• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
"Our investigation uncovered that the border is boring and long as fuck and I look terrible in a backwards baseball cap pushed all the way down on my head, sunglasses and tactical vest unlike Governor Perry who can pull it off."

He should do the Montana border next.

He clearly didn't think he looked too bad. Looks like he even framed that image.

Guess it's the fault of Fox News investigative reporting that they overlooked that, though.

EDIT: Or is his hand on some kind of bar in the image? On second thought, I guess that's it.
 

benjipwns

Banned
This kind of thing shows some of Perry's (electoral) smarts when he's not doped up. He's actually more in the pro-immigration wing of the GOP, but he can do a bunch of ride alongs the border for imagery, bash Obama for making things worse because like whatever (I'm sure he let Hannity fill in all those blanks without being specific on his agreement) and then plausibly go with talking "border security first" and such while not being awkward as fuck as Johm McCain was about BUILD THE DAMN FENCE. And he's got a good shot at being the only candidate who can go "I've been Governor of the state along that border for five thousand years and blah blah blah these dopes are city slickers. CITY SLICKERS."

What an idiot for having back surgery just before running for President. Should have waited for this field anyway.

NEVER 4GET: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEKAsMdIiZA

EDIT: Or is his hand on some kind of bar in the image? On second thought, I guess that's it.
I don't think that's his hand, looks like they're on boats and it's one of the dudes standing on the edge like in the background one.

WE NEED TO GO DEEPER
 

benjipwns

Banned
The Media: When You Attack Obama, You’re Attacking Them
The moment a journalist takes sides, they are no longer operating as a journalist but as an advocate. It doesn’t matter what one thinks of any comment made by a politician about another. White and Fournier, with those tweets calling on various Republicans to “denounce” or “condemn” Giuliani’s comments are not acting as objective reporters, but instead like palace guards whose sole purpose to protect President Obama.

This is not anything new. The most outrageous is example was in 2012 during the second debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama during the 2012 campaign. Mitt had Obama on the ropes about whether he referred to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi a terrorist attack (he didn’t). As the President fumbled with words, Candy Crowley of CNN, there to be a debate moderator, instead swooped in to “correct” Mitt Romney on something that was no incorrect.

The easiest thing to do is just say Fournier and Smith are “liberals” and they’re just part of the “liberal media.” But such accusations are easy to make and really do not get to the root of the issue.
He’s exactly right. In Obama they see themselves. What he wants to carry out is what they want and they are going to do what they can to make sure these last two years he gets to do just that, the consequences be damned.

So whether it is going after Rudy Giuliani or going after a Congressional staffer for a slight against the Obama daughters, the media is going to be out to defend Obama at all costs.

That’s what the palace guard does. Like Stephen said, “They fight for his successes. He cannot fail.”


White House that promised transparency refuses to cooperate with IRS probe
The White House told Congress last week it refused to dig into its computers for emails that could shed light on what kinds of private taxpayer information the IRS shares with President Obama’s top aides, assuring Congress that the IRS will address the issue — eventually.

The tax agency has already said it doesn’t have the capability to dig out the emails in question, but the White House’s chief counsel, W. Neil Eggleston, insisted in a letter last week to House Committee on Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan that the IRS would try again once it finishes with the tea party-targeting scandal.

“It is my understanding that in May 2014, Commissioner Koskinen responded to this request by indicating that the IRS would be able to address new topics such as these following its completion of document productions already in progress,” Mr. Eggleston wrote in a Feb. 17 letter. “To the extent that the committee continues to have an oversight interest in this matter, I encourage you to continue working with the IRS to address those questions.”

But IRS Commissioner John Koskinen’s letter last year didn’t say that. Instead Mr. Koskinen said the IRS was logistically incapable of performing the search because it would have required combing through 90,000 email accounts.

The White House’s stiff-arm comes even though it performed a similar kind of email search in the past after the IRS lost thousands of emails of former division chief Lois G. Lerner, a key figure in the tea party targeting.

Mr. Ryan is trying to figure out whether the laws that govern taxpayer information security are working, which is part of his committee’s jurisdiction.


