Headline "The Bernie Sanders record: A progressive social media star and pragmatic legislator"
Sanders admit to being a socialist ---- progressives are socialist.
Ok 88 --- which political party was in power when the "zero tolerance" policing was enacted? Was it the community leaders that wanted the "streets" cleaned up that pushed for "zero tolerance" policies? The petty drug law enforcement policies of zero tolerance are in response to community leader's cries for safer streets. Police are expected to enforce too many BS laws, that politicians enacted to pander to the squeaky wheel. Go and do some research before you "lip off" about why the police are forced to enforce laws the way they have to in today's day and age. If you really believe the police are the problem -- join the police department and work from within and change it... not just blame a system that forces police to act in a zero tolerance atmosphere... stop blaming the outcome, when the source of the problem is the policy enacted by politicians trying to pander and work to find a solution. For a start you can vote out politicians, read the codes police are forced to comply with and lobby for "unjust" codes to be taken off the book........... do something positive to encourage change.
"As always, I have a cogent answer to everything" Flounder, you just keep telling yourself that if it helps you to sleep at night.
Mob mentality is to blame, systemic under education is to blame, Democratic policies to keep the poor in financial shackle are to blame, and political correctness is to blame......... The Democrats are just reaping the the benefits of the "crops" planted decades ago. The current administration's blame is minimal... they are just the bearer of 100 plus years of failed Statism policies.
Your think progress blogger make that sound like a bad thing and stretches the boundaries of logic ........ Flounder if you were to read the Anti-Federalist papers -- to include Jefferson in the conversation is a stretch. That "obscure provision of the Constitution" was added to prevent an "elected Monarchy" that was feared by the founders..... So go back the Constitution intent and its "obscure provision('s)" and get on with limiting the Federal Government's scope. Like I suggested to you earlier read Federalist Papers 69 and 70....
like the US government from the WFP," BY: Elizabeth Harrington
April 27, 2015 12:10 pm
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $84,000 to study how churches can be used to combat climate change.
A taxpayer-funded graduate fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is examining 17 faith-based institutions that have implemented “sustainability initiatives” in the hopes of developing workshops to teach pastors and other religious leaders how to change the behaviors of their congregants."
EPA uses religion to support its views....... Flounder, if EPA = religion and Religion = superstition therefore the EPA = superstition...........
Yet you chose to omit a line that goes against your position as if there is no questioning the validity of the study? That is intellectually dishonest and you stealing other peoples work makes you a thief.
Flounder --- just to cherry pick some other information form the Nature article that you seemed to miss.........
Critics caution that existing climate models have trouble replicating observed rain and snowfall trends, raising questions about how well they can project future precipitation.
“All weather events are influenced by the changed environment,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate researcher with the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. “The global perspective the authors provide is helpful, but none of the models they use do precipitation realistically and some are quite bad.”
Try looking up the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll for April 2015... much more in depth than JD Powers and has real comparable's verses the ubiquitous 0 to 1000 scale. Kaiser actually does not hide the margin of error in its poll and give the methodology used. Flounder if you dig you will find some points that will support your stolen argument.........most will not.
And taken away by the Democratic Senators and Congress men/women that voted for the bill that was signed by Obama.........because they circumvented the normal procedures of vetting a bill and pushed it through without "reading" it.
It will just show how inept Reid, Pelosi and Obama were when the pushed a bill through the Democrat controlled Congress and Executive branches and did not dot the I's and cross the T's. If the SC find in favor of the plaintiffs....... it is no ones fault but the ones that wrote it the way they did and voted on it the way it stood without reading the fine print. You cannot push the decision off on the GOP.......if the ACA gets hammered in the SC it is the Democratic Partiy's fault.
Read federalist papers 69 and 70....... and please pay attention to the nuances. I don't know the anti federalist paper number off the top of my head that those two were countering, but you can look them up if you want a historical reference point. I'm pretty sure it is 69 that Hamilton argues it is with the consultation and consent of the Senate the executive will appoint positions..... not "the Senate defers to the President".
I personally don't find Citizens United that bad... but if the 16th amendment get repealed 1st and the IRS is gutted, I will go along with your amendment idea. A little negotiating is a start.
Bottom line is I really don't care if they never bring her up for a vote. She will be just another politcal hack for Mr. "pen and phone" and cover his administrations backside at any cost to her integrity.. after watching some her testimony to the sub-committee. imo.
Payback for Bork? Payback for "pen and phone" law making? Payback for Holder's ineptness? Payback for Reid's locking down the Senate? Payback for Lois Lerner? How do I know for sure..... call your Senator and ask if you want to know his/her opion of why?
So what is new? A Democrat Controller shaking down companies..... DiNapoli must have learned his trade from Spitzer and Jesse Jackson. BTW.. who wrote your "original" thoughts?
Why do we need constitutional amendments? We have a President with a pen and a phone. The US Constitution has not meant a thing for close to 100 years since the progressives gutted it and the courts agreed. Now you think the right process to address fundamentall change is through the amendment process and not the courts? Flounder, you need to be consistent in your argument if you want to be taken serious.
now you are stealing the Rev. Al's words.have you no shame? I though religion has no place in politics by your standards?