carlfense

Meaningless unless it isn't budget neutral . . . and then it's characterized as exploding the deficit, "THE DEBT!!," irresponsible spending, and "we need to tighten the belt". Yep. Boogeyman aside . . . I'm not sure how people can look at stagnating middle and lower class wages coinciding with the incredible gains made by the wealthiest Americans and conclude that we don't need wealth redistribution. In fact, take the government and the big, mean, scary phrases out of it and I'd bet that most Republicans would agree. Frankly, I don't think that the GOP does either. It's far more valuable as cover for the fact that they don't have an economic plan or a jobs plan than it is as an actual infrastructure project. When it's approved they will have to come up with a real plan or a new distraction.

Well. This is a thing that happened. http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7868677/senate-climate-vote

Obama is foolishly proposing to pay for it. These things are a lot easier if you just pretend they are free. Obama has called it "free" a great many times. Just taking the man at his word, as some here are with people backing the keystone project as "job creation" But his proposal includes a budget neutral way to fund it, correct?

Obama is foolishly proposing to pay for it. These things are a lot easier if you just pretend they are free.

What's the Democratic equivalent of pretending like Keystone XL is a monumentally important "jobs bill"?I was speaking more to the premise of their main platforms not being founded in reality. Which they are not. Gratis post high school education, for example.I don't know . . . the whole two years paid tuition after high school seems a hell of a lot more reality based than acting like 35 permanent jobs would energize the American economy. Your opinion. Because I'm damn sure someone's going to be paying for that education. Fundamental economic lessons dictate nothing is free. I tried to carefully avoid calling it "free." Wonder how many kids we could put through school if we ended the F35 boondoggle?

Even if they were ignorant of the law during the seizure the money would have to be returned . . . but this only changes the federal rule. http://www.fairfieldsuntimes.com/opinion/article_a01634e8-a0d7-11e4-9397-878e8419d604.html Idk Carl, seems pretty open now. The difference is one between using something illegally (but erroneously) seized as evidence and refusing to return money illegally (but erroneously) seized.

What's the Democratic equivalent of pretending like Keystone XL is a monumentally important "jobs bill"? I was speaking more to the premise of their main platforms not being founded in reality. Which they are not. Gratis post high school education, for example. I don't know . . . the whole two years paid tuition after high school seems a hell of a lot more reality based than acting like 35 permanent jobs would energize the American economy.

Even if they were ignorant of the law during the seizure the money would have to be returned . . . but this only changes the federal rule.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

According to that Forbes article Transcanada has used eminent domain in 2% of land acquisition. Does "voluntary agreements" include the letters that they sent to landowners saying that they can accept Transcanada's "offer" or they will take the land through the courts? If so, I suppose that we could say that people voluntarily agree to give money to muggers every day.

What's the Democratic equivalent of pretending like Keystone XL is a monumentally important "jobs bill"?

LJS Article This is, perhaps, the scariest precedent this pipeline is setting. For the government to approve of this is disgusting. In a surprise twist you can blame the liberal justices for private use eminent domain. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/03/12/the-devastation-caused-eminent-domain-abuse/yWsy0MNEZ91TM94PYQIh0L/story.html Kelo was a terrible decision.

It goes well beyond approving of it! This is literally the centerpiece of the Republican economic plan. How crazy is this? Does no one in that party give a damn about reality anymore?

But Keystone XL is all about 'Murica!

Thanks for the conversation guys and gals. I was done posting in this thread until I saw this. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I think reading it, may have actually made me dumber. Which I sure some of you didn't think was possible. No where in this conversation did I quote my faith, scripture or say that gay people were gross. With that, may God bless you all. And for those who don't like that, may the great flying spaghetti monster rain meatballs upon you and your family. rude and presumptuous. no reason to believe he was responding to you. seemed to be just his/hers stream of conscious thought on the subject at large. this person gets it My apologies. I thought your post was directed at me, but as I go back and read through the thread, I had no reason to believe that. Sorry. ^^^Keep posting, man. We may not agree on everything but I like your style.

How do you know that? You might be right . . . but I think the burden of proof belongs with the state. They shouldn't be able to seize my cash or car unless and until I can prove where/how I got it. On the other hand, if they can (and do!) prove that it's drug money or assets associated with drug running/selling it makes perfect sense.

Not:

Fox:

http://www.fox-or-not.com/

Why not?

Do you think that the Constitution would allow a law that only permitted people of the same race to marry?

Do you think that the regular legislative process could prohibit marriage between a consenting man and woman of legal age? lest we forget anti-miscegenation laws. Right. And in 50 years we'll look back on todays laws discriminating against homosexuals just like we do with the racist laws of our recent past. Dbqgolfer: How far does your respect for the legislative process extend? Do you similarly hope that the Supreme Court will side with the administration in Halbig?

Do you think that the regular legislative process could prohibit marriage between a consenting man and woman of legal age?

True!