The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Buccaneer]

And then you get the Libertarians shouting from a distant corner but the fat cats in red and blue pay them no attention.

[JPhillips]

From what I've read there's no evidence that the census is being handled in a different manner than previously. If it turns out that Rahm is making edicts to the census, that's obviously a bad thing, but I haven't seen anyone saying that's happening.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One of the greatest tricks politicians have ever pulled is to turn Americans against Americans.

You're getting that backwards. We have our politicians because large groups of us strongly dislike other large groups of us. The politicians didn't create that, they're just a result of it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You're getting that backwards. We have our politicians because large groups of us strongly dislike other large groups of us. The politicians didn't create that, they're just a result of it.

I wouldn't say "we". I think partisians for the most part are the ones drawn into the political spectrum. Partisians tend to care more about what other people do with their lives than their own.

The rest of the country doesn't really care about other groups. They just wants our money spent wisely and our government and politicians to leave us the fuck alone.

And it's not backwards, it's how it's always been. Politicians will always get their people to hate something or someone to avoid being scrutinized themselves. It's why Iran's leader comes out and bashes Israel all the time. As long as his people focus their hate on them, they won't look inside at the complete incompetence going on in their own government. No different from when we've used immigrants, blacks, commies, muslims, mormons, indians, liberals, or conservatives to divide the country and deflect the attention.

[Buccaneer]

I am inclining to agree with RainMaker, after watching the political process for over 30 years. There always have been divisions in this country, with a lot of segmentation but they were kept themselves (except in times of agitations) and not magnified through a pervasive media. This country, believe it or not, had been far more partisan than what had transpired during my lifetime but in a country of limited mobility, communications and segregation, it never drove most people's lives. I am not saying it does now but it seems that way.

Just rambling.

[cartman]

I read this the other day, and it struck a chord with me. But that might be because I'm probably the only person in the country that is a member of both the NRA and the ACLU.

"The real problem might be toleration, or more accurately, the lack of it. We wish our preferred freedoms to be respected, while applauding governmental crackdowns upon those freedoms we dislike or are indifferent to."

"Until pot smokers and gun owners and low taxers and sexual minorities recognize that liberty is indivisible and that we're all in this together, we're going to be picked off piecemeal by government officials all too happy to exploit our mutual antagonisms."

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by WSJ

Obama to Shift Focus to Budget Deficit

Print ShareThisWith a $787 billion stimulus package in hand, President Barack Obama will pivot quickly to address a budget deficit that could now approach $2 trillion this year.

He has scheduled a "fiscal-responsibility summit" on Feb. 23 and will unveil a budget blueprint three days later, crafted to put pressure on politicians to address the country's surging long-term debt crisis.

Speaking Friday to business leaders at the White House, the president defended the surge of spending in the stimulus plan, but he made sure to add: "It's important for us to think in the midterm and long term. And over that midterm and long term, we're going to have to have fiscal discipline. We are not going to be able to perpetually finance the levels of debt that the federal government is currently carrying."

I am sorry but this is a crock full of shit. If President Obama signs the stimulus bill on Tuesday, he has no credibility in talking about fiscal responsbility.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I am sorry but this is a crock full of shit. If President Obama signs the stimulus bill on Tuesday, he has no credibility in talking about fiscal responsbility.

Did you really think he ever would act with fiscal responsibility?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Did you really think he ever would act with fiscal responsibility?

Congress no, but there was a hope for Obama. With the signing of the grossly fiscally irresponsibly stimulus bill (much like trillion+ spent on Iraq), he dug a very deep hole that even some analysts say that would be hard, politically, to roll back in a couple of years (again, much like Iraq). A lot of these items in the bill could have been handled during the normal budget process, which could still reflect the priorities in social spendings.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Congress no, but there was a hope for Obama. With the signing of the grossly fiscally irresponsibly stimulus bill (much like trillion+ spent on Iraq), he dug a very deep hole that even some analysts say that would be hard, politically, to roll back in a couple of years (again, much like Iraq). A lot of these items in the bill could have been handled during the normal budget process, which could still reflect the priorities in social spendings.

