Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

I voted Cthulhu, but he never showed up, always saying the stars are not yet right. Thinking about going Azathoth next time.

[Flying Dice]

Why don't we have a Happyologist Party yet? It'd be nice to see someone competing with teapartiers for the crazy demographic.

[bulborbish]

1860-1932 (only two Democratic presidents in that entire time period, Cleveland and Wilson)

Well, technically three, as Johnson was a democrat outside the war, and one could nitpick that Cleveland counts as two separate presidents because of his non-consecutive term shenanigans.

[FearfulJesuit]

1860-1932 (only two Democratic presidents in that entire time period, Cleveland and Wilson)

Well, technically three, as Johnson was a democrat outside the war, and one could nitpick that Cleveland counts as two separate presidents because of his non-consecutive term shenanigans.

True, but Johnson was never elected into office as president, just veep.

[bulborbish]

1860-1932 (only two Democratic presidents in that entire time period, Cleveland and Wilson)

Well, technically three, as Johnson was a democrat outside the war, and one could nitpick that Cleveland counts as two separate presidents because of his non-consecutive term shenanigans.

True, but Johnson was never elected into office as president, just veep.

Conceded, but the original statement was about the number, not number elected, but I'll stop this before it leads to a derail.

[Zrk2]

1860-1932 (only two Democratic presidents in that entire time period, Cleveland and Wilson)

Well, technically three, as Johnson was a democrat outside the war, and one could nitpick that Cleveland counts as two separate presidents because of his non-consecutive term shenanigans.

This is not a derail; these technicalities are the life blood of democracy! Yay?

True, but Johnson was never elected into office as president, just veep.

Conceded, but the original statement was about the number, not number elected, but I'll stop this before it leads to a derail.

[Moghjubar]

Ah... politics... you are never away long.

So, who thinks the house will impeach Obama on 'something' in the next 4 years?

[FearfulJesuit]

If they wanted to, they'd have material: he's illegally failed to submit a budget for all but one of the past five years. He just failed to do so again.

Naturally, it's because it would be shot down, but...

[Aqizzar]

Ah... politics... you are never away long.

So, who thinks the house will impeach Obama on 'something' in the next 4 years?

Well, a cadre of Republican House members have promised that if Obama authorizes a single new action or signs one new bill of any kind in relation to firearms they'll immediately launch the trial.  So my money's on it happening.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Budget and Accounting Act requires the President to submit a budget by the first Monday in February. We have not yet passed that line.

[FearfulJesuit]

The Budget and Accounting Act requires the President to submit a budget by the first Monday in February. We have not yet passed that line.

Ahh.

I suppose that's what I get for reading World Nut Daily for lulz earlier today and then misremembering where I read their lunacy later...

[misko27]

I think we should have made a Trillion dollar platnium coin and sent it to china, going "So we found some pocket change".
 
Impeachment, of course will never pass. But that's a line in the sand where you just look stupid, and there aren't any concievable benefits to gain from it from the republicans who pretend to be tea-partiers, unless they think their position is substanitally strongr then it looks. AS such, I doubt it will occur. If, it does, it will be other something new entirely.

[Moghjubar]

But that's a line in the sand where you just look stupid, and there aren't any concievable benefits to gain from it from the republicans who pretend to be tea-partiers, unless they think their position is substanitally strongr then it looks...

So, nothing new?

Also, impeachment might pass, but the conviction wont. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

[SalmonGod]

He'll definitely be ranked in the top half of presidents, I think. Healthcare is historic, and one of his goals for his second term is immigration reform; if he gets that done, he'll probably get the top third.

So hard for me to believe, considering how he's ramped up most of the things Bush was so hated for.  He's progressive on cultural issues (homosexuality/abortion/that whole category of issues) and Obamacare looks to be mostly a good thing (though I'm not well-versed on it)... but what else am I supposed to like him for?

The thing that bothers me the most is, like someone already mentioned, he's undermined a ton of basic civil rights.  He's ferociously expanded the government's ability to invade privacy while operating in secrecy, among other things.  What are future presidents going to do with this power?  Obamacare and the current economic issues are matters of good fortune, which is a thing that constantly changes.  Basic civil rights are lost easily, and don't return without decades of vicious struggle.

[misko27]

But that's a line in the sand where you just look stupid, and there aren't any concievable benefits to gain from it from the republicans who pretend to be tea-partiers, unless they think their position is substanitally strongr then it looks...

So, nothing new?

Also, impeachment might pass, but the conviction wont. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Even if the house tries, the entirety of the democratic party will vote against it, and too many republivans will be concerned with looking bad. 81 republicans voted for the debt deal, there ARE sane ones out there.