• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 02:45
CEST 08:45
KST 15:45
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL22] Ro8 Preview: In A Tizzy10[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Holy Diver5[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Rough Waters10[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Siren's Call8[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Summer's End9
Community News
Weekly Cups (Sep 13-20): herO scores triple2BSL Season 2312Weekly Cups (Sep 7-12): SHIN, ByuN, MaxPax double down1StarCraft open world shooter announced at BlizzCon101Weekly Cups (Aug 30-Sep 7): herO thrives amid growing schism10
StarCraft 2
General
How do you feel about the StarCraft shooter announcement at BlizzCon 2026? Blizzard Classic Cup @ BlizzCon 2026 - $100k prize pool Balance hotfix patch 5.0.16b (July 16) Weekly Cups (Sep 13-20): herO scores triple The Death of Cheese: From a Professional Cheeser
Tourneys
2026 GSTL GRAND FINALS Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Stellar Fest TWO the Moon (Dec 16-20) 2026 GSTL Announcement
Strategy
[H] ZvP Mid-Late Game: Stalkers Collossi HT
Custom Maps
[M] (2) Frigid Storage
External Content
Mutation # 544 Double Trouble The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 543 Enhanced Defenses Mutation # 542 The Ascended
Brood War
General
[ASL22] Ro8 Preview: In A Tizzy Bot on ladder BSL Season 23 PLAYzone Challenge - open offline tour in Prague SC4ALL II: Brood War Player Announcement 4/4
Tourneys
[ASL22] Ro8 Day 2 [IPSL] IPSL is Back With Winter 26-27! PLAYzone Challenge - open offline tour in Prague [ASL22] Ro16 Group D
Strategy
Cliff Jump Revisited (1 in a 1000 strategy) Replay Review Process - What do you do? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Odyssey Mineral Stack Saturation
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread EVE Corporation Nintendo Switch Thread Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Diablo IV
Dota 2
Dota 2 Champions League Season 3 Begins April 25! Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
[TL LoL EUW IHs] Teemo shall perish
Heroes of the Storm
Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Artificial Intelligence Thread All you football fans (soccer)!
Fan Clubs
MarineLorD Fan Club The Creator Fan Club The ShoWTimE Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Diablo Animated Series on Netflix
Sports
Football (Soccer) Thread
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
Violent-Cooperative Play and…
TrAiDoS
38 yo Retired SWE loo…
PurE)Rabbit-SF
Can Bots Beat Pros?? Starcr…
namkraft
[meme] I finally understa…
LUCKY_NOOB
Regacy Esports:Our Goa…
regacyesports
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 8372 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 551

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 549 550 551 552 553 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
October 18 2013 21:58 GMT
#11001
On October 19 2013 00:55 DoubleReed wrote:
How would that solve our illegal immigration problem? Annex them and make them all American?

legalize the fuck outta them
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain18445 Posts
October 18 2013 23:39 GMT
#11002
On October 19 2013 06:58 Falling wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2013 06:53 Sub40APM wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:52 Falling wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:04 Souma wrote:
On October 19 2013 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 19 2013 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what's funnier that Arnold Schwarzenegger is petitioning to to amend the constitution so he can run for president, or that I would be more likely to vote for him than any of the other potential Republican candidates to date...

I would love to see him and Christie debating with the Tea Party loons... hahaha


Source


Is there anyone actually opposed to amending the constitution so he can run? I think its a really, really silly rule. It doesn't make any amount of practical sense. Am I missing something? I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actually legit reason for this, but I'm not seeing it right now.


You'd be surprised... In fact, I wouldn't doubt that a majority of Americans do not want to amend that clause.

Given how much weight was put on Obama the Kenyan, birth certificates long or short I would not be surprised that most would not want it changed. The entire controversy was predicated that being foreign born would be a bad thing. Could people's love for Arnie overcome their hatred for Obama? Doubt it. But considering how well the Republicans last president who was both governor of California and a former actor did for their party, maybe just maybe

Even if there was a strict residency requirements, I just can not see it changing. The rule has been around for too long and I'm sure out of 300 million people, they can find someone else.

The people in the GOP who had a problem with Obama's heritage didnt have a problem with it because he was merely a 'foreigner'

Well that's true. Something about his uncle or father holding anti-American views and that Obama was going to intentionally tear America down from the inside, 5th column style. I can't remember who I got the flurry of PMs at the height of that controversy. But anyways, that part was mostly a joke. It might sound like an arbitrary rule, but I think you need to draw a line at some point of what does it mean to be an American citizen and be able to run for president rather than having hypothetical foreign celebrities parachuting into election cycles. Dalai Lama for president anyone? lol


Sure, but why your place of birth? Seems really arbitrary. How about nationality and living a minimum of 25 years in the US (last 25 years)?

Are children of military families living abroad on a US base considered to be born abroad? Same for diplomats and other US citizens abroad on US business?
Sub40APM
Profile Joined August 2010
6336 Posts
October 18 2013 23:57 GMT
#11003
US bases abroad are considered American soil.
Sbrubbles
Profile Joined October 2010
Brazil5776 Posts
October 19 2013 00:28 GMT
#11004
On October 19 2013 08:39 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2013 06:58 Falling wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:53 Sub40APM wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:52 Falling wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:04 Souma wrote:
On October 19 2013 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 19 2013 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what's funnier that Arnold Schwarzenegger is petitioning to to amend the constitution so he can run for president, or that I would be more likely to vote for him than any of the other potential Republican candidates to date...

I would love to see him and Christie debating with the Tea Party loons... hahaha


Source


Is there anyone actually opposed to amending the constitution so he can run? I think its a really, really silly rule. It doesn't make any amount of practical sense. Am I missing something? I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actually legit reason for this, but I'm not seeing it right now.


You'd be surprised... In fact, I wouldn't doubt that a majority of Americans do not want to amend that clause.

Given how much weight was put on Obama the Kenyan, birth certificates long or short I would not be surprised that most would not want it changed. The entire controversy was predicated that being foreign born would be a bad thing. Could people's love for Arnie overcome their hatred for Obama? Doubt it. But considering how well the Republicans last president who was both governor of California and a former actor did for their party, maybe just maybe

Even if there was a strict residency requirements, I just can not see it changing. The rule has been around for too long and I'm sure out of 300 million people, they can find someone else.

The people in the GOP who had a problem with Obama's heritage didnt have a problem with it because he was merely a 'foreigner'

Well that's true. Something about his uncle or father holding anti-American views and that Obama was going to intentionally tear America down from the inside, 5th column style. I can't remember who I got the flurry of PMs at the height of that controversy. But anyways, that part was mostly a joke. It might sound like an arbitrary rule, but I think you need to draw a line at some point of what does it mean to be an American citizen and be able to run for president rather than having hypothetical foreign celebrities parachuting into election cycles. Dalai Lama for president anyone? lol


Sure, but why your place of birth? Seems really arbitrary. How about nationality and living a minimum of 25 years in the US (last 25 years)?

Are children of military families living abroad on a US base considered to be born abroad? Same for diplomats and other US citizens abroad on US business?


I'm pretty sure there is a specific legislation for US officials who have to live and end up having children abroad. I'd be really surprised if there wasn't, anyway.
Bora Pain minha porra!
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-19 00:47:05
October 19 2013 00:46 GMT
#11005
Only 19 percent of the American public trusts the federal government to do what's right, a seven point drop since January, according to a new Pew poll released Friday.

That measure is now equivalent to the level in August 2011, when the last debt ceiling debate rocked Washington.

Thirty percent are angry with the federal government, up four points since September, while twelve percent are content with the government.

A Gallup Poll released at the beginning of October found that 33 percent of Americans said that government dysfunction is the biggest problem in the nation, the highest percentage in a Gallup poll since 1939. Those surveyed placed government dysfunction above the economy, unemployment, the deficit and healthcare as the biggest problem plaguing the country.

The Pew poll, conducted Oct. 9-13, surveyed 1,504 adults via phone with a margin of error sampling of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. The Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 3-6, surveyed 1,028 adults via telephone with a margin of error sampling of plus or minue 4 percentage points.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Funnytoss
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
Taiwan1471 Posts
October 19 2013 00:52 GMT
#11006
On October 19 2013 09:28 Sbrubbles wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2013 08:39 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:58 Falling wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:53 Sub40APM wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:52 Falling wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:04 Souma wrote:
On October 19 2013 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 19 2013 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what's funnier that Arnold Schwarzenegger is petitioning to to amend the constitution so he can run for president, or that I would be more likely to vote for him than any of the other potential Republican candidates to date...

