you mentioned "politics", ideals are thrown right out the window. Many of the actions of the Republican party over the past 20 or so years have not followed any Republican/Right Wing ideals, and to blame this on Liberalism is simply silly. And to argue that because Bush used liberal ideas at times makes him anything less than the right wing politician that he is, is simply fallacious.

Realistically, instead of disagreeing with Vexx, you should have simply said that the Republican politicians are not actual Republicans (or at least not how you view the Republican party), and I expect Vexx would have immediately agreed with you (since he is a Republican...from 25+ years ago back when the party actually stood for something), ending this little discussion.

Whatever the case, "ideals" have nothing to do with politics and to use them interchangeably is just plain wrong.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by james0246

This is where you've wandered away from your argument. Before you mentioned "ideals", that should be the thrust of your argument since it can be used to compare and contrast against Obama's ideals and policies. But, as soon as you mentioned "politics", ideals are thrown right out the window.

Realistically, instead of disagreeing with Vexx (who is correct in this instance), you should have simply said that the Republican politicians are not actual Republicans (or at least not how you view the Republican party), and I expect Vexx would have immediately agreed with you (since he is a Republican...from 25+ years ago back when the party actually stood for something).

Whatever the case, "ideals" have nothing to do with politics and to use them interchangeably is just plain wrong.

It's been a crappy week of rain that has totally screwed up my work schedule and free time and I'm a bit on the tired side. I meant ideals but wrote politics instead for whatever reason. My point still stands, that the argument about Republicans being against Obama just because he's either 1) Black, or 2) a Democrat, is laughable and ignorant.

When the two parties actually have something in common, they do work together. The Invasion of Afghanistan for example. On Bush's tax cuts, they both wanted to extend at least part of the cuts, however they disagreed on who should get the cuts. Republicans wanted everyone to get those cuts, and Democrats wanted only the poor and middle class. Obama actually worked with Republicans and many Republicans applaud him for it(listen to Michael Medved on talk radio for proof). 80% of the time however, the two parties are opposed in their ideals.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

It's been a crappy week of rain that has totally screwed up my work schedule and free time and I'm a bit on the tired side. I meant ideals but wrote politics instead for whatever reason. My point still stands, that the argument about Republicans being against Obama just because he's either 1) Black, or 2) a Democrat, is laughable and ignorant.

Ignorant? No. Cynical, though...yes that is a far better answer.

And, sadly, enough, I can see where they are coming from. It is good politics (note, I said politics) to deny your opponent any legislation that would make them look good. The repeal of DADT, the extension of un-employment help, the passing of the new START, etc, are all powerful documents that will undoubtedly greatly help Obama's standing with his party and a great many of the moderates. So, why is it so hard to believe that an opposing party would try and limit these successes? (I'm not saying this has necessarily happened, but if you view it in a cynical manner, it is quite easy to see politicians as having abandoned their ideals and existing only for politics.)

Originally Posted by justinstrife

When the two parties actually have something in common, they do work together. The Invasion of Afghanistan for example. On Bush's tax cuts, they both wanted to extend at least part of the cuts, however they disagreed on who should get the cuts. Republicans wanted everyone to get those cuts, and Democrats wanted only the poor and middle class. Obama actually worked with Republicans and many Republicans applaud him for it (listen to Michael Medved on talk radio for proof). 80% of the time however, the two parties are opposed in their ideals.

That's not a very good example. The Tax Cuts had a deadline that was quickly coming to pass, so the Republicans were, quite literally, forced to compromise on the issue (even if they gave less than they received). Many Liberals, myself included, were more than content to simply let the tax cuts expire, but Obama knew the majority of citizens wanted to keep at least some of the tax cuts (the middle class and below tax cuts), so he was forced to extend the tax cuts as is (and receive some aid for the unemployed (etc) as compensation for being forced to help the top 1-2%).

That being said, I don't quite understand this meme that Obama has not incorporated Republican ideas into his plans. This is completely false. Obama has used many Republican ideas. But, instead of the Republicans acknowledging this, and then disagreeing based solely on principle (or ideal), they instead choose to say that Obama has done nothing and used nothing from the Republican Party.

[Vexx]

My own point of view is that I barely recognize the party of Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt (or even Nixon/Ford for that matter). It will be a long, long time before I trust the GOP with the keys to *anything* again. They've proven they can't govern, they've proven they can't control their very small clientele (the plutocracy), they've proven they can't get their basic facts straight on history, or even the contents of something right in front of them. I've never thought much of the "social conservatives" to begin with and there don't seem to be any "practical fiscal conservatives who understand you have to maintain and improve the community and sometimes that costs money" left. Mostly what is left is the operatives of the robber barons who want another "Gilded Age" (ironic name) and wealthy sociopaths coupled with the fact-challenged neo-fascist screaming clowns.

At the moment, I'm maximally annoyed with the corporatist wing of the DNC as well so they're not exactly on my "friends" list either. The "Complex" appears to be in control of both parties to the detriment of the citizenry, small business, and communities.

[james0246]

^Sadly, the modern Republican/Conservative is being taught to hate Teddy Roosevelt, and I expect if we give it a few years Eisenhower will be on the outs too. Goldwater was the last great conservative politician, and he has been dead for over a decade, and has been out of office for over two decades, but he was still "Mr. Conservative" until the day he died...too bad the conservative party changed so much underneath him that by the time he died he was almost Liberal compared to his fellow Republican politicians...