pacino wrote:'Substance'???

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I feel like being nominated to the Supreme Court bestows you with some kind of immunity that makes you live forever in incredibly good health.

RETIRE ALREADY GINSBURG YOU ARE 80 AND THERE IS A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I feel like being nominated to the Supreme Court bestows you with some kind of immunity that makes you live forever in incredibly good health.

RETIRE ALREADY GINSBURG YOU ARE 80 AND THERE IS A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:I think you ignored the second and third numbers in that except.

After the U.S. Supreme Court repealed the Defense of Marriage Act earlier today, Michele Bachmann released a statement reiterating the same ol' anti-gay marriage talking points.

"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," Bachmann, who isn't seeking another term in Congress and narrowly won reelection last year, wrote.

"For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman. Only since 2000 have we seen a redefinition of this foundational unit of society in various nations," she continued. "Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people's representatives through DOMA."

"What the Court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States," she concluded.

A short time later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was asked what she thought about Bachmann's statement.

"Who cares?" she replied.

@GovMikeHuckabee
My thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: "Jesus wept."

Doll Is Mine wrote:Doesn't RBG fall asleep at the State of the Union every year?

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:I think you ignored the second and third numbers in that except.

The 'we'd rather you focus on jobs and the economy instead of issue X' is processy and empty. It's also a #$!&@ terrible poll question: "A special session of the legislature should focus on issues like education, jobs, and the economy, instead of bringing up social issues like abortion that were already addressed in the regular session of the legislature." Jesus christ.

There is a question in there about the bill, basically using the Dem messaging on the legislation and support is only 42-51% for the legislation. "This proposal would put in place new restrictions and regulations on abortion providers that would likely result in the closure of all but five abortion clinics in the state of Texas, all of which are located along the I-35 corridor, and would ban most abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy." I'd bet good money that if the wording tracked GOP messaging "This proposal would require doctors with privileges at nearby hospitals monitor all abortions, abortions be performed in certified surgery centers, and would ban most abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy allowing for exceptions in cases when the life of the mother is threatened." it would be more lopsided in the other direction.

I don't see how this turns into a winning issue in Texas of all places or a jumping off point for Davis to run statewide successfully.

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.8 percent in the first quarter of 2013 (that
is, from the fourth quarter to the first quarter), according to the "third" estimate released by the Bureau
of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 0.4 percent.

The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "second" estimate issued last month. In the second estimate, real GDP increased 2.4 percent. With
the third estimate for the first quarter, the increase in personal consumption expenditures (PCE) was less
than previously estimated, and exports and imports are now estimated to have declined (for more
information, see "Revisions" on page 3).

The increase in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from PCE,
private inventory investment, and residential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative
contributions from federal government spending, state and local government spending, and exports.
Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:I think you ignored the second and third numbers in that except.

The 'we'd rather you focus on jobs and the economy instead of issue X' is processy and empty. It's also a #$!&@ terrible poll question: "A special session of the legislature should focus on issues like education, jobs, and the economy, instead of bringing up social issues like abortion that were already addressed in the regular session of the legislature." Jesus christ.

There is a question in there about the bill, basically using the Dem messaging on the legislation and support is only 42-51% for the legislation. "This proposal would put in place new restrictions and regulations on abortion providers that would likely result in the closure of all but five abortion clinics in the state of Texas, all of which are located along the I-35 corridor, and would ban most abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy." I'd bet good money that if the wording tracked GOP messaging "This proposal would require doctors with privileges at nearby hospitals monitor all abortions, abortions be performed in certified surgery centers, and would ban most abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy allowing for exceptions in cases when the life of the mother is threatened." it would be more lopsided in the other direction.

I don't see how this turns into a winning issue in Texas of all places or a jumping off point for Davis to run statewide successfully.

That's still not process over substance, but whatever. I forgot that I'm talking to someone who believes that politics is about your team winning instead of fighting for what you believe is right.

td11 wrote:

td11 wrote:on cue
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/us-s ... ula/nYTnw/

http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/22683993 ... arts-today

The "pre-clearance" requirement in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act covered many areas of the South, including 40 North Carolina counties, mostly in the east. That has required laws approved by the General Assembly for both statewide elections and local elections in those counties, as well as redistricting maps, to receive formal approval. The requirement was designed to ensure that minority voters in those areas aren't worse off compared to previous law.

Apodaca said the Senate didn't want the legal headaches of having to go through pre-clearance if it wasn't necessary and having to determine which portions of the proposal would be subject to federal scrutiny. "So, now we can go with the full bill," he added.

He predicted an omnibus voting bill would surface in the Senate next week that could go beyond voter ID to include issues such as reducing early voting, eliminating Sunday voting and barring same-day voter registration.

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:I think you ignored the second and third numbers in that except.

The 'we'd rather you focus on jobs and the economy instead of issue X' is processy and empty. It's also a #$!&@ terrible poll question: "A special session of the legislature should focus on issues like education, jobs, and the economy, instead of bringing up social issues like abortion that were already addressed in the regular session of the legislature." Jesus christ.

There is a question in there about the bill, basically using the Dem messaging on the legislation and support is only 42-51% for the legislation. "This proposal would put in place new restrictions and regulations on abortion providers that would likely result in the closure of all but five abortion clinics in the state of Texas, all of which are located along the I-35 corridor, and would ban most abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy." I'd bet good money that if the wording tracked GOP messaging "This proposal would require doctors with privileges at nearby hospitals monitor all abortions, abortions be performed in certified surgery centers, and would ban most abortions starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy allowing for exceptions in cases when the life of the mother is threatened." it would be more lopsided in the other direction.

I don't see how this turns into a winning issue in Texas of all places or a jumping off point for Davis to run statewide successfully.

That's still not process over substance, but whatever. I forgot that I'm talking to someone who believes that politics is about your team winning instead of fighting for what you believe is right.

I was arguing that the Dem advantages are on process issues, while the Republicans had the edge on the poll question that actually asked about the substance of the bill. In general process type stuff loses relevance more quickly and isn't really something you're going to win over undecided voters with. I didn't click on the link and see there was a (flawed) question that actually addressed the contents of the bill.

And I'm not sure what the hell that ad hominem has to do with anything.