1 - 10 Next
So if a black person is intimidating you, you canNOT pull out your gun and shoot him? Can you pull out your gun and warn him to stop, as Officer Wilson did? If he refuses to stop, then what? I would like persons of ALL colors to know that if they intimidate me and I'm carrying my gun, I WILL pull it out and shoot them. So just don't intimidate me, okay?
You must have missed John's next sentence: "Okay, maybe I paraphrased what he actually said just a little, but still." The adage works either way.
Hard to believe, too, that the corporate income tax falls "entirely" on the corporation's owners (many of which are now middle-class-American stockholders). Corporations have many ways to pay those taxes, including withholding hiring (not expanding their businesses) and wage increases, or raising prices.
Or maybe folks DO want that, since there seems to be a lot of buyer's remorse for re-hiring Obama instead of hiring Romney. There was just a bit of temporary insanity, probably brought about by the dog on the car's roof and the binders full of women, all trumpeted ad nauseam by Obama and by the media.
My first experience with the "use is or lose it" phenomenon was back in the early 1960s, when I was working as a secretary at a state university. My boss bought me a new Selectric typewriter (remember those? with the ball that moved while the carriage stayed stationary?) that I didn't want, simply because we hadn't used every cent of our budget. The more things change, the more they stay the same. (And my boss wasn't the least bit embarrassed to admit that this was why he bought it; he was almost proud.)
I'm absolutely certain that you would have cheered G. W. Bush if he had done anything similar to what Obama has done, which is how we know that YOU stand on principle and do not care what color our president is, as long as he is doing the right thing. Yep, I'm absolutely certain.
The Republicans had NO power for 0's first two years, minimal power after that. Any legislation sent from the Republican-led House to the Senate was simply tabled by Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid. No debate, no vote, just slip it into a drawer and accuse the Rs of being do-nothings. Now that they have control of both houses of Congress (well, beginning in January, which is why 0 was in such a hurry to make this splash) they can craft something sensible and the only way it can be stopped is by Democrat filibuster. But at least it will see the light of day and the Democrats will have to openly oppose it. You are either a paid troll or you have no knowledge of our federal government. Or maybe both.
Darby, there's no one on our side that's forceful and articulate enough to explain to Americans WHY 0 must be impeached. Therefore, any effort to impeach him, though it may well succeed, will look wishy-washy and half-hearted, NOT like a principled effort to preserve our system of government and even our way of life! And Obama knows it. In my opinion, he will try to force the Republicans to try impeachment, just to rally his base. The expected uprisings in every city will be just a side benefit. This president does NOT want to unite Americans and DOES want to bring America down from top of the heap to somewhere in the middle, at best. Impeachment and no conviction can only help his cause. Check out Bill Clinton's fate, after he was impeached and not convicted. He's the darling of the Democrats. I doubt 0 can reach quite the heights Clinton has reached (after all, he hasn't--as far as we know--groped any supporters or had "not-sex" in the Oval Office) but he will not suffer in the least if he is impeached. But WE will.
Certainly. The moment the House decides it wants to unite half of America behind this rogue president, it should impeach him. Then, as the riots erupt all over America, the Senate can fail to convict the president, completing the job of demonizing the racist Republican party and raising the Democrat party to "the party of tolerance and love"--and cementing the next election for the Ds. Good idea!
In response to:

Big GOP Win a Rebuke of The President

Polly1 Wrote: Nov 08, 2014 7:36 PM
Yep. Roberts said that it's not the Court's job to correct the mistakes of the voters. He has now seen the voters' apparent intent, so he should be comfortable interpreting the law AS WRITTEN. My understanding is that the provision that only the states' exchanges would be eligible for subsidies was the Democrats' attempt to force the states to set up their own exchanges. Oops. But hold 'em to it, Chief Justice Roberts; maybe next time they'll think twice before they try to force their will on the states. Meanwhile, Republicans, develop an alternative! Something that is market-based and has a chance of working.
1 - 10 Next