Monkeyboy wrote:Just got a GOP push poll here in TN.

Stuff like, "If you were to learn that Jim Cooper has sex with monkeys and supported Obama's crippling deficit-inflating budget, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?"

I said I was Republican and answered everything wrong.

It almost certainly wasn't a push poll

dajafi wrote:I'd love to see Warren Buffett pay a higher marginal rate than his secretary,

So would Warren Buffett right? I think I wrote a paper on him a few years back, but I'm not positive. as stupid as that sounds.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Just got a GOP push poll here in TN.

Stuff like, "If you were to learn that Jim Cooper has sex with monkeys and supported Obama's crippling deficit-inflating budget, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?"

I said I was Republican and answered everything wrong.

It almost certainly wasn't a push poll

It was probably a poll testing messages for the fall, but it was so excessive that I think it was serving both purposes, even if that wasn't the main purpose. Anyway, it was annoying.

What district are you in? Are you in 4 or 5 or neither or don't know?

I know Lincoln Davis is a real target, but it would be interesting if they were making a run at the real Nashville seat. Only D+3 but I would think Jim Cooper is safe.

“We have to erase forever the notion that Cuba is the only country in the world where one can live without working,” he told the National Assembly last month.

Cuba’s Public-Sector Layoffs Signal Major Shift

Love that quote

Oops:

Censors overlooked a single reference to Withers' informant number. That number, in turn, unlocked the secret of the photographer's 1960s political spying when the newspaper located repeated references to the number in other FBI reports released under FOIA 30 years ago.

A really good story about how famed civil rights photographer Ernest Withers was, apparently, an FBI informant. For lack of a better place, I tossed it here, but y'all can feel free to resume projecting the midterms.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

dajafi wrote:I'd love to see Warren Buffett pay a higher marginal rate than his secretary,

So would Warren Buffett right? I think I wrote a paper on him a few years back, but I'm not positive. as stupid as that sounds.

Yes, that's right. He often uses that example to point out the unfairness of the current system.

Buffett and Bill Gates Sr. co-founded some group that essentially calls for much higher taxes on really rich guys like themselves.

David Brooks, in a mood to scold today:

The Day After Tomorrow

the story Republicans are telling each other, which [WI Congressman Paul] Ryan and [AEI prez Arthur] Brooks have reinforced, is an oversimplified version of American history, with dangerous implications.

The fact is, the American story is not just the story of limited governments; it is the story of limited but energetic governments that used aggressive federal power to promote growth and social mobility.

drsmooth wrote:David Brooks, in a mood to scold today:

The Day After Tomorrow

the story Republicans are telling each other, which [WI Congressman Paul] Ryan and [AEI prez Arthur] Brooks have reinforced, is an oversimplified version of American history, with dangerous implications.

The fact is, the American story is not just the story of limited governments; it is the story of limited but energetic governments that used aggressive federal power to promote growth and social mobility.

It's like they read the enumerated powers clause, but fail to read the Federalist papers, where every other one is some variation of the theme "people are bad, and need a vigorous government to keep them from doing bad things."

The 1780s pretty much destroyed the notion of letting the states run themselves without oversight and support from the federal government. A lot of Republicans either don't know or don't care about their history.

Krikeys

If you go to MSNBC.com front page right now, does anyone else think Christine O'Donnell has gone Single White Female on Sarah Palin? She looks like a stunt double.

SQUIRE

Squire wrote:Krikeys

If you go to MSNBC.com front page right now, does anyone else think Christine O'Donnell has gone Single White Female on Sarah Palin? She looks like a stunt double.

SQUIRE

doesn't look like a phillies jacket

apparently she's also trying to spend like Sarah

drsmooth wrote:

Squire wrote:Krikeys

If you go to MSNBC.com front page right now, does anyone else think Christine O'Donnell has gone Single White Female on Sarah Palin? She looks like a stunt double.

SQUIRE

doesn't look like a phillies jacket

apparently she's also trying to spend like Sarah

"She wasn't concerned about conservative causes. O’Donnell just wanted to make a buck."

