Lucky...

That's a rationalization, he signs it and wears it or he vetoes it and wears that. Quit copping out. Like Clinton being forced to sign a balanced budget by the Reps, then? No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful.

That's a rationalization, he signs it and wears it or he vetoes it and wears that. Quit copping out.

And who controls the budgets? Arnold trying but the budget controlers are having none of it He's the governor, he can veto or sign budgets. In order to make a point, you have to show how he's rejected budgets and stood his ground, as with Clinton and the Fed budget. Your point supports the other side.

When I read the OP, I was thinking: Arnold has been Gov for years after Grey Davis' recall election. So WTF; it's been mostly Republicans as Gov, teh final word with budgets, death penalty, etc. Yes Rushypoo wants to blame the Dems????

Never did I say you were pissed, quit making shit up. Who twisted history? I merely showed how Byrd was an old-school racist changed to a modern, progressive Dem. Show me the twist. Dude, you really have use the word, "twist" when it applies rather than ev ery time you run out of things to say. No doubt he was a racist pig; you keep arguing a moot point - nuts. He hasn't been that way for decades. Had he changed, esp decades ago, I wouldn't consider him bad/evil, regardless of his party affiliation. What am I not letting go?

You didn't reply to my other response, so I'll try another angle. If political parties can't control the economy then why are you so pro-tax cut? I hope we don't degenerate to the, "fair" argument. Taxes are the biggest arm the parties have to control the economy; do we let the gov redistribute or do we let the massively rich keep it and control the economy? Bizzare to see people ingone such a dominant 80-year trend with constant, repeatable results of cut taxes - things go to fuck //// raise taxes - things heal. EDITED TO ADD: How about the interest rate, under Reagan the Fed Reserve cut the money supply to kill inflation, it also drove unemp from 8% to 10.8%. Presidents appoint these members and have huge influence on them as well, so political parties DO affect the economy, quite often immediately. Isn't science about repeatability and large sample sizes?

Byrd grew up old school and was a Democratic racist when that was fashionable in the south. Then the 1964 Civil Rts Act came along and things started to change and now the Yellow Dogs became Republicans and they were centered in the south. I don't know when Byrd finally figured out that his racism was BS, but he did, just as Malcolm X realized his approach was radical and pathetic. So the fact that people have an idiotic perspective isn't the rub, it's when they are too ideological to wake up and smell the roses. So the truth here is that morons who haven't figured it out yet are pissed at poeple like Byrd who have and who have changed. Do you honor a guy like Strom Thurmond who was one of those morons?

That's correct. "MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL." "Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chi-cago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession byalmost all private citizens." I'm sure it was just an oversight by the Supremes, seeing as how they're deprived of your incredible legal acumen. Maybe this will help with your legal education. Also, reading is fundamental. I said an action taken by the City of Chicago is a state action, not a lawsuit brought by private individuals/orgs against the City of Chicago as being state actions. See, if you quit wetting your pants when you think you have me and actually read what I write you will understand. The case: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521 On June 26, 2008, one day after Heller was decided, Petitioners, McDonald, et al. (“McDonald”), brought lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois against Respondents, City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park (“Chicago”), challenging municipal laws similar to the federal laws struck down in Heller. See McDonald v. Chicago, 2008 WL 5111112 at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2008). See how McDonald is listed first? That means they filed the action and that it isn't a matter initiated by Chicago. Look at DC v Heller, that means the case, a criminal case, was originally filed by D.C. Also, the consolidated cases, McDonald v Chicago and NRA v Chicago, certified seperately and consolidated, are actions not from Chicago, but against Chicago. See, it is possible for a private entity to name a city, but a city'a action is on behalf of the state if criminal. So go back and address what I asserted about a city acting on behalf of the state in criminal matters and some civil matters. In AZ most traffic tickets are: State of AZ vs Defendant, so they are basically suing you on behalf of the state of AZ. Lesson over, let's see your morphing of what I wrote to make your ill point.

So Divot replies Lucky responds So, in context State means one of the 50-Now I would love to continue your education but it is vacation time. Oh-Vacation...it's a work incentive in the same vein as "insurance" that companies give to employees they feel are worth keeping around. So are you saying an action taken by the city of Chicago isn't a state action? Or are you just gonna keep running, telling us about your meaningless vacation? Perhaps that's your excuse to not revisit this thread; you were on vacation.

State does = government at any level. If a city cop violates your 4th as he unreasonably searches your vehicle, it does have federal implications. without babbling on, actually address that point. With a jaywalking ticket, state vs defendant. The origin of this ridiculous tangent is that futuredivot claimed that he had never been to the state of Chicago in response to me pointing out that state's rights or other SCOTUS decisions are subjectively adored, based upon the ideology of the person viewing the decision. Right, it means any action taken by any level of government against a citizen, corporation or other entity. The state sup ct oversees actions taken at lower jurisdictions, actions these lower courts take on behalf of the state. I thought that only the fed gov could do that according to other posters here.

I'm sorry that your understanding of government is too limited to understand that, "State" means any level of government. Nice back peddle. How so, "state" means any level of government, I didn't change my position 1 inch. The person I responded to thought, "state" meant 1 of the 50 different entities that make up the USA when in in reality the state is any level of government authority; show me where I changed.

please re-read the 2nd and 10th amendments. You might then understand why gun prohibition can not be considered a states rights issue, but abortion was (at least until SCOTUS ruled). Please read the supremacy clause and you'll understand what I mean. Of course abortion used to be a state's issue, just as slavery used to be until the 14th came along, as southern states said it was federal so they didn't have to comply as long as they didn't make it federal; it (14th) unfucked a lot of state's rights issues. The point I was making is that when SCOTUS decisions are made, people decide if the court was activist or perfect and brilliant based upon the outcome rather than the reasoning.

I see, I don't understand the supremacy clause and you aren't willing to state it (because you don't understand it). Really? And here I thought the SCOTUS decided that is 1973 and is recognized as stare decisis. Abortion IS federally protected as per Roe v Wade, let's not be fundamental. Is it directly constitutional? No, but under the 14th Amendment it is. See, you're a typical conservative and if you like the way an issue has gone, it's thumbs up constitutional. If you disagree then it's an abomination to the Constitution. Sorry, both guns and abortion are constitutional, guns more directly. And you make my point about state's rights; connies want them to be supreme to the gov and libs want them subordinate to the fed. This is tired and age-old, but we know when small factions get too much power how shit goes and I'm just not an anarchist.

I'm sorry that your understanding of government is too limited to understand that, "State" means any level of government. A little free education here: The courts, other than the lower courts that handle traffic tickets and forceables, etc are stratified by counties, which are overseenby the state, so a state action is actually done at the county level. Hell, for that matter, a traffic matter is cited as: State of Illinois vs Guy who has no clue of the workings of the goverment, et al And that is adjudicated at the city / municipal level. Next time don't make yourself look silly by failing to understand that, "State" means, "The government." As an aside, this is one reason why I'm so against the death penalty; it is handed down at the county level. Oh sure, the governor rubber stamps it, and if that governor is like Gov Ryan of Ill., and he actully does something besides rubber stamp it, then he is persecuted. Some neck counties in Texas and all over the south are very small and unregulated, par that with typical Texas trash govs like Bush and you have a recipe for state-sanctioned murder...... oh wait, I've never been to the state of _______________ (list your own Texas county here).

Originally we didn't hunt for animal food at all. We're heterotrophic, so we hunt vegetation or did originally, then we adapted to eat animals and that has really been our downfall. I disagree. Dolphins are probably more intelligent. Are you talking about the colonists who moved to the land we call the USA? Don't worry, mother nature adjusts. She used to use disease, but we've actually overridden a lot of that, so now she is left to use war as an adjuster. Of course Jubus ficking christ, our imaginary lord and saviour will intervein. No, we start with the people who oppose me on any matter- Duuuh. My initial response to this post was actually a bit off topic in that it made me think of the incidents where an animal kills a human and then the humans all freak out and go kill the animals that can do that. I'm not sure we're relaly in the food chain, since we eat outside our intended food. It's complicated, but if a dog ate lettuce, is he really particiapting in the food chain? Everything adjusts, we're just too stubborn to cooperate.

Human animals, as per our lord and savior and jebus christ , are not hunters, that's a poor adaptation. [Reply]It's a shame what happened, but what do you expect when people move into areas that were originally inhabited by wild animals Good one; oxymoron of teh day - civilized humans. [Reply]Fuck fox hunting, I agree. [Reply]I can think of a far more invasive life form that could be taken down a few billion. Why be racist, let's just control population across theboard? Oh, so survival of teh strongest? Isn't that elitist? How about starting with thepoorest, or is that what you just said? [Reply]Animals > People. Insects are animals. People are the animal that is most caustic, kills for sport, etc.

This sucks, they needed about 155k to get it on the ballot and got about 120k. WOW, I thought they easily had enough, this really sucks but props to the guys who drove this issue. Looks like the DPS contract that they will let expire will be renewed or worse, the DPS will run it on their own. In a way it's better to have the cams, it sucks to constantly brake on the freeway, but it seems as teh cams came the DPS officers patrolled areas that were un-cammed. I haven't had a ticket in years now, so maybe it's better.

Of course most of the sources they are "drawing from" are already being challenged in court, but hey, with massive budget shortfalls and hundreds of public safety positions unfilled, yeah, let's blow more taxpayers' money. Altho I agree that these gun restrictions are ridiculous regardless of budgets, to me a silly reason to argue gun rights as too expensive, it's fun to watch you jump back and forth about state's rights. I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition. You guys need to understand major issues like state's rights are simply convenient cop-outs to strawman the real issue being discussed. Let's argue this as a gun issue, not an issue of cost. Legislators are there to argue/vote on issues, so the cost is already built in.

What - pray tell, is cogent? Case in point.

i wanted to respond to your other post, but it seems to have gone away! I wonder what the offending part was! Was it the truth, or the inferrence of the truth? I guess we will never know. I do know that what goes for some does not go for others. It makes me wonder hjust how many posts are removed to further a political agenda. You're making posts from Rush and Ron look cogent. I haven't seen you do anything but comment on posters rather than issues in some time. Not trying to piss ya off, just making observations.

Great theory, let's see examples. Clinton limited control? Really? Why all the crying about his tax increases and other controls he's placed on the economy? Why all the crying about Obama doing the same? The R's grow the gov while limiting control.

So what you are saying is that you have arrived. We knew that - the post count quadrupled for about an hour and then went back to normal after you left. What is your point? There are adults talking here, talking about substantive issues, we don't need you here post-counting or doing other meaningless tasks - run along.

Rarely I agree with your analogies. Sometimes I dont even understand them This one however, not only do I understand, but I think it is very good! Then you'll also agree that multi-trillion dollar shifts of wealth have little effect on the multi-trillion dollar economy. Tax cuts let the rich hang on to their greed, tax increases shift that to the lower classes; why all the worry about taxes if there is no impact? Hard to argue bith sides unless, well, you talk from both sides of your mouth. How many times do we read your totally unsustantiated drivel about trickle-down policy being beneficial for the economy, yet now you say presidents / congress has little effect on the economy. Ya kinda stepped in it there.

Massive tax cuts / increaases GREATLY effect the market and entire economy. Bill, 80 years is a little too much to ignore. You don't think tax policy is as huge as the rudder that the cruise ship comes equipped with? Multi-trillion dollar shifts of wealth don't effect the economy????

GWB left = 10.7T Now = 13.1T diff 2.4T The debt would have to be 16T in order for you to be right. Not to mention GWB gave Obama a record deficit that was climbing, unemp that was soaring (3.4% in the year preceeding) and a banking system on the verge of total collapse. Of course if we ignore that then all is well. If we clamped down on the debt as you wish by cutting social programs, of course keep the military massive and growth to fight our imaginary enemy, we would enjoy the GD part II.