dayman

Agreed generally although you act as if they're in the 11th hour of the negotiation and not the 1st....while it is technically the 11th hour of the sequester we all know it's the 1st hour of the negotiation

I haven't been following it that closely but I have yet to here of any type of counter....it makes sense the Dems will be more specific early on with their tax desires (politically acceptable to them) and the repubs with the cuts (likewise)...then you counterbalance the two and whala

Obama is sending out a tough first pitch. The Republicans are saying it's ridiculous and a non-starter which is there tough first pitch. Etc etc....people are surprised by this?

Rob I want to order some original rational thoughts. How much do you charge? And can you create a link once they are created so I can source them when I use them on 3rd?

series of tubes

Oh Syria, Their home and war struck land No internet porn in thy sons command

Seems to be just a suspension more than ban...another little bit of punishment.

IDK man I would just be thinking about Russel Brand the entire time.

I am Reagan. Bow down

there's a word for Reagan conservatives...moderate leftists...there's a new word for far right wingers...Reagan conservatives No I must go hide

Ya episode 1 really did one of the better jobs I have seen in recent documentaries going into detail on the eastern front. Really highlights what a fool Hitler was.

strawman no

I would just watch if for yourself rather than read reviews. For one, the doc calls Stalin a brutal dictator and does not shy away from Soviet reality it simply highlights the protectionist concerns that drove many of its decisions. And the non-aggression pact with Hitler was absolutely to buy time given that the West wanted no part in war with Germany early on....Hitler and Stalin hated each other more than anybody else. I think the reason he calls it "untold" is simply b/c it highlights the impacts of the US on effecting the various conflicts it was engaged in as opposed to just presenting those as evil and us as reacting to them like highschool history does. Probably over compensates a bit but the first 3 episodes have been pretty good and not that controversial imo

Yes lawyers are to blame for all our problems. It's lawyers.

I say we pour research into acne. Poor teenagers. Looking like monsters in the formative years producing a slew of maladjusted citizens in adulthood.

Ya lol....there isn't anything untold...but it has been pretty good.

Stayed up and watched another 2. Still very good...although I am uncomfortable with HOW tough on Truman he is. Much of the Truman bashing regarding his rise, early history, and convention scandal is fine by me and likely without controversy but I do feel he's a bit over the top hard on him over the bomb...although I do agree the popular historical narrative is likely too soft on him. Also he seems to idealize Henry Wallace which is perhaps over compensation for his being historically forgotten but is also clearly a counter point to hit Truman harder and praise certain new deal policies that while practical would make constitutional purists cringe.

lol...like I said 10 part series I just watched 1...so don't hold me to it if it ends with him calling for the end of capitalism. WWII in part 1 was done well.

Anyone watch this? I just saw episode 1. I'm sure there will be much apprehension of the very idea of this given this boards leanings....and honestly some is deserved. But I can say this...episode 1 was a VERY good (imo) bit on WWII. I would recommend this and will definitely watch the rest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/john-boehner-naked-protesters_n_2198887.html At least seven nude protesters stormed House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office in the Longworth House Office Building on Tuesday, according to reports from Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo and others who were there. The group was protesting cuts to HIV/AIDS funding that is possible as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations.

Actually Reid is not proposing what I am...and what I am EASILY will still provide the minority with opportunity to curb the bill they just can't stop it outright ... there are many procedural protocols that bolster their power besides just filibuster. And once again...the Senate is just one body. It must make it through 3. Reid is merely proposing that you have to actually stand up and filibuster....and that you need to do it in debate not on a motion to proceed. That's not that radical. The fact that if 59 people want to vote for a bill....41 can prevent it EVEN FROM COMING UP FOR DEBATE is a huge problem with the senate...just remove your political thoughts and even just assume that whatever party you like is in power or recognize it will change...it shouldn't work that way.

Nothing and that's the point. You try to make your case, try to get at least some adjustments or amendments, if need be you filibuster for a full 2 weeks and try to draw public attention and discussion to the problem you have....and if all that goes on eventually 51 votes can pass it b/c that's the way it's is supposed to work! What is to check that is the fact that it must go through the other house, and then the President also to actually become a law. If as I said earlier a law makes it through both houses with a majority and then the President I don't know what more you want....that's now a law.

Even if that is the case...then so be it. There is a government elected by the people. Let it govern. If a lengthy filibuster breaks out over a policy for 2 weeks and nobody cares and it ends up passing by a majority of both houses and the president then you get what you pay for...self rule in America. If you can't convince your fellow congressment to stop or change it or anybody to care...then you can't stop if if you don't have the votes.

If there is a piece of legislation that after nearly 2 weeks of intense debate where a group of senators take the floor and rail against the evils of the bill, and the media covers it and people pay attention over the course of two weeks and then after all that is done the whole bill with everything it has become passes with the majority vote in both houses, goes through conference, and is signed by the president that is good enough. That is basically our government. The founders thought about making it 2/3rds...they didn't they decided only some special issues should be 2/3rds and that's what we have. Plain and simple. Slow, debate...yes...paralysis...no.

If after all the procedures that would still exist to modify...and all the forms of maneuvering that would still exist..."massive" legislation passes BOTH Senate and House following extensive debate and public concern attracted to it and THEN is signed by the President it's called passing a law. And then you can vote them out if you don't like it and others feel the same. That's government.