Calax

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now. It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression. And yet the current GOP call themselves the party of Lincoln. And it's not like Bush Jr was any better about paying attention to the Constitution given that he sent American citizens to Gitmo to torture them for information about AlQueda and others. And yet you don't even seem to understand it yourself. You treat it as some sort of sacred text that shall never be changed because that's how it was, and how your founders created it. Never minding the fact that it was created with notes about how slaves counted for voting. And I'm not sure how you think Freedom of Religion is being misused, it's there to prevent the government from saying "We're Chrisitans, so hang up your stars and crecent moons, you're worshipping the cross or going to jail!" Ultimately American student's don't study the Constitution because it doesn't really effect them day to day. The laws that do effect them are taught to them before they're six as part of standard socialization. After all, I don't think a 12th grader is going to argue their constitutional rights in front of a judge.. that's why we have lawyers. And most of the time those who think they are "properly educated" (as in they read what they wanted to) are usually just involved in the groupthink of their community. Ignoring the fact "Right to Bare Arms" didn't exactly have RPG's or Cannons in mind. 'And yet', again, irrelevant. What some of the GOP advertises themselves is as relevant as what snake oil X salesman says his concoction can do, and just about as sincere. The reality is that modern GOP has less in common with the Republican Party of Linoln's time than the Democratic Party of the same era did. At the national level, both parties are corrupt to the core. The words that come out of their mouths, in particular the mouths of the party 'leadership' and the RNC/DNC are less sincere or factual than the average proverbial used car salesman's. As for the rest of what you say: more irrelevant to what I was saying nonsense. And yet they're the people who lead us, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. Meaning that the party line and leadership is going to be a significant factor in the US election in 2016. And that no matter what you think you know about the constitution or it's interpretation, that's worthless because you're just a random person on the internet/in the US who can effect the ultimate outcome, but can't control the choices within the election.

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now. It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression. And yet the current GOP call themselves the party of Lincoln. And it's not like Bush Jr was any better about paying attention to the Constitution given that he sent American citizens to Gitmo to torture them for information about AlQueda and others. And yet you don't even seem to understand it yourself. You treat it as some sort of sacred text that shall never be changed because that's how it was, and how your founders created it. Never minding the fact that it was created with notes about how slaves counted for voting. And I'm not sure how you think Freedom of Religion is being misused, it's there to prevent the government from saying "We're Chrisitans, so hang up your stars and crecent moons, you're worshipping the cross or going to jail!" Ultimately American student's don't study the Constitution because it doesn't really effect them day to day. The laws that do effect them are taught to them before they're six as part of standard socialization. After all, I don't think a 12th grader is going to argue their constitutional rights in front of a judge.. that's why we have lawyers. And most of the time those who think they are "properly educated" (as in they read what they wanted to) are usually just involved in the groupthink of their community. Ignoring the fact "Right to Bare Arms" didn't exactly have RPG's or Cannons in mind.

Funny how liberals suddenly find outmoded, useless Constitution when it's convenient. It's not just Liberals... I mean the Arch Conservative Abraham (or was it Ibrahim?) Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus. Also Mitch McConnal is trying to convince the world not to appoint until the election is settled now

And some of the candidates are already calling for Obama to not nominate the next Justice... https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/698634625246195712 Because they want a Republican Justice on the bench... never mind that the Court still has to go through it's docket this year. also this https://www.facebook.com/SashaGrey/posts/982542815118452

What is a "significant other"?

You right, I do believe he is a good guy who wants to do good things. And he has done many good things, I can list them if you want to discuss them? But don't you think using the word evil is hyperbole.....its just seems extreme? What would you call using the IRS to shut down political organizations whose aims are opposed to his? Oh, you mean that news story where they targeted both parties for further auditing but the media went around announcing they were bias and a bi partisan senate group declared they were clean? Bruce I just don't understand where you get the notion this is what Barack Obama is all about. How is a society where an agency of the government is used to undermine political participation of opposing viewpoints fair and equitable? How is a society where veterans are subject to addtional police scrutiny because of political opinions the administration THINKS they MIGHT have fair and equitable? How is a government that asserts it would be perfectly ok to kill it's own citizens with no due process if the leader of that government believes they are participating in terrorisim? How is is fair and equitable for an administration to use executive orders to make changes to laws passed by the legislature and signed by the executive years after the fact? How is is fair and equitable when every shred of electronic communication is being monitored by the NSA? How is it fair of equitable if the government can use the force of law to complel a citizen, as a condition of citizenship, to enter into a private contract with a 3rd party of the governments choosing? There is nothing fair or equitable about that has been going on in the United States the past fifteen years. The first item is about the above, The second two are born from the Bush presidency. The third I'd say is debatable and significantly better than just using a "signing statement" to ignore the laws as Bush did. The NSA was Bush's legacy, and the last bit wasn't what Obama wanted. Obama wanted a Single payer/public option built into the Affordable Care act, but that was forcibly removed by Republicans during their various votes on it. So yeah, everything you declare to be his legacy, isn't really his legacy. Also Scalia's dead, so the Obama gets to pick a new justice.

Crazy lady was obvious, and I guess not getting noticed in New England (Christies territory) basically sealed his fate. Although Kasich was a surprise.

We did staple mirrors to the moon to provide hyper accurate readings of the place.

The game itself was actually decent, but everything around it? Being me, I'd think that the half time show should be bigger than life. Coldplay aren't really a super star pop act... they're to indie to really make the entire show very special.

I did enjoy the "My parents porked during the superbowl" commercial.

I will back up Hillary in that I think she would end up being very good as an executive, and she'd end up carrying out and following on her personal agenda rather than what's politic. But because she's doing the politics on the road she's losing points. The other part of it is that I think most of what would happen in a Clinton 2 presidency, is that Hillary would use Bill to push her agenda. And it's not like they have a vastly different political outlook or goals, it's just that Bill's got the ability to speak and the Charisma to pull things together, while Hillary sets the agenda and figures out what she can get going.

And I think a lot of Hillary's intangability for the population really comes down to how her campaign portrays her. I've said it before, and will say it again, her experiance makes everything she says (unless she's caught almost totally off guard) come off as prepared. So people don't like her because her speeches are prepared ? You also support her Calax...sorry I forgot No, people dislike her because she's to prepared. She's to perfectly political for them. They don't know that she'll do anything she says because she seems like she'd prefer to say what's correct (for her audience) vs what she thinks is actually right. That's where Sanders and Trump are scoring points, they don't care about traditional politics as they were, so they don't care that their ideas might not test well with men 18-45 (or whatever) but they still stick by them. Hillary has been in politics so long that she comes off as incredibly focus tested and always with the most political answer for her audience.

And I think a lot of Hillary's intangability for the population really comes down to how her campaign portrays her. I've said it before, and will say it again, her experiance makes everything she says (unless she's caught almost totally off guard) come off as prepared.

If you repeat something enough people will come to believe it. Like the fact she's a criminal. That one remains to be seen. It's looking like she is. Honestly... I can't help but think the entire thing is manufactured 90% of the way. It's the entire republican political machine hell bent on getting her out of the race because they knew for years she was the main option to be the presidential candidate (which is why Benghazi was constantly punched up for a year before the report saying "they did the best they could with what they knew at the time" appeared), so they could manufacture this "illegality" in the way a cop can manufacture a ticket or arrest for you at any given point in your life.

If you repeat something enough people will come to believe it. Like the fact she's a criminal.

Christie used that (almost that exact preset speech) to score some points. Half of Christies responses to Rubio were literally "see folks? He's a freshman senator who's got no executive experiance and who's had no need to deal with the consequences of his actions. He can't even DEBATE and instead throws out canned speeches!" http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/christie_assails_rubio_on_the_debate_stage.html

Well, I think Christie scored some points and managed to do a pretty impressive job of bodying Rubio in the debate. Cruz got off badly as well, while Carson was barely there. Trump sounded like he's actually getting more serious about the general election than the primary because he threw out some things more in line with the Democratic party line than the Republican (specifically, repeal Obamacare and rebuild it under a single payer). Got booed by the crowd but ultimately didn't come off as much of an ass as before.

Fun fact, if we did it now we'd be able to do it cheaper, and get a LOT more stuff up there.

Oh boy this debate is going to be fun... Ben Carson refusing to come out, while Trump basically going "ok, I'm not going out either"

We did go to the moon. There'd be no way to properly replicate this in any terrestrial environment

I don't think Hillary will lose it. I think Bill broke a touch during that speech but in general she seems like she's in it for the long fight. I think Rubio is gonna end up as the Republican Nominee. Cruz can't take the north-eastern republicans (the more cosmopolitan groups who are less "GOD IS GREAT" and more "Spending probably needs to be curtailed") and doesn't have the broader appeal that Rubio (or even Trump) could pull in. And there's gonna be some rediculous thing that happens with Trump that'll knock him out of the race. That said, I'm pretty sure they're gonna have fun with Winter Storm Kayla... (**** working in the morning is going to SUUUUUCKKKK)

You mean those victories when the US had the absolutely worst voter turnout ever?

Norway or the Netherlands.

Ending Spending Action Fund is an independent organization that proudly supports candidates regardless of party affiliation who favor enhancing free enterprise and balancing our nation's budget. Learn more at EndingSpendingFund.com. So is this video made to support Sanders or to support other candidates (aka Clinton)? They're running against Sanders. I heard the radio version and it's constantly "REPUBLICANS WILL SAVE US! VOTE REPUBLICAN!" but doesn't mention any republican names. Only namechecking how terrible they think Sanders is, and how awesome republicans won't kill free enterprise. Side note: Their webpage is from 2 years ago now, and I think I heard that their boss is the guy who ran td waterhouse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XsWkwakVlA Just gonna point out that this is an actual ad that's running right now. I think somebody failed at market research.