Chairman Obama will rule the world, and tax everything that moves (well even the dead if they money under ground)

Powell endorses Obama. Awesome. Goodnight McCain/Palin '08

The bloodbath has already begun. literally. as the right wing hate has killed 2 liberals already and injured at least 3 more.

the latest incident ^{(^)}

Powell endorsing Obama - holy shiat that's some big stuff. McCain's toast.

I can think of a certain Republican congresswoman (new window) who must be very concerned about a bloodbath.

winterwhile: I'm a complete farking idiot.

No argument here.

BREAKING NEWS: Former Sec. of State Powell backs Obama for president

(from meet the press homepage)

Game over.

Comrads please. You have pegged the Commie Analizer at the top of this page. We all know Chairman Obama would approve of this.

winterwhile: Comrads please. You have pegged the Commie Analizer at the top of this page. We all know Chairman Obama would approve of this.

Please tell me you're trolling and you do actually know how that thing works.

Tor_Eckman: BREAKING NEWS: Former Sec. of State Powell backs Obama for president

(from meet the press homepage)

Game over.

Link (new window)

Hobodeluxe: The bloodbath has already begun. literally. as the right wing hate has killed 2 liberals already and injured at least 3 more.

the latest incident (^)


Wow, unreal. Who assaults a woman? Let alone a campaign volunteer?

winterwhile: I'm still a complete farking idiot.

Tell us something we don't already know.

winterwhile: Commie Analizer

You should probably prepare yourself for a great deal of "analizing" in the coming days, sport.

/Open wide
//"That one" is coming!

Nobodyn0se: winterwhile: Comrads please. You have pegged the Commie Analizer at the top of this page. We all know Chairman Obama would approve of this.

Please tell me you're trolling and you do actually know how that thing works.

Troll. You won't see most of the trolls after the election.

Republicans....Your upance will soon cum....

/and your mom

Yawn.
Yeah, just wait until 2010. You ain't seen but the tip of the iceberg for economic pain that's in store for us. The Dems, with control of all levers of guv'mint, will be holding the bag then.

If voters were smart (ha ha) they would vote out ALL 435 reps, and ALL of the 1/3rd of the senate that is up for election this year.





/Makin' popcorn
//to watch the greatest show on earth unfold.

Nobodyn0se
Please tell me you're trolling and you do actually know how that thing works.

That must be a definition of "works" of which I was not previously aware...

/obama likely victor in '08: COMMIE
//obama is an america-hating terrorist muslim arab with a racist pastor: FASCIST
///viola, fair & balanced

the RePugs should all be spanked on C-Span for all to see. and then sent to their rooms with no pork and no earmarks.

they should also be grounded for the first year of the new Congress.

Chairman Obama's can now implement his health plan modeled after the Mass plan, which is a dismal failure. WIth half of the uninsured now insured, the program is costing the state taxpayer twice as much as originally thought or budgeted. Over one BILLION dollars this year alone.

One of the side effects of the plan, the middle class (60 - 100K) can't afford the state mandated insurance.

So now the middle class has to pay more taxes for the higher cost, for a plan they can't even afford to partake in.

That's 'democrat fairness' and the change we need

Does this mean the Republicans are gonna get raped?

michaeld5: Yawn.
Yeah, just wait until 2010. You ain't seen but the tip of the iceberg for economic pain that's in store for us. The Dems, with control of all levers of guv'mint, will be holding the bag then.

If voters were smart (ha ha) they would vote out ALL 435 reps, and ALL of the 1/3rd of the senate that is up for election this year.

/Makin' popcorn
//to watch the greatest show on earth unfold.

You are exactly correct. What the current Repub/Retard regime has done may take a decade to correct.

michaeld5
The Dems, with control of all levers of guv'mint, will be holding the bag then.

As Republicans were wont to remind everyone in the early part of the decade, the previous administration's economic policies still have a strong impact for the first couple of years of a new administration.

We just spent over a trillion dollars on six years of elective war, and the past several decades hobbling and dismantling the systems of government regulation surrounding our financial institutions. It will take some time to climb out of this hole.

Comrade Mrexcess? Please refain from extremism. Chairman Obama will not stand your bashing of Commies, our new friends. Just because it Failed, that means we have the opportunity to make it work.

winterwhile: I am a complete idiot

Yep.

