The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[bhlloy]

It's so disgusting when you think about the stuff these people have got away with. Like the Wells Fargo exec who kicked a family that lost everything in the Madoff scam out of their home in Malibu, refused to negotiate or return any real estate agent calls and then proceeds to throw parties and live in the home the whole time. I'd imagine worst case scenario for this woman is she gets fired with a nice severance package and another company snaps her up.

It just boggles the mind, like somebody said, when we throw people in maximum security prison for stealing food from a supermarket and we have people that have stolen billions, pushed the country into recession, ruined millions of lives and are allowed to continue living the lifestyle they have.

I would absolutely LOVE to see some ambitious D.A. prosecute one of these assholes for murder in a case where something shady happened with a foreclosure or an investment deal and it led to a suicide.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I would absolutely LOVE to see some ambitious D.A. prosecute one of these assholes for murder in a case where something shady happened with a foreclosure or an investment deal and it led to a suicide.

I'm sure Sam Waterston will take a crack at it soon.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I would absolutely LOVE to see some ambitious D.A. prosecute one of these assholes for murder in a case where something shady happened with a foreclosure or an investment deal and it led to a suicide.

Cuomo in New York seems somewhat interested in doing this, although it feels like it's just enough to help his political future.

The problem with a tough DA is that it's political suicide. Spitzer went after people like that and while he became Governor, he constantly had people out to destroy him. Some believe that the escort revelations were in part due to the enemies he created.

We basically need an old, burly DA who just doesn't give a fuck about who he pisses off.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Other than the obvious carnage created by con artists like this...the fundamental difference in how they, and their families, are handled is the type of stuff we really need to be worried about, IMO. It's the type of stuff that launches complete anarchy, revolts, overthrows, etc.

Imagine the type mob rule you'd see if actual townhalls turned into militia seizures and the like. I really think this country is on its way to seeing this happen on a small scale if we have a double dip recession and continue to see these types of things unfold.

It is kind of crazy when you think about it. How powerful special interest groups and corporations have gotten that they literally control the mob these days. They have gotten the mob to protest against their own self interests.

In a perfect world with independent thought, we'd see the mobs outside the homes of Bernie Madoff with pitchforks and torches. Bernie wouldn't have to worry about keeping his possesions in his wife's name as they'd be burned to the ground.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In a perfect world with independent thought, we'd see the mobs outside the homes of Bernie Madoff with pitchforks and torches. Bernie wouldn't have to worry about keeping his possesions in his wife's name as they'd be burned to the ground.

Not sure how much right the mob would have to criticize. What did the review uncover earlier this month, the number of investors with Madoff who lost any money at all was about half but nearly all of them filed claims to recover their "losses". They only difference between those people & Madoff is scale, they seem equally willing to steal money from someone else and I hope prosecutors look at each & every claim filed and prosecute as many of them as possible for fraud. No defense for Madoff but no defense for any false claimants either.

And I'm still kind of curious about the disparity between the nearly 16,000 claim seeking a share of any recovered money while there were only around 8,100 customer accounts between 2000 and 2008.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not sure how much right the mob would have to criticize. What did the review uncover earlier this month, the number of investors with Madoff who lost any money at all was about half but nearly all of them filed claims to recover their "losses". They only difference between those people & Madoff is scale, they seem equally willing to steal money from someone else and I hope prosecutors look at each & every claim filed and prosecute as many of them as possible for fraud. No defense for Madoff but no defense for any false claimants either.

And I'm still kind of curious about the disparity between the nearly 16,000 claim seeking a share of any recovered money while there were only around 8,100 customer accounts between 2000 and 2008.

Well Madoff may not be the best example. I think we can find a few dozen people worthy of some good mob justice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well Madoff may not be the best example. I think we can find a few dozen people worthy of some good mob justice.