I would love to see him and Christie debating with the Tea Party loons... hahaha


Source


Is there anyone actually opposed to amending the constitution so he can run? I think its a really, really silly rule. It doesn't make any amount of practical sense. Am I missing something? I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actually legit reason for this, but I'm not seeing it right now.


You'd be surprised... In fact, I wouldn't doubt that a majority of Americans do not want to amend that clause.

Given how much weight was put on Obama the Kenyan, birth certificates long or short I would not be surprised that most would not want it changed. The entire controversy was predicated that being foreign born would be a bad thing. Could people's love for Arnie overcome their hatred for Obama? Doubt it. But considering how well the Republicans last president who was both governor of California and a former actor did for their party, maybe just maybe

Even if there was a strict residency requirements, I just can not see it changing. The rule has been around for too long and I'm sure out of 300 million people, they can find someone else.

The people in the GOP who had a problem with Obama's heritage didnt have a problem with it because he was merely a 'foreigner'

Well that's true. Something about his uncle or father holding anti-American views and that Obama was going to intentionally tear America down from the inside, 5th column style. I can't remember who I got the flurry of PMs at the height of that controversy. But anyways, that part was mostly a joke. It might sound like an arbitrary rule, but I think you need to draw a line at some point of what does it mean to be an American citizen and be able to run for president rather than having hypothetical foreign celebrities parachuting into election cycles. Dalai Lama for president anyone? lol


Sure, but why your place of birth? Seems really arbitrary. How about nationality and living a minimum of 25 years in the US (last 25 years)?

Are children of military families living abroad on a US base considered to be born abroad? Same for diplomats and other US citizens abroad on US business?


I'm pretty sure there is a specific legislation for US officials who have to live and end up having children abroad. I'd be really surprised if there wasn't, anyway.


Yes, John McCain was born in Panama, but on a U.S. Military Base, and he was considered eligible. Honestly, the definition isn't all that clear-cut yet. I've heard it argued that Ted Cruz would arguably be eligible even though he was born in Canada, due to one of his parents being American. It's really about the definition of "natural-born American".
AIV_Funnytoss and sGs.Funnytoss on iCCup
DeltaX
Profile Joined August 2011
United States287 Posts
October 19 2013 00:59 GMT
#11007
On October 19 2013 09:52 Funnytoss wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2013 09:28 Sbrubbles wrote:
On October 19 2013 08:39 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:58 Falling wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:53 Sub40APM wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:52 Falling wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:04 Souma wrote:
On October 19 2013 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 19 2013 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what's funnier that Arnold Schwarzenegger is petitioning to to amend the constitution so he can run for president, or that I would be more likely to vote for him than any of the other potential Republican candidates to date...

I would love to see him and Christie debating with the Tea Party loons... hahaha


Source


Is there anyone actually opposed to amending the constitution so he can run? I think its a really, really silly rule. It doesn't make any amount of practical sense. Am I missing something? I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actually legit reason for this, but I'm not seeing it right now.


You'd be surprised... In fact, I wouldn't doubt that a majority of Americans do not want to amend that clause.

Given how much weight was put on Obama the Kenyan, birth certificates long or short I would not be surprised that most would not want it changed. The entire controversy was predicated that being foreign born would be a bad thing. Could people's love for Arnie overcome their hatred for Obama? Doubt it. But considering how well the Republicans last president who was both governor of California and a former actor did for their party, maybe just maybe

Even if there was a strict residency requirements, I just can not see it changing. The rule has been around for too long and I'm sure out of 300 million people, they can find someone else.

The people in the GOP who had a problem with Obama's heritage didnt have a problem with it because he was merely a 'foreigner'

Well that's true. Something about his uncle or father holding anti-American views and that Obama was going to intentionally tear America down from the inside, 5th column style. I can't remember who I got the flurry of PMs at the height of that controversy. But anyways, that part was mostly a joke. It might sound like an arbitrary rule, but I think you need to draw a line at some point of what does it mean to be an American citizen and be able to run for president rather than having hypothetical foreign celebrities parachuting into election cycles. Dalai Lama for president anyone? lol


Sure, but why your place of birth? Seems really arbitrary. How about nationality and living a minimum of 25 years in the US (last 25 years)?

Are children of military families living abroad on a US base considered to be born abroad? Same for diplomats and other US citizens abroad on US business?


I'm pretty sure there is a specific legislation for US officials who have to live and end up having children abroad. I'd be really surprised if there wasn't, anyway.


Yes, John McCain was born in Panama, but on a U.S. Military Base, and he was considered eligible. Honestly, the definition isn't all that clear-cut yet. I've heard it argued that Ted Cruz would arguably be eligible even though he was born in Canada, due to one of his parents being American. It's really about the definition of "natural-born American".


I think natural born is generally taken to be that you were born a US citizen as opposed to a naturalized citizen.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
October 19 2013 18:48 GMT
#11008
As part of its state-by-state effort to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, a group backed by billionaire conservative benefactors Charles and David Koch is going after a Republican lawmaker in Virginia who has signaled an openness to the law's Medicaid expansion.

An article published Saturday in The New York Times details how the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity is employing a grassroots campaign to pressure state lawmakers to reject the Medicaid expansion under the health care law.

The group is currently going all out in Virginia, where this year's gubernatorial race pits a Democrat who favors expansion (Terry McAuliffe) against a Republican who opposes (Ken Cuccinelli). It's also targeting Republican state Sen. Emmett W. Hanger Jr., who is considering signing off on the expansion.

“This has been one of those trench warfare kind of efforts for a year now, and I think it is one of those hidden stories of the whole fight against Obamacare,” Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, told the Times. “It’s not flashy; it’s just in a whole bunch of state capitals and in the districts of a whole lot of state legislators, but it’s such a crucial aspect of the overall long-term effort to roll back Obamacare.”


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
October 19 2013 19:23 GMT
#11009
On October 19 2013 09:59 DeltaX wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2013 09:52 Funnytoss wrote:
On October 19 2013 09:28 Sbrubbles wrote:
On October 19 2013 08:39 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:58 Falling wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:53 Sub40APM wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:52 Falling wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:04 Souma wrote:
On October 19 2013 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 19 2013 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what's funnier that Arnold Schwarzenegger is petitioning to to amend the constitution so he can run for president, or that I would be more likely to vote for him than any of the other potential Republican candidates to date...

I would love to see him and Christie debating with the Tea Party loons... hahaha


Source


Is there anyone actually opposed to amending the constitution so he can run? I think its a really, really silly rule. It doesn't make any amount of practical sense. Am I missing something? I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actually legit reason for this, but I'm not seeing it right now.


You'd be surprised... In fact, I wouldn't doubt that a majority of Americans do not want to amend that clause.

Given how much weight was put on Obama the Kenyan, birth certificates long or short I would not be surprised that most would not want it changed. The entire controversy was predicated that being foreign born would be a bad thing. Could people's love for Arnie overcome their hatred for Obama? Doubt it. But considering how well the Republicans last president who was both governor of California and a former actor did for their party, maybe just maybe

Even if there was a strict residency requirements, I just can not see it changing. The rule has been around for too long and I'm sure out of 300 million people, they can find someone else.

The people in the GOP who had a problem with Obama's heritage didnt have a problem with it because he was merely a 'foreigner'

Well that's true. Something about his uncle or father holding anti-American views and that Obama was going to intentionally tear America down from the inside, 5th column style. I can't remember who I got the flurry of PMs at the height of that controversy. But anyways, that part was mostly a joke. It might sound like an arbitrary rule, but I think you need to draw a line at some point of what does it mean to be an American citizen and be able to run for president rather than having hypothetical foreign celebrities parachuting into election cycles. Dalai Lama for president anyone? lol


Sure, but why your place of birth? Seems really arbitrary. How about nationality and living a minimum of 25 years in the US (last 25 years)?

Are children of military families living abroad on a US base considered to be born abroad? Same for diplomats and other US citizens abroad on US business?


I'm pretty sure there is a specific legislation for US officials who have to live and end up having children abroad. I'd be really surprised if there wasn't, anyway.


Yes, John McCain was born in Panama, but on a U.S. Military Base, and he was considered eligible. Honestly, the definition isn't all that clear-cut yet. I've heard it argued that Ted Cruz would arguably be eligible even though he was born in Canada, due to one of his parents being American. It's really about the definition of "natural-born American".


I think natural born is generally taken to be that you were born a US citizen as opposed to a naturalized citizen.

This is how it's treated under the law, afaik.
Scareb
Profile Joined October 2010
Germany173 Posts
October 19 2013 20:22 GMT
#11010
On October 20 2013 03:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Show nested quote +
As part of its state-by-state effort to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, a group backed by billionaire conservative benefactors Charles and David Koch is going after a Republican lawmaker in Virginia who has signaled an openness to the law's Medicaid expansion.

An article published Saturday in The New York Times details how the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity is employing a grassroots campaign to pressure state lawmakers to reject the Medicaid expansion under the health care law.

The group is currently going all out in Virginia, where this year's gubernatorial race pits a Democrat who favors expansion (Terry McAuliffe) against a Republican who opposes (Ken Cuccinelli). It's also targeting Republican state Sen. Emmett W. Hanger Jr., who is considering signing off on the expansion.

“This has been one of those trench warfare kind of efforts for a year now, and I think it is one of those hidden stories of the whole fight against Obamacare,” Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, told the Times. “It’s not flashy; it’s just in a whole bunch of state capitals and in the districts of a whole lot of state legislators, but it’s such a crucial aspect of the overall long-term effort to roll back Obamacare.”


Source

I love how the "old white bastards", aka Koch brothers are acting! They are a good indicator whats wrong with some old rich folks.
Adila
Profile Joined April 2010
United States874 Posts
October 19 2013 21:11 GMT
#11011
On October 20 2013 04:23 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2013 09:59 DeltaX wrote:
On October 19 2013 09:52 Funnytoss wrote:
On October 19 2013 09:28 Sbrubbles wrote:
On October 19 2013 08:39 Acrofales wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:58 Falling wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:53 Sub40APM wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:52 Falling wrote:
On October 19 2013 06:04 Souma wrote:
On October 19 2013 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]

Is there anyone actually opposed to amending the constitution so he can run? I think its a really, really silly rule. It doesn't make any amount of practical sense. Am I missing something? I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actually legit reason for this, but I'm not seeing it right now.


You'd be surprised... In fact, I wouldn't doubt that a majority of Americans do not want to amend that clause.

Given how much weight was put on Obama the Kenyan, birth certificates long or short I would not be surprised that most would not want it changed. The entire controversy was predicated that being foreign born would be a bad thing. Could people's love for Arnie overcome their hatred for Obama? Doubt it. But considering how well the Republicans last president who was both governor of California and a former actor did for their party, maybe just maybe

Even if there was a strict residency requirements, I just can not see it changing. The rule has been around for too long and I'm sure out of 300 million people, they can find someone else.

The people in the GOP who had a problem with Obama's heritage didnt have a problem with it because he was merely a 'foreigner'

Well that's true. Something about his uncle or father holding anti-American views and that Obama was going to intentionally tear America down from the inside, 5th column style. I can't remember who I got the flurry of PMs at the height of that controversy. But anyways, that part was mostly a joke. It might sound like an arbitrary rule, but I think you need to draw a line at some point of what does it mean to be an American citizen and be able to run for president rather than having hypothetical foreign celebrities parachuting into election cycles. Dalai Lama for president anyone? lol


Sure, but why your place of birth? Seems really arbitrary. How about nationality and living a minimum of 25 years in the US (last 25 years)?

Are children of military families living abroad on a US base considered to be born abroad? Same for diplomats and other US citizens abroad on US business?


I'm pretty sure there is a specific legislation for US officials who have to live and end up having children abroad. I'd be really surprised if there wasn't, anyway.


Yes, John McCain was born in Panama, but on a U.S. Military Base, and he was considered eligible. Honestly, the definition isn't all that clear-cut yet. I've heard it argued that Ted Cruz would arguably be eligible even though he was born in Canada, due to one of his parents being American. It's really about the definition of "natural-born American".


I think natural born is generally taken to be that you were born a US citizen as opposed to a naturalized citizen.

This is how it's treated under the law, afaik.


I'm really hoping Cruz runs so people like Orly Taitz has anther target to troll.

Of course, if the Birthers decide to keep quiet on Cruz, then everyone would know why they really targetted Obama.
Dimagus
Profile Joined December 2010
United States1004 Posts
October 19 2013 21:58 GMT
#11012
Someone needs to start the Get RID o' T campaign. Get Republicans, Independents, Democrats opposing Tea Party campaign.

Now that would make the news more interesting.
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
October 19 2013 22:36 GMT
#11013
On October 20 2013 06:58 Dimagus wrote:
Someone needs to start the Get RID o' T campaign. Get Republicans, Independents, Democrats opposing Tea Party campaign.

Now that would make the news more interesting.

I really wish that were an option in my area. Sadly, my representative(s) were all Tea Party approved incumbents. In other words, my district(s) aligned with the Tea Party long before it existed in the first place.
FeUerFlieGe
Profile Joined April 2011
United States1193 Posts
October 19 2013 22:45 GMT
#11014
On October 19 2013 09:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Show nested quote +
Only 19 percent of the American public trusts the federal government to do what's right, a seven point drop since January, according to a new Pew poll released Friday.

That measure is now equivalent to the level in August 2011, when the last debt ceiling debate rocked Washington.

Thirty percent are angry with the federal government, up four points since September, while twelve percent are content with the government.

A Gallup Poll released at the beginning of October found that 33 percent of Americans said that government dysfunction is the biggest problem in the nation, the highest percentage in a Gallup poll since 1939. Those surveyed placed government dysfunction above the economy, unemployment, the deficit and healthcare as the biggest problem plaguing the country.

The Pew poll, conducted Oct. 9-13, surveyed 1,504 adults via phone with a margin of error sampling of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. The Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 3-6, surveyed 1,028 adults via telephone with a margin of error sampling of plus or minue 4 percentage points.


Source


You'd think with numbers that low people would actually want to do something about it.
To unpathed waters, undreamed shores. - Shakespeare
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
October 19 2013 23:07 GMT
#11015
On October 20 2013 07:45 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 19 2013 09:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Only 19 percent of the American public trusts the federal government to do what's right, a seven point drop since January, according to a new Pew poll released Friday.

That measure is now equivalent to the level in August 2011, when the last debt ceiling debate rocked Washington.

Thirty percent are angry with the federal government, up four points since September, while twelve percent are content with the government.

A Gallup Poll released at the beginning of October found that 33 percent of Americans said that government dysfunction is the biggest problem in the nation, the highest percentage in a Gallup poll since 1939. Those surveyed placed government dysfunction above the economy, unemployment, the deficit and healthcare as the biggest problem plaguing the country.

The Pew poll, conducted Oct. 9-13, surveyed 1,504 adults via phone with a margin of error sampling of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. The Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 3-6, surveyed 1,028 adults via telephone with a margin of error sampling of plus or minue 4 percentage points.


Source


You'd think with numbers that low people would actually want to do something about it.


You really have to understand where the sentiment is coming from. I overhear people talk politics in the office and around school, and a lot of people's opinions are shaped by half-listening to 20-30 second sound clips on the news. They know the government shut down, they know it's Congress' fault, but they're confused about how it started and why. Had a coworker mix up Obama's and Boehner's statements, thinking that Obama had asked for "unconditional surrender," Thus, he (and others) sit around and wrongly think that everything is broken and are discouraged from participating in the process. They don't want to take the time to understand whether it was one of their representatives or not.
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
October 20 2013 00:52 GMT
#11016
JPMorgan Chase has reached a tentative agreement with the Justice Department to pay a record $13 billion to settle civil investigations into faulty mortgage securities the bank sold to investors in the lead up to the financial crisis, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.

The tentative deal was reached Friday night in a call involving Attorney General Eric Holder and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, one of the sources said. It would be the largest settlement ever between Justice and a single company.

The package is expected to include $9 billion in penalties paid to the government and $4 billion in relief for consumers.

The deal would mark a victory for the Obama administration, which has been criticized for not being more agressive in pressing cases against Wall Street firms following the 2008 financial crisis.

...

Over the past year JPMorgan has faced a series of investigations that dented the reputation of both the bank and Dimon, who won plaudits following the financial crisis for his risk management skills.

In recent weeks, the bank has struck deals with various regulators intended to put an end to the firm’s legal woes.

