z ipper wrote:why is it ok to label everyone as a racist?
bring jeff back. honestly.

dajafi wrote:The argument that "we raised taxes two months ago" is incorrect and irrelevant.

We actually lowered taxes two months ago. I know it gets lost in the consideration of really important things like whether Bob Woodward's feelings were hurt, but what happened was that the budget-wrecking Bush tax cuts, which inexplicably somehow didn't lead to a permanent economic boom and in fact exploded the deficit, expired. By doing nothing, we would have returned to the Clinton-era tax levels (and either undercut the recovery or taken the debt off the table as a political issue).

Congress instead cut taxes for the vast majority of Americans--as even the Republicans stated at the time. Now of course they're saying it was an increase, because that supports holding the line to defend the private jet loophole and all absurd giveaways to the unfathomably rich they value over spending that actually helps the economy and makes a difference for those less comfortable.

The issue of who "owns" the sequester is another one of these DC media circle-jerks that would be hilarious if it weren't so horrifying. They all do, first of all, and second the real question is who has a sane answer for it. The administration is proposing a mixed solution. The Republicans want to take it all out of the hides of the poor. The press knows the president has the better argument, but can't allow itself to say so.

Werthless wrote:And on the last point, why do you suppose the press allow itself to champion the Obama solution? It sounds kind of conspiracy theory-ish for you to say that... considering how the press holds the Republican house majority in relatively low regard.

slugsrbad wrote:this made me lol

jerseyhoya wrote:A cartoon mocking Scalia's opposition to the current VRA points to majority minority districts, which exist because of the VRA, as bad things

jerseyhoya wrote:Direct democracy is mostly awful

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:A cartoon mocking Scalia's opposition to the current VRA points to majority minority districts, which exist because of the VRA, as bad things

you don't get the cartoon

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:A cartoon mocking Scalia's opposition to the current VRA points to majority minority districts, which exist because of the VRA, as bad things

you don't get the cartoon

It looks like the cartoonist is asserting there are a number of policies which unfairly target/negatively affect African Americans in these United States. Longer wait times in minority precincts, voter id laws when fewer minorities have IDs, majority minority districts keeping African Americans out of most districts, and stop and frisk/racial profiling by law enforcement.

How would you interpret the cartoon?

jerseyhoya wrote:Direct democracy is mostly awful

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Direct democracy is mostly awful

The way it works in california, I agree. I almost mentioned that fact. But when your citizens are educated on the issues and are willing to look to the greater good rather than always voting their own interests, it's actually pretty nice.

BTW, unions and ownership find a way to get along here. Strikes are very rare because both sides act reasonably. Also pretty nice.

Monkeyboy wrote:But when your citizens are educated on the issues and are willing to look to the greater good rather than always voting their own interests, it's actually pretty nice.