HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Proud Liberal Dem » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 169 Next »

Proud Liberal Dem

Profile Information

Name: Duge Butler Jr.
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 12:13 AM
Number of posts: 13,509

About Me

Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Star Wars/Transformers fan. Hopeless news & politics "junkie" and wannabe writer. Married with children/step-children.

Journal Archives


Next question
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sun Mar 29, 2015, 09:14 AM (0 replies)

I'm heartened

that Jeb Bush isn't quite getting the "hero's welcome" in the lead up to next year's general election. Of course, there's still time but it seems like the Republican Party seems to be bored with "moderate" Bushies and are gravitating to the more extreme candidates whom stand even less of a chance of winning in a general election.

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Mar 27, 2015, 06:16 PM (0 replies)

National RFRA vs. Indiana RFRA

As outrage has grown over the passage and and, now, signing of Indiana's "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA), its proponents now seem to be promulgating the dubious argument that there is little or no difference between Indiana's RFRA and the federal law that President Clinton signed into law during his Presidency and, therefore, there should be nothing for us to be all upset about, right? My knowledge of the national RFRA is, admittedly, a little rusty, however, for some reason, this comparison seems to ring false. My understanding is that the national federal law essentially required the government to apply stricter scrutiny towards passing laws and rules against various forms of individual religious expression. If memory serves, the national RFRA stemmed from a negative SCOTUS ruling against the use of Peyote during certain Native American religious ceremonies. Indiana's law was passed, curiously enough, on the heels of an affirmative ruling for marriage equality here in Indiana and has been largely framed as giving businesses greater leverage in refusing services towards certain individuals based on the religious beliefs of its owners, as well as superseding anti-discrimination measures already on the books. The ultimate effect of this law appears mainly aimed at allowing more protection for businesses to discriminate against LGBT individuals, something that I'm not familiar with the national RFRA doing. Has anybody else seen these arguments popping up? Is my reading of the differences between the two laws correct?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Mar 27, 2015, 06:12 PM (0 replies)

Can somebody please explain to me

the logic of a President nominating somebody to head up the Justice Department who believes that the President acted unconstitutionally?

Yet, this somehow makes sense to Republicans? I questioned the constitutionality of a lot of stuff George W. Bush did and I vehemently objected to many of his cabinet and judicial nominees (some of which were rightly and thankfully rejected), however I never expected him to nominate anybody who spoke out against or loudly objected to his policies (which they would have to enforce in their position). Why would ANY POTUS do such a thing? Once again, Republicans are simply making outrageous demands of President Obama that they would NEVER make of their own POTUS.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Mar 27, 2015, 05:56 PM (0 replies)

Sort of ironic that we were always taught to fear LEFT-WING totalitarianism

while right-wing totalitarianism has ACTUALLY creeped up on us in right-wing/Republican-dominated states.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:48 AM (0 replies)

At least he didn't tell them to hold their breaths waiting for them

though he may as well have. The next Republican "Obamacare-Replacement Unit" will come and go just like every scheduled apocalypse. If they haven't come up with an alternative to ACA in five years, how are they going to come up with something substantive in another 3 months? And, just for the sake of argument, their teabagger minions (and probably a majority of their "crazy caucus" in the House) probably wouldn't support anything that Ryan, et. al come up with because they don't care about people having health care unless they're independently wealthy (or on old-age single payer government healthcare), so it's safe to say that there will be no alternative forthcoming.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Mar 20, 2015, 11:33 PM (0 replies)

Which party

Wants to control other people's thoughts and declare them legally insane if they don't agree with them?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Mar 20, 2015, 12:53 AM (0 replies)

Republicans seem dumbfounded

that he didn't roll over and play dead (like a lot of would-be Democratic voters in the midterm) and just start signing all of the Republicans crazy c**p. They also didn't count on Democrats stopping up the drain with filibusters preventing most of their crazy c**p to get through to the President like they did during the previous 6 years.

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Mar 19, 2015, 09:38 PM (0 replies)


is that we can't seem to see the last of some of these horrible disgraced retread GOPers like Newt, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney et. al. Meanwhile, we hear next to nothing from good solid Democrats like Al Gore, Bill Clinton (not much), et. al? Do none of them have anything worthwhile to say nowadays or is it just that the media just cares more about what the aforementioned Republicans have to say? It seems like when the Republicans are in power, the media just covers them but then whenever the Democrats are in power, they still just want to hear what the "loyal opposition" has to say.

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:48 PM (0 replies)

There was one GOPer who had the best summation of how GOP Congressional control has gone so far

and it's only getting worse. Not only could they not get their act together to fund DHS(!), which really should've been a no-brainer but now they're stepping right into another rape discussion by refusing to pass a human trafficking bill that commands bipartisan support over an anti-choice rider (because, let's face it, sex slaves clearly had lots of "choice" about being sex slaves) and they're once again going to harm themselves with minorities as well by holding up Lynch's confirmation until the human trafficking bill is passed with the anti-choice rider.

Popcorn anybody?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Mar 17, 2015, 10:26 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 169 Next »