WatchI like this guy. He's destroying both the Democrat and Republican running against him and will win easily in a landslide in November.
- Supports Obamacare
- Supports same sex marriage
- Rational environmentalist
- Will vote as a Democrat on taxation
- Supports filibuster reform in the Senate to stop Republicans from mutilating government
Although I predicted earlier that the Senate would probably go to the Republicans, King will likely make the result 50-50 with Joe Biden getting a new job.....
........IF Elizabeth Warren can prevail in Massachusetts.
Follow
Befriend (6)
17 threads
520 comments
Huntington Beach, CA
I agree that the GOP and tea party have prevented necessary tax law changes. I'm ok with what I know of the obama plan. But right now the house is full of republicans who won't support new taxes on the wealthy, or even fair and equal taxes for that matter. Electing new senators won't change that. I have little hope that things will get better. History repeats itself with uncanny precision. I believe we are heading back into the dark days of the robber barons, and Romney makes the most sense as the guy to lead us there. Since I also have little faith in the election process and believe it to be manipulated by people with money, I think they want Romney and thus he will win.
Prepare your sphincter!
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Quigley says
Romney can't win unless the polls are completely wrong.
Anyway you're right that we are headed back into the dark days of robber barons. The best way to get to the other side and a political renaissance is to remove the filibuster and let Republicans crash the nation on the rocks.
Then they can't blame obstructionist Democrats for filibustering their vital idiotic legislation and they will be terminated just like in 1933.
Follow
Befriend (7)
22 threads
325 comments
iwog says
I do. And I firmly believe that you would CARE if you had 1,138+ LESS RIGHTS as I do as a taxpaying American Citizen.
Follow
Befriend (9)
161 threads
1,544 comments
Premium
Buster says
I am all for the gays being allowed to marry. Then they will be introduced to alimony , divorce wars, the government in their business as opposed to them choosing to go their own ways and dealing with it individually.
I think the government should be out of it completely. The government has way too much control here-never in history has there been this sort of governemnt where the government has the "right " to control every family in America-down to how much time each parent spends with the child, how much money one should contribute and other minutia. It is just absurd.
Follow
Befriend (7)
22 threads
325 comments
lostand confused says
Well, until it is, I will advocate for equal civil rights.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,097 comments
Quigley says
My tea party sent me a copy of 15 bills sent in by our guy in gov, trying to change the tax code. Plus, so far as I know, we have not been granted any veto power.
My guess is, what you may have ment was, "change the tax code in a way that suits the tax-spend liberals in Gov" ?
p.s., there are LOTS of liberals with an "R" ... Bush for example. We need more conservative "D" members to help get things right.
Follow
Befriend (16)
763 threads
7,702 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
Bush is a liberal like I'm a religious conservative.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,097 comments
bush is a liberal from the point of view of any true conservative. much like Lord Barry is a dictator and Rom and Eric are lynchmen, in the eyes of any true American.
Follow
Befriend (23)
55 threads
3,790 comments
Scottsdale, AZ
robertoaribas's website
Bap33 says
or at least in the eyes of a delusional angry pissed off old fart...
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,097 comments
yea .. or that.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Bap33 says
You can't keep redefining words like dictator.
Obama is no more a dictator than any prior president. A real dictator wouldn't be putting up with Republican obstructionism and would simply implement policy without congress.
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,488 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
iwog says
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/politics/immigration/index.html
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Bellingham Bill says
Obama is well within the law. Our current immigration bill provides discretion by the executive branch on deportations. Regardless of if you agree or disagree, Obama is not acting as a dictator.
What is so absurd is that the Supreme Court is VERY hostile to the Democrats and a simple lawsuit from congressional Republicans would reverse Obama's executive order and we could start deporting 2 year olds again.
The reason it doesn't happen is that congressional Republicans aren't that stupid and know they would lose.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Ruki says
This is yet another post that will cause you to change your screen name again when Obama wins the election.
You've made every argument in the book why Obama cannot be re-elected, you've called every argument for why Obama will win wrong, you've called patnet people various names for claiming Obama will win another 4 years, and you've done it all in at least a dozen threads or more.
