And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way.

They're always saying stuff like that, it just usually goes unnoticed. The only thing unusual is that these cases were widely reported. The reason they were widely reported this time is that the mainstream of the GOP had started muttering about overturning a Supreme Court decision from the 1970s that protected women's reproductive health under the "right to privacy" which is guaranteed, I believe, by the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, so those comments were directly pertinent to an issue that was currently being debated at the national level. Normally, that court decision (Roe v. Wade) is taken for granted by all but the most radical religious extremists, and avoided like a "third rail" in our national politics. But there are a number of rural Republican representatives who can always be counted on to say idiotic things like that.

---

Pretty soon, we'll all be paying for 'Bamacars.
And they can be driven by illegals too, seeing as how some of them have no problem obtaining DL's.

States issue drivers licenses, not the federal government. So if you have a problem with the issuance of DL's, your objection is to states' rights.

---

Where do you get your "information" from?

Terror, yes, I am now on the correct track. The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change." The "fundamental change" they voted for is to flip from "limited government/individual take care of yourself" to a total government responsibility to ensure equality of outcome.

That's hilarious. Not one word of it is true. Seriously, what is the source of the "information" you believe?

---

The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change."

Did they?

The popular vote was almost equal for both sides. The problem you are noting is the indirect way the President is chosen.

And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way.

Before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye, could you answer the question, when was the last time the majority party in the UK parliament won 50% of the popular vote?

[ETA]I'm old enough to remember when the majority party in parliament won a smaller share of the popular vote (1974) than the minority party (like the Republicans did this year), others here may be old enough to remember two occasions where that happened in the UK (it also happened in 1951).[/ETA]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Guy, while I detect a note of sarcasm in your post whether you realise it or not you are on the right (as in correct) track.

Terror, yes, I am now on the correct track. The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change." The "fundamental change" they voted for is to flip from "limited government/individual take care of yourself" to a total government responsibility to ensure equality of outcome.

Oh my, I'm not sure I saw any party campaign for "equality of outcome". This appears to be the same old Tea Party lie about Obama being a socialist. Have you really changed?

The "limited government/take care of yourself" has failed because some can do it and some cannot. If you look at the demographics, it LOOKS very racist; therefore, it must be wrong. I believe it's wrong now.

Yes, the demographics indicated racism may have played a part, the Democratic Party won an overwhelming majority of black (93%), hispanic (71%) and asian (73%) votes. It seems clear these voters did not feel welcomed by the Republican Party.

The terms freedoms and rights are now used interchangeably. A freedom is a right and a right is a freedom. There is no more difference in their meanings. We've progressed enough to realize those are the same things.

They are? By whom?

Happiness comes from freedom and rights. Whether it's the right to free speech or the freedom to travel unhindered, they are both basic requirements for natural happiness. Whether it's the freedom to drink beer, eat pizza and watch an NFL game or the right to take viagra afterwards to counteract the effects of the beer in order to do some frolicking, if people don't have these rights/freedoms, the government is not holding up to its responsibility.

The country was founded on the belief of unalienable rights, including the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It's now time for those who CAN do it to provide for those who CAN'T do it. It's only fair. And in order for it to FEEL good, the white guy must suffer at least a little bit in order to demonstrate that social justice is being accomplished. Fair is fair. This is something we all learned in grade school and it applies to adults just as much. The white guy must be pinged with the dodge ball a few times in order to make the last person picked for the team feel better and get on to a better life.

America has changed... FUNDAMENTALLY. That's how a progressive democracy works.

The "white guy" has always been a minority in the US, in the past he thought he wasn't, on Wednesday he woke up realizing his false belief was no longer sustainable. The "white guy" now either works with the majority or is ignored.

Oh, and in case anybody thinks that the Republican majority in the House will hold for much longer, the writing is already on the wall, nationally, the Republicans lost the popular vote for the House ("53,952,240 votes were cast for a Democratic candidate for the House and only 53,402,643 were cast for a Republican", source). The allocation of seats, was to a large part, based on the gerrymandering of districts, in time this will change.

The Republican Party was founded to put an end to slavery, it's job is done.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change."

Did they?

The popular vote was almost equal for both sides. The problem you are noting is the indirect way the President is chosen.

And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way.

How many republicans are pro abortion?
How many republicans are for legalization of drugs?
How many republicans are for legal porn?

Reed I'm beginning to think you are intentionally insulting.