You had higher hopes than I did. In this, Obama is exactly who we detractors said he was--a fairly left leaning Dem, which means spending.

[Galaxy]

Can the 2010 elections come fast enough?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Can the 2010 elections come fast enough?

The Reps have been proven to be just as adept as the Dems in handing out billions in pork and authorizing hundreds of billions in wastful spending, while ramming through a bill without much thought or deliberations (i.e., Patriot Act).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The Reps have been proven to be just as adept as the Dems in handing out billions in pork and authorizing hundreds of billions in wastful spending, while ramming through a bill without much thought or deliberations (i.e., Patriot Act).

+1

there's no winning in this regard, so i choose to vote with the party whose social stances more closely mirror mine+

[JPhillips]

Is it too early for impeachment? Will the country ever recover?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The Reps have been proven to be just as adept as the Dems in handing out billions in pork and authorizing hundreds of billions in wastful spending, while ramming through a bill without much thought or deliberations (i.e., Patriot Act).

Oh, I agree, especially since Bush II got into office, and they did it with Reagan in the 80s, too. The GOP is still pretty good at cutting taxes, but they seem to have forgotten that that goes hand in hand with spending less, too. As a fiscal Republican, like you, I have been consistently disgusted by the spending by both sides, and it's just the continuing sign of how the GOP has drifted away from the values that once made it at least logical in its approach to governance.

But in any case, my earlier comment is targeted at the very well known fact that Obama==the high spending, strong left leaning Dem was one of the top criticisms we who were not enamored with him leveled at him, so to have people say now, "What, he's spending tons of money?" seems disingenious.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

+1

there's no winning in this regard, so i choose to vote with the party whose social stances more closely mirror mine+

True. It's tough because I support the social-moral issues such as marriage, religious freedom, ect. as the Dems. However, I despise their entitlement programs and big government. Flip flap those two issues for the GOP, and it's the same. It's tough to pick one party for it's social issues and ignore their spending/taxing/entitlement stances.

[SFL Cat]

No politician ever met an earmark he/she didn't like.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You had higher hopes than I did. In this, Obama is exactly who we detractors said he was--a fairly left leaning Dem, which means spending.

Well both sides spend, so I don't really see much difference between each party on this issue. So with those things being equal, I'll vote for the party that isn't 100 years behind the times on social issues.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

No politician ever met an earmark he/she didn't like.

Same with constituents though. When we hear about our representative bringing home millions for a big project in our community, we applaud. That's the problem we have. We hate Congress spending money except when it's in our district.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well both sides spend, so I don't really see much difference between each party on this issue. So with those things being equal, I'll vote for the party that isn't 100 years behind the times on social issues.

Not really relevant to what I said which you quoted, but thanks for contributing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Not really relevant to what I said which you quoted, but thanks for contributing.

I just thought your comment was odd by automatically attributing someone on the left to spending. Especially since the last 3 Republicans Presidents have built up massive spending deficits and the last Democrat had a surplus.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I just thought your comment was odd by automatically attributing someone on the left to spending. Especially since the last 3 Republicans Presidents have built up massive spending deficits and the last Democrat had a surplus.

It is not that simple. For one, congress writes the budget. Although there is no doubt that ALL of our politicians spend too much.

[lordscarlet]

I haven't posted my hopes, but this is one of them (well, not this bill, but if it's all we can get until there is some Constitutional battle, then so be it).

Editorial - ‘We’ll Take It’ - NYTimes.com

EDITORIAL
‘We’ll Take It’

Published: February 16, 2009
This nation’s founders rebelled against taxation without representation, but residents of Washington are still without a meaningful voice in Congress. A bill to give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives has taken an important step forward, and it could become law this year. The bill is not ideal, but it would redress a longstanding injustice. Congress should pass it.

A Senate committee voted for a bill last week that would give the district a voting House member and add another House seat for Utah. Utah is the state next in line by population according to the 2000 census to get another seat.

Washington’s lack of representation is profoundly undemocratic. Its residents are American citizens who pay taxes, vote for the president and serve and die in the military. Although the city is relatively small, it is more populous than Wyoming and nearly equal to those of Vermont and Alaska.

The drive to secure a voting House member for heavily Democratic Washington has traditionally faced stiff opposition from Republicans. But in the Senate committee, two Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio — voted in favor. The bill’s supporters may now have the votes to pass it and to overcome a Senate filibuster.

The special consideration given to Utah, a heavily Republican state, has helped win the support of Republicans. They know, however, that after the 2010 census, the new House seat could end up going to another state.

Of course, in a perfect world, fixing the disenfranchisement of residents of the nation’s capital would not be conditioned on giving another House member to a state that has not been wrongly deprived of one. But the compromise is still worth making.

Some critics insist that the bill is unconstitutional because the Constitution speaks of House members representing “the several states.” The better argument, as respected constitutional scholars argue, is that Article I’s “District Clause” gives Congress sweeping authority over the District of Columbia. That authority includes the right to award it Congressional representation.

With Barack Obama, who co-sponsored a 2007 version of the bill, now in the White House and the Democrats in control of both the House and Senate, this could be the moment Washington finally gets its representation.

“It’s 200 years too late,” says Eleanor Holmes Norton, who now serves as the city’s nonvoting member of the House. “But we’ll take it.”

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

It is not that simple. For one, congress writes the budget. Although there is no doubt that ALL of our politicians spend too much.

For 2000-2006 of the Bush II years it's absolutely that simple as R's controlled Congress too.

[ISiddiqui]

From what I've read, the DC Representative bill looks like it could pass.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I am inclining to agree with RainMaker, after watching the political process for over 30 years. There always have been divisions in this country, with a lot of segmentation but they were kept themselves (except in times of agitations) and not magnified through a pervasive media.

It's my opinion that at some point in the 1990s both parties started putting party before country on a regular basis and the explosion of cable news (later abetted by the explosion of on-line partisan outlets) provided even more enticement for politicians (especially on the national stage) to cling hard to party lines in what's unceasingly characterized as a pitched battle between the two.

Along the way we've lost much of the statesmanship and civility that once existed in our national politics.

And I know someone's going to pick an anecdotal example or two from the 19th century where two guys in Congress shot each other, but that's not my point. Look at the guys in the Senate in 1992. Look at the guys in the Senate now. There's a clear difference in the number of partisan hacks present, on both sides. Same with the House leadership, even though the House has always had considerably more partisan rabble in it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's my opinion that at some point in the 1990s both parties started putting party before country on a regular basis and the explosion of cable news (later abetted by the explosion of on-line partisan outlets) provided even more enticement for politicians (especially on the national stage) to cling hard to party lines in what's unceasingly characterized as a pitched battle between the two.

Along the way we've lost much of the statesmanship and civility that once existed in our national politics.

And I know someone's going to pick an anecdotal example or two from the 19th century where two guys in Congress shot each other, but that's not my point. Look at the guys in the Senate in 1992. Look at the guys in the Senate now. There's a clear difference in the number of partisan hacks present, on both sides. Same with the House leadership, even though the House has always had considerably more partisan rabble in it.

I think a big factor has been the gerrymandering of districts over the decades. You now have strictly Republican or Democratic districts covering most of the country. Only about 100 that can even be considered purple (much less normally). This has led to strong ideologies from both sides getting in and polarizing the country.

If the districts were done without political motives, we'd have a lot more moderate representatives and a lot more bipartisanship.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

From what I've read, the DC Representative bill looks like it could pass.

Sadly I suspect you're right. It gives the D's another vote so they're going to be all over the opportunity.

[Buccaneer]

I finally can agree with flere on something. Well said.

