1 - 10 Next
I'd like to know where the Republicans in Congress are on this?! They control the money. They could fix this immediately if they wanted too. Just shut everything down until it is. Force the Democrats to come out publicly in favor of voter fraud. Is all they care about is that they got in? What about us?
The basic idea of Democracy is that a majority is more likely to be right than a minority. If voter fraud let's a minority win an election and call the shots, they will take the country in a direction where most people in the country don't want to go. Nothing should be more important than correcting this immediately. The government should halt all operations until this is made right, on a national level. We have the technology to insure fair elections. If people board a bus for Maine, but the driver is taking them to Kansas, how long should they wait to get the bus going in the right direction?
Yes, the unions were necessary back in the early 1900's. And even now, as alligators, they stand ready to come in if a company is not treating its workers fairly. The recent loss they took in Tenn., would not have happened if V.W. had not been viewed as a good employer. So their role now is like a threat to keep management honest.
In response to:

What to Cut From America's Budget

GUY92 Wrote: Feb 14, 2014 9:15 AM
Well done. This should be copied and pasted all over the Web. When Soc. Sec. was first enacted the debate was over why should Government be trusted to hold people's money safely. Those in favor of Soc. Sec. argued that "Too many people, if left to their own devices, would not have the discipline to follow through and actually save money for their retirement." In order that this irresponsible portion of society would not create a burden for everyone else when they got older, the politicians would have to hold the savings accounts for everyone. This way we all will be certain that the money will actually be saved. But with the numbers which you have given, it shows the huge degree of failure of the politicians and government to do this properly. Raising the retirement age or reducing benefits is proof of their failure, yet they will not admit they have failed us. It's ironic that the cause of their failure is that they have been just as irresponsible with our money as those who accused of being irresponsible in the first place.
In other words, doesn't character matter as to whom we appoint to positions of authority?
Do you think she is lying when she says "At the moment when my husband's blood-stained shirt was held up by the evidence handler, Mumia Abu-Jamal turned in his chair and smirked..." Let's give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she is telling the truth, (as, more than likely there were cameras rolling which could confirm this moment.) I think that if a lawyer actively seeks to defend such a man, the Senate has a duty to question him about his motives for wanting to defend this man, just to get an idea of what his views of justice are.
"If the judges... had not ordered a new trial Mr Adegbile would not have been involved." You make it sound like Mr. Adegbile was a court appointed lawyer who had no choice but to take the case. It's twisting Mrs. Faulkner' words to suggest that she wants to deny the right of an appeal to anyone. She just wants to make the point that Mr. Adegbile was especially eager to take up this case. Btw, the Dems routinely bring up individuals to testify in situations like this. Remember Anita Hill, who accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment ?
It should be remembered that Democrats knew what was in the law much more than Republicans could, because Republicans were excluded from the brainstorming and negotiating sessions during the writing of the law. The Republicans only objected to what they learned about it on the basis of common sense. For example, take the 50 employee cut off. Common sense tells anyone that if a business can avoid the whole compliance mess simply by staying under 50 workers, there will be an irresistible temptation to either cut back to less than 50, or stop hiring at 50. So it's an obvious jobs killer. How the Democrats could have ignored such an obvious consequence "lets the cat out of the bag" as to the real motive behind the law: it's objective was to balloon the Bureaucracy regardless of its effect on the economy as a whole.
Missing from the debate is the game changing new technology that fracks without using any water: it fracks by pumping in a small amount gas similar to what will come out, only thickened in the form of a propane gel to push sand into the cracks and crevices. So no chemicals are needed to thicken the water as required by hydraulic fracking. (Regular water can't push the sand into the cracks.) During this non-hydraulic fracking operation, the gel turns back to a gas, and it all gets pumped back out along with the newly found gas in the shale. Seems to me that this new technology has made hydraulic fracking obsolete, yet no one talks about it. I guess there was too much money already invested in figuring out how to thicken water, so they don't want to change.
I think what the writers of the Constitution did not foresee is the that our nation's news media would be always fighting "tooth and nail" to support and protect the government bureaucracy. Most people rely on the T.V. to find out what's happening. They have to spend so much time just making a living. Plus the bureaucracy dishes out so many hand-outs, that they have won over a large portion of our population. Socialism breeds passivity.
1 - 10 Next