Reed, there is a big difference between true libertarians and Teapublicans -- social issues.

So you voted for Gary Johnson, big deal. Libertarians and Republicans are not as different as you seem to like to imagine.

---

Well, pretty soon Obama is gonna declare transportation an inalienable right of the downtrodden he so liberally sends our tax dollars to.
Pretty soon, we'll all be paying for 'Bamacars.
And they can be driven by illegals too, seeing as how some of them have no problem obtaining DL's.

Too bad we can't resurrect some of them 'cash for clunkers'...perfectly good old cars that were sent to the scrap heaps.

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

How about making them legal, but at the same time taxing them, at a rate that covers the state/federal costs for the troubles and health issues they cause. Also ban all advertising on them.

+1

T.A.

Reed, there is a big difference between true libertarians and Teapublicans -- social issues.

So you voted for Gary Johnson, big deal. Libertarians and Republicans are not as different as you seem to like to imagine.

Reed, fair points there. The Democrats have leverage at the outset -- if nothing happens, taxes revert to the 'onerous' Clinton era taxes (I note our economy and the extremely wealthy were doing just fine then), defense spending drops back to the level in place in 2009 -- something like 70% higher than in 2001, and other spending also is cut. By and large, that is closer to what the Democrats would wish than what the Teapublicans would wish.

But then, early next year, the Teapublicans can shut down government and damage US credit ratings again simply by not authorizing a debt ceiling increase.

My view is that the key player in the House is not Boehner or Cantor -- Boehner is weak and not respected by his own party, Cantor is so self oriented that even Teapublicans can sense that. Rather the key player is Ryan. I believe (and I could be wrong her clearly) that for all his ideological views, that Ryan is a 'country first' sort of player. He also has true leverage with the Teapublicans. Further, he might figure out that by making a big deal with Obama (which would include some tax increases, some entitlement cuts and other budget cuts as well) that he would position himself for a run for President in 2016.

They can do nothing more than get in the way. At the beginning of the session, Senate rules can be revised without a supermajority, just with a simple majority, so Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer (chair or whatever of the Senate Rules Committee) do have the option to alter or eliminate the filibuster, in any case neutering Senate Teabaglicans as they should have done at the beginning of the previous two-year session. The Teabaglicans still have an outright majority in the House due to gerrymandering, and continuing their obstruction until the mid-term election could do a great deal of damage, as you say. But they very well might have leverage in only the House, and none in the Senate.

Freedom in marijuana/cocaine/crystal meth amphetamine rights.

To this list you should have added alcohol. Once again this is not a "right" but is certainly a "freedom".

The unofficial Fourth Necessity of life is some way to "step out of it" for a while. Just about every species has its own intoxicant, cats have catnip; elephants, birds and other species go for various types of over ripe fruit which has naturally fermented and so on.

While I don't condone or encourage the use of powders I see no problem with marijuana.

Besides, how much money could the US government save if the DEA was wound back ?

How about making them legal, but at the same time taxing them, at a rate that covers the state/federal costs for the troubles and health issues they cause. Also ban all advertising on them.

I have given money to candidates to the party I belong to. I did vote for their standard bearer for President. HINT it wasn't Romney.

So you voted for Gary Johnson, big deal. Libertarians and Republicans are not as different as you seem to like to imagine.

---

Boner (Boner... ha ha) and McConnel need to compromise and allow NO cuts to social programs.

Kirk Cameron played Mikey Seaver in "Growing Pains". That was the name of his best pal in that series.
And we all know what Kirk is doing now, right?
Starring in movie versions of the "Left Behind" series.

Maybe everybody else knew that, but last I saw Kirk he was propmaster / straight man to Roy "Bananaman" Comfort, in YouTube videos. Good to know that his "career" has continued to plummet from there.

---

Skil -- the Teapublican party is not irrelevant -- as long as they hold a majority in the House, plus a blocking minority in the Senate they can do a great deal of damage.

They can do nothing more than get in the way. At the beginning of the session, Senate rules can be revised without a supermajority, just with a simple majority, so Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer (chair or whatever of the Senate Rules Committee) do have the option to alter or eliminate the filibuster, in any case neutering Senate Teabaglicans as they should have done at the beginning of the previous two-year session. The Teabaglicans still have an outright majority in the House due to gerrymandering, and continuing their obstruction until the mid-term election could do a great deal of damage, as you say. But they very well might have leverage in only the House, and none in the Senate.