Squire wrote:Krikeys

If you go to MSNBC.com front page right now, does anyone else think Christine O'Donnell has gone Single White Female on Sarah Palin? She looks like a stunt double.

SQUIRE

Have to admit, the GOP/Tea Party is a least trying to make C-SPAN more watchable.

kopphanatic wrote:The 1780s pretty much destroyed the notion of letting the states run themselves without oversight and support from the federal government. A lot of Republicans either don't know or don't care about their history.

Do you mean 1880s? Constitution was ratified in 1787, but Lincoln's moves as part of reunification cemented the limits on states rights.

If you are talking 1780s, are you taking about Hamilton's establishment of a national bank and treasury system? In particular where he pressured the states to play ball by rolling up their war debt in exchange for taxation and central governance?

I think you could make cases for both and others, but I was curious which particular you are referencing.

thephan wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:The 1780s pretty much destroyed the notion of letting the states run themselves without oversight and support from the federal government. A lot of Republicans either don't know or don't care about their history.

Do you mean 1880s? Constitution was ratified in 1787, but Lincoln's moves as part of reunification cemented the limits on states rights.

If you are talking 1780s, are you taking about Hamilton's establishment of a national bank and treasury system? In particular where he pressured the states to play ball by rolling up their war debt in exchange for taxation and central governance?

I think you could make cases for both and others, but I was curious which particular you are referencing.

I figured he was talking about Shay's rebellion.

I like how the whole issue of nullification is being re-raised.

But anyway, if you take the idea of original intent seriously, you know that the framers wanted as strong a central government as they thought they could get away with politically.

I meant the 1780s in the sense that the Articles of Confederation, which gave the bulk of the power to the states, were hopelessly ineffective and threatened the internal stability of the country, with states doing pretty much as they pleased(like printing their own currency, raising their own militias, claiming territory) with the fed. government almost powerless to stop it. The lack of stability also put the sovereignty of the young nation in danger. Europe was just waiting for the country to fall apart.

But yes, you make excellent points about the 1800s too, and the last real chance at "states rights" died with the Civil War. Though the far right seems to want to reopen the argument. I was mostly referring to the government's inability to check the power of the states and provide the regulation and internal control the country so desperately needed after the Revolution.

jerseyhoya wrote:What district are you in? Are you in 4 or 5 or neither or don't know?

I know Lincoln Davis is a real target, but it would be interesting if they were making a run at the real Nashville seat. Only D+3 but I would think Jim Cooper is safe.

I'm in the 5th. I had to check though. I also think Cooper is safe, but I'm not that tuned into local politics here yet. I know about PA than where I live now.

By the way, check out the 7th district. The shape of the district is crazy.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyou ... d?state=TN

The real problem with the Articles of Confederation was that it threatened the commercial interests of a certain class of the country. Britain placed high tariffs on American goods and closed many ports to American ships. Spain closed the lower Mississippi River to American merchants. Congress lacked the power to regulate trade (both foreign and interstate) and could not respond with punitive tariffs. Because of inflation, debtors were able to get out from under their creditors with worthless paper. Once the merchant class of the Northeast realized how the Articles reduced their earnings potential, they started talking constitutional convention.

No European country could have seriously threatened the independence of the young United States. Britain was wary of another American war and was soon to be occupied with France. French society was rapidly disintegrating and the country would soon be experiencing a revolution of its own. Spain was crippled by inflation and was looking to divest from North America. In the ~40 years they ruled "Louisiana", they were more of an absentee landlord than expansionist power.

I don't understand why Shays's Rebellion is held up as a proof of the failure of the Articles. Unlike other states which issued worthless fiat money to pay their debts (like Rhode Island), Massachusetts attempted to raise revenue through tax on land. Poor farmers responded by seizing the courthouse. If tea party hooligans took over a tax collection office today, no one would say the Constitution is hopelessly flawed.

If you want to talk original intent with regards to nullification/secession/all that stuff, take a look at the Articles. Our first constitution created a very loose confederation of states. Yet, its full name was still the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Even at the high water mark of state power, the Union was still considered to be ironclad.

Another reason to fucking hate the state of Delaware

FUCK YOU