• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 330 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
ChewbaccaD said:
You fail to address two important things here:

...Social programs were and always will be about taking people who will be poor regardless of policy, and provide a minimum standard of living commensurate with the overall wealth of the country. It doesn't really matter what their skin color is, it's a socio-economic thing. One that is reflective of the reality that the game is rigged against them, and no amount of tortured Randian philosophy will change that.
Good post.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,441
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
You fail to address two important things here:

What was the unemployment rate for African Americans prior to the enactment of social programs, and most importantly, what was the quality and type of job they were allowed to be employed in before that.

Your numbers also don't really reflect what you are saying as in 2000 (almost 40 years AFTER this watershed moment in the 60's you refer to), the unemployment rate was at one of its lowest points.

The rate has always been more than whites...but not for the reasons you are trying to prove with your numbers...

Social programs were and always will be about taking people who will be poor regardless of policy, and provide a minimum standard of living commensurate with the overall wealth of the country. It doesn't really matter what their skin color is, it's a socio-economic thing. One that is reflective of the reality that the game is rigged against them, and no amount of tortured Randian philosophy will change that.
A hard call. But with no gas in the tank, the motor will not run. No one's talking about the stripping away of manufacturing, the true impact digital automation that kills jobs for the sake of the bottom line, mindless, shot-term investing to the pacific rim in the past 20-years. The Greens, with good intentions, have left us with a shrinking industrial base. The fundamental issues are not even being discussed. The posturing and talking points are all political theater. Both parties are filled with the wrong leadership. Like the O-ring debacle of the Space Shuttle Challenger, the engineers were ignored when is was clear their was a very simple flaw and danger. Better minds at the top are lacking as both D and Rs are base in a dated political stance decades old, and are not looking for real answers that address quickly involving issues.

This also applies to the Corporations who also have no long-term model, and have long looked to the short-term as an answer. Just name it greed, monetary and also ideological. Plenty of it to go around these days.

If you ignore the basics, those long displaced are the most effected. The boiling point may lead to the wrong answers. It has all happened before. The leaders of Soviet Russia all lie in their tombs, those a monument to dismal failure base on the application of strict Social Darwinism. The monarchs of Capitalism store up treasures on earth. Of what good are both?
 
BillytheKid said:
A hard call. But with no gas in the tank, the motor will not run. No one's talking about the stripping away of manufacturing, the true impact digital automation that kills jobs for the sake of the bottom line, mindless, shot-term investing to the pacific rim in the past 20-years. The Greens, with good intentions, have left us with a shrinking industrial base. The fundamental issues are not even being discussed. The posturing and talking points are all political theater. Both parties are filled with the wrong leadership...
This could have come right out of the mouth of a Grillo (or any M5S "revolutionary") or Ukip leader Nigel Farage, which evidences the total failure of the traditional political parties - in the US, just as in Europe - to supply adequate responses to the social malaise of our age, embroiled as they are within the great economic rebus to which the only solution concocted thus far has been save the financial apparatus at all costs even as mass wellbeing diminishes (or indeed because of it).

As I have said before the latest crisis of capitalism has initiated a process in which capital realizes its final dominion over human beings. The colossal bank public bailouts, the EU debt crisis, the speculators in the stock markets and IMF, the deployment both hot and cold in strategically vital market zones, while entire states fall under the risk of insolvency, are all cogent reminders of this. In the meantime the political class blind fully pursues a policy that in many ways they are obliged to follow, which it has willingly received form the business leadership and the nation's creditors. Divorced from the reality of an increasing mass hardship, while a certain elite get exceeding rich because of such myopic and self-serving policy, naturally the political parties are becoming viewed with repugnance by the people. The people, in turn, desperate and looking for any way out of their difficulties, then become willing to embrace any guru or the next Pied Pieper who rightfully denounces the system and promises change and, above all, fresh air, something new.