Scary prospect, but good headline.

winterwhile: Chairman Obama's can now implement his health plan modeled after the Mass plan, which is a dismal failure. WIth half of the uninsured now insured, the program is costing the state taxpayer twice as much as originally thought or budgeted. Over one BILLION dollars this year alone.

One of the side effects of the plan, the middle class (60 - 100K) can't afford the state mandated insurance.

So now the middle class has to pay more taxes for the higher cost, for a plan they can't even afford to partake in.

That's 'democrat fairness' and the change we need

Have you ever met a fact?

winterwhile: Chairman Obama's can now implement his health plan modeled after the Mass plan, which is a dismal failure. WIth half of the uninsured now insured, the program is costing the state taxpayer twice as much as originally thought or budgeted. Over one BILLION dollars this year alone.

One of the side effects of the plan, the middle class (60 - 100K) can't afford the state mandated insurance.

So now the middle class has to pay more taxes for the higher cost, for a plan they can't even afford to partake in.

That's 'democrat fairness' and the change we need

Yeah buddy! I can't wait for that change to kick me in the ass!

I think many of you are forgetting that with Obama as POTUS & then the Democrats having complete control of Congress, there will be NO checks & balances in the government of this country. They will be able to do whatever they want. I don't think that's good for ANY party.

Thankfully, we do have 2010 to look forward to to correct this. They will blow it because they will WAYYY over-reach their power.

Comrade michaeld5, please remind yourself that Congress under Comrade Pilosi has been in power for 2 years. Its her policies that impact the economy, you must now take credit for.

Its astounding how much Comrade Pilosi has messed the country up, in such a short period of time. Chairman Obama plans on continuing that effort so change we can believe in happens.

michaeld5: Yawn.
Yeah, just wait until 2010. You ain't seen but the tip of the iceberg for economic pain that's in store for us. The Dems, with control of all levers of guv'mint, will be holding the bag then.

If voters were smart (ha ha) they would vote out ALL 435 reps, and ALL of the 1/3rd of the senate that is up for election this year.

/Makin' popcorn
//to watch the greatest show on earth unfold.


ITA. If everybody in DC ceased to exist & we had to start all over, we'd be much better off. Unfortunately, those in power will continue to trash our country.

A totally new Senate & House? THAT is change we can believe in!

glassa: I think many of you are forgetting that with Obama as POTUS & then the Democrats having complete control of Congress, there will be NO checks & balances in the government of this country. They will be able to do whatever they want. I don't think that's good for ANY party.

Apparently you don't understand what "checks and balances" mean.

It has nothing to do with party membership. At all.

winterwhile: Pilosi

Just dumb, or trying some arcane joke-by-intentional-mispelling? We may never know. I mean, if he meant "pill-osi", you think he'd spell it that way.

Comrads, we have a winner. Please take glassa to the re-education camps we call modern high school, pin a Chairman Obama shirt on him, and start the re-education process.

Obdicut: glassa: I think many of you are forgetting that with Obama as POTUS & then the Democrats having complete control of Congress, there will be NO checks & balances in the government of this country. They will be able to do whatever they want. I don't think that's good for ANY party.

Apparently you don't understand what "checks and balances" mean.

It has nothing to do with party membership. At all.

Sure I do. Guess who gets to nominate & approve judges for the Supreme Court? By golly, it would be those in charge. And they'll nominate whoever they want, even with a questionable record (9th Circuit Court anyone) and there will be no stopping them. Then, even the SC will be in their back pocket.

winterwhile: Comrade michaeld5, please remind yourself that Congress under Comrade PilosiPelosi has been in power for 2 years. Its her policies that impact the economy, you must now take credit for.

Its astounding how much Comrade Pilosi Pelosi has messed the country up, in such a short period of time. Chairman Obama plans on continuing that effort so change we can believe in happens.

FTFY.

Pelosi BARELY had control...hardly the super-majority needed to take responsibility for the last two years of fiscal policy.

You're post is an example of why whoever wins, that person is really up against it. Americans are not a patient people. It's going to be ugly. It WILL take the next 8-10 years to undo this mess...I fear whoever wins is going to be a one-term president.

well people swore up and down that W would be a 1 term wonder... and powell is on meet the press right now endorsing obama.

so it looks like obama will get that chance

glassa: Sure I do. Guess who gets to nominate & approve judges for the Supreme Court? By golly, it would be those in charge. And they'll nominate whoever they want, even with a questionable record (9th Circuit Court anyone) and there will be no stopping them. Then, even the SC will be in their back pocket.

You don't understand what the phrase 'Checks and balances' means in reference to the structure of the US government. That is very, very sad. We really need to teach civics better in public school.

"Checks and balances" comes from the idea of Seperation of Powers, or dividing the govenrment into areas of responsibility. The division of the government into the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches, the powers and limitations of each, and the oversight each performs on the others, is what comprises the 'checks and balances' in the US government.

It in in way, at all, in any fashion has anything to do with party membership. You might make an argument that having one party control all three branches weakens the separation of powers, but you have not actually presented such an argument. To do so would also be to ignore that much of the judiciary is made up of non-party judges, or of judges who are not changed administration to administration.

In addition, you have not cited any particular reason for believing that the Democratic party acts with a unified will; a brief look into the politics of, say Kucinich, vs. that of Feinstein, will show that there is a huge separation of philosophy and belief inside the party.

In short, your ignorance about the term 'checks and balances', what it means to our country, and how it's built into our structure of government, is deeply worrying. The greatest threat to the separation of powers has been from the Bush white house, which has repeatedly asserted that it is free from oversight, can modify legislative actions at will, and otherwise compromised the separation of powers. That you are barking mad with fear at the idea of democratic control of the government, while ignoring the actual damage done to separation of powers by the Bush white house, is very telling.

winterwhile: Chairman Obama's can now implement his health plan modeled after the Mass plan, which is a dismal failure. WIth half of the uninsured now insured, the program is costing the state taxpayer twice as much as originally thought or budgeted. Over one BILLION dollars this year alone.

Aside from the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about, let me correct one fact: This is Gov. ROMNEY'S plan, which he was quite proud of.

Dumbass.

In my above post, where i said "It in in way", I meant "It in no way".

When I said 'burgers' I meant 'cheeseburgers', and when I said, "Tom Wait's leathery ball-sack" I meant "Leelee Sobieski's velvety breasts".

Obdicut: glassa: I think many of you are forgetting that with Obama as POTUS & then the Democrats having complete control of Congress, there will be NO checks & balances in the government of this country. They will be able to do whatever they want. I don't think that's good for ANY party.

Apparently you don't understand what "checks and balances" mean.

It has nothing to do with party membership. At all.

winterwhile: Pilosi

Just dumb, or trying some arcane joke-by-intentional-mispelling? We may never know. I mean, if he meant "pill-osi", you think he'd spell it that way.

umm...the specific argument against parties was that it would short circuit the institutional checks and balances framed in the constitution (the states were supposed to check federal government power, the executive check the legislative, the legislative check the executive, the Senate check the House for the small population states...the SC was never actually explicitly mentioned as being the check on both branches.)

I would like to point out one thing about the Republican majority of the last 8 years. I don't recall that they ever had the filibuster proof majority that the Democrats will enjoy after this election.

Obdicut: glassa: Sure I do. Guess who gets to nominate & approve judges for the Supreme Court? By golly, it would be those in charge. And they'll nominate whoever they want, even with a questionable record (9th Circuit Court anyone) and there will be no stopping them. Then, even the SC will be in their back pocket.

You don't understand what the phrase 'Checks and balances' means in reference to the structure of the US government. That is very, very sad. We really need to teach civics better in public school.

"Checks and balances" comes from the idea of Seperation of Powers, or dividing the govenrment into areas of responsibility. The division of the government into the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches, the powers and limitations of each, and the oversight each performs on the others, is what comprises the 'checks and balances' in the US government.

It in in way, at all, in any fashion has anything to do with party membership. You might make an argument that having one party control all three branches weakens the separation of powers, but you have not actually presented such an argument. To do so would also be to ignore that much of the judiciary is made up of non-party judges, or of judges who are not changed administration to administration.

In addition, you have not cited any particular reason for believing that the Democratic party acts with a unified will; a brief look into the politics of, say Kucinich, vs. that of Feinstein, will show that there is a huge separation of philosophy and belief inside the party.

