Guest
Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:54 am
On Jan 17, 12:21 am, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
Quote:
On 1/16/2012 6:54 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jan 15, 9:54 pm, miso<m...@sushi.com> wrote:
On 1/14/2012 10:36 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:53 pm, Gib Bogle<g.bo...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
On 14/01/2012 3:04 p.m., miso wrote:
The GOP held him hostage once again. Would you rather the DoD not get
funded? The cry baby neocons and tea baggers would be wailing about that
too.
Note this Defense appropriation act did increase some freedoms.
Bestiality is no longer a crime in the military. The pervs are relieved,
but the sheep are nervous.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/senate-defense-bill-removes-military...
Let me guess. You are going to say Obama likes bestiality.
Seriously, all the crap in the bill is from Congress. Obama had little
to do with it.
There you go again with your facts!
You don't understand our system. Since he's the one who signed it
into law, Obama had everything to do with it.
It's like having 3 safeties, such that all 3 branches of government
and both houses of Congress have to agree that something's good to do
it.
By signing it, he's agreeing to enforce it too. Announcing that he
won't enforce it isn't his prerogative--he's a president, not a
dictator.
I understand our system perfectly. Do you realize that the executive
branch can pick and choose what laws to enforce, or simply choose not to
prosecute those arrested in violation of such laws.
You might want to research the signing statement, executive privileged,
and prerogative power before you utter any more nonsense.
Could, under your theory, a mean ol' nasty Republican president choose
not to enforce the Civil Rights Act, or Roe v. Wade, or anything else
he didn't like? Yes. But, they don't.
What you describe is a dictator, who can arbitrarily decide what the
law is, which portions he'll apply, and which of his friends he'll
exempt.
That's exactly what our country was designed to avoid--we'd been under
the heel of a progressive do-gooder King who knew better and was doing
things for our own good, then taxing us, and we didn't like it.
Ours is a good system, one of checks and balances. Barack writes the
checks, and zeroes our balances.
You do realize that all the war funding from Bush Jr. was off the books.
The Bushies used supplemental funding that didn't go in the budget.
Obama on the other hand, got rid of that sleazy technique.
http://www.ombwatch.org/node/3729
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/
That's baby stuff. Of course I know about that. That doesn't mean
Obama spending even more is good.
Quote:
Didn't I warn you not to challenge a progressive on the facts. We don't
watch Fox News.
I can go on more if you want, but clearly Republican administrations
grow the government while they talk about shrinking it, and they spend
the most money while they talk about a balanced budget.
That's not a response to any of the points about whether the President
can legally selectively ignore the laws (your assertion).
To answer your (new) argument--the assumption that I'm an innumerate
rube--I look directly at the Treasury reports. The raw numbers--
they're all there. The "on-books" and "off-books" spin's applied
later by politicians, for the masses.
(For a truer picture of who did what when, try comparing the raw
numbers through history. But it's irrelevant--none of it matters.
None of it adds up to "spending 1.64x the national revenue is a good
thing.")
Back to the point, the question was whether Obama has the power to
sign something into law, saying at the same time that he'll only
enforce that law at his whim, otherwise defying it.
If true, presidents could do whatever they wanted, as I explained with
examples. That's a dictator. That's what you're saying is okay,
because you like this dictator. But, a) that's not our system, and b)
you might not like the next one.
My frustration discussing these things with progressives is when they
can't stay focused on a point long enough to explore it. They change
topics, and introduce unrelated controversies. It might be strategic,
but it feels like ADHD.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Guest
Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:20 am
On Jan 17, 10:56 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:29:20 -0800, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
On 1/16/2012 9:57 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Face it. The Republicans are bad for business. Good for cronies, but bad
in general. The Democrats have to clean up after those GOP asses, but it
takes time.
If Republicans are bad for business the Democrats are worse. More
cronyism (see Solyndra for example), more asinine market distortions (corn
for ethanol and cap and trade for examples), more crazy requirements for
business to hire and keep ne'er-do-well employees as opposed being allowed
to hire competence, more unemployment and other mandated benefits costs
that are crushing small to medium sized businesses.
There were some surprisingly reasonable noises from all sides to the
effect of zapping those failed ethanol subsidies.
It looked pretty good for a while. ISTR the President on both sides
of the issue, but that's fuzzy. Dunno what happened--I haven't
checked. Too much going on to keep track.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Bill Bowden
Guest
Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:27 am
On Jan 16, 9:29 pm, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
Quote:
You need to do some thinking here. First of all, how much can you
influence an election if you got some people to vote illegally?
You can throw the election using illegal votes as Loretta Sanchez did
to Bob Dornan who was my congressman. Read about it here:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23731
"In another case concerning a U.S. House seat in which voter fraud may
have influenced the result, California Republican Congressman Bob
Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez in an upset, by the
narrow margin of 984 votes in 1996. Dornan charged that Sanchez’s
margin came from non-citizens, and an investigation by the House of
Representatives found that 547 non-citizens had voted in the election,
but not enough to void the election."
Quote:
George Bush inherited a budget with a surplus.
Bush inherited a bear market that began in March 2000. The surplus was
a result of the dot.com boom/bust. But I suppose you could blame that
on a conservative congress.
Quote:
The economy tanked due to the handcuffs being removed from Wall Street.
Can you explain the handcuffs? I never figured it out.
-Bill
