[afx114]

So which of them gets custody of the Internets?

[afx114]

So which of them gets custody of the Internets?

[afx114]

So which of them gets custody of the Internets?

[afx114]

[quote=ben_vo]I believe large gods should be kept leashed.[/quote]

Best typo OF ALL TIME!!

[afx114]

[quote=ben_vo]I believe large gods should be kept leashed.[/quote]

Best typo OF ALL TIME!!

[afx114]

[quote=ben_vo]I believe large gods should be kept leashed.[/quote]

Best typo OF ALL TIME!!

[afx114]

[quote=ben_vo]I believe large gods should be kept leashed.[/quote]

Best typo OF ALL TIME!!

[afx114]

[quote=ben_vo]I believe large gods should be kept leashed.[/quote]

Best typo OF ALL TIME!!

[afx114]

Didn’t catch Bill Maher last night, but I agree that there are still unfinished promises left to fulfill. That’s why presidents are elected to four year terms, not one year terms. Yes, I have been disappointed in some things so far, but I have also been pleased. The left has a hardcore wing just like the right, so of course there will always be sections of the constituency that feel let down no matter what is accomplished. I bet there are Democrats that are pissed that he hasn’t legalized weed yet. I remember some people were pissed that he didn’t tackle DADT right away, but I bet those people had health insurance. The point I’m trying to make is that the president has to prioritize and move based on a variety of factors. I submit to you that the jury is still out on whether or not the man has been successful, but there’s no denying that many things have been checked off his list in only the first 1.3 years of his presidency.

Eavesdropper, I think you misread my post because I agree with you that the Republicans will pick up many seats in November. My point was that once they do, being the party of “No” becomes much more difficult because their “No” votes will actually matter and have a direct effect on their constituency. This is how it should be and why I am not a fan of supermajorities for either party.

[afx114]

Didn’t catch Bill Maher last night, but I agree that there are still unfinished promises left to fulfill. That’s why presidents are elected to four year terms, not one year terms. Yes, I have been disappointed in some things so far, but I have also been pleased. The left has a hardcore wing just like the right, so of course there will always be sections of the constituency that feel let down no matter what is accomplished. I bet there are Democrats that are pissed that he hasn’t legalized weed yet. I remember some people were pissed that he didn’t tackle DADT right away, but I bet those people had health insurance. The point I’m trying to make is that the president has to prioritize and move based on a variety of factors. I submit to you that the jury is still out on whether or not the man has been successful, but there’s no denying that many things have been checked off his list in only the first 1.3 years of his presidency.

Eavesdropper, I think you misread my post because I agree with you that the Republicans will pick up many seats in November. My point was that once they do, being the party of “No” becomes much more difficult because their “No” votes will actually matter and have a direct effect on their constituency. This is how it should be and why I am not a fan of supermajorities for either party.

[afx114]

Didn’t catch Bill Maher last night, but I agree that there are still unfinished promises left to fulfill. That’s why presidents are elected to four year terms, not one year terms. Yes, I have been disappointed in some things so far, but I have also been pleased. The left has a hardcore wing just like the right, so of course there will always be sections of the constituency that feel let down no matter what is accomplished. I bet there are Democrats that are pissed that he hasn’t legalized weed yet. I remember some people were pissed that he didn’t tackle DADT right away, but I bet those people had health insurance. The point I’m trying to make is that the president has to prioritize and move based on a variety of factors. I submit to you that the jury is still out on whether or not the man has been successful, but there’s no denying that many things have been checked off his list in only the first 1.3 years of his presidency.

Eavesdropper, I think you misread my post because I agree with you that the Republicans will pick up many seats in November. My point was that once they do, being the party of “No” becomes much more difficult because their “No” votes will actually matter and have a direct effect on their constituency. This is how it should be and why I am not a fan of supermajorities for either party.

[afx114]

Didn’t catch Bill Maher last night, but I agree that there are still unfinished promises left to fulfill. That’s why presidents are elected to four year terms, not one year terms. Yes, I have been disappointed in some things so far, but I have also been pleased. The left has a hardcore wing just like the right, so of course there will always be sections of the constituency that feel let down no matter what is accomplished. I bet there are Democrats that are pissed that he hasn’t legalized weed yet. I remember some people were pissed that he didn’t tackle DADT right away, but I bet those people had health insurance. The point I’m trying to make is that the president has to prioritize and move based on a variety of factors. I submit to you that the jury is still out on whether or not the man has been successful, but there’s no denying that many things have been checked off his list in only the first 1.3 years of his presidency.

Eavesdropper, I think you misread my post because I agree with you that the Republicans will pick up many seats in November. My point was that once they do, being the party of “No” becomes much more difficult because their “No” votes will actually matter and have a direct effect on their constituency. This is how it should be and why I am not a fan of supermajorities for either party.

[afx114]

Didn’t catch Bill Maher last night, but I agree that there are still unfinished promises left to fulfill. That’s why presidents are elected to four year terms, not one year terms. Yes, I have been disappointed in some things so far, but I have also been pleased. The left has a hardcore wing just like the right, so of course there will always be sections of the constituency that feel let down no matter what is accomplished. I bet there are Democrats that are pissed that he hasn’t legalized weed yet. I remember some people were pissed that he didn’t tackle DADT right away, but I bet those people had health insurance. The point I’m trying to make is that the president has to prioritize and move based on a variety of factors. I submit to you that the jury is still out on whether or not the man has been successful, but there’s no denying that many things have been checked off his list in only the first 1.3 years of his presidency.

Eavesdropper, I think you misread my post because I agree with you that the Republicans will pick up many seats in November. My point was that once they do, being the party of “No” becomes much more difficult because their “No” votes will actually matter and have a direct effect on their constituency. This is how it should be and why I am not a fan of supermajorities for either party.

[afx114]

Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.

Time will tell.

[afx114]

Very good point eavesdropper. But you make it sound as if getting those passed were a cakewalk due to the Democratic majority. Are you arguing that they should have been easier to pass? In hindsight, perhaps they should have been. But it’s clear that they were battles. Were they battles due to the president’s political inexperience, or were they battles because the Dems, while a single group, are a diverse coalition of interests, much more so than the Reps? Is a president’s performance based on how many of the opposite party he can bring on board or is it based on the overall ability to bring diverse interests together to get shit done? We can also refer to the Obameter for some insight: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

No doubt the true test will be when he doesn’t have a majority. And based on what we’ve seen from the Reps so far, it doesn’t look like he will get much help from them. However, there could be more pressure on them to actually get stuff done since their votes will actually matter this time.

Time will tell.

[Author]

Posts