Last month the bank agreed to a $920 million settlement with regulators over the London Whale trading debacle, along with separate deals over credit card and debt collection problems, as part of an effort to move past its legal woes.

JPMorgan’s legal troubles caused it to this month report its first quarterly loss since Dimon became CEO in 2005. The bank reported that it lost $380 million in the third quarter after spending about $9.3 billion on legal expenses. It is now reserving roughly $23 billion for litigation costs.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/jpmorgan-department-of-justice-settlement-98559.html?hp=f1
Writer
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
October 20 2013 01:02 GMT
#11017
On October 20 2013 09:52 Souma wrote:
Show nested quote +
JPMorgan Chase has reached a tentative agreement with the Justice Department to pay a record $13 billion to settle civil investigations into faulty mortgage securities the bank sold to investors in the lead up to the financial crisis, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.

The tentative deal was reached Friday night in a call involving Attorney General Eric Holder and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, one of the sources said. It would be the largest settlement ever between Justice and a single company.

The package is expected to include $9 billion in penalties paid to the government and $4 billion in relief for consumers.

The deal would mark a victory for the Obama administration, which has been criticized for not being more agressive in pressing cases against Wall Street firms following the 2008 financial crisis.

...

Over the past year JPMorgan has faced a series of investigations that dented the reputation of both the bank and Dimon, who won plaudits following the financial crisis for his risk management skills.

In recent weeks, the bank has struck deals with various regulators intended to put an end to the firm’s legal woes.

Last month the bank agreed to a $920 million settlement with regulators over the London Whale trading debacle, along with separate deals over credit card and debt collection problems, as part of an effort to move past its legal woes.

JPMorgan’s legal troubles caused it to this month report its first quarterly loss since Dimon became CEO in 2005. The bank reported that it lost $380 million in the third quarter after spending about $9.3 billion on legal expenses. It is now reserving roughly $23 billion for litigation costs.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/jpmorgan-department-of-justice-settlement-98559.html?hp=f1


To put that in perspective, $13 billion will cover about half of what was wasted by the government shutdown.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
blomsterjohn
Profile Joined June 2008
Norway474 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-20 02:18:05
October 20 2013 01:26 GMT
#11018
On October 20 2013 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 20 2013 09:52 Souma wrote:
JPMorgan Chase has reached a tentative agreement with the Justice Department to pay a record $13 billion to settle civil investigations into faulty mortgage securities the bank sold to investors in the lead up to the financial crisis, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.

The tentative deal was reached Friday night in a call involving Attorney General Eric Holder and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, one of the sources said. It would be the largest settlement ever between Justice and a single company.

The package is expected to include $9 billion in penalties paid to the government and $4 billion in relief for consumers.

The deal would mark a victory for the Obama administration, which has been criticized for not being more agressive in pressing cases against Wall Street firms following the 2008 financial crisis.

...

Over the past year JPMorgan has faced a series of investigations that dented the reputation of both the bank and Dimon, who won plaudits following the financial crisis for his risk management skills.

In recent weeks, the bank has struck deals with various regulators intended to put an end to the firm’s legal woes.

Last month the bank agreed to a $920 million settlement with regulators over the London Whale trading debacle, along with separate deals over credit card and debt collection problems, as part of an effort to move past its legal woes.

JPMorgan’s legal troubles caused it to this month report its first quarterly loss since Dimon became CEO in 2005. The bank reported that it lost $380 million in the third quarter after spending about $9.3 billion on legal expenses. It is now reserving roughly $23 billion for litigation costs.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/jpmorgan-department-of-justice-settlement-98559.html?hp=f1


To put that in perspective, $13 billion will cover about half of what was wasted by the government shutdown.


To put that in further perspective, JP Morgan had (according to wiki) a net profit of 21.30 billion in 2012.

edit: corrected
DeltaX
Profile Joined August 2011
United States287 Posts
October 20 2013 01:53 GMT
#11019
On October 20 2013 10:26 blomsterjohn wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 20 2013 10:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
On October 20 2013 09:52 Souma wrote:
JPMorgan Chase has reached a tentative agreement with the Justice Department to pay a record $13 billion to settle civil investigations into faulty mortgage securities the bank sold to investors in the lead up to the financial crisis, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.

The tentative deal was reached Friday night in a call involving Attorney General Eric Holder and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, one of the sources said. It would be the largest settlement ever between Justice and a single company.

The package is expected to include $9 billion in penalties paid to the government and $4 billion in relief for consumers.

The deal would mark a victory for the Obama administration, which has been criticized for not being more agressive in pressing cases against Wall Street firms following the 2008 financial crisis.

...

Over the past year JPMorgan has faced a series of investigations that dented the reputation of both the bank and Dimon, who won plaudits following the financial crisis for his risk management skills.

In recent weeks, the bank has struck deals with various regulators intended to put an end to the firm’s legal woes.

Last month the bank agreed to a $920 million settlement with regulators over the London Whale trading debacle, along with separate deals over credit card and debt collection problems, as part of an effort to move past its legal woes.

JPMorgan’s legal troubles caused it to this month report its first quarterly loss since Dimon became CEO in 2005. The bank reported that it lost $380 million in the third quarter after spending about $9.3 billion on legal expenses. It is now reserving roughly $23 billion for litigation costs.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/jpmorgan-department-of-justice-settlement-98559.html?hp=f1


To put that in perspective, $13 billion will cover about half of what was wasted by the government shutdown.


To put that in further perspective, JP Morgan had (according to wiki) a net income of 21.30 billion in 2012.


Profit, not income, it had ~100 billion in income.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
October 20 2013 02:02 GMT
#11020
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) -- Advocates of recreational marijuana use are looking to an upcoming vote in Maine as an indicator of whether the East Coast is ready to follow in the footsteps of Colorado and Washington by legalizing cannabis.

Voters in Portland are being asked whether they want to make it legal for adults 21 and over to possess -- but not purchase or sell -- up to 2.5 ounces of pot. The Nov. 5 vote is being eyed nationally as momentum grows in favor of legalizing marijuana use.

The Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.-based group that supports legalization, says it targeted Portland because it's Maine's largest city and because, unlike many other states and cities, it has an initiative process to get the referendum on the ballot. Organizers hope passage of the Portland initiative could spur similar results in other liberal Northeast cities.

"I think there's national implications, keeping the momentum that Washington and Colorado started last November in ending marijuana prohibition," said David Boyer, the organization's political director in Maine. "This is just the next domino."

There's no organized opposition to the referendum, but law enforcement and substance abuse groups are speaking out against it.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Prev 1 549 550 551 552 553 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h 15m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ProTech149
Nina 95
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 2520
Larva 693
actioN 403
sorry 59
ToSsGirL 39
NaDa 25
Icarus 6
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm189
Other Games
WinterStarcraft464
Happy377
C9.Mang0295
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream1225
StarCraft: Brood War
Afreeca ASL 304
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH253
• mYiSmile18
• Letter143
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2298
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
2h 15m
WardiTV Invitational
4h 15m
Korean StarCraft League
20h 45m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 3h
AI Arena Tournament
1d 10h
GSL
2 days
Yamato Cup
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
Afreeca Starleague
3 days
Soma vs Jaedong
WardiTV Weekly
3 days
[ Show More ]
Monday Night Weeklies
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
Afreeca Starleague
4 days
Leta vs Soulkey
PiGosaur Cup
4 days
Kung Fu Cup
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Super Anchor Qualifying S3
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
Big Dog Cup 2026 Div 1

Ongoing

ASL Season 22
CSL 2026 AUTUMN (S22)
Acropolis #5
Acropolis #5 - GSA
Calamity Invitational
1win Private Club #1
Logitech G Play Connect 2026
SL StarSeries Fall 2026
FISSURE Playground #3
BLAST Open Fall 2026
Esports World Cup 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer Qual
Stake Ranked Episode 3

Upcoming

Acropolis #5 - GSB
Acropolis #5 - GSC
BSL Season 23
SC4ALL II: Brood War
BSL 23: Non-Korean Championship
HSC XXX
Stellar Fest 2: Lunar Cup
SC4ALL II: StarCraft II
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
RSL Offline Finals
Custodian Cup
Copium Cup
PGL Major Singapore 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 6
BLAST Rivals Fall 2026
IEM Beijing 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 5
PGL Masters Bucharest 2026
1win Private Club #2
Thunderpick World Champ. '26
ESL Pro League Season 24
Stake Ranked Episode 4
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.