So there we go.

Yay.

Do not taunt Super Fun Time Politics Thread

Marco Rubio ain't no genius:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

RUBIO: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

He is on a science committee.

GQ: Who's your best friend?
Marco Rubio: My wife. We talk every day.

GQ: Besides your wife.
Marco Rubio: [South Carolina Senator and Tea Party favorite] Jim DeMint. He's a great source of wisdom as a person who's had to make decisions that have made him unpopular in his own party. Jeb Bush is another guy I admire for his ability to analyze issues and call them for what they are.

pacino wrote:

GQ: Who's your best friend?
Marco Rubio: My wife. We talk every day.

GQ: Besides your wife.
Marco Rubio: [South Carolina Senator and Tea Party favorite] Jim DeMint. He's a great source of wisdom as a person who's had to make decisions that have made him unpopular in his own party. Jeb Bush is another guy I admire for his ability to analyze issues and call them for what they are.

I suppose Jim DeMint has to have at least 1 friend

but if you're that friend and you're in politics you shouldn't want it to be you, or admit it is, or that you might be it

why would Californian's vote down Prop 37? Every op-ed I'm reading against it is awful.

Youseff wrote:why would Californian's vote down Prop 37? Every op-ed I'm reading against it is awful.

Almost every newspaper in California editorialized against it.

45 million against it, 8 million for it, is why voters were against it.

So far the arguments boil down to:

There's no proof GMOs adversely affect our health (possible. also possible that eventually they will. why deny people the right to make their own choices just like they do with sodium, sugars, etc.)

Toxins are a much greater risk (fine, if we can, lets label them too)

There's a ton of talk of it making things more expensive for everyone. I'm not saying I disagree but none of these papers has made a good argument supporting this.

I thought just those short blurbs in the wiki made good arguments, like the burden being on retailers

if there's no proof GMOs are harmful, what's the worry?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I thought just those short blurbs in the wiki made good arguments, like the burden being on retailers

I just read a paragraph from the Santa Cruz paper that says the same thing and seems compelling.

Perhaps our biggest issue, however, is how Prop. 37 puts the burden on retailers for ensuring foods have a label.

Citizens would be empowered to sue grocers they believe to be selling unlabeled GE foods, without needing to prove any damages. Clearly, this provision would create even more lawsuits. And who would this benefit? Lawyers. That's what happened after voters in 1986 approved Prop. 65, requiring disclosure of toxic chemicals. The result has been more than 16,000 legal actions. Some were warranted, others were aimed at forcing businesses to settle quickly rather than pay for court costs.

Still trying to find evidence that this is indeed the case tho

We just have to remember that Jim DeMint started the recession.

Ron Barber held on to Giffords old seat. Arizona sends a majority of Dems to congress for the second time in the past 45 years.

97 house republicans reaching out across the isle and affirming thier standing on being the party of old white people sent a letter to the President declaring the Susan Rice should be disqualified as a candidate for Secretary of State as she mislead the nation about the about the attack on the consulate in Lybia.

I guess if the request is to get rid of her as a candidate now, then they do not need to vote her down when the time comes. POTUS can channel his inner Sorkin and put her nomination in to see if the GOP stands. It is ashame they are painting her as an incompetent boob. Look what bad intel did to Colin Powell (some would argue that it turned him into a race biased Democrat - perhaps many of those signed a letter to the president reciently).

Cory Booker is going to decide by the end of this year whether or not he will challenger Christie in 2013. Christie is about as unbeatable as a Republican can possibly be in NJ, I'm pretty sure that Booker will pass on that.

I'm not even sure if Steve Sweeney is going to run for governor at this point. If he does that will certainly make my life slightly more annoying.

I don't like Booker. Don't know how I feel about that.

pacino wrote:I don't like Booker. Don't know how I feel about that.

I disagree with you completely on Booker. He's a great candidate. If he doesn't run in 2013, he will probably run for Lautenberg's seat in 2014 and win.

He's Scott brown. He'll be wall street's new buddy. No thanks.