The anecdotal example was what I was alluding when we used to be far more partisan (esp. during the decades-long slavery debates). But not many people had a national outlet since all communications and actions were local, with a choice of which partisan newspaper to read. Nowadays, with the explosion of on-line partisan outlets, you have no choice but to buy into the red/blue game and to try to convince everyone else that your side is right and the opposition is the enemy. That's not different from 150 years ago, except now it is 1,000,000 times louder.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sadly I suspect you're right. It gives the D's another vote so they're going to be all over the opportunity.

Actually I believe there is a compromise, 1 DC Rep only gets added if 1 Utah Rep gets added. Utah is the next state in line to gain a rep (as their population has gone up the most since the last census) and would be (you'd imagine) a Repub seat.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I just thought your comment was odd by automatically attributing someone on the left to spending. Especially since the last 3 Republicans Presidents have built up massive spending deficits and the last Democrat had a surplus.

Myabe, but in context, your response made no sense. Bucc was saying he had had hope Obama would maintain some fiscal responsibility, to which I responded, why did he ever hope, Obama is exactly what people were saying he was, a spendthrift left-leaning Dem. There is nothing in there about the spending habits of Repubs. That wasn't relevant to what I was responding to, which is why it was really odd for you to bring that up, as if I had said something about that.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

From what I've read, the DC Representative bill looks like it could pass.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sadly I suspect you're right. It gives the D's another vote so they're going to be all over the opportunity.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Actually I believe there is a compromise, 1 DC Rep only gets added if 1 Utah Rep gets added. Utah is the next state in line to gain a rep (as their population has gone up the most since the last census) and would be (you'd imagine) a Repub seat.

Yes, no, and yes.

It does appear it may pass. It's not "yet another vote" because Utah also gets one. Unfortunately I am afraid that in time it will be found unconstitutional? Do I agree that it is? Not necessarily -- Politicians like to selectively use the phrases in the Constitution that apply to "these united States" and determine which they think apply to the District and which don't. Ultimately I would prefer statehood; perhaps it is a better climate now than it was almost 30 years ago, but we've gone down that road once already. The nation just doesn't care.

[Galaxy]

Yikes!

Transportation chief eyes taxing miles driven - White House- msnbc.com

Transportation chief eyes taxing miles driven
LaHood's says current gasoline tax not enough to fund infrastructure
The Associated Press
updated 7:50 a.m. ET, Fri., Feb. 20, 2009

WASHINGTON - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn — an idea that has angered drivers in some states where it has been proposed.

Gasoline taxes that for nearly half a century have paid for the federal share of highway and bridge construction can no longer be counted on to raise enough money to keep the nation's transportation system moving, LaHood said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said.

Most transportation experts see a vehicle miles traveled tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.

The idea also is gaining ground in several states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island are talking about such programs, and a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.

A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.

Thinking outside the box
Besides a VMT tax, more tolls for highways and bridges and more government partnerships with business to finance transportation projects are other funding options, LaHood, one of two Republicans in President Barack Obama's Cabinet, said in the interview Thursday.

"What I see this administration doing is this — thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America," he said.

LaHood said he firmly opposes raising the federal gasoline tax in the current recession.

The program that funds the federal share of highway projects is part of a surface transportation law that expires Sept. 30. Last fall, Congress made an emergency infusion of $8 billion to make up for a shortfall between gas tax revenues and the amount of money promised to states for their projects. The gap between money raised by the gas tax and the cost of maintaining the nation's highway system and expanding it to accommodate population growth is forecast to continue to widen.

Among the reasons for the gap is a switch to more fuel-efficient cars and a decrease in driving that many transportation experts believe is related to the economic downturn. Electric cars and alternative-fuel vehicles that don't use gasoline are expected to start penetrating the market in greater numbers.

"One of the things I think everyone agrees with around reauthorization of the highway bill is that the highway trust fund is an antiquated system for funding our highways," LaHood said. "It did work to build the interstate system and it was very effective, there's no question about that. But the big question now is, We're into the 21st century and how are we going to take care of our infrastructure needs ... with a highway trust fund that had to be plused up by $8 billion by Congress last year?"

Report expected next week
A blue-ribbon national transportation commission is expected to release a report next week recommending a VMT.

The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.

The device would tally how much tax motorists owed depending upon their road use. Motorists would pay the amount owed when it was downloaded, probably at gas stations at first, but an alternative eventually would be needed.

Rob Atkinson, president of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, the agency that is developing future transportation funding options, said moving to a national VMT would take about a decade.

Privacy concerns are based more on perception than any actual risk, Atkinson said. The satellite information would be beamed one way to the car and driving information would be contained within the device on the car, with the amount of the tax due the only information that's downloaded, he said.

The devices also could be programmed to charge higher rates to vehicles that are heavier, like trucks that put more stress on roadways, Atkinson said.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[JPhillips]

What a dumb idea. The gas tax already does a decent job approximating miles driven. Coming up with a nationwide tracking system for every vehicle would cost a fortune and piss off 99.9% of the population.

[Butter]

If the current gas tax doesn't pay enough for bridge and road maintenance... sounds like it's time to raise the tax. Or maybe we should just eliminate that tax too and let our interstate system fall into disrepair and let our bridges collapse. Sounds peachy!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Yikes!

Transportation chief eyes taxing miles driven - White House- msnbc.com

The level of stupidity in this kind of a idea is monumental. There's a ton of overhead in monitoring that kind of use tax.

Also not noted in this article is how transportation tax dollars often get funneled into other department on a regular basis in many states in lieu of actually just using the money to maintain roads. Missouri voters recently approved a ballot initiative that literally stated that all transportation tax dollars should only go to the maintenance of the transportation system. Lo and behold, we went from one of the worst road systems in the country to the top 10 in three short years. Amazing how that works.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Yes, no, and yes.

Actually, as much as I hope & pray that you're right, that "no" very much remains to be seen. There's certainly no guarantee that Utah won't be screwed in the interest of politics while DC is unconstitutionally awarded a seat.

I wish there was, but there isn't, and I'd have to be a fool to count on it going down that way until I see it with my own eyes and the ink is dry on the whole thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

If the current gas tax doesn't pay enough for bridge and road maintenance... sounds like it's time to raise the tax. Or maybe we should just eliminate that tax too and let our interstate system fall into disrepair and let our bridges collapse. Sounds peachy!

Naturally making proper, reasonable, and logical use of the existing funds is completely off the table. I've seen too many poorly conceived pork projects for roads, highways, and bridges just in close proximity to me over the years to have any confidence about the accuracy of any claims about the status of funding good or bad.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The level of stupidity in this kind of a idea is monumental. There's a ton of overhead in monitoring that kind of use tax.

Not really.

When you pay the yearly registeration fee for cars, they just check your mileage vs what was reported the last time you register. You drove 15,000 miles so, another $150 is tacked onto your car registration. (Like property tax in VA if I remember right)

Not saying I agree with a use tax, but not that much harder to do. Although, anything beyond that would be a monster to track.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, as much as I hope & pray that you're right, that "no" very much remains to be seen. There's certainly no guarantee that Utah won't be screwed in the interest of politics while DC is unconstitutionally awarded a seat.

I wish there was, but there isn't, and I'd have to be a fool to count on it going down that way until I see it with my own eyes and the ink is dry on the whole thing.

And I'd like to know for sure it's unconstitutional -- I will have to do some research, but there are sections of the Constitution that apply to the "States" that are applied to the District -- why in this case is it suddenly unconstitutional?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

If the current gas tax doesn't pay enough for bridge and road maintenance... sounds like it's time to raise the tax. Or maybe we should just eliminate that tax too and let our interstate system fall into disrepair and let our bridges collapse. Sounds peachy!

Your kidding, right?

How about we spend the money that is "suppose" to go the transportation budget actually go towards it. Or maybe end pork, or fringe spending, in other departments and allocate that money towards this. Also, you better make sure these projects don't become like the financial sinkhole that the Big Dig project in Boston has become.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Not really.

When you pay the yearly registeration fee for cars, they just check your mileage vs what was reported the last time you register. You drove 15,000 miles so, another $150 is tacked onto your car registration. (Like property tax in VA if I remember right)

I'm guessing you didn't read the entire article. His proposal is to put new hardware including GPS positioning units in every single car made and monitor the usage 'big brother' style.

Translation.......he scratches the back of every corporation that makes the components for that hardware, the monitoring centers required, and the software to achieve those ends. I'd agree that your way of doing it isn't terribly burdensome, but that's not what he's proposing at all.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm guessing you didn't read the entire article. His proposal is to put new hardware including GPS positioning units in every single car made and monitor the usage 'big brother' style.

Didn't know if you were speaking about the specific use of GPS to track or just the idea in general.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd agree that your way of doing it isn't terribly burdensome

Of course it's also ripe for quite a bit of corruption via the "accidental" typo for a small "consideration" to the clerk entering the data but I'll just leave that alone since the last thing that I want to see is GPS tracking for tax purposes of every vehicle in the US, no sense me making their argument for them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Didn't know if you were speaking about the specific use of GPS to track or just the idea in general.

Sorry, should have been more specific. Apologies.

[Tigercat]

That kinda tax would just be unreasonable and hard to balance. You aren't going to want to overtax at one time low income people who travel many miles just to work. So then you are going to have to take income into consideration, which will create more problems than it is worth.

It is just a horrible, horrible idea. Taxing gas encourages fuel efficient cars while doing a pretty good job of taxing miles traveled. Why would anyone think this and its potential problems is a good alternative solution?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Why would anyone think this and its potential problems is a good alternative solution?

Presumably because the more mileage efficient cars are, or the fewer miles we drive to save fuel (and fuel cost), the less revenue the gas tax generates. And politicians know that increasing something focused like that can become a third rail for them.

On the other hand if you roll out something new & say "hey, we're eliminating the gas tax" and people see prices go down at the pump, they might be stupid enough to think it's actually helping them or at least isn't hurting them.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Yikes!

Transportation chief eyes taxing miles driven - White House- msnbc.com

Like everyone else, yes, stupid idea.

Now, if you wanted to jack the gas tax way up (I mean like $2 per gallon up) and funnel all of that money directly into alternative energy research while simultaneously changing people's usage patterns with that sin tax of sorts, I'd be all over that. I'm pretty sure suggestions like that in Congress get people thrown out.

(That said, how exactly does this fit into the "Obama- hopes and predictions" thread?)

SI

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by cartman

I read this the other day, and it struck a chord with me. But that might be because I'm probably the only person in the country that is a member of both the NRA and the ACLU.

"The real problem might be toleration, or more accurately, the lack of it. We wish our preferred freedoms to be respected, while applauding governmental crackdowns upon those freedoms we dislike or are indifferent to."

"Until pot smokers and gun owners and low taxers and sexual minorities recognize that liberty is indivisible and that we're all in this together, we're going to be picked off piecemeal by government officials all too happy to exploit our mutual antagonisms."

Sorry I missed this until now. You may or may not know, but the Texas State Rifle Association has actually worked together with the Texas chapter of the ACLU to get some legislation passed.

I'm going to be in the DFW area next weekend speaking at the TSRA banquet. Bring Tom Cochrane up with you and come say hi!

[cartman]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Sorry I missed this until now. You may or may not know, but the Texas State Rifle Association has actually worked together with the Texas chapter of the ACLU to get some legislation passed.

I'm going to be in the DFW area next weekend speaking at the TSRA banquet. Bring Tom Cochrane up with you and come say hi!

Hey, I'll be up next weekend as well. We'll have to meet for a beer, or at least a Sonic Cherry Limeade.