May 9th, 2012

dog

This is how politicians vote in the Texas house.



This is beautiful, BEAUTIFUL hypocrisy. It's at a level of undeniable and, formerly, unimaginable hypocrisy.
--
HEY EVERYBODY!
yea?
WE NEED A LAW SAYING PEOPLE WHO VOTE NEED TO SHOW THEIR IDS SO THEY ONLY VOTE ONCE!
uhm, well, that kinda makes sense, but we have to make sure ID's are free and easy to get...
--[STRIKE THAT LAST] GREAT! LETS VOTE ON IT!
*15 politicians cast 100 ballots and pass the measure*

/democracy.
--

For the lame videoless:

Video shows Texas lawmakers voting FOR OTHER PEOPLE. They vote more than once. They do what they are passing a law to stop other people from doing.
The Texas house rules prohibit lawmakers from doing this.
There is no enforcement of this rule.
Democrat and Republican alike do this. They vote for people who aren't there; it's a speed game. Walk around, vote for people. People who aren't even in your own party! Just whichever voting buttons you can reach.
WHAT.THE.FUCK.

alien

Romney: Does honesty matter anymore?



http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1136834--mitt-romney-couldn-t-have-remembered-detroit-milestone-he-wasn-t-born

DETROIT—When Mitt Romney regaled a Michigan audience this week with childhood memories of a landmark moment in Detroit history, it was a rare instance of emotional candour.

And, perhaps, an even rarer example of time travel.

Romney recalled he was “probably 4 or something like that” the day of the Golden Jubilee, when three-quarters of a million people gathered to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the American automobile.

“My dad had a job being the grandmaster. They painted Woodward Ave. with gold paint,” Romney told a rapt Tea Party audience in the village of Milford Thursday night, reliving a moment of American industrial glory.

The Golden Jubilee described so vividly by Romney was indeed an epic moment in automotive lore. The parade included one of the last public appearances by an elderly Henry Ford.

And it took place June 1, 1946 — fully nine months before Romney was born.

[chessdev]  Over and over -- it seems like what Romney says isnt just a "little off" but is REALLY off..

*  His neighborhood degenerating due to the economy -- except it was a gated community
*  His campaigning against the auto industry -- and then claiming credit for it's success
*  His rememberance above of the Michigan parade -- that happened 9 months before he was born
*  His dad marching with MLK,  except he didnt and wasnt there at the time.
*  Etc....

Over and over it seems the things Romney is saying are beyond "fudged a little", but straight up wrong and/or revisionist history.

The question is:  Will the "moral majority" bring up an issue with a candidate who seems to be willing to say anything to score points?  Or will this be conveniently overlooked in the name of "politics"?    

In the U.S., many on the street people will say they want a candidate who they can trust...who is someone they can believe in -- how can you believe in someone when you cant even believe what they're saying to you?

donk... donk... donk...

(no subject)

Would you support a rule/stipulation/guideline/whatever that any law enacted to ban or restrict an activity would have to prove that said activity is harmful to society?

For instance, last night's vote on the initiative to ban gay marriage in North Carolina. Gay people marrying each other hurts noone, yet it was banned after already being illegal in the state. The United States' drug war is another example, where the ban arguably does more harm than no ban at all by creating a black market where there otherwise would be none.

The purpose of laws (either their existence or lack thereof) is to form the society we want to create. If we can't prove harm, then the passage of such a law is irrelevant at best, and in most cases I can think of creates more harm.
Godzilla, default

What is civilization?

The modern concepts of the civilized world have been shaped by societies that rose out of bloodsoaked mud.


Collapse )

Thus in answer to the question of "Can civilized people prevail over the uncivilized in a discussion of ideas" the real response is "First, let the civilized discuss ideas, not how to shoot at the "uncivilized" and make evil good." There can never be moral justifications for such things, unless we're willing to claim that morality means "What's good for me is good for me, thus all is good." There can only be craven self-justification of immorality.

Your thoughts?

love is love
  • dwer

Finally.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html

President Barack Obama, who previously said his views on the issue were "evolving," said Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage.
"At a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama said in an interview with ABC News.


Video at link.

Allow me to say "ABOUT DAMN TIME." I'm sure that there are those who will say that this is too soon, and it will upset many people. My response is "I don't care". Civil Rights should not be dependent on popular support.

The way is forward. Time to lead from the front.