In short, your ignorance about the term 'checks and balances', what it means to our country, and how it's built into our structure of government, is deeply worrying. The greatest threat to the separation of powers has been from the Bush white house, which has repeatedly asserted that it is free from oversight, can modify legislative actions at will, and otherwise compromised the separation of powers. That you are barking mad with fear at the idea of democratic control of the government, while ignoring the actual damage done to separation of powers by the Bush white house, is very telling.

I see you have addressed that...thank you :)

JaMorg: umm...the specific argument against parties was that it would short circuit the institutional checks and balances framed in the constitution (the states were supposed to check federal government power, the executive check the legislative, the legislative check the executive, the Senate check the House for the small population states...the SC was never actually explicitly mentioned as being the check on both branches.)

And it's an entirely different argument. Some, but not all, of the founders distrusted parties for the reasons you state. The fact that they did not disallow them in any way, shape, or form pretty clearly shows that that belief was not unified among the founders.

I don't know why you think the judicial was not considered to have a place in separation of powers. That's a rather radical view; do you have any support for it?

The concept of separation of powers, and that of checks and balances, was formalized if not invented by Charles Montesquieu. He clearly imagined a role for the judiciary, we clearly have a judiciary with a large role, even without the Supreme Court-- so I'm really at a loss to why you don't think the judiciary was meant to play a role in separation of powers.

Hopefully the Republicans come out of the cave they have been living in and realize there is a reason people are voting them out.

Hopefully the Democrats come back from La La Land and figure out that if we voted out the Republicans, we'll do it to them too.

JaMorg: I see you have addressed that...thank you :)

No problem, but I couldn't help nitpicking your post too.

I_Approve_Of_This_Message: winterwhile: I'm a complete farking idiot.

No argument here.

Yeah refreshing honesty.

Those who are worried about a lack of checks and balances against a president need to remember the last 8 years.

It's the Republicans who created Yoo and Fredo and their "theory" that the president is above the law.

Obama, on the other, teaches constitutional law.

Obdicut: JaMorg: umm...the specific argument against parties was that it would short circuit the institutional checks and balances framed in the constitution (the states were supposed to check federal government power, the executive check the legislative, the legislative check the executive, the Senate check the House for the small population states...the SC was never actually explicitly mentioned as being the check on both branches.)

And it's an entirely different argument. Some, but not all, of the founders distrusted parties for the reasons you state. The fact that they did not disallow them in any way, shape, or form pretty clearly shows that that belief was not unified among the founders.

I don't know why you think the judicial was not considered to have a place in separation of powers. That's a rather radical view; do you have any support for it?

The concept of separation of powers, and that of checks and balances, was formalized if not invented by Charles Montesquieu. He clearly imagined a role for the judiciary, we clearly have a judiciary with a large role, even without the Supreme Court-- so I'm really at a loss to why you don't think the judiciary was meant to play a role in separation of powers.

I believe it was but depending on the reading of Article Three it could mean different things. Alexander Hamilton is the one who espoused Judicial Review however the specific power of the Supreme Court in determining the Constitutionality of the actions taken by the Legislative or Executive branches is not laid out in the Constitution itself.

"Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

I have taken only a couple constitutional law classes in my time and not in law school but I have always been taught in every class that Judicial Review was not established until Marbury v. Madison and prior to that the role of the Judiciary in the balance of powers had not been clarified...i.e. It should be part of the checks and balances but nobody really knew how that would take shape and in what context.

Republicans fear bloodbath in Congress. This will be the best prom ever

Clarifying my own post a bit:

"Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"

This is probably the section that gives the Supreme Court the power of Judicial Review but again, it does not really state the type of Review we currently have. It could have also easily taken a different form.


The initial parties formed were those opposed to the Constitution (which ironically was the group that formed the ancestor to the Democratic party) and those for it.

I think if they had thought into the future at what our political parties would become they would have given serious consideration to disallowing them. The major failure of the current judicial process is the co-opting of different judicial philosophies with a party idealogy. Strict Intrepretationists are not necessarily Conservative Republicans just as Loose Interpretationists are not necessarily Liberal Democrats (I am looking at you Roe v. Wade and Scalia) however they have become so for political party purposes.

Actually, I don't know if all of the new voters will help Democrats down the ticket from Obama. My sister and one of her buddies, both juniors in college, voted for Obama on their absentee ballots, and then voted for "people with cool names" for everyone else.