The IRS Scandal, Day 654
The IRS just released its “dirty dozen” list of tax scams and schemes for the American people to avoid. In addition to normal phishing and identity theft, a slew of new phone scams around the nation has caught many taxpayers off guard. Plus, unscrupulous return preparers take advantage of confused Americans, especially given that 60 percent of taxpayers need assistance figuring out all those documents, tables, and exemptions. The list also warns the less honest among us to avoid hiding money offshore, in abusive tax shelters, or with false documents. Additionally, it urges people not to falsify income or claim too much in fuel tax credits, either.

But there is an even more concerning “dirty dozen” list that the IRS wants the public to forget.

It’s been almost two years since the news broke that the IRS had been targeting Tea Party, pro-Israel, and other conservative groups — and a scandal erupted. Here are just a select few ways the IRS has mismanaged its problems and shown itself to be incompetent and untrustworthy:

1. Internal emails show these groups were targeted because IRS employees thought them “icky.”

2. Other emails showed that Lois Lerner was conspiring with the Department of Justice to prosecute conservative groups on trumped-up charges.

3. Lerner herself refused to testify to investigating committees and was held in contempt.

4. That didn’t stop her from defending herself to Politico magazine and complaining about being “harassed” for her role.

5. Then, the IRS claimed it had lost the most crucial batch of Lerner’s emails.

6. Oh yeah, and her Blackberry was destroyed too.

7. Six months later, the Tax Inspector General may have found those lost emails. (Still no word yet on what was in them.)

Scandal events aside, the IRS showed its general incompetence in many other ways.

8. IRS workers campaigned for political candidates while on the job.

9. The agency awarded bonuses to its own employees who owed taxes.

10. Guess who was audited ten times more often than the average taxpayer? Supporters of the Tea Party.

11. The IRS illegally shared confidential, protected information with the FBI, the White House, and more.

12. And it has the nerve to constantly ask for a raise.

It all adds up to an agency that doesn’t merit the trust of taxpayers.

For at least three years, the IRS has egregiously wronged this nation — including at least one person on a director level. Yet, it still hasn’t apologized or come clean.

But despite all the excuses and diversions offered by the IRS, the American people are still saying what Senator Ron Johnson expressed: “I smell a rat. I smell a number of rats, and that’s what we are going to get to the bottom of.”
 

ivysaur12

Banned
penny-dance-party.gif

My greatest contribution to NeoGAF.
 
So I wake up this morning to see Kevin Sorbo claiming American Sniper didn't win Best Picture because Hollywood hates conservatives, which also suggests American Sniper should've won because it was about the military.
 

HylianTom

Banned
So I wake up this morning to see Kevin Sorbo claiming American Sniper didn't win Best Picture because Hollywood hates conservatives, which also suggests American Sniper should've won because it was about the military.
I was waiting for the complaining to start. Right on schedule.

And an aside: Streep needs to do a few appearances on the campaign trail next year.
 
So I wake up this morning to see Kevin Sorbo claiming American Sniper didn't win Best Picture because Hollywood hates conservatives, which also suggests American Sniper should've won because it was about the military.

And here I thought Boyhood didn't win because Hollywood hates liberals.
 

Teggy

Member
So I see in my Facebook feed that the Blaze apparently posted a video of some 12 year old kid explaining why Rudy Guiliani was right about Obama. The hell if I'm going to watch what I'm sure is going to be some blood boiling stuff, so I need someone to take one for the team and get a summary :)
 

Teggy

Member
WTF? Are they wearing body armor? Do they really think the border is a warzone?

They're probably afraid of being mistakenly shot by those "patriot" groups that patrol the border.

Those backward caps are pretty hilarious. Is that so they can look down the scopes of the rifles they're carrying?
 
The primary is gonna be fun.

‏@ZekeJMiller 30s30 seconds ago
Jindal: the president loves America, he loves our country. There’s no doubt about that


How do you guys even do this? Make that many posts, that is...

Edit: scrolling down on the actual, full "who posted" list, it turns out I had 31 posts in that one...

tabbed browsing and working on the computer all day
 
The primary is gonna be fun.

I'm somewhat surprised that even in the face of an improving economy and no evidence of an Obamacare disaster, the right has doubled down on crazy. Obviously our foreign policy woes play a role in this but still...we're clearly not going to see an uprising of reform/policy conservatives anytime soon. The fever swamp is still in firm control of the republican party.

Seems like 2016 is going to be fought heavily over foreign policy due to Hillary. She didn't accomplish much of anything as Sec of State, outside of convincing Obama to intervene in Libya of course (how did that work out). But I'm not convinced people are going to elect a republican solely because they feel the US looks weak thanks to Obama.
 
I'm somewhat surprised that even in the face of an improving economy and no evidence of an Obamacare disaster, the right has doubled down on crazy. Obviously our foreign policy woes play a role in this but still...we're clearly not going to see an uprising of reform/policy conservatives anytime soon. The fever swamp is still in firm control of the republican party.

Seems like 2016 is going to be fought heavily over foreign policy due to Hillary. She didn't accomplish much of anything as Sec of State, outside of convincing Obama to intervene in Libya of course (how did that work out). But I'm not convinced people are going to elect a republican solely because they feel the US looks weak thanks to Obama.

The base is driven by fear of a changing american, literally everything boils down to that. Fear that America is darkening, music is changing, police and troops aren't worshiped, we don't talk like bullies on the world stage, we admit some of our systems our failures (health care, drug policy), we speak different languages. This is the essence of conservatism, we just are starting to have a critical mass of people who have pushed long lingering critiques into the mainstream.

Everything is changing but there still is a large enough white majority (especially when federalism comes in and the changing America is largely clustered in cities) that enables this outsized power. There's no incentive to change, the rules make appealing to these people who are scared that the world they grew up in is no more the best strategy to get into state capitals and the house.

Why were people expecting anything to change? What's the upside?
 
My best friend, who is a former Democratic staffer on Capitol Hill yet is somehow getting "Dear Conservative" emails from Rand Paul, just got this email from Rand Paul:

Rand Paul said:
Dear Conservative,

Big government can’t seem to keep its hands off of anything.

The latest insult: President Obama and the Federal Communications Commission are going to take over the Internet on February 26th if we don’t do everything we can do to stop them right now.

A plan deceivingly referred to as “Net Neutrality,” involves declaring the Internet a “public utility” and gives the FCC the power to decide what Internet service providers can charge and how they operate. This is not only a direct attack on the free market, but it will also result in an increase in Internet access fees for millions of consumers in America. It’s a massive tax on the middle class, plain and simple.

The details are complicated but here’s the truth: If "Net Neutrality" is passed, for the first time ever, the Internet will be under the rule of an antiquated regulation designed for land line telephones. President Obama wants to take something that’s working just fine, and tie it up in red tape--sound familiar? We've seen this movie before--it's called ObamaCare.

The FCC plans to vote on Feb. 26th on whether or not the government should take their usual heavy handed approach to controlling the Internet or do the right thing and leave it alone.

I need your help to tell President Obama and the FCC: "Don't mess with the Internet!"

An unregulated Internet has been the single greatest catalyst in history for individual liberty and free markets on the planet. It has created the greatest revolution since Henry Ford invented the Model T.

Let's get this straight--technology has progressed because it has been driven by a free and open Internet--not because of DC bureaucrats. This latest attempt to regulate the web threatens to interrupt that positive innovation, set the market back, and kill jobs.

A free, flourishing Internet is as important as anything man has ever created. But those freedoms are under assault.

Please, stand with me and help protect Internet freedom by signing this petition today.

These attempts to regulate the Internet are a direct attack on the freedom of information and an innovative market. The government needs to stay out of the way.

Free markets are worth protecting. Please tell your friends, your families, that there’s nothing neutral about net neutrality. We have to stop this aggressive, invasive, and harmful regulation and we need all the help we can get to do it.

Sincerely,

Senator Rand Paul
 

HylianTom

Banned
There's the slow, steady, creeping demographic pressure that's ongoing as well. It has to scare them to bits.

Hillary's going to do marginally better among white voters. She'll probably do marginally worse among minority voters.. but their share of the electorate will continue to grow by a few percent since '12.

Hell, she doesn't even need Obama's 2012 margins. He won rather comfortably. And I'm still convinced that female voters are going to be engaged once we get close to the election. Maybe not to the same degree as African Americans became for Obama, but it'll still be a really steep hill to climb for her opponent. Having normally-conservative-leaning older white female voters flipped away is going to be a pain for the GOP.

I've been watching more election footage, including materials concerning the GOP's post-2012 "autopsy." Demography kept coming-up, and their strategists seem to know what's coming.. but the party's primary voters are the biggest obstacle, it seems. Witnessing Eric Cantor's ejection only seemed to reinforce this.