The only problem is I put as much faith in gurus as I do in politicians. Of course one has to be very careful in voting in something new that in the end might turn out to be worse than what came before. The elections of 22 and 33 are terrible reminders of this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/03/italy-five-star-movement-internet
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,441
0
0
rhubroma said:
The only problem is I put as much faith in gurus as I do in politicians. Of course one has to be very careful in voting in something new that in the end might turn out to be worse than what came before. The elections of 22 and 33 are terrible reminders of this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/03/italy-five-star-movement-internet
Casaleggio seems the populist of the moment. Life is never without risk. Judging The Guardian article, the current numbers of M5S, it would seem unlikely that they could gain a majority anytime soon, but the impact of such "third" parties can influence as major parties assimilate their ideas. (As far as it goes here) But they mimic anymore at best, while maintaining the status quo behind their propaganda and glib talking points. You can only hope for the emergence of the right leaders among dominate parties that can work together to affect concrete solutions. The life St. Francis of Assisi has to be taken to heart by many in leadership, but real solutions come about by the practical minded who can wield power to put into place new economic foundations while inspired by Assisi. That takes risk and is seldom perfect. In the U.S., the early monarchs of industry, J.D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan can be viewed as heartless to the common people, but their empire building did have long-term thinking behind it. A change of heart in Carnegie began the movement toward private philanthropy. Oddly it affected Rockefeller in the same direction, who could never be outdone by Carnegie, and he ended up outspending him in the charitable arena. So there was a shift from the pure financial gain of industry to investment in the lives of the people.

This set about a change in the mindset of those who govern. For example, Henry Ford's victory over those who claim a patent on the automobile in Federal Court paved the way for the "Ford Revolution." He paid his workers the astronomical sum in the 1920s of, I believe, $14 an hour. Ford was investing in people. He reason if he paid them well, they would have money to buy things, a car, a house and the necessities to put in them would spurn more manufacturing and jobs. This was cut short by the Crash of 1929 and the here named Great Depression, It took root again following WWII fueled by Keynesian economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics and was the advent of modern consumerism which worked well to benefit of a greater middle class for a time, but has obvious flaws in many arenas and has shifted common values adrift in an effort to outdo you neighbor, if I dare say, "love thy yourself in spite of your neighbor." The long run of the Keynesian is over, it's was never intended run government so far into debt, but to date, it has no real rival. The sequester is not the answer because it only cuts robotically.

Returning to a long-term model that is sustainable on many fronts has been approach for long while now. The current polarization between left and right is a sign of the final struggle to achieve that long-term model, but I fear that the no moderation may result from the victor. As I said, both visions are outdated and do not address the rapidly envolving situation on the ground.

Common concern and values, inspired by Assisi, among the wealthy to risk it all by investing in realistic long-term manufacturing that does not depend on the ever increasing short-cycle planned obsolescence that is failing us rapidly would be yield the best return in my opinion. Much must stay in the hands of private interests however, but interests that do not snuggle up to political power that ride a Marxist train hoping that centralized power will serve their bottom line well as if they gain favor from the prince. I still default to the idea that human nature undermines all ideology, and greed or self-seeking blinds left and right alike. I can only hope for a return of moderation of those who can compromise without denying, for example, what lies in our Bill of Rights. Those rights have yet to upheld for all, but to abandon them and their ideal is folly as I've stated before. Real change comes from the heart. Those who seek ideals rooted only in vendetta have been the bane of us all from the beginning.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Planned parenthood. Zygotes and fetus...

Except when it's not.

Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion

Post birth abortion. I guess the kids killed at Newtown were post birth. We all are post birth. Killing really isn't that big of a deal at planned parenthood, or so it seems.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html
That's hilarious, the way WS twists it around to make it sound like it's a fully-developed baby. It's an undeveloped fetus, not a baby - abortion is only legal up until several weeks in and "post-birth" just means that it survived the abortion, doesn't mean that it was fully developed and at full term. It wouldn't survive outside the womb regardless. It's still a fetus, dude.

But hey, those Newtown kids, acceptable sacrifices to the god of the Second Amendment, eh? Really weird how you put so much more value on and outrage for fetuses than you do kids.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
That's hilarious, the way WS twists it around to make it sound like it's a fully-developed baby. It's an undeveloped fetus, not a baby - abortion is only legal up until several weeks in and "post-birth" just means that it survived the abortion, doesn't mean that it was fully developed and at full term. It wouldn't survive outside the womb regardless. It's still a fetus, dude.

But hey, those Newtown kids, acceptable sacrifices to the god of the Second Amendment, eh? Really weird how you put so much more value on fetuses than you do kids.
What is also weird is how little value you put on life unless it's politically expedient.

'Hilarious' is not a word I would have chosen to describe any aspect of this article, btw.

Given your callousness one might conclude the only reason you are worked up over Newtown is the politics of gun control. That, too, is weird.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
What is also weird is how little value you put on life unless it's politically expedient.
I don't put any value at all on zygotes, embryos, or early-term fetuses, cause they're not "life". What is weird is how you think zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are equivalent to living, breathing kids.

'Hilarious' is not a word I would have chosen to describe any aspect of this article, btw.
"Hilarious" is the spin that Weekly Standard - prob the most notorious anti-abortion publication out there - puts on abortion and how you buy into it.

Dude, here's what WS won't tell you: a botched abortion would not result in a "breathing, moving baby on the table", it would result in a virtually indistinguishable mass that would immediately cease to function outside of the womb. The only botched abortion that would ever even remotely have a chance of resulting in their contrived scenario is a very late-term abortion, which are already illegal.

Given your callousness one might conclude the only reason you are worked up over Newtown is the politics of gun control. That, too, is weird.
Yeah, I tend to get more worked up about living, breathing kids being shot in the head at school than I do about aborted first-term fetuses. Apparently you're more outraged by ridiculous hypothetical scenarios about fetuses that, unlike kids being shot in the head at school, never actually happen in the real world.
 
VeloCity said:
I don't put any value at all on zygotes, embryos, or early-term fetuses, cause they're not "life". What is weird is how you think zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are equivalent to living, breathing kids.

"Hilarious" is the spin that Weekly Standard - prob the most notorious anti-abortion publication out there - puts on abortion and how you buy into it.

Dude, here's what WS won't tell you: a botched abortion would not result in a "breathing, moving baby on the table", it would result in a virtually indistinguishable mass that would immediately cease to function outside of the womb. The only botched abortion that would ever even remotely have a chance of resulting in their contrived scenario is a very late-term abortion, which are already illegal.

Yeah, I tend to get more worked up about living, breathing kids being shot in the head at school than I do about aborted first-term fetuses. Apparently you're more outraged by ridiculous hypothetical scenarios about fetuses that, unlike kids being shot in the head at school, never actually happen in the real world.

As I said upthread....
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Heh.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/great-gun-gobbledygook-the-paradox-of-second-amendment-hardliners/274523/

In the current debate over gun control, the pro-gun lobby has an ace card up its sleeve: We need weapons to prevent government tyranny, they say. These self-styled champions of liberty see guns as the ultimate insurance policy to protect the Constitution. The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military -- exactly the behemoth we must be armed against. It's the great gun gobbledygook.

Consider Marco Rubio. The senator just threatened to filibuster any gun-control legislation because the Second Amendment "speaks to history's lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history's warning about the oppression of a government that tries."

The specter of government despotism looms so large our only salvation lies with a nation of armed watchmen.

But curiously, Rubio also strongly supports beefing up government power by creating a vast military establishment. In 2012, he described defense cuts as "catastrophic" because "history has proven that the stronger the U.S. military is, the more peaceful the world becomes." According to Politico, in a recent speech at the University of Louisville, "Rubio made the case for American military might around the world."

Wait a sec, won't American military might mean a government that's in more places at more times? Isn't this precisely the terrifying prospect we must arm ourselves against?

Or take Sarah Palin. As governor of Alaska, she signed an amicus brief that claimed: "The Framers were understandably wary of standing armies and the powers of a potentially oppressive government." The Second Amendment provides for "a citizenry capable of defending its rights by force, when all other means have failed, against any future oppression." Last February, Palin even suggested that the federal government is "stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest."

But where did these bullets come from? They came from champions of a strong military -- like Sarah Palin. She believes in fiscal conservatism, but with a clear exception for defense. "We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military." To diminish the government's standing army is to "risk losing all that makes America great!"

When conservatives take up armed resistance against D.C. despotism, they'll really regret some of the toys they gave the government.
Call it a domestic arms race, I suppose.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
BillytheKid said:
A hard call. But with no gas in the tank, the motor will not run. No one's talking about the stripping away of manufacturing, the true impact digital automation that kills jobs for the sake of the bottom line, mindless, shot-term investing to the pacific rim in the past 20-years. The Greens, with good intentions, have left us with a shrinking industrial base. The fundamental issues are not even being discussed. The posturing and talking points are all political theater. Both parties are filled with the wrong leadership. Like the O-ring debacle of the Space Shuttle Challenger, the engineers were ignored when is was clear their was a very simple flaw and danger. Better minds at the top are lacking as both D and Rs are base in a dated political stance decades old, and are not looking for real answers that address quickly involving issues.

This also applies to the Corporations who also have no long-term model, and have long looked to the short-term as an answer. Just name it greed, monetary and also ideological. Plenty of it to go around these days.

If you ignore the basics, those long displaced are the most effected. The boiling point may lead to the wrong answers. It has all happened before. The leaders of Soviet Russia all lie in their tombs, those a monument to dismal failure base on the application of strict Social Darwinism. The monarchs of Capitalism store up treasures on earth. Of what good are both?
It's generally accepted that one responds to a post by addressing the issues presented rather than verbally defecating runny sentences all over the forum.

I guess they do things differently in your world?
 
BillytheKid said:
Casaleggio seems the populist of the moment. Life is never without risk. Judging The Guardian article, the current numbers of M5S, it would seem unlikely that they could gain a majority anytime soon, but the impact of such "third" parties can influence as major parties assimilate their ideas. (As far as it goes here) But they mimic anymore at best, while maintaining the status quo behind their propaganda and glib talking points. You can only hope for the emergence of the right leaders among dominate parties that can work together to affect concrete solutions. The life St. Francis of Assisi has to be taken to heart by many in leadership, but real solutions come about by the practical minded who can wield power to put into place new economic foundations while inspired by Assisi. That takes risk and is seldom perfect. In the U.S., the early monarchs of industry, J.D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan can be viewed as heartless to the common people, but their empire building did have long-term thinking behind it. A change of heart in Carnegie began the movement toward private philanthropy. Oddly it affected Rockefeller in the same direction, who could never be outdone by Carnegie, and he ended up outspending him in the charitable arena. So there was a shift from the pure financial gain of industry to investment in the lives of the people.

This set about a change in the mindset of those who govern. For example, Henry Ford's victory over those who claim a patent on the automobile in Federal Court paved the way for the "Ford Revolution." He paid his workers the astronomical sum in the 1920s of, I believe, $14 an hour. Ford was investing in people. He reason if he paid them well, they would have money to buy things, a car, a house and the necessities to put in them would spurn more manufacturing and jobs. This was cut short by the Crash of 1929 and the here named Great Depression, It took root again following WWII fueled by Keynesian economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics and was the advent of modern consumerism which worked well to benefit of a greater middle class for a time, but has obvious flaws in many arenas and has shifted common values adrift in an effort to outdo you neighbor, if I dare say, "love thy yourself in spite of your neighbor." The long run of the Keynesian is over, it's was never intended run government so far into debt, but to date, it has no real rival. The sequester is not the answer because it only cuts robotically.

Returning to a long-term model that is sustainable on many fronts has been approach for long while now. The current polarization between left and right is a sign of the final struggle to achieve that long-term model, but I fear that the no moderation may result from the victor. As I said, both visions are outdated and do not address the rapidly envolving situation on the ground.

Common concern and values, inspired by Assisi, among the wealthy to risk it all by investing in realistic long-term manufacturing that does not depend on the ever increasing short-cycle planned obsolescence that is failing us rapidly would be yield the best return in my opinion. Much must stay in the hands of private interests however, but interests that do not snuggle up to political power that ride a Marxist train hoping that centralized power will serve their bottom line well as if they gain favor from the prince. I still default to the idea that human nature undermines all ideology, and greed or self-seeking blinds left and right alike. I can only hope for a return of moderation of those who can compromise without denying, for example, what lies in our Bill of Rights. Those rights have yet to upheld for all, but to abandon them and their ideal is folly as I've stated before. Real change comes from the heart. Those who seek ideals rooted only in vendetta have been the bane of us all from the beginning.
Maintaining that philanthropy justifies the most exploitative and predatory aspects of a baron industrialist model is mere apology, while hoping that at the same time corporate interests can somehow be divorced from political power is simply wishful thinking. The rest is just rambling.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Your modern-day NRA at work.

The National Rifle Association, which is battling a raft of gun control measures on Capitol Hill, also has an international fight on its hand as it gears up to oppose a U.N. treaty designed to restrict the flow of arms to conflict zones.

Negotiations open Monday in New York on the Arms Trade Treaty, which would require countries to determine whether weapons they sell would be used to commit serious human rights violations, terrorism or transnational organized crime.

The gun lobby fears that the treaty would be used to regulate civilian weapons. Human rights activists counter that it would reduce the trafficking of weapons, including small arms such as the ubiquitous AK-47 assault rifle, to outlaw regimes and rebel groups engaged in atrocities against civilian populations.
So the NRA is allied with Syria, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba, and several others in their opposition to the treaty. Conservatives (and gun nuts) should be very proud.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-16/world/37763898_1_arms-trade-treaty-gun-rights-human-rights
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
MarkvW said:
The absolute best that any Secretary of State can hope for is that nothing too bad will happen on his or her watch. Hillary has done VERY good on that score.

Benghazi could have happened to any Secretary of State. Its just a political football. Only fools or knaves focus on that kind of stuff.
Not knowing anything about you, I find your statement regarding me very insulting.

Regardless of your comment, The Secretary of State is responsible for these matters. THANK goodness I was not on MSG during these times. It would have been a cluster F. Someone in the chain of command at the Embassy would have questioned the staff's decision to allow the Ambassador to travel out during those times. In other words MarkvW somewhere along the line there were some folks who took it and were the scapegoats for this. Were they State Department personnel or military.

What branch of the United States Military are tasked with the mission of Embassy and Commander and Chief Security? Try not to use google cause it causes cramps.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
VeloCity said:
Your modern-day NRA at work.

So the NRA is allied with Syria, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba, and several others in their opposition to the treaty. Conservatives (and gun nuts) should be very proud.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-16/world/37763898_1_arms-trade-treaty-gun-rights-human-rights
There argument is based around civilian weapons vs. military weapons. I think you knew that but like the way it sounds to have the NRA in bed with those countries.


By the way -----------------" Secretary of State John F. Kerry said in a statement. “We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.”:cool:
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
ChewbaccaD said:
It's generally accepted that one responds to a post by addressing the issues presented rather than verbally defecating runny sentences all over the forum.

I guess they do things differently in your world?
In all fairness you should have said something like "written defecation in your opinion"
;)
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Not knowing anything about you, I find your statement regarding me very insulting.

Regardless of your comment, The Secretary of State is responsible for these matters. THANK goodness I was not on MSG during these times. It would have been a cluster F. Someone in the chain of command at the Embassy would have questioned the staff's decision to allow the Ambassador to travel out during those times. In other words MarkvW somewhere along the line there were some folks who took it and were the scapegoats for this. Were they State Department personnel or military.

What branch of the United States Military are tasked with the mission of Embassy and Commander and Chief Security? Try not to use google cause it causes cramps.
to the bold
:D:D:D
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
There argument is based around civilian weapons vs. military weapons. I think you knew that but like the way it sounds to have the NRA in bed with those countries.
What exactly are "civilian weapons" vs "military weapons", Glenn? Handguns? Shotguns? Hunting rifles?

And if Kerry doesn't say something like that, then the NRA and the gun nuts freak out and start screaming about the UN coming to take their guns away.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
It's déjà vu all over again.

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

Deciding which borrowers get loans might seem like something that should be left up to the private market. But since the financial crisis in 2008, the government has shaped most of the housing market, insuring between 80 percent and 90 percent of all new loans, according to the industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance. It has done so primarily through the Federal Housing Administration, which is part of the executive branch, and taxpayer-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, run by an independent regulator.
Yep, nationalize it. Don't have to even worry about losses when Bernanke will cover it up with freshly printed currency. Brilliant that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story_1.html
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Obama doing what he's best at;

President Obama is expected to raise several million dollars for Democratic House candidates in two high-dollar fundraising stops in California tonight.

Obama will attend two San Francisco fundraisers for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on Wednesday.
Too bad he's never really been interested in governing.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/?hp=44
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
What was that again about low-information voters?

37% of voters believe global warming is a hoax, 51% do not. Republicans say global warming is a hoax by a 58-25 margin, Democrats disagree 11-77, and Independents are more split at 41-51. 61% of Romney voters believe global warming is a hoax.

28% of voters believe secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order. A plurality of Romney voters (38%) believe in the New World Order compared to 35% who don’t.

21% of voters say a UFO crashed in Roswell, NM in 1947 and the US government covered it up. More Romney voters (27%) than Obama voters (16%) believe in a UFO coverup.

13% of voters think Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, including 22% of Romney voters.

Voters are split 44%-45% on whether Bush intentionally misled about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 72% of Democrats think Bush lied about WMDs, Independents agree 48-45, just 13% of Republicans think so
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/291601-poll-majority-of-republicans-call-global-warming-a-hoax#ixzz2PPe0CfiM
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
VeloCity said:
What exactly are "civilian weapons" vs "military weapons", Glenn? Handguns? Shotguns? Hunting rifles?

And if Kerry doesn't say something like that, then the NRA and the gun nuts freak out and start screaming about the UN coming to take their guns away.
Not that you will understand this but here it goes. There is a distinct difference between the sale of AK47 in bulk to some front company and selling a hunting rifle to an individual. :rolleyes:

Kerry said what he believes to bad you can't understand that.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Not that you will understand this but here it goes. There is a distinct difference between the sale of AK47 in bulk to some front company and selling a hunting rifle to an individual. :rolleyes:
That's just context of use, Glenn. A hunting rifle can be used to kill people or fight in a war just as easily as it can be used for hunting - isn't that entirely the point of the 2nd Amendment?

That's also the entire point of the UN treaty - that there is no difference between "civilian" weapons and "military" weapons.

But why is the NRA opposing a treaty that doesn't involve domestic gun laws? Because the US is the #1 arms exporter in the world and the NRA makes a **** ton of money off of that trade.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Probably time to consider amending the first amendment.

Obama senior adviser laments Drudge Report effect on the news

Pfeiffer said that the Drudge effect can be damaging to the White House effort to communicate their message, even though he insisted he was “fairly ambivalent” to what Matt Drudge puts up on his site every day.

“The example being that anyone saying anything can get caught up in the spin cycle that is very damaging,” Pfeiffer continued. “It hurts what we’re trying to do but then it is very damaging to that individual person.”


http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2526148
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS