http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/video/sun-exclusive/4116533/The-Woolly-mammoth-alive.html#ooid=5oZDBoMzreLfI78xe1sCSLDmQQFyhXym

An extinct whoolly mammoth???

Or a bear with a big fish???

Michale

rinse, repeat, and nobody learns anything, least of all the media. i'm not surprised that folks like michale think the two sides are exactly the same, because that's how every mainstream media outlet portrays them.

Of course, they are not EXACTLY the same.. I never claimed they were...

But, as wise ole Yarnek tells us....

"They use the same methods to achieve the same goals."

This latest issue with Citizens United/Super PACs is a perfect example.

Obama has been telling everyone ad nasuem that the ruling and the resulting Super PACs it created are "a threat to our democracy"..

That's an EXACT quote...

".... a threat to our democracy"
-President Barack Obama

Fast-forward to today and look who is snuggling up to the Super PACs...

None other than Barack They-Are-A-Threat-To-Our-Democracy Obama....

So, you tell me..

Do Democrats and Republicans use the same methods to achieve the same goals??

Damn skippy....

So, this begs the question...

Why does the Left get away with it, but the Right gets scorned and attacked for it??

Michale.....

Do you really want me to answer that? In full?

Only if Congressional Republicans were stupid enough to give them that option, though.

Oh, I think they've amply demonstrated that they are plenty stupid enough.

What else would they have to do to convince you?

More disgustingness from the RW:
"We will see what happens with Obama. Israel may attack Iran. Europe may collapse. Something might happen, we don’t know." These guys are praying for disaster to happen so that Mittens can beat Obama.

Irrationality runs rampant.

The way some Democrats were talking about doing it, it maybe-sort-of requires the president of the Senate to be involved.

If the R's get 55 senators you'll see that 60 vote limit drop like a rock to 53-55. The the rules of the Senate can be changed by a majority vote at the start of any 2 year session.

Can't happen, though. Gaining 13 seats in the Senate, while losing the presidential election, is just impossibly skewed. It's going to be a big year for Republicans in the Senate, with 7 Democratic-caucus vacancies and only 2 Republican vacancies. But not that big. They would have to not only sweep the vacant seats but also pick up 6 of the 16 Democratic-caucus seats up for re-election. Knocking out 37% of incumbents in a US election? Not going to happen without something big that would affect the presidential race too.

Have you noticed what's been going on lately? Should the Republicans win an effective majority in the House and Senate this fall, then the executive branch will matter not a whit.

Congress does still matter, but the executive branch matters more. Most law is regulation, made in the executive branch. Foreign policy is almost entirely done in the executive branch.

Have you heard the latest ... the Republican plan is to forget about who wins the White House this fall.

They are now focused on the House and Senate races and have let it be known that whether it's a Republican or Democrat at the head of the executive branch, the legislative agenda will be completely set by Congress.

A Republican majority in the House and Senate will see to it that Obama will be completely "boxed out" or the Republican president will be completely "boxed in" and forced to "do the right thing", so to speak.

You have to hand it to Republicans in Washington and their enablers ... they dream big dreams. Heh.

No need to let that stop you. My record is dismal, but it's still fun.

But, somehow, I don't see 51% in the best state for Romney (outside Utah) as being the resounding victory everyone says it is.

When the Party is solidly resigned to its inevitable nominee, that's still a resounding primary victory for him. His ceiling in polls was in the 20s for a long time, so any majority means he's about doubled his numbers.

The number I had seen was a hair higher, either from partial results or from exit polls. Still, Newt isn't even on the ballot in what was it, Virginia.

it's actually kind-of a reaction to the increased power of the presidency under bush.

The presidency has been gaining ground at the expense of Congress for a long time, not just under Bush. FDR picked up the pace, but even he didn't start it.

Democrats and Republicans are definitely not the same. But they both breathe air, eat food, and so on. The shift of power from legislative to executive isn't a partisan matter.

of course they're not the same, but they interact within the same system of escalation. republicans overreach, then instead of standing up to that overreach, democrats innovate some sketchy tactic to dial it back. republicans appropriate said tactic to overreach even more, and the media treat it as equal because it's the same tactic.

rinse, repeat, and nobody learns anything, least of all the media. i'm not surprised that folks like michale think the two sides are exactly the same, because that's how every mainstream media outlet portrays them.

~joshua

Please don't try to tell me that the Republicans are just like the Democrats.

They are not.

liz,

it's actually kind-of a reaction to the increased power of the presidency under bush. they didn't mind such overreach when their own guy was doing it, but when it's the ultimate "other" wielding the power of the unitary executive, then congressional republicans suddenly must obstruct at all costs. one side goes too far and then complains to high heaven when the other side does it too. it's not just republicans either. the democrats were the ones who started the pro-forma sessions to stop excessive bush recess appointments, then the obama administration were long frustrated by the same tactic. it's an endless cycle of escalation that's been going on since the 1980's.

~joshua

This Republican primary season defies predictions and so, you're doing pretty well.

By the way, I hear that this isn't even the most important race in town. What's really important for the Republicans is to maintain control of the House and win absolute control of the Senate and then go on to "box out" President Obama or "box in" any Republican president and have the legislative agenda set entirely by Congress.

When did the congressional Republicans become so intent on usurping the Constitution? Heh.

But, somehow, I don't see 51% in the best state for Romney (outside Utah) as being the resounding victory everyone says it is.

Sounds more like resignation to me.

Romney got an actual majority in Nevada. It's not just that the ABR vote is split. It's that the Party has accepted Romney as the nominee. When Gingrich has to buy his plane tickets and robo-calls out of his own pocket, he's not going to keep going for long.

I would replace "absolute" with "simplistic and not to be questioned". The left is more likely to espouse universal values, whereas the right is more likely to espouse American/Christian/whatever-group values. Also, moralistic assertions are much more important on the right, whereas actually doing the right thing is more important on the left.

If moral assertions are true or false, then they're something you might be mistaken about. If they're just an expression of feelings (usually at the level of a whole culture, not just an individual's feelings), then there isn't anything there to be wrong about. The left is much more likely to admit the possibility that we might be mistaken.

That's correct, but politically it's disastrous. Having phony morals makes it easy for the right to look moralistic. Having to struggle with real moral questions makes it impossible for the left to be unified, and easy for the right to smear us as amoral or immoral.

Well, OK, maybe not... looks like I spoke too soon...

Heh.

-CW

Now will you get a delete function around here!?

Just kidding. :)

:-)

-CW

Our 6 yo grandson just informed my wife that he was too old to take a bubble bath with her.

He's right. But she's devastated ... and happy (she HATES bubble baths!)

For R's people on welfare are there because they love it. For D's people are on welfare because they have no other options.

In the R world, violence is a first resort in diplomacy. In the D world violence is done after all else is tried.

In the R univers Right and Wrong are absolute. In the D world Right and Wrong are not clear cut. Circumstances change.

I could go on for hours, but others have done a much better job than I. The point I'm trying to make is that Romney is not hurting his chances of winning the nomination with these fluffs.

Unfortunately, except for firing up Obama's base, I'm not so sure that he's hurting his chances at the Presidency with these gaffs.

That was hilarious.

:)

All in good fun, Liz, all in good fun.

:-)

-CW