In 1992, after 12 years, the Democrats were hungry, and tired of losing. I don't yet sense the same degree of desperation from the GOP base.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
There's the slow, steady, creeping demographic pressure that's ongoing as well. It has to scare them to bits.

Hillary's going to do marginally better among white voters. She'll probably do marginally worse among minority voters.. but their share of the electorate will continue to grow by a few percent since '12.

Hell, she doesn't even need Obama's 2012 margins. He won rather comfortably. And I'm still convinced that female voters are going to be engaged once we get close to the election. Maybe not to the same degree as African Americans became for Obama, but it'll still be a really steep hill to climb for her opponent. Having normally-conservative-leaning older white female voters flipped away is going to be a pain for the GOP.

I've been watching more election footage, including materials concerning the GOP's post-2012 "autopsy." Demography kept coming-up, and their strategists seem to know what's coming.. but the party's primary voters are the biggest obstacle, it seems. Witnessing Eric Cantor's ejection only seemed to reinforce this.

In 1992, after 12 years, the Democrats were hungry, and tired of losing. I don't yet sense the same degree of desperation from the GOP base.

Would this happen in significant numbers? I am not convinced that older women who currently support the GOP are so ready to vote democrat. I am afraid these women grew up in the 50s and 60s and 70s which were still the "good ol days".
 

HyperionX

Member
There's the slow, steady, creeping demographic pressure that's ongoing as well. It has to scare them to bits.

Hillary's going to do marginally better among white voters. She'll probably do marginally worse among minority voters.. but their share of the electorate will continue to grow by a few percent since '12.

Hell, she doesn't even need Obama's 2012 margins. He won rather comfortably. And I'm still convinced that female voters are going to be engaged once we get close to the election. Maybe not to the same degree as African Americans became for Obama, but it'll still be a really steep hill to climb for her opponent. Having normally-conservative-leaning older white female voters flipped away is going to be a pain for the GOP.

I've been watching more election footage, including materials concerning the GOP's post-2012 "autopsy." Demography kept coming-up, and their strategists seem to know what's coming.. but the party's primary voters are the biggest obstacle, it seems. Witnessing Eric Cantor's ejection only seemed to reinforce this.

In 1992, after 12 years, the Democrats were hungry, and tired of losing. I don't yet sense the same degree of desperation from the GOP base.

In 1992 Democrats were willing to change their message in order win the White House. Republicans today are not. They seem to be totally willing to sacrifice whoever it is that is their candidate if they aren't willing to tow the party line. Barring any huge surprises, Hillary should easily win. Hell, even if there was a huge surprise, it still wouldn't surprise me if Hillary won anyways.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
My best friend, who is a former Democratic staffer on Capitol Hill yet is somehow getting "Dear Conservative" emails from Rand Paul, just got this email from Rand Paul:

This letter shows both Rand Paul's stupidity and his ineptitude. Not only does the form letter have a dumb as balls argument, but it's probably the worst form letter I've ever read. For real, I've gotten letters from Nigerian princes more persuasive than this.

Would this happen in significant numbers? I am not convinced that older women who currently support the GOP are so ready to vote democrat. I am afraid these women grew up in the 50s and 60s and 70s which were still the "good ol days".

It's not going to saw the older women, some of them might go for Hilary as a result of her running, but it's going to sway a lot younger women. She's not going to see anything like Obama's numbers among african-americans, but he should beat his numbers among women handily.
 
The base is driven by fear of a changing american, literally everything boils down to that. Fear that America is darkening, music is changing, police and troops aren't worshiped, we don't talk like bullies on the world stage, we admit some of our systems our failures (health care, drug policy), we speak different languages. This is the essence of conservatism, we just are starting to have a critical mass of people who have pushed long lingering critiques into the mainstream.

Everything is changing but there still is a large enough white majority (especially when federalism comes in and the changing America is largely clustered in cities) that enables this outsized power. There's no incentive to change, the rules make appealing to these people who are scared that the world they grew up in is no more the best strategy to get into state capitals and the house.

Why were people expecting anything to change? What's the upside?

All true...still, the crazy factor is what surprises me at this time. Certainly this would be the time to "return to serious conservative principles and a strong national defense." Instead they're talking about vaccinations and whether Obama hates America like it's August 2009.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Would this happen in significant numbers? I am not convinced that older women who currently support the GOP are so ready to vote democrat. I am afraid these women grew up in the 50s and 60s and 70s which were still the "good ol days".
I don't think we'll see them flock en masse to vote Democratic.. but If forced to bet, I'm guessing that we'll see low/mid single-digit movement among women overall (Obama won women by 12% in 2012. So maybe a few points extra for her?). Doesn't seem very significant, but when the GOP is already forced to walk an oily, icy tightrope across a canyon to get to 269, it adds more bite to the crosswinds they're facing. At the very least, it'll make holding onto the Midwestern portion of the blue wall a bit easier.

In 1992 Democrats were willing to change their message in order win the White House. Republicans today are not. They seem to be totally willing to sacrifice whoever it is that is their candidate if they aren't willing to tow the party line. Barring any huge surprises, Hillary should easily win. Hell, even if there was a huge surprise, it still wouldn't surprise me if Hillary won anyways.
Much of their base seems to believe that they're literally on a mission from God, and that compromise would thus be evil. :p

My #1 worry about Hillary winning is Hillary. I hope she plays it safe and doesn't make too many unforced errors. A cordial, 2000-style, Gore v Bradley primary might prepare her a bit better for the real fight.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
All true...still, the crazy factor is what surprises me at this time. Certainly this would be the time to "return to serious conservative principles and a strong national defense." Instead they're talking about vaccinations and whether Obama hates America like it's August 2009.

The reason for that is that the GOP threw all this "Obama's going to destroy America," never refuted stuff like "Obama's a secret Muslim who wasn't even born here," and things of that nature. They used that shit to gain control of Congress, but because they ratcheted up the rhetoric so high there's no way to bring it down again. They created a radicalized base that would never take any compromise because they're fighting for the soul of their country against a horde of invaders. How are they supposed bring them back down to earth? To reality? All they can do is wait for their base to burn themselves out at this point, they just took it too far and there's nothing they can do.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
A Texas Tribune poll has Clinton leading the primary by 50 points. I cant see how there wont be a coronation.

She still needs debates though. Her first debate cant be in October 2016.
 
She's a rather average debater, or at least she was in 2008. The initial debates boiled down to her taking a victory lap as everyone attacked her. When things narrowed down she hurled a lot of desperate attacks at Obama, played the gender card, and overall just seemed unable to rattle Obama (or Edwards tbh). It's very likely that a 2016 general election debate will include the GOP nominee accusing her of not accomplishing anything as Sec of State, rattling off a list of her alleged failures, etc. How will she react? Will she try to play the gender card, remind us that she's a grandmother, etc?

The only thing I'm interested in with respect to dem primary debates is how she responds to criticisms from the left on Wall Street/economics.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
She's a rather average debater, or at least she was in 2008. The initial debates boiled down to her taking a victory lap as everyone attacked her. When things narrowed down she hurled a lot of desperate attacks at Obama, played the gender card, and overall just seemed unable to rattle Obama (or Edwards tbh). It's very likely that a 2016 general election debate will include the GOP nominee accusing her of not accomplishing anything as Sec of State, rattling off a list of her alleged failures, etc. How will she react? Will she try to play the gender card, remind us that she's a grandmother, etc?

The only thing I'm interested in with respect to dem primary debates is how she responds to criticisms from the left on Wall Street/economics.

Primary debates will fix that IF she gets them. Sadly, her position is of strength and liability. Strength because she comes into the primary incumbent like with a commanding lead among democrats, a lead in the general election & the chance for her and her party to make history again & Bill Clinton. Weakness because she has nominal opposition she comes into the general election untested and possibly ill prepared. Gaffe prone, Bill Clinton, 3rd term precedent, Benghazi.
 
Andrew Kaczynski got a hold of the video of former Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) recent appearance at a pro-secession conference.
Former Republican presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul says secession is happening and it’s “good news.” Paul later predicted the states would stop listening to federal laws.

