SkyDekker

Uhm, the President submits the budget, not the lead party. That may be part of the problem here. I actually posed question(s). I'll add another one for you. A lot of funding comes from Appropriation Bills, which are actual laws. Should these laws get passed, or would the US be better off if those laws did not get passed either?

Ahh ok, so you don't care if it actually helps the US or not, you are concerned about the reputation of your favourite party. Got it. that is one hell of a jump there son What has been happening to this country for the last 10 years has NOT helped it (notice this includes Bush) You also need to notice that the Dems have not even tried to produce a budget in the Senate for years (which is a duty of that body) Dems controled that They only wanted continuing resolutions so as to disguise what the gov was spending Now, the republicans tried to stop this but what happened , the dems did not want to do it, so they pushed for yet another continuing resolution and then were able to BLAME the republicans with the gov shut down (which really did not mean much except to the shit Obama pulled with parks and stuff) And with withe the Obama media supporting them, the Dems make this bs about the shut down a big deal and hung it around the neck of the republicans your assumptions are hilarious Keep them up Just adds to the please of this post election day for me You aren't answering any of the questions, just going off on a different tangent as usual. If parties are not to work together, how is a budget supposed to get passed? As a follow up: Do you agree with the laws that govern the budget process? Or would you have preferred those laws never got passed either?

But in order for a budget to pass (which framework is governed by budget laws) requires parties to work together. You don't want parties to work together, so how would you get a budget passed? Or you only want to parties to work together on passing a budget, but nothing else? Ahh ok, so you don't care if it actually helps the US or not, you are concerned about the reputation of your favourite party. Got it.

Tax breaks for certain behaviour are corporate welfare programs.

So Republicans and Democrats should not work together? Regarding the less laws. I thought people were upset there has not been a budget passed, that Democrats were holding onto bills etc? Sounds like the Democrats were doing exactly what you wanted then?

Noit gonna happen. Not until the courts work it out. The GOP will eliminate Reid's filibuster rule. But they won't be smart enough to eliminate the dual track filibuster rule. The GOP would be wise to make threat of filibuster painful. It will actually force both sides to actually work together. Want to filibuster a bill before the Senate? Then everything else stops. Everything. That's how it used to be. Filibuster was a very big political risk. Not any more. Hence, the threat is enough and there is no consequence. Agreed, well said.

Who are we (as a society) to tell someone they're not capable of making a decision for himself or herself? Nobody asked these people if they wanted to be brought into the world, how we can deny them their RIGHT to leave it? Because as a society we feel we need to protect certain people from themselves. Those with mental afflictions resulting in deminished mental capacities. Those who have not reached a certain age. These are but a few examples. When not just related to assisted suicide, as a society we constantly tell people they are not capable at making certain decisions at different parts or situations in their lives. Age restrictions, reduced or eliminated culpability in criminal proceedings, the list goes on and on.

But if that were to happen, that would not be indicative of any underlying issues, it would just prove there is a "race industry" in which "race baiters" work and make money.

It's their body, and their choice. I don't see how anyone thinks they should have the right to tell a consenting adult what he or she can do with his or her own meat. Because you first have to establish they are mentally capapable of making the decision and understanding consequences. Some people do need to be protected from themselves. Unless of course as a society we are ok with a more pure darwinian system.

If Republicans take control of both houses in Congress, this will be the 4th time in 8 years that power has shifted. Every election seems to bring a stronger sentiment of anything but the current guy/administration/party. My prediction for 2 years from now is that the campaigns will be heavily focussed on who will be able to bring the parties together and create something positive. Most expensive mid-term elections in American history, yet nothing of actual substance (other than those who get to claim victory for a day) will come out of it.

I agree with active euthanasia/assisted suicide for those who are termanilly ill and in constant pain. I believe it has to be verified by independent doctor(s), after request of the patient. I further believe that the patient has to be lucid and of sound mind to request it. Those with mental illness do not fall into that category. However as a side note, I fully agree with lawrocket on this:

pfff, how could you possibly know? You are genetically different.

There sure are underlying issues in Ferguson. How about the residents get actively involved in the community? How about they run for office and take some control? If only we paid the women to have more kids... Not sure what you mean by your last sentence, but I agree with the first part. Encouraging and getting the residents much more involved would be an excellent idea.

Yes in this situation its exactly what you do. Then you find an actual case of police abuse, shooting, etc, and you fire up your media machine on them. Dont start your political war machine on this cop once he is proven innocent by the grand jury, and the fed investigation... You and Rush are the only ones talking about the cop and something being done to him. if he did nothing wrong, perfect. Get him back to work. However, I think that what transpired shows there are some underlying issues that should get worked on. If you don't, this will just happen again. Or you can both stick your heads in the sand and believe this only happene because of "race baiters" and "race industry".

I won't speak for him, but I don't think that is what he is saying. Even if the cop did nothing wrong, it would make sense to recognize there is a serious issue plaguing that community. Just saying, the cop did nothing wrong, therefor there is no issue at all, is the wrong thing to do. And just talking about "race industry", "race baiters', etc. in response to this is about as helpful as those who claim racists whenever anybody says anything negative about Obama. Actually, it is about the same level of maturity.

Because we can. It is like a trainwreck, you can't help but watch. And just because you don't give a crap about something, doesn't mean others can't. I mean you are following the legend of some dude who made a pretty decent political impact in the middle east. You want to stick too American only, find some native deity to worship.

I think both parties, for quite some time have fostered an Us vs Them mentality. Issues are decided, not based on what is good for the country, but based on what possibly damages the other party most.

Like being a Christian and sharing the gospel of Christ, eh. Correct or being Muslim

well - I would like parties to not feel like they have any demographic under their thumb. It is time for individuals to join those causes they believe in as individuals. Mobs suck. Thanks captain obvious THIS+1

3rd option - screw history, option is, "so what, it's a normal option for living a life, and not a big deal, others can deal with it or not" I'd assert there isn't two options, there's three: 1 - hiding it 2 - not hiding it (I call it 'coming out') 3 - COMING OUT!!!!!! I'm a fan of #2 - sad for those in #1 - and a bit tired of #3 happily seeing more people opting for #2. The more people treat these things as normal, the faster the remainder of society will overall treat it as normal. I am hoping that one day soon there is no need for people to hide/come out. Just because it won't be an issue. I don't understand why it matters one way or the other. Hopefully one day it will just be a non-issue.

at least I can return the Captain Obvious title veteran or soldier/etc can be tied to accomplishing something but the others, yes, I do find that silly. "Proud" is an abused word and people should stop it. I knew I was setting you up there...

Did that ever happen? I don't remember ever reading a newpaper article that onyl had facts in them. Usually it would include facts, followed by (an opinion) what those facts could mean or what they might be caused by. I think good journalism provides a few different viewpoints. Different viewpoints is now seen as "not having a backbone" or "not standing for something" and doesn't sell advertising. Hence, now you have to watch a few different channels/ read a few different articles to get your various viewpoints. This "us vs. them" mentality seems to be getting stronger and stronger.

Are they just on welfare, or are they subsidising their lifestyle with criminal choices? You are going to have to do a lot of saving if you are living off welfare and foodstamps to get $5,000 tires and a $2,000 stereo.

this works I think the idea is that eventually race, sex, etc, becomes mainstream enough that people don't feel it's something to overcome or deal with - then the idiotic "I'm proud to be" stuff will go away on its own. Be proud of accomplishments makes sense. The other connotations really are just making a statement more than actually being 'proud'. It is not uncommon for people to state to be proud of a greater collective, regardless of their own achievements within that group. I am proud to be American. I am proud to be a veteran. I am proud to be a soldier/marine/name your branch. I am a proud New Yorker. I am a proud......name of sports team.....fan.

Yes I read last night that as many as 6% of non-citizens are voting That is NOT a small deal You are going to have to state which elections you are talking about. Some elections (non-federal) non-citizens are allowed to vote. Take your pick http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/29/la-raza-promotes-washington-post-guide-on-where-people-can-vote-without-an-id/ So you think that illegal immigrants have the resources to travel to different states to vote? I also watched the original video from Fox News...Lot's of maybe, could have, is open to, might. In other words, no actual evidence of facts. You guys sure know how to make mountains out of molehills.