A few dozen? Hell, I can name several hundred in DC alone

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

couldnt help but laugh at the commentary of the Gator's game when they mentioned that Tebow was "actually born in the Phillipines." I immediately thought how upset the birthers should be

Seriously, you thought that while watching football? You do realize that's pretty pathetic right?

[Flasch186]

meh

[Edward64]

Just a check point.

When the poll first came out after the 100 days, Obama's Great/Good was around 53%. It has now slipped to 42%.

[Dutch]

Bill Clinton speaks of vast, right-wing conspiracy
The Associated Press: Bill Clinton speaks of vast, right-wing conspiracy
(AP) – 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — Bill Clinton says a vast, right-wing conspiracy that once targeted him is now focusing on President Barack Obama.

The ex-president made the comment in a television interview when he was asked about one of the signature moments of the Monica Lewinsky affair over a decade ago. Back then, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton used the term "vast, right-wing conspiracy" to describe how her husband's political enemies were out to destroy his presidency.

Bill Clinton was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether the conspiracy is still there. He replied: "You bet. Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was."

Clinton said that this time around, the focus is on Obama and "their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail."

Oooookay, must be a slow news day.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It is kind of crazy when you think about it. How powerful special interest groups and corporations have gotten that they literally control the mob these days. They have gotten the mob to protest against their own self interests.

I think they have a role in drawing out the mobs we see, but I'm not sure they are controlling the mob itself. At least not to the extent I think you might be implying.

Like in the tea party example, I think there is a definite gathering of people due to the "sponsorship" of Fox News pundits, organized conservative groups, and associated TV coverage but I would venture to say it is only successful in getting them there, taking shots at the Dem-controlled legislature & Obama, etc. But the thing I see is that the more these types of rallies become commonplace, a good number of people will begin showing up without being "brought out" by these methods. People who would not ordinarily care about participating in such protests. People who do not care any more that the "point" of the protest is "X" or "Y"...they are just going to support "any" anti-government protest due to the perceived conflicts. I honestly think this has little to do with Dems or Repubs in authority...it has to do with the collapse of the economy and the fact that the rich are still rich despite screwing up.

When/if this begins to happen more and more, and we continue to see Wall Street criminals ignored, government reps being bought out (and still in power like Dodd), etc...we're going to reach a boiling point IMO that doesn't care whether you are conservative, progressive, in favor of health care reform, or what...they will simply be angry and dislike "any" rich people, well-off corporations, or people who may be inclined to defend any of those because the feeling will be that it is ALL just a rigged game. I imagine most people feel this way already...but I suspect many(i.e. majority) are still at the pessimistic stage rather than the angry, ready to burn-down-the-town-hall stage.

I submit that we have seen a lot of this sentiment with unemployment going from 5% to 10%...how about if it goes to 15% because of a double-dip? That's a lot of people with nothing but time to begin getting angry at the whole structure. Add in the fact that the other 75% (leaving out the top 10% as "satisfied" or "quelled") will believe they may be next...and I don't know that this is handled as "civilly" as the Great Depression was.

I hate to be all sunshine about it...but I do wonder if our elected leaders and elite income people even consider the consequences of such unchecked criminality.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Bill Clinton speaks of vast, right-wing conspiracy
The Associated Press: Bill Clinton speaks of vast, right-wing conspiracy
(AP) – 35 minutes ago



Oooookay, must be a slow news day.

YAY! The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is back!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

YAY! The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is back!

Cool, maybe I won't feel as much like the Lone Ranger as often.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I think they have a role in drawing out the mobs we see, but I'm not sure they are controlling the mob itself. At least not to the extent I think you might be implying.

I don't know. We had people chanting "drill baby drill" at political rallies. How embedded do special interest groups have to be to get a group of people and candidates to chant things in favor of giant corporations like Exxon. You can say the same about the other side and their incessent push to sell GE's light bulbs.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

It's so disgusting when you think about the stuff these people have got away with. Like the Wells Fargo exec who kicked a family that lost everything in the Madoff scam out of their home in Malibu, refused to negotiate or return any real estate agent calls and then proceeds to throw parties and live in the home the whole time. I'd imagine worst case scenario for this woman is she gets fired with a nice severance package and another company snaps her up.

It just boggles the mind, like somebody said, when we throw people in maximum security prison for stealing food from a supermarket and we have people that have stolen billions, pushed the country into recession, ruined millions of lives and are allowed to continue living the lifestyle they have.

I would absolutely LOVE to see some ambitious D.A. prosecute one of these assholes for murder in a case where something shady happened with a foreclosure or an investment deal and it led to a suicide.

I really do understand how you feel. But you do know that in the USA we don't actually throw people in maximum security prisons for shop lifting, right?

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Three Strikes Law. Robbery's a felony. There ya' go

In order for it to be a felony, you would have to steal a LOT of food at a supermarket. Also, Madof's crime is a felony so he would be in the same boat as a 3 strikes person, right?

As an aside, I would not mind putting Madof away for life in a real prison and taking everything from his family. I just think using the example of putting someone in prison for stealing food is lacking genuine merit and it takes some extreme exception for it to even be a possibility.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

In order for it to be a felony, you would have to steal a LOT of food at a supermarket. Also, Madof's crime is a felony so he would be in the same boat as a 3 strikes person, right?

As an aside, I would not mind putting Madof away for life in a real prison and taking everything from his family. I just think using the example of putting someone in prison for stealing food is lacking genuine merit and it takes some extreme exception for it to even be a possibility.

I believe petty theft as the third strike qualifies in California although I won't swear to it. I will grant you that the first two felonies have to be something more serious, and that many (most) of the people that fall into these categories do deserve to be locked up for a long time. But that doesn't invalidate the original argument IMO. Just because these people are white collar and we consider them respectable (and have friends in high places) doesn't mean they shouldn't be strung up for unethical and illegal practices that have ruined many people.

Actually decided to look it up and looks like over half of "three striker's" are in for non-serious/non-violent offenses
hxxp://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Bill Clinton speaks of vast, right-wing conspiracy
The Associated Press: Bill Clinton speaks of vast, right-wing conspiracy
(AP) – 15 years ago

Fixed that for you.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Probably not a big national story, but a big one here in Chicago.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/Obama.O...2.1176729.html

Essentially if Obama goes, it gets us the Olympics in the eyes of many. It's a big blow to the chances of my city to get the games. It's not 100%, but it would be kind of shitty considering Chicago has supported him so much and gave him his start in politics.

Obama has decided to go to Copenhagen this week to try and help out Chicago's bid. The vote takes place on Friday.

sportsillustrated.com link

[JediKooter]

Why would Obama care if the Olympics were in Chica...oh nevermind..

[flere-imsaho]

MBBF must be busy, as I'm surprised he hasn't updated us with poll numbers on health care reform:

Kaiser Health Tracking Poll—September 2009

The September Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds that public support for health reform ended its summer slide, reversed course and moved modestly upwards in September. The survey also finds initial majority support for taxing expensive health plans and imposing fees on insurers to pay for reform.

Fifty-seven percent of Americans now believe that tackling health care reform is more important than ever—up from 53 percent in August. The proportion of Americans who think their families would be better off if health reform passes is up six percentage points (42% versus 36% in August), and the percentage who think that the country would be better off is up eight points (to 53% from 45% in August).

Substantial majorities of Americans continue to say they back individual reform components designed to expand coverage, including an individual mandate (68%), an employer mandate (67%) and an expansion of state programs such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (82%).

When it comes to paying for reform, two ideas now under discussion among policymakers garner initial majority support. Fifty-seven percent of the public say they would support “having health insurance companies pay a fee based on how much business they have” and 59 percent would support “having health insurance companies pay a tax for offering very expensive policies.” In both cases, Republicans are evenly divided while Democrats and political independents tilt in favor.

The September poll, the sixth in a series designed and analyzed by the Foundation’s public opinion survey research team, examines voters’ specific health care issue interests and experiences and perceptions about health care reform.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

MBBF must be busy, as I'm surprised he hasn't updated us with poll numbers on health care reform:

I didn't realize I was the official reporter.

It's somewhat irrelevant to me at this point. Until the Democrats come together (if that's possible) and agree on a proposed bill, we don't have much to debate on. It takes a professional using a slide rule to figure out what might be in the final bill at this point and I sure as hell don't know how to use a slide rule.

For those that have never heard of a slide rule...........

Slide rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[JPhillips]

While the progressive wing is insisting on a slide rule to calculate, the moderates won't consider any numbers not calculated on an abacus. Meanwhile the GOP is insisting that there's no such concept as numbers and Joe Lieberman worries that the Iranians want to use our numbers to destroy Israel.

[ISiddiqui]

The Senate Finance Committee has rejected two versions of a public option amendment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/he...h.html?_r=1&hp

The committee on Tuesday afternoon voted, 15 to 8, to reject an amendment proposed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, to add a public option called the Community Choice Health Plan, an outcome that underscored the lack of support for a government plan among many Democrats.



Mr. Baucus voted no, as did Senators Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, , and Bill Nelson of Florida, joining all 10 Republicans in opposition.



A second amendment by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, to create a different version of a public plan was also defeated, though by a closer margin, 13 to 10, with the added support of Mr. Carper and Mr. Nelson.

The ball appears to be in Pelosi's court now. If she continues to push for a public option, that bill may not be able to pass the Senate.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The Senate Finance Committee has rejected two versions of a public option amendment:

Senate Panel Rejects Pair of Public Options in Health Plan - NYTimes.com




The ball appears to be in Pelosi's court now. If she continues to push for a public option, that bill may not be able to pass the Senate.

That's not the way Rockefeller sees it. Carper and Nelson are now on record voting for a public option where they were unknown before. It came pretty close to passing in the most unfriendly committee. When this bill passes finance and merges with the HELP bill I wouldn't be surprised to see the public option back. I've seen 48/49 votes in the yes column with several undecideds still out there.

I still think a public option can pass the Senate, but the question will be if any Dems are willing to block cloture. Ben Nelson alone can stop the public option if he's that adamant.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Ben Nelson alone can stop the public option if he's that adamant.

And do you strongly doubt that Nelson won't be? It may also be hard to get Lincoln on board as well.

[ISiddiqui]

Did you not follow the discussion? As JPhillips said, Nelson alone can stop the public option if he wants. That doesn't mean a vote for or against the bill.

[ISiddiqui]

Have you met Senator Ben Nelson (metaphorically speaking, of course)?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And do you strongly doubt that Nelson won't be? It may also be hard to get Lincoln on board as well.

I don't know. It's really big deal to deny your party cloture on an issue that's been the top of the platform for over 50 years. The pressure to vote for cloture will be enormous. My bet is he'd vote for cloture rather tha nstand alone, but he might try to organize a group of four or five so that it looks like there's a lot of opposition.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Obama has decided to go to Copenhagen this week to try and help out Chicago's bid. The vote takes place on Friday.

sportsillustrated.com link

Should be real close. Obama gives it a boost and they have a pretty impressive cast of characters on the trip. I remember Blaid getting London the games for 2012 in similar fashion.

I was originally against the games but have turned to hoping we get it. If we can model it after Atlanta, it should be a great boost to the city and make it much more prominent on the global scale. The upgrades to the lakefront also would provide some long term tourist growth. On a personal level, I'd like to see property values increase like they did in Atlanta.

Even if it doesn't bring in big money, I still think it'd be cool to have an Olympic games in my hometown (not many cities get to experience that). It's also nice to have it in the Midwest where it's much easier to attend for everyone. I mean a good percentage of the country is driving distance from here. I thought the Salt Lake and Atlanta games were good for the country and think Chicago is a great city that should be showcased to the world.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I was originally against the games but have turned to hoping we get it. If we can model it after Atlanta, it should be a great boost to the city and make it much more prominent on the global scale. The upgrades to the lakefront also would provide some long term tourist growth. On a personal level, I'd like to see property values increase like they did in Atlanta.

The IOC was generally not happy with how the Atlanta games were run. I think they said too much commercialism etc. I don't have the full perspective as I just attended one event and no other Olympics, but I wouldn't dispute the claim.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't know. It's really big deal to deny your party cloture on an issue that's been the top of the platform for over 50 years. The pressure to vote for cloture will be enormous. My bet is he'd vote for cloture rather tha nstand alone, but he might try to organize a group of four or five so that it looks like there's a lot of opposition.

Well, the thing about Nelson is that he tends not to care (or seems not to) about party pressure. He's supremely popular in his home state for one, and he's bucked his party on a number of issues in the past.

[JPhillips]

I don't think anyone would expect him to vote for healthcare reform, but singlehandedly blocking a vote is another issue. If he did that he'd almost have to switch party affiliations.

The positive of that would be that the Democrats might finally abandon a strict adherence to seniority and actually punish those who stray too far ala the GOP. Nelson would be far less likely to block reform if his committee chairs were at risk.

[flere-imsaho]

If Chicago gets the Olympics I'm looking forward to renting out my house for $10,000/week.

Seriously, though, if Chicago gets the Olympics it'll probably be Mayor Daley's swan song and he'll retire soon after, so I'd imagine it would get his full attention. And given that he's basically got dictatorial powers in this city (which can be both good and bad) at least those Games will have no ambiguity about who's in charge. Chicago also has a pretty good strata of top-notch experienced executives aligned with Daley who would lend a lot of professionalism to the effort. The current leader of the Chicago 2016 committee, Pat Ryan of AON, is a good example.

If Chicago gets the Games I'm cautiously optimistic that they'll turn out really well.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think anyone would expect him to vote for healthcare reform, but singlehandedly blocking a vote is another issue. If he did that he'd almost have to switch party affiliations.

The positive of that would be that the Democrats might finally abandon a strict adherence to seniority and actually punish those who stray too far ala the GOP. Nelson would be far less likely to block reform if his committee chairs were at risk.

LOL! This is the Democratic Party we are talking about, right?

You know, the one that let Senator Lieberman have basically everything he wanted after he almost because McCain's vice president?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nelson would be far less likely to block reform if his committee chairs were at risk.

I'm not too sure that he'd be far less likely to do it. He seems like the type that would wear any loss of committee chairmanship as a badge of honor for further political gains IMO.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

LOL! This is the Democratic Party we are talking about, right?

You know, the one that let Senator Lieberman have basically everything he wanted after he almost because McCain's vice president?

Trust me, I get it. The only way the Dems enforce any party discipline is if something like one person stopping signature healthcare reform were to happen. I'd imagine you could get 40+ Dems Senators to vote for changes that evening.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not too sure that he'd be far less likely to do it. He seems like the type that would wear any loss of committee chairmanship as a badge of honor for further political gains IMO.

What gains? He isn't ever going to be the President, so he's at the top of the ladder already. Losing committee chairs would further weaken his ability to get things done. I don't think he'd be stupid enough to trade his power and influence for some praise from the Lords of Broderism.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What gains? He isn't ever going to be the President, so he's at the top of the ladder already. Losing committee chairs would further weaken his ability to get things done. I don't think he'd be stupid enough to trade his power and influence for some praise from the Lords of Broderism.

I disagree with that. There's a lot of senators doing some questionable things right now. I'm not sure that there's a good blueprint to power in Congress. The Democrat power base in Congress is really struggling to get anything done. The Obama coattails are shrinking pretty quickly. I think several of these more moderate Democrats are positioning themselves so they are in a better position if some seats sway back in the 2010 election as has been predicted.

[JPhillips]

There's a very clear blueprint for power in the Senate. If you're a Dem you need to have the most time served and if you're in the GOP you need to support the party on all the critical votes. Committee chairs and committee assignments are where a Senator gets to achieve goals. Floor votes are almost entirely worthless.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's a very clear blueprint for power in the Senate. If you're a Dem you need to have the most time served and if you're in the GOP you need to support the party on all the critical votes. Committee chairs and committee assignments are where a Senator gets to achieve goals. Floor votes are almost entirely worthless.

Whether that's amended or not on the Democrat end moving forward is a big question as you note. Putting the most senior people in charge has led to this whole mess we currently have. Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd.......none are helping at all right now.

[JPhillips]

Speaker and majority leader are not selected through seniority, it's only committee assignments and chairs that honor seniority. But you're right that the seniority system is the problem, but wrong on the specific folks involved. If someone like Rockefeller or Schumer an finance instead of Max Baucus this would have been done before August.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The IOC was generally not happy with how the Atlanta games were run. I think they said too much commercialism etc. I don't have the full perspective as I just attended one event and no other Olympics, but I wouldn't dispute the claim.

I don't care much what the IOC thought. I'm talking about what it did for Atlanta economically and in terms of their standing across the globe.

[albionmoonlight]

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/s...perry_coup.pdf

Or, how the GOP has decided that it can win elections without the votes of people with college educations.

It's almost getting to the point where Nancy Pelosi could walk into my house and personally kill my dog, and my first thought would be "Well, I sure hope that the GOP never gets to be in charge of anything ever again."

I don't think that the military should or is going to stage a coup against President Obama. I know that, for those on the right, that means I am lost in a "fool's fog." Fine. Here's the deal, you stop trying to convince me of things, and I'll stop pretending to take you seriously as rational adults. We can use the free time that we both gain to think about Batman or something. At least it will be time more productively spent.

And, I know that the response to my post here is that I am picking out a straw man argument. OK, fine. I think that we probably all just agree to disagree on what arguments the GOP is using to motivate the base and what arguments are actually so far out there that leaders of the GOP will actually run away from them.

[gstelmack]

How is any of this different than the class warfare Clinton used to win his first election?

Edit: No, none of it's right on either side, I'm just not sure why Dems find any of this surprising.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't care much what the IOC thought. I'm talking about what it did for Atlanta economically and in terms of their standing across the globe.

There is quite a HUGE difference as to the standing of Atlanta around the globe in 1994 and the standing of Chicago around the globe (not to mention its standing in 2016).

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

How is any of this different than the class warfare Clinton used to win his first election?

Edit: No, none of it's right on either side, I'm just not sure why Dems find any of this surprising.

I'll also add in reference to the linked article that if the military didn't launch a coup while Clinton was in office, I don't think they will for Obama. Clinton did far more to the military than that letter is listing Obama doing...

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

How is any of this different than the class warfare Clinton used to win his first election?

Edit: No, none of it's right on either side, I'm just not sure why Dems find any of this surprising.

I find it suprising because if there was one word used to describe the Dems as they existed when I was growing up, it was "Compassion." And if there was one word to describe the GOP, it was "Competency."

Not that the GOP was heartless or the Dems (totally) inept. But, really, it seemed to come down to those noble poles.

So, I still expect more out of the GOP. The Dems are supposed to be stupid, and make emotional appeals, and just generally not quite get it. The GOP is supposed to have its shit together.

So, it suprises me when I see the GOP acting like I expect the Dems to act. I expect better from them.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So, it suprises me when I see the GOP acting like I expect the Dems to act. I expect better from them.

Cool, we're on the same page. I'm hot happy with GOP the party right now either given how much they are pandering to the lunatic fringe.