You really don't have any choice now if you're wrong. If Obama wins, all of these threads you've created can be bumped and you'll be the laughing stock of Patnet.
The Senate still might go to the Republicans. It all depends on Massachusetts now. Nothing else. Obama will win easily.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,097 comments
I just read that the Dem boss (Harry) in the Senate is sitting on all the activity and stopping any voting. And it is not the Repubs that are holding up things ... like a budget. Is that true?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Bap33 says
No.
The House must originate legislation. All of the bills sent to the Senate, like trying to repeal Obamacare 33 times, are DOA because Republicans are not allowed to compromise on anything. Furthermore Democrats in the Senate with a Democrat in the executive branch have a right to expect at least some influence on legislation, but they are allowed none.
A great example of this is the Bipartisan Debt Deal to increase the debt ceiling passed in 2011. It provides to automatic cuts to Medicare AND military spending if congress is unable to compromise on spending cuts and tax increases.
Well that deadline is fast approaching so Republicans in the House decided to do something about it. They passed a bill raising military spending and cutting Medicare and other social programs even more.
This is an absolutely stunning example of childish idiocy by the Republican party. Not only do they refuse to compromise on anything, they have the unmitigated arrogance to try and circumvent the debt deal with a piece of legislation that takes a massive shit on the former agreement.
Republicans: "Democrats control the Senate and the White House, but we get whatever we want or we'll shut everything down!
This is the reality of American politics. Democrats willing to compromise and Republicans trying to kill the process of government.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
490 comments
Alameda, CA
iwog says
I'm afraid you are exactly right. If, as I expect, Obama wins reelection and the Republicans retain the House, I'd say the chances of a default are somewhere between likely and certain. Obama can't let the Repubs play "government by blackmail" forever.
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,488 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
iwog says
Constitutionally, revenue (and appropriations by precedent) bills must originate in the House.
The Dec 2010 tax cut bill started life as a bill that funded airport extensions (which the Senate then used as the vehicle to write their own bill), LOL. What a shitty government we have.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4853:
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,488 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
bdrasin says
My thesis too. Romney wins, I expect fiscal rocket rides, like what we got with Reagan and GWB.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9vj
Obama wins, I don't expect much to happen -- Obama might cave, Republicans might cave, or nobody yields.
But Republicans aren't going to agree to massive monetary expansion unless they get to run on the benefits of it in 2016.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Bellingham Bill says
I don't see how they can agree to it. Obviously in the 1980s when Reagan invented gross overspending or in the 1990s when Clinton chewed up the cold war budget, but not now. The media agenda is dominated by Newscorp and they continue to preach the radical tea party agenda.
Besides I'm convinced that the only rational explanation of Paul Ryan as the VP nominee is that he's the heir apparent in 2016. Paul Ryan agreeing to the necessary monetary expansion is unthinkable and would be like electing Hitler to run the Anti-Defamation League.
At the same time, electing a radial psychopath like Ryan to the White House isn't possible without a severe depression and blame assigned to the Democrats. Therefore the only logical path over the next four years for Republicans is gridlock.
It certainly might fail and Democrats might sweep in 2014, but Republicans don't have any other options. They come to the table with absolutely nothing. To continue the right-wing revolution, they need a major crisis. An economic 911.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
iwog says
Never let a crisis go to waste. -- Rahm Emanuel, Republican
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,097 comments
@iwog,
why is there no budget from Harry for the last 3 years? Is there something I am missing?
Follow
Befriend
229 threads
2,777 comments
Bap33 says
Yes Iwog, I'm waiting on that answer from you too.....
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
905 comments
Ross, CA
Bap33 says
The ability to think for yourself.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Bap33 says
The Democrats are not allowed to pass a budget. There has been no offer of compromise or even negotiation from Republicans.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
It also happens to be true that under the Constitution, budgets originate in the House, and Reid is the Senate majority leader.
Follow
Befriend
21 threads
581 comments
South Pasadena, CA
iwog says
Iwog, unfortunately Romney can win.
He does not need much. He already went to Jerusalem and literally sold America there. As the result he will get a lot of jewish votes, which gives him Florida and probably Virginia. With his piles of money he can buy enough votes to get Nevada and Colorado. If on top of this he wins just a third of delegates from other swing states he wins the elections. That should be quite easy for him with the amount of money he got.
Follow
Befriend
30 threads
1,488 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
If the election were held today, Romney would very close to winning and the Republicans would probably control the Senate.
http://electoral-vote.com
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,627 comments
Bellingham Bill says
King will vote Dem in Maine and Missouri is no longer leaning Rep after Akin's debacle. I'd say Senate fortunes have changed in the last couple of weeks.
Follow
Befriend
229 threads
2,777 comments
rooemoore says
Typical Lib. answer......
iwog says
Another typical Lib. answer without any proof......
msilenus says
Absolutely correct, and the House has sent over several budgets that they passed over to the Senate, and the Senate has done jackshit to propose/pass a budget for three years...
Nice try guys!!!
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,097 comments
@iwog,
anyone
please give both sides of the situation so I really understand. Thanks. As it is now, all I read on-line is Harry is not doing anything.
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
905 comments
Ross, CA
Call it Crazy says
Witty and accurate? I guess you're right it is a typical lib answer!
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,074 comments
Bellingham Bill says
Not according to the money.
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres12_WTA.cfm
Let's see how close to 50 the red rep graph can get when the republican hold their liefest in a couple weeks. I say if it does't get real close to 50 or over, then the election is over. That is, assuming they haven't taken total control of the voting machines and implemented sufficient voting suppression to throw the election to the plutocrat and corporate overlords.
Don't get me wrong. Another Obama term may well be part of the overlord's master plan. They'll bring republican Ronald Reagan II in, only when the economy is ready to boom again, and talk about how badly the democrats fucked it up for all those years.
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
905 comments
Ross, CA
Bap33 says
For all of it's faults, the Senate rarely resorts to the pointless shenanigans the House does. (Over 25 votes to repeal all or some of Obamacare only to say they did it) Senators like to think they are above that.
Anyway, in these times, what would be the point of Harry Reid and the democrats offering a budget. It would get filibustered and not even make it out of the Senate
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
marcus says
Wow and I thought MY tinfoil hat was on too tight.
Follow
Befriend
229 threads
2,777 comments
rooemoore says
Because it's their duty and what they get paid by YOU to do....
But, if they passed a budget, then they couldn't continue to rape and pillage the american people.....
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,534 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Call it Crazy says
Right, just like it's the Republican's duty to pass 33 resolutions repealing obamacare. What you call duty, I call a bunch of babies throwing a tantrum. You'd call it that too if it was the Democrats.
Call it Crazy says
This doesn't even make sense.
Follow
Befriend
229 threads
2,777 comments
iwog says
I know, come on, say it with me.....
It's all Bush's Fault!!!!!!
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Call it Crazy says
It's all George Washington's fault.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
Call it Crazy says
In the same sentence you acknowledge that the Senate is not empowered by the constitution to propose a budget, and ding the Senate for not proposing budgets. Stunning.
The other fork of your criticism --that the Senate hasn't passed a budget-- begs the question that the House is passing budgets that should be passed. It's not. The House is controlled by a huge margin by one party, and its budgets boil down to compromises between the far right and the right wing. Glossing over that question while ackowledging that the onus is on the House to produce a budget implies that you think the Senate should be rubber-stamping what the House produces. I can't reconcile that view with the notion that you've read the Federalist Papers, so I'm going to take it upon myself to introduce you to them.
Below are the closing remarks of Maddison and Hamilton's first article explaining the motivation and function of the Senate. The "tl;dr" version is that one function of the Senate is as a corrective against wild changes in policy over short periods of time, which are made possible by frequent elections in other branches. Originally Senators were appointed by state Governors. When the constitution was ammended to elect them, the original intent was preserved by giving them six-year, non-overlapping terms.
If you're wondering what all that has to do with the kinds of budgets the House is passing, recall that none other than Newt Gingrich, when first confronted with the Ryan budget, called it "right wing social engineering." Because that is what it was.