Jedno sasvim novo i drugačije Presidency..

[Roger Sanchez]

Nemaju više nikoga drugoga koji na išta liči, brate atraktore :(... Ako se Bush The Ćale s jedne strane i NR s druge izjasnio za Miću, rekao bih da Imamo Miću..

[Indy]

Imamo ne samo Miću, već i topik za ovo... možda je korisno da se tamo pregrupišemo (ili spojimo, whatever).Juče je bilo neko šuškanje po štampi da će Trump biti nezavisni kandidat... mislim da Jon Stewart i ostali komičari mole Boga, jer je Donald izvor nepresušne inspiracije za komiku.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Indy

[Filipenko]

To "šuškanje" ide već 15 dana, otkad su mu dali srednji prst za njegovu debatu...edit: a i Stjuart i Kolber su se bavili time u bar 5 emisija.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Filipenko

[Indy]

To "šuškanje" ide već 15 dana, otkad su mu dali srednji prst za njegovu debatu...edit: a i Stjuart i Kolber su se bavili time u bar 5 emisija.

Juče se iščlanio iz GOP-a, tako da je šuškanje dobilo na snazi.PS. Stewarta i Colberta ne pratim (ili sa velikim zakašnjenjem), jer je Comedy Central blokiran u Australiji. EDIT. Može naravno da se plati da se gleda, ali to mi nije gušt. Edited December 24, 2011 by Indy

[WTF]

Ne moze ni website da se gleda? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Indy]

Ne moze ni website da se gleda?

Pa da, video je blokiran na sajtu, a na TV-u je samo na plaćenim kanalima. Ima na iTunes, nije ni skupo (oko 10 dol. za multipass, mislim za do 15 epizoda). Al' sam se odvikao od plaćanja za "content". :P

[TBoneSteak]

srecni bozicni praznici:P

[Roger Sanchez]

Obožavam Yankee procedure!

The latest iteration of this ever-tighter cycle of gridlock may take the American political system down to an interval of time that approaches instantaneity. The GOP is blocking the required Senate votes to confirm Barack Obama's nominees for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and for the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB). Normally, Mr Obama could circumvent this opposition temporarily by making recess appointments in the period when the Senate is out of session. To forestall this, Republicans are keeping the Senate technically in session, with a few senators holding pro forma sessions for a few minutes every day over the holidays. In response, Democrats and advocates of the CFPB are pressing Mr Obama to follow a precedent that has only been carried out once, by then-president Teddy Roosevelt in 1903, as The Hill's Peter Schroeder explains.

[T]he 20th amendment of the Constitution states that Congress shall assemble at least once a year, with each session beginning at noon on Jan. 3. Given that a new session must begin at that day, logic follows that Congress must adjourn for some period of time beforehand, however brief.

In fact, Theodore Roosevelt took advantage of this quirk of the Congressional calendar to push through nearly 200 nominees in a matter of seconds, when the Senate gaveled to close one session before almost immediately opening the new year’s.

The Dec. 8, 1903 story by the New York Times detailing the unprecedented move began succinctly: “Congress passed from one session to another to-day in a unique manner.”

With the units of time shrinking inexorably, the next stage of the argument will inevitably involve quantum mechanics. Republicans will argue that no time need elapse between the end of one session of Congress and the beginning of the next, while Democrats object that such instantaneity implies spooky action at a distance.David Dayen adds a couple of simpler ways for Mr Obama to force a confrontation over recess appointments. The tradition that the Senate has to be out of session for three days has no force of law; Mr Obama could make a recess appointment when the floor has been empty for a few hours, then test the issue in court. Or he could use his constitutional authority to adjourn Congress, but no president has ever done that before.Should Mr Obama do these things? It's always hard to get a moral grasp on procedural questions. But here's my take. The Republican decision to filibuster any and all nominees to head the CFPB until the institution is reformed to their liking essentially establishes the precedent that either party can kneecap the operations of any government agency, through the appointments process, until its demands for reform or policy shifts at the agency are met. That seems like a recipe for even greater government confusion, regulatory uncertainty and paralysis. Of course, one side of the political aisle in America is very often in favour of government paralysis. And as a practical matter, Republicans are likely to be more effective at using this tool than Democrats, because Republicans are better at maintaining the party discipline necessary to sustain filibusters. So whether or not you think each political party should have the ability to knock out agencies by filibustering appointments probably comes down to whether or not you think that, in general, government agencies ought to function effectively. If you think that in general it's a good thing when agencies lose the capacity to function, then I suppose there's nothing wrong with this development.

[DarkAttraktor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJdyXS_02zM

[Roger Sanchez]

Edited December 31, 2011 by Roger Sanchez

[Indy]

Hm... gde su tu onih navodnih 7.7 triliona (tj. nasih biliona) datih bankama u vidu TARP-a?

[Roger Sanchez]

?

[Sirius]

DEAR OBAMA: Have You Gone Nuts? How Could You Sign This Police-State NDAA Bill?On New Year's Eve, President Obama signed into law a bill that eliminates one of the fundamental protections of the U.S. Constitution:The right for people not to be detained indefinitely by the government without being formally convicted of crimes.This erosion of the Constitution, which came in the form of new language in the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), allows the government to hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process.No indictment.No judge or jury.No evidence.No trial.Just an indefinite jail sentence.In other words:If someone in the government suspects that you're somehow associated with terrorism, you can be jailed indefinitely in a military prison.Defenders of this language — including Senators John McCain ® and Carl Lavin (D), who sponsored it — position it as being tough on terrorism.And that's fine: Everyone wants to be tough on terrorism.There are ways of being tough on terrorism that preserve basic rights. Unfortunately, this isn't one of them.If the government and military never made mistakes--if they never suspected people of being associated with terrorism who aren't actually associated with terrorism--then this language wouldn't be so scary.But, like anyone else, governments and armed-forces personnel do make mistakes.Frequently.So removing the intelligent and reasonable requirement that government suspicions be subjected to due process is frightening.Of course, in signing the bill, President Obama promised that he would never use it to detain Americans.While that's comforting, other Presidents may not feel compelled to honor that promise. And human-rights activists who don't believe that basic human rights apply only to American citizens are justifiably upset that America can now detain anyone indefinitely without due process.(And, by the way, the common pushback that the bill cannot be used to detain Americans is a crock. The bill clearly states that Americans are not "required" to be detained indefinitely. Not being "required" to do something, and "preventing" something are quite different.)To be clear: This bill isn't just tough on terrorism. It overturns a key part of the Constitution. And it presumes that those who serve in the government and military are always omniscient and perfect and will always use their power for the good of all citizens.And that presumption, as everyone who has ever watched our government in action knows, is laughable.Will America be transformed into a brutal police-state by this one bill? Probably not. But the constitutional protections and other checks-and-balances that separate democracies from authoritarian states are rarely eliminated in one fell swoop.Rather, theses protections are eliminated gradually, by governments and rulers who incrementally grant themselves ever more power.Taken individually, each incremental change may seem well-meaning and justifiable.But, gradually, the checks-and-balances that form the basis of a fair society are eliminated.In signing the NDAA bill, President Obama was presumably yielding to political expediency. The bill, after all, had military funding attached.But that's no excuse.The Presidential veto is supposed to function as a critical check-and-balance in our system, to be invoked when Congress collectively goes insane.And this is one bill that Obama should have vetoed.

:)

[Indy]

Obama announces massive troop cuts+Criticism from Republicans came quickly=Good.

[Sirius]

:)