“I would like to start off by talking about the subject and the subject is secession and, uh, nullification, the breaking up of government, and the good news is it’s gonna happen. It’s happening,” Paul, the father of potential Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul, told a gathering at the libertarian Mises Institute in late January.
The video is about what you’d expect – Ron Paul’s bizarre views on the gold standard, for example, remain intact – though that doesn’t make his remarks any less kooky.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ron-paul-us-secession-already-happening


So does the secession start before or after the race wars? And before or after the hyperinflation? Kook.
 

gcubed

Member
I don't think we'll see them flock en masse to vote Democratic.. but If forced to bet, I'm guessing that we'll see low/mid single-digit movement among women overall (Obama won women by 12% in 2012. So maybe a few points extra for her?). Doesn't seem very significant, but when the GOP is already forced to walk an oily, icy tightrope across a canyon to get to 269, it adds more bite to the crosswinds they're facing. At the very least, it'll make holding onto the Midwestern portion of the blue wall a bit easier.


Much of their base seems to believe that they're literally on a mission from God, and that compromise would thus be evil. :p

My #1 worry about Hillary winning is Hillary. I hope she plays it safe and doesn't make too many unforced errors. A cordial, 2000-style, Gore v Bradley primary might prepare her a bit better for the real fight.

no way en-masse, but a 4% bump in the gender gap is going to be far more then she will lose from minority enthusiasm. Combine that with higher enthusiasm due to fucking with immigration from latino's, and what i'm sure will be more fever pitch voter suppression when things get closer to election time, i'm not convinced there will be that big of a drop off in minority turn out.

Take those numbers and add in (at least what i would expect) slightly better numbers among white voters than Obama and its really... really hard to overcome the electoral math unless something blows up
 

Captain Pants

Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
My state's legislature is amazing.

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - An Idaho lawmaker received a brief lesson on female anatomy after asking if a woman can swallow a small camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam.

The question Monday from Republican Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine.

Dr. Julie Madsen was testifying in opposition to the bill when Barbieri asked the question. Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina.

The committee approved the bill 13-4 on a party-line vote. Barbieri, who sits on the board of a crisis pregnancy center in northern Idaho, voted in favor of the legislation
Goddamn.
 
Well, a few NY towns are trying to secede into Pennsylvania, so he's sort of right...

Really, splitting Upstate NY into either its own state or dispersing it into the various other surrounding states isn't the worst idea in the world.

I mean, it'd be awful for upstate NY, but at least they'd stop kvetching about the city.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Really, splitting Upstate NY into either its own state or dispersing it into the various other surrounding states isn't the worst idea in the world.

I mean, it'd be awful for upstate NY, but at least they'd stop kvetching about the city.

Upstate NY would never be able to survive without the city and it's suburbs, we make up over 60% of the state's revenue. If they formed their own state it would be great for the city though. We'd finally be able to set a decent minimum wage without going 27-rounds with whoever happened to be the governor among other things.
 
Upstate NY would never be able to survive without the city and it's suburbs, we make up over 60% of the state's revenue. If they formed their own state it would be great for the city though. We'd finally be able to set a decent minimum wage without going 27-rounds with whoever happened to be the governor among other things.

Yeah, that was my point :p
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
The feds have filed their notice of appeal in the DAPA case, along with an "Emergency Expedited Motion" to stay the District Court's injunction. Not much more than an hour later, Texas filed its response, which is kind of funny:

The Plaintiff States write to oppose Defendants’ request for expedited consideration of their motion filed today to stay the Court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal. See Dkt. No. 150 at 7. As this Court found, Defendants have no emergency need to take applications for benefits under the new program. Mem. Op. & Order (Dkt. No. 145) at 118-21. Defendants have implicitly recognized as much, by waiting a full week from the preliminary injunction to file this stay motion. Indeed, if Defendants had any compelling claim of a looming, irreversible harm from temporary injunctive relief, they would have featured it previously. They had ample time to do so: Plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction on December 4, some six weeks before this Court’s January 15 motion hearing.

...

Defendants’ desire to relitigate these issues does not justify a deviation from the Court’s normal briefing schedule, which would allow Plaintiffs 20 days to respond. Court Civ. Proc. 6(C). At the very least, Plaintiffs should be allowed to respond within the same seven days that Defendants enjoyed to prepare their motion after the preliminary injunction issued. It is unreasonable to demand that Plaintiffs respond, and the Court rule on the motion, in under three days.
 

benjipwns

Banned
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ron-paul-us-secession-already-happening


So does the secession start before or after the race wars? And before or after the hypnerinflation? Kook.
After the hyperinflation clearly, states need to get rid of those liabilities first.

Don't know why people get so worked up about secession. You know it's not about you personally right?

And nullification has brought great justice to this nation. It's a crime that it's a crime to inform juries of their rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom