info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Check Your Privilege, Obama
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Joe Cooper
Nov 9, 2015, 12:29:05 PM11/9/15
to
Check your privilege, President Obama. Specifically, your executive
privilege.
If we time-traveled to the days of our first presidents—George
Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe,
John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson—we would discover that they all used
executive privilege. Here’s the catch: on average, these presidents
invoked executive privilege less than once per year (0.79 times/year).
Modern-day presidents abuse executive privilege, a license that is not
overtly articulated in the Constitution. In some cases, the Supreme Court
has upheld its use as a way for presidents to perform their existing
executive duties.
Chief Justice Burger describes the privilege thus in the majority opinion
for US v. Nixon: “Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality
of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the
privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within
its own assigned area of constitutional duties.”
Checkmate
Today I’ll discuss why Obama is one of the worst modern abusers of
executive privilege and encourage you to hold him and future presidents
in check.
“Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
longer president. Obama is. And Obama Junior—otherwise known as Hillary
Clinton—has her eye on the White House.
Executive privilege must be held in check. Obama has said so himself. At
least he did back in 2007 when he sought to buy our votes.
CNN’s Larry King to presidential candidate Obama: "Do you favor executive
privilege?"
Obama: "…there's been a tendency on the part of this [the Bush]
administration to, to, try to hide behind executive privilege every time
there's somethin' a little shaky that’s taking place. And I think, you
know, the administration would be best served by coming clean…"
Once he became president, Obama was not shy about tooting his own horn:
“This is the most transparent administration in history,” he said in
2013. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Record
Flash forward to 2015. President Obama has issued 219 official executive
orders according to the American Presidency Project. On paper, Obama’s
number seems “low” in comparison to Franklin D. Roosevelt (3,721 orders);
or Woodrow Wilson (1,803 orders); and “reasonable” in contrast to George
W. Bush (291 orders).
We can’t go back in time and impeach Roosevelt and Wilson. We can hold
our current and future presidents accountable.
George W. Bush exerted executive privilege to prevent a “precedent”
whereby a president’s staffers (like Karl Rove in Bush’s case) would be,
in Rove’s words: “routinely subpoenaed” to discuss “internal White House
deliberations.”
Rove told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren that Bush offered Congress a
compromise: the ability to get “the substance of what they wanted” by
making Rove available in a “private hearing” where Rove would be “sworn
in” so that if he didn’t “tell the truth, he could be prosecuted.”
In this way, Bush invoked executive privilege in line with Supreme Court
precedent—to protect internal White House communications—while still
proffering Congress a way to obtain the information.
Obama does the opposite. He claims executive privilege on matters that he
himself has declared the White House to have zero involvement in. For
example:
Fast and Furious: In 2012, Obama exerted executive privilege to shield
his cabinet member Attorney General Eric Holder—despite previously
claiming that the White House had no involvement in Fast and Furious. The
Obama administration again exerted the privilege in 2014 to protect
Holder’s wife and mother.
To protect its shady secrets, the Obama administration has used executive
privilege to classify practically anything and anyone as protected under
internal White House deliberations. This is like saying: “my dog ate my
homework.” C’mon!
Benghazi: In March of this year, Obama told CBS that he heard about
Hillary Clinton’s private email server at “the same time everybody else
learned it—through news reports.”
By October, when the State Department uncovered emails exchanged between
Clinton and Obama, he had changed his story. The New York Times reported
that the administration “will try to block” emails between Obama and the
former Secretary of State. So, Obama threatened to use executive
privilege to protect the same electronic communication that he denied
existing a few months earlier on CBS.
Leaping Through Loopholes
Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, is also inclined to invoke executive
privilege informally to help keep his “official” count down. The Wall
Street Journal describes Clinton’s approach to invoking executive
privilege: “Because he didn’t issue written directives asserting
privilege, he didn’t make it completely clear when he was asserting the
privilege.”
Though Congress may attempt to override an executive order, the President
has veto power, making the Supreme Court the ultimate decision-maker. We
need only look to the Court to see how abusive Obama’s use of executive
power has become. On at least 12 occasions, the Supreme Court has
“unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of
executive power,” according to The Daily Signal.
One of Obama’s most notorious uses of executive privilege is the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. By establishing the DACA
program, Obama effectively re-wrote federal immigration law. The program
gives a two-year deportation deferral to undocumented young people under
the age of 30 who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16. U.S. District
Judge Arthur Schwab made headlines declaring DACA to be unconstitutional.
Even if someone were to think that DACA is constitutional—they’ll have to
agree that its effects are very unethical. For example, the New York
Times reported earlier this year how DACA has encouraged colleges to give
undocumented citizens priority over American citizens for college aid.
Obama’s DACA order incentivizes colleges to make life even harder for
American college students who already graduate with $33,000 in debt on
average. This is unethical and unjust.
Nearly one in four Millennials still lives at home with their parents.
Rather than enjoying Michelle Obama’s self-described “huge recovery,”
young Americans have faced 15% unemployment. Politicians are out to buy
votes and they don’t care about the humanitarian needs of undocumented
young people. The fact is, before we can truly help others we must help
our own young people survive. It’s not fair to Americans or non-Americans
to pretend otherwise.
Most young people will never hear these facts in their high schools or
colleges. The onus is on those of us who are fortunate enough to be
informed to educate Millennials.
The youth vote determined the past two presidential elections. Young
people in particular will be burned by Obama’s wrongful use of executive
orders and Hillary Clinton will be Barack Obama 2.0. This is why I wrote
“Let Me Be Clear,” as an educational tool for parents and their
Millennials so that we can win in 2016.
You and I have a powerful voice when we speak in unison. Let’s get this
message out: Check your privilege, Obama. And don’t even think about
following in his footsteps, Hillary Clinton.
Source: http://bit.ly/1OzDSIe
--
The Leading Cause of Poverty Are Progressives - Help Raise the Poor:
Promote Capitalism
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)
privilege.
If we time-traveled to the days of our first presidents—George
Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe,
John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson—we would discover that they all used
executive privilege. Here’s the catch: on average, these presidents
invoked executive privilege less than once per year (0.79 times/year).
Modern-day presidents abuse executive privilege, a license that is not
overtly articulated in the Constitution. In some cases, the Supreme Court
has upheld its use as a way for presidents to perform their existing
executive duties.
Chief Justice Burger describes the privilege thus in the majority opinion
for US v. Nixon: “Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality
of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the
privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within
its own assigned area of constitutional duties.”
Checkmate
Today I’ll discuss why Obama is one of the worst modern abusers of
executive privilege and encourage you to hold him and future presidents
in check.
“Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
longer president. Obama is. And Obama Junior—otherwise known as Hillary
Clinton—has her eye on the White House.
Executive privilege must be held in check. Obama has said so himself. At
least he did back in 2007 when he sought to buy our votes.
CNN’s Larry King to presidential candidate Obama: "Do you favor executive
privilege?"
Obama: "…there's been a tendency on the part of this [the Bush]
administration to, to, try to hide behind executive privilege every time
there's somethin' a little shaky that’s taking place. And I think, you
know, the administration would be best served by coming clean…"
Once he became president, Obama was not shy about tooting his own horn:
“This is the most transparent administration in history,” he said in
2013. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Record
Flash forward to 2015. President Obama has issued 219 official executive
orders according to the American Presidency Project. On paper, Obama’s
number seems “low” in comparison to Franklin D. Roosevelt (3,721 orders);
or Woodrow Wilson (1,803 orders); and “reasonable” in contrast to George
W. Bush (291 orders).
We can’t go back in time and impeach Roosevelt and Wilson. We can hold
our current and future presidents accountable.
George W. Bush exerted executive privilege to prevent a “precedent”
whereby a president’s staffers (like Karl Rove in Bush’s case) would be,
in Rove’s words: “routinely subpoenaed” to discuss “internal White House
deliberations.”
Rove told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren that Bush offered Congress a
compromise: the ability to get “the substance of what they wanted” by
making Rove available in a “private hearing” where Rove would be “sworn
in” so that if he didn’t “tell the truth, he could be prosecuted.”
In this way, Bush invoked executive privilege in line with Supreme Court
precedent—to protect internal White House communications—while still
proffering Congress a way to obtain the information.
Obama does the opposite. He claims executive privilege on matters that he
himself has declared the White House to have zero involvement in. For
example:
Fast and Furious: In 2012, Obama exerted executive privilege to shield
his cabinet member Attorney General Eric Holder—despite previously
claiming that the White House had no involvement in Fast and Furious. The
Obama administration again exerted the privilege in 2014 to protect
Holder’s wife and mother.
To protect its shady secrets, the Obama administration has used executive
privilege to classify practically anything and anyone as protected under
internal White House deliberations. This is like saying: “my dog ate my
homework.” C’mon!
Benghazi: In March of this year, Obama told CBS that he heard about
Hillary Clinton’s private email server at “the same time everybody else
learned it—through news reports.”
By October, when the State Department uncovered emails exchanged between
Clinton and Obama, he had changed his story. The New York Times reported
that the administration “will try to block” emails between Obama and the
former Secretary of State. So, Obama threatened to use executive
privilege to protect the same electronic communication that he denied
existing a few months earlier on CBS.
Leaping Through Loopholes
Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, is also inclined to invoke executive
privilege informally to help keep his “official” count down. The Wall
Street Journal describes Clinton’s approach to invoking executive
privilege: “Because he didn’t issue written directives asserting
privilege, he didn’t make it completely clear when he was asserting the
privilege.”
Though Congress may attempt to override an executive order, the President
has veto power, making the Supreme Court the ultimate decision-maker. We
need only look to the Court to see how abusive Obama’s use of executive
power has become. On at least 12 occasions, the Supreme Court has
“unanimously ruled against the Obama administration on the issue of
executive power,” according to The Daily Signal.
One of Obama’s most notorious uses of executive privilege is the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. By establishing the DACA
program, Obama effectively re-wrote federal immigration law. The program
gives a two-year deportation deferral to undocumented young people under
the age of 30 who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16. U.S. District
Judge Arthur Schwab made headlines declaring DACA to be unconstitutional.
Even if someone were to think that DACA is constitutional—they’ll have to
agree that its effects are very unethical. For example, the New York
Times reported earlier this year how DACA has encouraged colleges to give
undocumented citizens priority over American citizens for college aid.
Obama’s DACA order incentivizes colleges to make life even harder for
American college students who already graduate with $33,000 in debt on
average. This is unethical and unjust.
Nearly one in four Millennials still lives at home with their parents.
Rather than enjoying Michelle Obama’s self-described “huge recovery,”
young Americans have faced 15% unemployment. Politicians are out to buy
votes and they don’t care about the humanitarian needs of undocumented
young people. The fact is, before we can truly help others we must help
our own young people survive. It’s not fair to Americans or non-Americans
to pretend otherwise.
Most young people will never hear these facts in their high schools or
colleges. The onus is on those of us who are fortunate enough to be
informed to educate Millennials.
The youth vote determined the past two presidential elections. Young
people in particular will be burned by Obama’s wrongful use of executive
orders and Hillary Clinton will be Barack Obama 2.0. This is why I wrote
“Let Me Be Clear,” as an educational tool for parents and their
Millennials so that we can win in 2016.
You and I have a powerful voice when we speak in unison. Let’s get this
message out: Check your privilege, Obama. And don’t even think about
following in his footsteps, Hillary Clinton.
Source: http://bit.ly/1OzDSIe
--
The Leading Cause of Poverty Are Progressives - Help Raise the Poor:
Promote Capitalism
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)
Siri Cruz
Nov 9, 2015, 1:46:13 PM11/9/15
to
In article <XnsA54D60780F6...@213.239.209.88>,
least and greatest simultaneously.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we
cannot prove the consistency. ~~ Morris Kline
Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
> Today I’ll discuss why Obama is one of the worst modern abusers of
> executive privilege and encourage you to hold him and future presidents
> in check.
>
> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then yeah, he
> Today I’ll discuss why Obama is one of the worst modern abusers of
> executive privilege and encourage you to hold him and future presidents
> in check.
>
> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
least and greatest simultaneously.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we
cannot prove the consistency. ~~ Morris Kline
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 9, 2015, 3:18:45 PM11/9/15
to
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:26:48 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>If we time-traveled to the days of our first presidents—George
>Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe,
>John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson—we would discover that they all used
>executive privilege. Here’s the catch: on average, these presidents
>invoked executive privilege less than once per year (0.79 times/year)
If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>If we time-traveled to the days of our first presidents—George
>Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe,
>John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson—we would discover that they all used
>executive privilege. Here’s the catch: on average, these presidents
>invoked executive privilege less than once per year (0.79 times/year)
Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
Republicans, are to blame
The EXO's---are a way to kick wingers ass
You only have yourself to blame
>==========================================================
"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s
founding fathers.
Ronald Regan introducing the Mujahideen leaders, 1985).
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 9, 2015, 3:20:31 PM11/9/15
to
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 10:46:11 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <XnsA54D60780F6...@213.239.209.88>,
> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>> Today I’ll discuss why Obama is one of the worst modern abusers of
>> executive privilege and encourage you to hold him and future presidents
>> in check.
>>
>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>
>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then yeah, he
>least and greatest simultaneously.
C'mon
There is a REASON for Executive orders.
Best one offhand: over 600 times the GOP has blocked, filibustered, or
otherwise stopped any legislation from happening.
Worst record of any political party- --IN HISTORY
wrote:
>In article <XnsA54D60780F6...@213.239.209.88>,
> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>> Today I’ll discuss why Obama is one of the worst modern abusers of
>> executive privilege and encourage you to hold him and future presidents
>> in check.
>>
>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>
>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then yeah, he
>least and greatest simultaneously.
There is a REASON for Executive orders.
Best one offhand: over 600 times the GOP has blocked, filibustered, or
otherwise stopped any legislation from happening.
Worst record of any political party- --IN HISTORY
Christopher Helms
Nov 9, 2015, 4:19:50 PM11/9/15
to
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 2:20:31 PM UTC-6, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 10:46:11 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <XnsA54D60780F6...@213.239.209.88>,
> > Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
> >
> >> Today I'll discuss why Obama is one of the worst modern abusers of
> >> executive privilege and encourage you to hold him and future presidents
> >> in check.
> >>
> >> "Bush abused executive privilege too!" someone might protest. Bush is no
Bush expanded executive branch abuses of everything to an alarming degree, but right wingers were too busy chanting "It's legal!" and "Clinton did it too," (even though he didn't) and "Why do you want the terrorists to win?" to notice that horrible precedents were being set, and doors were being kicked open that would never be closed again.
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 10:46:11 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <XnsA54D60780F6...@213.239.209.88>,
> > Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
> >
> >> Today I'll discuss why Obama is one of the worst modern abusers of
> >> executive privilege and encourage you to hold him and future presidents
> >> in check.
> >>
> >> "Bush abused executive privilege too!" someone might protest. Bush is no
Wayne
Nov 9, 2015, 5:12:57 PM11/9/15
to
"Siri Cruz" wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-4AFFE...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
In article <XnsA54D60780F6...@213.239.209.88>,
Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>> Today I’ll discuss why Obama is one of the worst modern abusers of
>> executive privilege and encourage you to hold him and future presidents
>> in check.
>>
>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>yeah, he
>least and greatest simultaneously.
Obama has no trouble issuing an executive order to nullify laws specifically
passed by the legislature. It isn't a matter of choosing to implement a law
in a particular manner. It is a matter of Obama defying existing law
because he doesn't like it.
Obama's executive orders should be sufficient to have him jailed for
treason.
Joe Cooper
Nov 9, 2015, 5:20:52 PM11/9/15
to
Christopher Helms <chris...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1ec30a69-b3b3-412b...@googlegroups.com:
> Bush expanded executive branch abuses of everything to an alarming
> degree, but right wingers were too busy chanting "It's legal!" and
> "Clinton did it too," (even though he didn't) and "Why do you want the
> terrorists to win?" to notice that horrible precedents were being set,
> and doors were being kicked open that would never be closed again.
You hit the wrong key and deleted some text - here, let me help you
restore it:
...
“Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
longer president. Obama is. And Obama Junior—otherwise known as Hillary
Clinton—has her eye on the White House.
Executive privilege must be held in check. Obama has said so himself. At
least he did back in 2007 when he sought to buy our votes.
CNN’s Larry King to presidential candidate Obama: "Do you favor executive
privilege?"
Obama: "…there's been a tendency on the part of this [the Bush]
administration to, to, try to hide behind executive privilege every time
there's somethin' a little shaky that’s taking place. And I think, you
know, the administration would be best served by coming clean…"
...
In this way, Bush invoked executive privilege in line with Supreme Court
precedent—to protect internal White House communications—while still
proffering Congress a way to obtain the information.
Obama does the opposite. He claims executive privilege on matters that he
himself has declared the White House to have zero involvement in. For
example:
news:1ec30a69-b3b3-412b...@googlegroups.com:
> Bush expanded executive branch abuses of everything to an alarming
> degree, but right wingers were too busy chanting "It's legal!" and
> "Clinton did it too," (even though he didn't) and "Why do you want the
> terrorists to win?" to notice that horrible precedents were being set,
> and doors were being kicked open that would never be closed again.
restore it:
...
“Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
longer president. Obama is. And Obama Junior—otherwise known as Hillary
Clinton—has her eye on the White House.
Executive privilege must be held in check. Obama has said so himself. At
least he did back in 2007 when he sought to buy our votes.
CNN’s Larry King to presidential candidate Obama: "Do you favor executive
privilege?"
Obama: "…there's been a tendency on the part of this [the Bush]
administration to, to, try to hide behind executive privilege every time
there's somethin' a little shaky that’s taking place. And I think, you
know, the administration would be best served by coming clean…"
In this way, Bush invoked executive privilege in line with Supreme Court
precedent—to protect internal White House communications—while still
proffering Congress a way to obtain the information.
Obama does the opposite. He claims executive privilege on matters that he
himself has declared the White House to have zero involvement in. For
example:
Vandar
Nov 9, 2015, 6:12:45 PM11/9/15
to
On 11/9/2015 3:18 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:26:48 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
> <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>> If we time-traveled to the days of our first presidents—George
>> Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe,
>> John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson—we would discover that they all used
>> executive privilege. Here’s the catch: on average, these presidents
>> invoked executive privilege less than once per year (0.79 times/year)
>
>
> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:26:48 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
> <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>> If we time-traveled to the days of our first presidents—George
>> Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe,
>> John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson—we would discover that they all used
>> executive privilege. Here’s the catch: on average, these presidents
>> invoked executive privilege less than once per year (0.79 times/year)
>
>
> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 9, 2015, 6:52:11 PM11/9/15
to
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>
>>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>yeah, he
>>least and greatest simultaneously.
>
>That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>Obama has no trouble issuing an executive order to nullify laws specifically
>passed by the legislature.
BWHAHAHAHAA
When the "legislature" is so horribly inept, anti-american, (not to
mention stupid)---the laughter isn't going away for years.
wrote:
>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>
>>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>yeah, he
>>least and greatest simultaneously.
>
>That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>Obama has no trouble issuing an executive order to nullify laws specifically
>passed by the legislature.
When the "legislature" is so horribly inept, anti-american, (not to
mention stupid)---the laughter isn't going away for years.
>
>Obama's executive orders should be sufficient to have him jailed for
>treason.
Or when you wake up and wash your sticky hand---whichever comes first
>Obama's executive orders should be sufficient to have him jailed for
>treason.
Vandar
Nov 9, 2015, 7:21:47 PM11/9/15
to
On 11/9/2015 6:52 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>>
>>> Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>> yeah, he
>>> least and greatest simultaneously.
>>
>> That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>
> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>>
>>> Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>> yeah, he
>>> least and greatest simultaneously.
>>
>> That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>
> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
countering them.
Which is it, whackadoodle?
someone else
Nov 9, 2015, 8:51:20 PM11/9/15
to
On 11/9/2015 6:21 PM, Vandar wrote:
> On 11/9/2015 6:52 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>>
>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>
> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
> any policy because of Republicans
Someone else would say that you TeaPublican have obstructed any
> On 11/9/2015 6:52 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>>
>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>
> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
> any policy because of Republicans
legislation, like a bunch of cry-babies, that has been suggested to you
by President Obama, just to correct your mistaken comment
Wayne
Nov 9, 2015, 10:13:12 PM11/9/15
to
wrote in message news:29c24bt4ic7gtsalb...@4ax.com...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>
>>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>yeah, he
>>least and greatest simultaneously.
>
>That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
In other words, you can't refute that Obama is deliberately disobeying the
law.
One of these days there will be a Repub president doing the same thing and
we will all enjoy your squawking about it.
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 9, 2015, 10:32:30 PM11/9/15
to
>Which is it, whackadoodle?
Countering BAD policy of yours
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 9, 2015, 10:33:39 PM11/9/15
to
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:13:03 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
You ARE "countering" the successes of FDR, LBJ, Kennedy, and Clinton
Didn't you know that
That's WHY we're in deep shit in America
wrote:
Didn't you know that
That's WHY we're in deep shit in America
Siri Cruz
Nov 9, 2015, 11:05:23 PM11/9/15
to
In article <n1rn7u$qs2$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> wrote in message news:29c24bt4ic7gtsalb...@4ax.com...
>
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
> >
> >>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
> >>yeah, he
> >>least and greatest simultaneously.
> >
> >That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>
> # Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>
> In other words, you can't refute that Obama is deliberately disobeying the
> law.
Actually he isn't. Unlike the Decider, he is only using those powers given to
him by the Constitution, such as clemency, or ceded to the executive branch by
Congress.
wrote:
> wrote in message news:29c24bt4ic7gtsalb...@4ax.com...
>
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
> >
> >>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
> >>yeah, he
> >>least and greatest simultaneously.
> >
> >That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>
> # Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>
> In other words, you can't refute that Obama is deliberately disobeying the
> law.
him by the Constitution, such as clemency, or ceded to the executive branch by
Congress.
Joe Cooper
Nov 10, 2015, 6:41:24 AM11/10/15
to
Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:n1r954$o8d$1...@dont-email.me:
>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>
> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
Poor, stupid Gary.
>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>
> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
Vandar
Nov 10, 2015, 8:04:38 AM11/10/15
to
On 11/9/2015 10:32 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:21:40 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2015 6:52 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>>>>
>>>>> Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>>>> yeah, he
>>>>> least and greatest simultaneously.
>>>>
>>>> That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>>
>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>
>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>> countering them.
>
> "countering" is NOT the same as "implementing" you dumb fuckwit
>
>
>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>
> Countering BAD policy of yours
But you've repeatedly said that Democrats have been unable to do
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:21:40 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2015 6:52 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>>>>
>>>>> Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>>>> yeah, he
>>>>> least and greatest simultaneously.
>>>>
>>>> That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>>
>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>
>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>> countering them.
>
> "countering" is NOT the same as "implementing" you dumb fuckwit
>
>
>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>
> Countering BAD policy of yours
anything because Republicans have controlled Congress forever.
So have they been able to "effectively counter" Republicans or not?
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 10, 2015, 11:54:51 AM11/10/15
to
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:04:29 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>>
>>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>>> countering them.
>>
>> "countering" is NOT the same as "implementing" you dumb fuckwit
>>
>>
>>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>>
>> Countering BAD policy of yours
>
>But you've repeatedly said that Democrats have been unable to do
>anything because Republicans have controlled Congress forever.
Didn't
>>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>>
>>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>>> countering them.
>>
>> "countering" is NOT the same as "implementing" you dumb fuckwit
>>
>>
>>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>>
>> Countering BAD policy of yours
>
>But you've repeatedly said that Democrats have been unable to do
>anything because Republicans have controlled Congress forever.
I've said that democrats cannot get past the refusal of republicans to
do anything good for America. (no, Loonboy--giving billions to the
wealth class is NOT good)
The control of legislation/policy/direction was set from Rayguns
days(now ruining us) and your idiots refuse to allow it to change
Democrats cannot implement NEEDED reform to your morons "reforms" that
are killing us
But---by (miracle) EXO's---Obama has systematically gotten us a BETTER
deal.
Vandar
Nov 10, 2015, 12:05:25 PM11/10/15
to
On 11/10/2015 11:54 AM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:04:29 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>>>
>>>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>>>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>>>> countering them.
>>>
>>> "countering" is NOT the same as "implementing" you dumb fuckwit
>>>
>>>
>>>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>>>
>>> Countering BAD policy of yours
>>
>> But you've repeatedly said that Democrats have been unable to do
>> anything because Republicans have controlled Congress forever.
>
> Didn't
Two sentences from now, you do it again...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:04:29 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>>>
>>>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>>>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>>>> countering them.
>>>
>>> "countering" is NOT the same as "implementing" you dumb fuckwit
>>>
>>>
>>>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>>>
>>> Countering BAD policy of yours
>>
>> But you've repeatedly said that Democrats have been unable to do
>> anything because Republicans have controlled Congress forever.
>
> Didn't
> I've said that democrats cannot get past the refusal of republicans to
> do anything good for America. (no, Loonboy--giving billions to the
> wealth class is NOT good)
>
> The control of legislation/policy/direction was set from Rayguns
> days(now ruining us) and your idiots refuse to allow it to change
> Democrats cannot implement NEEDED reform to your morons "reforms" that
> are killing us
>
> But---by (miracle) EXO's---Obama has systematically gotten us a BETTER
> deal.
improved anything for the country.
Wayne
Nov 10, 2015, 12:37:23 PM11/10/15
to
"Siri Cruz" wrote in message
In article <n1rn7u$qs2$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> wrote in message news:29c24bt4ic7gtsalb...@4ax.com...
>
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>> is no
> >
> >>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
> >>yeah, he
> >>least and greatest simultaneously.
> >
> >That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>
> # Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>
> In other words, you can't refute that Obama is deliberately disobeying the
> law.
# Actually he isn't. Unlike the Decider, he is only using those powers given
> >
> >>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
> >>yeah, he
> >>least and greatest simultaneously.
> >
> >That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>
> # Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>
> In other words, you can't refute that Obama is deliberately disobeying the
> law.
to
# him by the Constitution, such as clemency, or ceded to the executive
branch by
# Congress.
That's just about the dumbest thing you have posted in a while.
Obama counts on the fact that he can break the law faster than it can be
brought to a court. That's not "ceding".
Joe Cooper
Nov 10, 2015, 1:56:57 PM11/10/15
to
Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:n1t80b$27k$2...@dont-email.me:
> You mean those things that he excoriated Bush for? Obama's EOs haven't
> improved anything for the country.
Isn't poor, dumb Gary a hoot? First he saz the sky is green, then he denies
it's green, then he blames Bush because it's green.
Incest is a terrible thing to behold.
> You mean those things that he excoriated Bush for? Obama's EOs haven't
> improved anything for the country.
it's green, then he blames Bush because it's green.
Incest is a terrible thing to behold.
Governor Swill
Nov 10, 2015, 7:12:34 PM11/10/15
to
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>"Siri Cruz" wrote
>Obama's executive orders should be sufficient to have him jailed for
>treason.
I wish you'd thought of that in 2006.
Swill
--
"The security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone.
Security also lies in the value of our free institutions.
A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous
press must be suffered by those in authority in order
to preserve the even greater values of freedom of
expression and the right of the people to know." - Judge Murray Gurfein on the Pentagon Papers
>"Siri Cruz" wrote
>Joe Cooper wrote:
>>> Today I’ll discuss why Obama is one of the worst modern abusers of
>>> executive privilege and encourage you to hold him and future presidents
>>> in check.
>>>
>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>
>>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>yeah, he least and greatest simultaneously.
>
>That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>Obama has no trouble issuing an executive order to nullify laws specifically
>passed by the legislature. It isn't a matter of choosing to implement a law
>in a particular manner. It is a matter of Obama defying existing law
>because he doesn't like it.
He had a great teacher: George W Bush.
>>> Today I’ll discuss why Obama is one of the worst modern abusers of
>>> executive privilege and encourage you to hold him and future presidents
>>> in check.
>>>
>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>
>>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>yeah, he least and greatest simultaneously.
>
>That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>Obama has no trouble issuing an executive order to nullify laws specifically
>passed by the legislature. It isn't a matter of choosing to implement a law
>in a particular manner. It is a matter of Obama defying existing law
>because he doesn't like it.
>Obama's executive orders should be sufficient to have him jailed for
>treason.
Swill
--
"The security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone.
Security also lies in the value of our free institutions.
A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous
press must be suffered by those in authority in order
to preserve the even greater values of freedom of
expression and the right of the people to know." - Judge Murray Gurfein on the Pentagon Papers
Governor Swill
Nov 10, 2015, 7:29:30 PM11/10/15
to
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 13:18:45 -0700, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:26:48 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
><drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>>If we time-traveled to the days of our first presidents—George
>>Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe,
>>John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson—we would discover that they all used
>>executive privilege. Here’s the catch: on average, these presidents
>>invoked executive privilege less than once per year (0.79 times/year)
>
>
>If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
The topic isn't filibusters, Gary, it's executive orders. In that
>On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:26:48 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
><drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>>If we time-traveled to the days of our first presidents—George
>>Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe,
>>John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson—we would discover that they all used
>>executive privilege. Here’s the catch: on average, these presidents
>>invoked executive privilege less than once per year (0.79 times/year)
>
>
>If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
category, Bush leads Obama by about 3 a year. The first President to
push EOs into double digits was Abraham Lincoln. The next President
to dramatically expand EOs was Teddy Roosevelt.
The winner is FDR at 307 EOs per year - nearly one a day.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Then there is the signing statement, a device so used and abused by
George Bush that he became notorious for it. Year after year he
issued dozens of them. Obama barely uses them.
"A “Signing Statement” is a written comment issued by a President at
the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely
comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or
meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve
claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is
unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to
implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some
critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto
the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully
execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3)."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=2001&Submit=DISPLAY#q1
>Republicans, are to blame
Republicans and Democrats are to blame.
>The EXO's---are a way to kick wingers ass
>
>You only have yourself to blame
Governor Swill
Nov 10, 2015, 7:37:46 PM11/10/15
to
Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
*minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
government from governing.
Here is the filibuster count from the Senate record.
<http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm>
Governor Swill
Nov 10, 2015, 7:40:23 PM11/10/15
to
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:39:06 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:
>Vandar wrote
Filibusters are an action taken by the *minority* party against the
majority party. That is, filibuster counts go up when the Dems
control the Senate because Republicans instigate more filibusters and
other blocking actions.
So, Gary is quite correct in his statement and you and Vandar look
ignorant.
>Vandar wrote
>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>
>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>
>Poor, stupid Gary.
Poor, stupid you.
>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>
>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>
>Poor, stupid Gary.
Filibusters are an action taken by the *minority* party against the
majority party. That is, filibuster counts go up when the Dems
control the Senate because Republicans instigate more filibusters and
other blocking actions.
So, Gary is quite correct in his statement and you and Vandar look
ignorant.
Vandar
Nov 10, 2015, 8:25:19 PM11/10/15
to
On 11/10/2015 7:37 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:12:38 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2015 3:18 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:26:48 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
>>> <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we time-traveled to the days of our first presidents—George
>>>> Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe,
>>>> John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson—we would discover that they all used
>>>> executive privilege. Here’s the catch: on average, these presidents
>>>> invoked executive privilege less than once per year (0.79 times/year)
>>>
>>>
>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>
>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>
> Which is the point.
>
> Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
> *minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
> filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
> filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
> routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
> government from governing.
The minority party doesn't "bring legislation to a vote".
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:12:38 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2015 3:18 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:26:48 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
>>> <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we time-traveled to the days of our first presidents—George
>>>> Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe,
>>>> John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson—we would discover that they all used
>>>> executive privilege. Here’s the catch: on average, these presidents
>>>> invoked executive privilege less than once per year (0.79 times/year)
>>>
>>>
>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>
>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>
> Which is the point.
>
> Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
> *minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
> filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
> filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
> routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
> government from governing.
Reid let more bills die on his watch than were filibustered, and he
blocked many of them solely to protect fellow Democrats seeking re-election.
Governor Swill
Nov 10, 2015, 8:47:01 PM11/10/15
to
Governor Swill
Nov 10, 2015, 8:50:51 PM11/10/15
to
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:05:01 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <n1rn7u$qs2$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>> wrote in message news:29c24bt4ic7gtsalb...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!�€? someone might protest. Bush is no
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
More to the point, Bush's signing statement rate is vastly higher.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php
wrote:
>In article <n1rn7u$qs2$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>> wrote in message news:29c24bt4ic7gtsalb...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>> >>yeah, he
>> >>least and greatest simultaneously.
>> >
>> >That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>
>> # Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>
>> In other words, you can't refute that Obama is deliberately disobeying the
>> law.
>
>Actually he isn't. Unlike the Decider, he is only using those powers given to
>him by the Constitution, such as clemency, or ceded to the executive branch by
>Congress.
Bush issued more EOs than Obama and has a higher annual rate.
>> >>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>> >>yeah, he
>> >>least and greatest simultaneously.
>> >
>> >That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>
>> # Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>
>> In other words, you can't refute that Obama is deliberately disobeying the
>> law.
>
>Actually he isn't. Unlike the Decider, he is only using those powers given to
>him by the Constitution, such as clemency, or ceded to the executive branch by
>Congress.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
More to the point, Bush's signing statement rate is vastly higher.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php
Governor Swill
Nov 10, 2015, 8:52:41 PM11/10/15
to
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:34:45 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>Obama counts on the fact that he can break the law faster than it can be
>brought to a court. That's not "ceding".
>Obama counts on the fact that he can break the law faster than it can be
>brought to a court. That's not "ceding".
Governor Swill
Nov 10, 2015, 9:21:07 PM11/10/15
to
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:25:07 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>>
>>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>>
>> Which is the point.
>>
>> Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
>> *minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
>> filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
>> filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
>> routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
>> government from governing.
>
>The minority party doesn't "bring legislation to a vote".
I never said it did, you ignorant fool!
>>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>>
>>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>>
>> Which is the point.
>>
>> Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
>> *minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
>> filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
>> filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
>> routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
>> government from governing.
>
>The minority party doesn't "bring legislation to a vote".
>Reid let more bills die on his watch than were filibustered, and he
>blocked many of them solely to protect fellow Democrats seeking re-election.
I proved him right and showed that you don't even know what you're
talking about.
Vandar
Nov 10, 2015, 9:22:08 PM11/10/15
to
On 11/10/2015 8:47 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:21:40 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2015 6:52 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>>>>
>>>>> Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>>>> yeah, he
>>>>> least and greatest simultaneously.
>>>>
>>>> That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>>
>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>
>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>> countering them.
>>
>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>
> Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:21:40 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2015 6:52 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>>>>
>>>>> Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>>>> yeah, he
>>>>> least and greatest simultaneously.
>>>>
>>>> That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>>
>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>
>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>> countering them.
>>
>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>
> Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
year.
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 10, 2015, 10:24:32 PM11/10/15
to
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:21:10 -0500, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:25:07 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>>>
>>>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>>>
>>> Which is the point.
>>>
>>> Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
>>> *minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
>>> filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
>>> filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
>>> routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
>>> government from governing.
>>
>>The minority party doesn't "bring legislation to a vote".
>
>I never said it did, you ignorant fool!
>
>>Reid let more bills die on his watch than were filibustered, and he
>>blocked many of them solely to protect fellow Democrats seeking re-election.
>
>The topic was the use of filibusters. You claimed Gary was wrong.
>
>I proved him right and showed that you don't even know what you're
>talking about.
Ain't nothing wrong with filibusters when the use and goals are, at
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:25:07 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>>>
>>>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>>>
>>> Which is the point.
>>>
>>> Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
>>> *minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
>>> filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
>>> filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
>>> routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
>>> government from governing.
>>
>>The minority party doesn't "bring legislation to a vote".
>
>I never said it did, you ignorant fool!
>
>>Reid let more bills die on his watch than were filibustered, and he
>>blocked many of them solely to protect fellow Democrats seeking re-election.
>
>The topic was the use of filibusters. You claimed Gary was wrong.
>
>I proved him right and showed that you don't even know what you're
>talking about.
least, to prevent bad legislation
In the case of democrats use (say) in the 90's---the goal of
preventing some of the bad legislation was defensible
Starting last coupleof years of Bush---Democrats shared power almost
equally (senate, I believe) and had to accept some bad stuff that hurt
most americans
With Obama's election---a deliberate goal of shutting down ANYTHING
that Obama did was well publicized and the record shows it was fact.
Democrats were forced to alter rules to get some appointments passed,
but the denial of needed change and legislation is still foremost on
wingers minds.
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 10, 2015, 10:30:16 PM11/10/15
to
halfwit
We are STILL under republican policies that grew out of failed Raygun
crap started in the 80's
That's where the filibusters, blocking, and outright nonsense of
inaction of the GOP comes into play
Siri Cruz
Nov 11, 2015, 12:06:51 AM11/11/15
to
In article <n1u8k6$1qr$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
> year.
Which economists?
> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
> year.
Rüdy Canôza
Nov 11, 2015, 12:45:53 AM11/11/15
to
On 11/10/2015 7:30 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:21:55 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2015 8:47 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:21:40 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/9/2015 6:52 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>>>>>> yeah, he
>>>>>>> least and greatest simultaneously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>>>
>>>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>>>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>>>> countering them.
>>>>
>>>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>>>
>>> Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>>
>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>> year.
>
> Have you forgotten what Bush/GOP caused by
Obamaloon has been in power for seven years. Time for you to stop the
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:21:55 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2015 8:47 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:21:40 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/9/2015 6:52 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>>>>>> yeah, he
>>>>>>> least and greatest simultaneously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>>>
>>>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>>>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>>>> countering them.
>>>>
>>>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>>>
>>> Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>>
>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>> year.
>
> Have you forgotten what Bush/GOP caused by
excusemaking, Roselles, you cheap fuckstain.
Vandar
Nov 11, 2015, 2:48:06 AM11/11/15
to
On 11/10/2015 9:21 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:25:07 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>>>
>>>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>>>
>>> Which is the point.
>>>
>>> Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
>>> *minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
>>> filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
>>> filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
>>> routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
>>> government from governing.
>>
>> The minority party doesn't "bring legislation to a vote".
>
> I never said it did, you ignorant fool!
The poster I replied to did, you ignorant fool.
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:25:07 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>>>
>>>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>>>
>>> Which is the point.
>>>
>>> Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
>>> *minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
>>> filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
>>> filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
>>> routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
>>> government from governing.
>>
>> The minority party doesn't "bring legislation to a vote".
>
> I never said it did, you ignorant fool!
>> Reid let more bills die on his watch than were filibustered, and he
>> blocked many of them solely to protect fellow Democrats seeking re-election.
>
> The topic was the use of filibusters. You claimed Gary was wrong.
a vote"
He is always wrong.
> I proved him right and showed that you don't even know what you're
> talking about.
cited with the number of bills in the Senate that died either on Reid's
desk or in committee.
Report back with your findings.
Vandar
Nov 11, 2015, 3:00:12 AM11/11/15
to
On 11/11/2015 12:06 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <n1u8k6$1qr$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>> year.
>
> Which economists?
Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
> In article <n1u8k6$1qr$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>> year.
>
> Which economists?
Siri Cruz
Nov 11, 2015, 3:47:03 AM11/11/15
to
> > Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>
> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
> year.
>
> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
> year.
In article <n1use2$gen$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/09/global-recession-two-years-likely
> Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
-economist-buiter
Global recession in next two years is 'most likely' scenario,
says economist.
Willem Buiter, chief economist at Citi and former Bank of
England policymaker, warns Chinaąs woes are set to spread
So Obama is controlling the Chinese economy?
Just as the US economy strengthens, other countries threaten
to drag it down. Employers in the US are creating jobs at the
fastest pace since the late 1990s and the economy finally looks
ready to expand at a healthy rate.
But sluggish growth in France, Italy, Russia, Brazil and China
suggests that the old truism łWhen the US sneezes, the rest of
the world catches a cold˛ may need to be flipped.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/doom-and-gloom-2
015-global-recession-warning-from-financial-seers-of-the-century-9624700.html
As well as France, Italy, and Brazil?
As for Russia.....you do remember Ukraine, don't you?
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 11:55:40 AM11/11/15
to
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:24:30 -0700, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>Starting last coupleof years of Bush---Democrats shared power almost
>equally (senate, I believe) and had to accept some bad stuff that hurt
>most americans
The Democrats took both Houses in the 2006 midterms following Bush's
>Starting last coupleof years of Bush---Democrats shared power almost
>equally (senate, I believe) and had to accept some bad stuff that hurt
>most americans
Social Security Privatization tour and the public's realization that
the whole Iraq was based on a tissue of delusions and lies.
>With Obama's election---a deliberate goal of shutting down ANYTHING
>that Obama did was well publicized and the record shows it was fact.
filibusters has dropped off tremendously.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 12:32:55 PM11/11/15
to
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:47:53 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 11/10/2015 9:21 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:25:07 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>>>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>>>>
>>>> Which is the point.
>>>>
>>>> Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
>>>> *minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
>>>> filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
>>>> filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
>>>> routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
>>>> government from governing.
>>>
>>> The minority party doesn't "bring legislation to a vote".
>>
>> I never said it did, you ignorant fool!
>
>The poster I replied to did, you ignorant fool.
No, he didn't, FOOL! Nobody in this thread has claimed the minority
>On 11/10/2015 9:21 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:25:07 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>>>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>>>>
>>>> Which is the point.
>>>>
>>>> Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
>>>> *minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
>>>> filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
>>>> filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
>>>> routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
>>>> government from governing.
>>>
>>> The minority party doesn't "bring legislation to a vote".
>>
>> I never said it did, you ignorant fool!
>
>The poster I replied to did, you ignorant fool.
party brings legislation to a vote.
>>> Reid let more bills die on his watch than were filibustered,
the deficit by cutting taxes? Budgets that would have wrecked the
economy by vastly cutting domestic spending?
It's a power game. The GOP, when in the Senate minority, took to
blocking everything they could by filibuster. Reid paid them back by
refusing to bring to a vote anything that came from the Republican
House.
This is the point of the discussion. Republicans refuse to govern
unless they're in the majority in both Houses.
PJ O'Rourke sums it up best. "Democrats are the party that says
government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed
out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government
doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."
> and he
>>> blocked many of them solely to protect fellow Democrats seeking re-election.
decade or so struggling for party control.
>> The topic was the use of filibusters. You claimed Gary was wrong.
>
>The topic was "blocks, filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to
>a vote"
>He is always wrong.
>
>> I proved him right and showed that you don't even know what you're
>> talking about.
>
>You haven't finished your homework yet. Now compare the numbers you
>cited with the number of bills in the Senate that died either on Reid's
>desk or in committee.
>Report back with your findings.
surprised. The problem with partisans is that no matter what their
party does, it's right and no matter what the opposition does, they're
wrong.
Thus we have a broken federal govt.
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 1:12:51 PM11/11/15
to
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:21:55 -0500, Vandar wrote:
>On 11/10/2015 8:47 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>On 11/10/2015 8:47 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 "Wayne" wrote:
>>>>>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>>>>>> Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>>>>> yeah, the least and greatest simultaneously.
>>>>>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>>>>>> Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>>>> That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>>> countering them.
>>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>> Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>year.
For such a bunch of anti gay marriage folks, Republicans sure are good
>>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>>> countering them.
>>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>> Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>year.
at pulling stuff out of their asses.
"Economists" (usually unnamed and uncited) have been predicting a new,
massive recession since the last one ended in June 2009.
Here are more examples of Republican predictions:
"If President Obama is re-elected you will not be able to get a job."
and "If we bail out the car companies, you can kiss the US auto
industry goodbye." - Mitt Romney
Romney also claimed in 2012 that, if elected, he could get
unemployment down to 6% in four years.
<http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/01/3607416/4-things-2015-obama-reelected/>
It's now down to 5% and still dropping.
"If you want $10 a gallon gasoline . . . Barack Obama should be your
candidate." - New Gingrich
<http://www.capoliticalreview.com/trending/gingrich-hits-obama-on-energy-policy-gas-prices-at-gop-convention/>
He also said he could get gas down to $2.50, it's currently running
between $2 and $2.25 in North Georgia.
Ron Paul has been predicting the imminent destruction of the American
economy for decades and has taken to hawking gold investments. Does
he need the endorsement fees because his own investments haven't done
well?
Rush Limbaugh predicted that “the country’s economy is going to
collapse if Obama is re-elected.” Limbaugh was confident in his
prediction: “There’s no if about this. And it’s gonna be ugly. It’s
gonna be gut wrenching, but it will happen.
Too bad for Rush, it hasn't happened.
The economic free fall would begin, according to Limbaugh, because
“California is going to declare bankruptcy” and Obama would force
states like Texas to “bail them out.” California currently has a $4
billion budget surplus. Limbaugh added, “I know mathematics, and I
know economics. I know history. I know socialism, statism, Marxism, I
know where it goes. I know what happens at the end of it.”"
Unemployment is now lower than it ever was under Reagan who presided
over the highest unemployment rate ever documented in the US.
Ya gotta say one thing about Republicans, they've got big balls, they
just aren't crystal balls.
The Republicans are making a lot of noise about "making America great
again". They seem to think America was better before Obama. So
here's a comparison of before Obama to after seven and a half years of
Obama.
When Bush left office (and it's worth noting most of these numbers got
worse before they got better) we were stuck in two expensive Asian
wars, the economy was in free fall, the banking system had to be
bailed out by the taxpayers. The American auto industry, on the verge
of collapse despite a previous attempt by Washington to save it, was
about to get a second bail out.
Unemployment was at 7.2% and rose to almost 10% before it topped out.
Now it's at 5%. Since WW II, only Ronald Reagan has presided over a
higher unemployment rate and he never got it down to 5 despite his DoL
fudging the numbers.
Health care: 15% of Americans were uninsured, now it's 9.5%.
Energy independence: We imported 11m bbls of oil, now we import 4.5m.
Gasoline was $3.24, now it's about $2.25.
Teen pregnancy in 2009 was 40.2 births per 1000, now it's 26.5.
Iran had 19,000 centrifuges, they'll be down to 6,000 over the next 18
months. When Iran, in 2004, first offered to negotiate with Bush over
their nuke program and he turned them down, they had only 900
centrifuges.
The economy was shrinking by .3% now it's growing at 3%.
The Dow was at 8,000, it's now over 16,000.
It's been over 7 years since the last recession. The last period
between recessions was ten years. Bill Clinton is the only US
President in history who never had a recession during his tenure.
"In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president’s
re-election was actually pretty simple - pretty snappy.
It went something like this: We left him a total mess.
He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough.
So fire him and put us back in." -- Bill Clinton
Three years later, Obama's govt HAS cleaned up the mess.
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 1:17:16 PM11/11/15
to
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:30:14 -0700, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>Have you forgotten what Bush/GOP caused by Fall of 2008, you mindless
>halfwit
>
>We are STILL under republican policies that grew out of failed Raygun
>crap started in the 80's
>
>That's where the filibusters, blocking, and outright nonsense of
>inaction of the GOP comes into play
If you want to know about the future, never ask a Republican.
>Have you forgotten what Bush/GOP caused by Fall of 2008, you mindless
>halfwit
>
>We are STILL under republican policies that grew out of failed Raygun
>crap started in the 80's
>
>That's where the filibusters, blocking, and outright nonsense of
>inaction of the GOP comes into play
Dick Cheney is making predictions about the Iran deal even though his
predictions about Iraq were so horrifically wrong. "There is no doubt
that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction." and "We will, in fact,
be greeted as liberators." So why would anybody believe his
predictions about Iran?
A random fortune cookie is a better prognosticator than Dick Cheney.
In fact, a magic eight ball is better at foreseeing the future than
your average Republican pol.
Over the past several years, especially since 2010, a number of
Republicans have made predictions about what America would look like
if Obama was re-elected.
"If President Obama is re-elected you will not be able to get a job."
and "If we bail out the car companies, you can kiss the US auto
industry goodbye." - Mitt Romney
Romney also claimed in 2012 that, if elected, he could get
unemployment down to 6% in four years.
<http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/01/3607416/4-things-2015-obama-reelected/>
that prediction.
"When Obamacare takes effect in 2014, it'll be a job killer." - Donald
Trump
Yet unemployment has continued to drop and the gains haven't been in
part time workers, but full time.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/07/this-is-donald-trumps-worst-prediction-ever/>
"My baby with Down's Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's
death panels." - Sarah Palin
<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/10/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-barack-obama-death-panel/>
"Obamacare will cause states to go bankrupt." - Rand Paul
<http://insider.foxnews.com/2013/07/24/rand-paul-obamacare-will-cause-states-go-bankrupt>
"[Obamacare] will ruin the best health care system in the world. It
will bankrupt our nation, and it will ruin our economy!" - John
Boehner
<http://humanevents.com/2011/01/07/boehner-obamacare-will-bankrupt-our-nation/>
Maybe we *should* elect Trump since bankruptcy is his specialty.
"The legacy for Medicare is going to be devastating." - Lindsey Graham
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/28/senators_schumer__graham_on_meet_the_press_104964.html>
"There will be no insurance industry left in three years." - Tom
Coburn
<http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/13/123951/coburn-private-insurance/>
"If you want $10 a gallon gasoline . . . Barack Obama should be your
candidate." - New Gingrich
<http://www.capoliticalreview.com/trending/gingrich-hits-obama-on-energy-policy-gas-prices-at-gop-convention/>
and excise it from the US Constitution." - Wayne LaPierre
Rick Santorum said that if gay marriage became the law of the land, ".
. . our country will fall."
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/rick-santorum-gay-marriag_n_1105063.html>
Here's a list of four dire predictions that never happened either.
<http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/01/3607416/4-things-2015-obama-reelected/>
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 1:20:59 PM11/11/15
to
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 Siri Cruz wrote:
>Vandar wrote:
started predicting an imminent recession in June 2009. Probably the
same ones telling Ron Paul to buy gold because the US economy is going
to collapse. Probably the same ones who utterly failed to predict the
2007-2009 recession/depression.
>Vandar wrote:
>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>>Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>>>Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>> year.
>
>Which economists?
The usual ones. Unnamed, uncited and probably the same ones who
>> year.
>
>Which economists?
started predicting an imminent recession in June 2009. Probably the
same ones telling Ron Paul to buy gold because the US economy is going
to collapse. Probably the same ones who utterly failed to predict the
2007-2009 recession/depression.
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 1:28:25 PM11/11/15
to
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 Vandar wrote:
>On 11/11/2015 12:06 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>On 11/11/2015 12:06 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>> Vandar wrote:
>>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>>> year.
>>
>> Which economists?
>
>Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
Did they predict the 2007-2009 recession?
>>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>>> year.
>>
>> Which economists?
>
>Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
How long have they been predicting a new one?
You do know that things happen whether predicted or not, right? That
means that if they preach doom and gloom long enough, they'll claim
they were right all along even if they have to "predict" for ten years
before they get their wish.
Stupid things politicians say, #12,574:
"Keeping interest rates artificially low hurts working people because
they can't get good savings rates." - Carly Fiorina 11/10/2015
What bullshit! It HELPS working people because it keeps the cost of
their home mortgage, car loans and other credit lines down.
You want folks to save, Carly? Then exempt savings account interest
from taxation the way it used to be. You want working folks to save,
Carly? Increase their wages.
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 1:38:49 PM11/11/15
to
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:46:55 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <n1u8k6$1qr$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>>
>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>> year.
>
>
>In article <n1use2$gen$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
>
>http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/09/global-recession-two-years-likely
>-economist-buiter
>
> Global recession in next two years is 'most likely' scenario,
> says economist.
>
> Willem Buiter, chief economist at Citi and former Bank of
> England policymaker, warns Chinaąs woes are set to spread
>
>So Obama is controlling the Chinese economy?
>
> Just as the US economy strengthens, other countries threaten
> to drag it down. Employers in the US are creating jobs at the
> fastest pace since the late 1990s and the economy finally looks
> ready to expand at a healthy rate.
>
> But sluggish growth in France, Italy, Russia, Brazil and China
> suggests that the old truism łWhen the US sneezes, the rest of
> the world catches a cold˛ may need to be flipped.
>
>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/doom-and-gloom-2
>015-global-recession-warning-from-financial-seers-of-the-century-9624700.html
>
>As well as France, Italy, and Brazil?
>
>As for Russia.....you do remember Ukraine, don't you?
ROTFL! Of course not! As for that ridiculous article, I've been
reading that same stuff and seeing it on TV political shows since
*before* the last recession ended. The news was full of dire
"predictions" from this or that economist that the BRICs economies
were unsustainable and that when they collapsed, they'd take us with
them. Who'd have thought the global recession would have STARTED in
the US and spread to THEM?
"But sluggish growth in France, Italy, Russia, Brazil and China
suggests that the old truism łWhen the US sneezes, the rest of
the world catches a cold˛ may need to be flipped."
What hogwash! They have a cold because we gave it to them. If they
give it back, it's still on us and Wall Street and is yet another
effect of lassez faire economics in the US investment sector.
Russia has a cold because oil prices collapsed following Obama's
refusal to stop or even slow the US fracking industry.
And poor, poor, China! Their growth rate is *only* 7%? And they have
too much debt? And their real estate markets are over leveraged?
Sound familiar? Pot. Kettle. Black.
wrote:
>In article <n1u8k6$1qr$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>>
>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>> year.
>
>
>In article <n1use2$gen$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
>
>http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/09/global-recession-two-years-likely
>-economist-buiter
>
> Global recession in next two years is 'most likely' scenario,
> says economist.
>
> Willem Buiter, chief economist at Citi and former Bank of
> England policymaker, warns Chinaąs woes are set to spread
>
>So Obama is controlling the Chinese economy?
>
> Just as the US economy strengthens, other countries threaten
> to drag it down. Employers in the US are creating jobs at the
> fastest pace since the late 1990s and the economy finally looks
> ready to expand at a healthy rate.
>
> But sluggish growth in France, Italy, Russia, Brazil and China
> suggests that the old truism łWhen the US sneezes, the rest of
> the world catches a cold˛ may need to be flipped.
>
>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/doom-and-gloom-2
>015-global-recession-warning-from-financial-seers-of-the-century-9624700.html
>
>As well as France, Italy, and Brazil?
>
>As for Russia.....you do remember Ukraine, don't you?
reading that same stuff and seeing it on TV political shows since
*before* the last recession ended. The news was full of dire
"predictions" from this or that economist that the BRICs economies
were unsustainable and that when they collapsed, they'd take us with
them. Who'd have thought the global recession would have STARTED in
the US and spread to THEM?
"But sluggish growth in France, Italy, Russia, Brazil and China
suggests that the old truism łWhen the US sneezes, the rest of
the world catches a cold˛ may need to be flipped."
give it back, it's still on us and Wall Street and is yet another
effect of lassez faire economics in the US investment sector.
Russia has a cold because oil prices collapsed following Obama's
refusal to stop or even slow the US fracking industry.
And poor, poor, China! Their growth rate is *only* 7%? And they have
too much debt? And their real estate markets are over leveraged?
Sound familiar? Pot. Kettle. Black.
Siri Cruz
Nov 11, 2015, 1:50:55 PM11/11/15
to
In article <so174bhjrklbekhcv...@4ax.com>,
tax?
I found it very funny that US Savings Bond interest is taxed but Treasury paper
isn't.
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You want folks to save, Carly? Then exempt savings account interest
> from taxation the way it used to be. You want working folks to save,
> Carly? Increase their wages.
How would you pay for that? Surely you wouldn't suggest increasing capital gains
> You want folks to save, Carly? Then exempt savings account interest
> from taxation the way it used to be. You want working folks to save,
> Carly? Increase their wages.
tax?
I found it very funny that US Savings Bond interest is taxed but Treasury paper
isn't.
Wayne
Nov 11, 2015, 3:08:43 PM11/11/15
to
"Governor Swill" wrote in message
news:gk754blebl44mpt3a...@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:05:01 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <n1rn7u$qs2$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>> wrote in message news:29c24bt4ic7gtsalb...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:12:50 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Bush is no
>> >
>> >>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>> >>yeah, he
>> >>least and greatest simultaneously.
>> >
>> >That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>
>> # Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>
>> In other words, you can't refute that Obama is deliberately disobeying
>> the
>> law.
>
>Actually he isn't. Unlike the Decider, he is only using those powers given
>to
>him by the Constitution, such as clemency, or ceded to the executive branch
>by
>Congress.
# Bush issued more EOs than Obama and has a higher annual rate.
>> >
>> >>Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>> >>yeah, he
>> >>least and greatest simultaneously.
>> >
>> >That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>
>> # Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>
>> In other words, you can't refute that Obama is deliberately disobeying
>> the
>> law.
>
>Actually he isn't. Unlike the Decider, he is only using those powers given
>to
>him by the Constitution, such as clemency, or ceded to the executive branch
>by
>Congress.
# http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
# More to the point, Bush's signing statement rate is vastly higher.
# http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php
Lefties just love fucking with irrelevant stats.
The number of EOs is of no consequence. The issue is what the EO does and
whether it should even be legal.
The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
Obama's attitude: pass a law I don't like and I'll simply invalidate it.
Siri Cruz
Nov 11, 2015, 4:21:41 PM11/11/15
to
In article <n2073v$mbd$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the
United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
And, yes, you're still an idiot.
wrote:
> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
And, yes, you're still an idiot.
Wayne
Nov 11, 2015, 5:38:45 PM11/11/15
to
"Siri Cruz" wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-2C6C3...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
In article <n2073v$mbd$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
against the
# United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
So you are in favor of dictatorships. That figures.
Siri Cruz
Nov 11, 2015, 5:52:31 PM11/11/15
to
In article <n20fta$ric$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
The Constitution defines a dictator? Presidents have always had power to pardon
offences to federal law, thus not to enforce that aspect of law. How does that
make them dictators? What presidents cannot do is punish people without trial or
beyond that allowed by the law: they are not allowed to be Deciders and imprison
people without trial or suspension of habeas corpus by the Congress.
wrote:
offences to federal law, thus not to enforce that aspect of law. How does that
make them dictators? What presidents cannot do is punish people without trial or
beyond that allowed by the law: they are not allowed to be Deciders and imprison
people without trial or suspension of habeas corpus by the Congress.
Rüdy Canôza
Nov 11, 2015, 5:54:15 PM11/11/15
to
On 11/11/2015 1:21 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <n2073v$mbd$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
>> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
>
> and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the
> United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Neither of those is nullifying the law. You don't know what they mean.
> In article <n2073v$mbd$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
>> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
>
> and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the
> United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Rüdy Canôza
Nov 11, 2015, 5:54:52 PM11/11/15
to
On 11/11/2015 2:52 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <n20fta$ric$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Siri Cruz" wrote in message
>> news:chine.bleu-2C6C3...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
>>
>> In article <n2073v$mbd$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
>>> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
>>
>> # and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences
>> against the
>> # United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
>>
>> So you are in favor of dictatorships. That figures.
>
> The Constitution defines a dictator?
You are trying to defend the president's use of extra-constitutional
> In article <n20fta$ric$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Siri Cruz" wrote in message
>> news:chine.bleu-2C6C3...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
>>
>> In article <n2073v$mbd$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
>>> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
>>
>> # and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences
>> against the
>> # United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
>>
>> So you are in favor of dictatorships. That figures.
>
> The Constitution defines a dictator?
powers. You're defending dictatorship.
Vandar
Nov 11, 2015, 7:25:11 PM11/11/15
to
On 11/11/2015 1:28 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 Vandar wrote:
>> On 11/11/2015 12:06 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> Vandar wrote:
>>>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>>>> year.
>>>
>>> Which economists?
>>
>> Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
>
> Did they predict the 2007-2009 recession?
I don't know about Buiter, but Levy nailed it in 2005. He said the
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 Vandar wrote:
>> On 11/11/2015 12:06 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> Vandar wrote:
>>>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>>>> year.
>>>
>>> Which economists?
>>
>> Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
>
> Did they predict the 2007-2009 recession?
housing bubble would collapse and put the financial sector at risk of
also collapsing. He also predicted the Fed response and the drawn out,
slow recovery.
> How long have they been predicting a new one?
> You do know that things happen whether predicted or not, right? That
> means that if they preach doom and gloom long enough, they'll claim
> they were right all along even if they have to "predict" for ten years
> before they get their wish.
predict doom and gloom.
Vandar
Nov 11, 2015, 7:27:13 PM11/11/15
to
On 11/11/2015 3:46 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <n1u8k6$1qr$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>>
>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>> year.
>
>
> In article <n1use2$gen$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/09/global-recession-two-years-likely
> -economist-buiter
>
> Global recession in next two years is 'most likely' scenario,
> says economist.
>
> Willem Buiter, chief economist at Citi and former Bank of
> England policymaker, warns China¹s woes are set to spread
> In article <n1u8k6$1qr$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>>
>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>> year.
>
>
> In article <n1use2$gen$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/09/global-recession-two-years-likely
> -economist-buiter
>
> Global recession in next two years is 'most likely' scenario,
> says economist.
>
> Willem Buiter, chief economist at Citi and former Bank of
>
> So Obama is controlling the Chinese economy?
>
> Just as the US economy strengthens, other countries threaten
> to drag it down. Employers in the US are creating jobs at the
> fastest pace since the late 1990s and the economy finally looks
> ready to expand at a healthy rate.
>
> But sluggish growth in France, Italy, Russia, Brazil and China
> suggests that the old truism ³When the US sneezes, the rest of
> So Obama is controlling the Chinese economy?
>
> Just as the US economy strengthens, other countries threaten
> to drag it down. Employers in the US are creating jobs at the
> fastest pace since the late 1990s and the economy finally looks
> ready to expand at a healthy rate.
>
> But sluggish growth in France, Italy, Russia, Brazil and China
> the world catches a cold² may need to be flipped.
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/doom-and-gloom-2
> 015-global-recession-warning-from-financial-seers-of-the-century-9624700.html
>
> As well as France, Italy, and Brazil?
>
> As for Russia.....you do remember Ukraine, don't you?
That's what you got out of that, that I'm saying Obama controls China's
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/doom-and-gloom-2
> 015-global-recession-warning-from-financial-seers-of-the-century-9624700.html
>
> As well as France, Italy, and Brazil?
>
> As for Russia.....you do remember Ukraine, don't you?
economy?
Vandar
Nov 11, 2015, 7:27:55 PM11/11/15
to
On 11/11/2015 1:12 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:21:55 -0500, Vandar wrote:
>> On 11/10/2015 8:47 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 Vandar wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/2015 6:52 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 "Wayne" wrote:
>>>>>>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>>>>>>> Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>>>>>> yeah, the least and greatest simultaneously.
>>>>>> That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>>>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>>>> countering them.
>>>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>
>>> Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>
>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>> year.
>
> For such a bunch of anti gay marriage folks, Republicans sure are good
> at pulling stuff out of their asses.
I am neither a Republican nor anti-gay marriage.
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:21:55 -0500, Vandar wrote:
>> On 11/10/2015 8:47 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 Vandar wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/2015 6:52 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 "Wayne" wrote:
>>>>>>>> “Bush abused executive privilege too!” someone might protest. Bush is no
>>>>>>> Since you are comparing Obama only to Obama for who is the worst, then
>>>>>>> yeah, the least and greatest simultaneously.
>>>>>> That's because Obama is in a league of his own.
>>>>> Yep---effectively COUNTERING the idiocy of wingers----Masterful ! !
>>>> You've been saying for years that Obama hasn't been able to implement
>>>> any policy because of Republicans, now you say he's effectively
>>>> countering them.
>>>> Which is it, whackadoodle?
>
>>> Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
>
>> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
>> year.
>
> For such a bunch of anti gay marriage folks, Republicans sure are good
> at pulling stuff out of their asses.
Act like an adult and perhaps I'll continue.
Vandar
Nov 11, 2015, 7:32:54 PM11/11/15
to
On 11/11/2015 12:32 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:47:53 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2015 9:21 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:25:07 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>>>>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
>>>>> *minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
>>>>> filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
>>>>> filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
>>>>> routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
>>>>> government from governing.
>>>>
>>>> The minority party doesn't "bring legislation to a vote".
>>>
>>> I never said it did, you ignorant fool!
>>
>> The poster I replied to did, you ignorant fool.
>
> No, he didn't, FOOL! Nobody in this thread has claimed the minority
> party brings legislation to a vote.
Yogurt has been claiming *for years* that Republicans have controlled
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:47:53 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2015 9:21 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:25:07 -0500, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> If we time-traveled just to 8 years ago---the number of "blocks",
>>>>>>> Filibusters, and refusal to bring legislation to a vote is historic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eight years ago, Bush was POTUS and Democrats controlled Congress.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Filibusters and other blocking tactics are used in the Senate by the
>>>>> *minority* party. That is, when the Dems control Congress, Reps file
>>>>> filibusters. When the Reps are in control of the Senate, they're
>>>>> filed by Dems. His claim, which is correct, btw, is that Reps
>>>>> routinely use filibusters and other blocking tactics to prevent the
>>>>> government from governing.
>>>>
>>>> The minority party doesn't "bring legislation to a vote".
>>>
>>> I never said it did, you ignorant fool!
>>
>> The poster I replied to did, you ignorant fool.
>
> No, he didn't, FOOL! Nobody in this thread has claimed the minority
> party brings legislation to a vote.
all legislation and policy since Reagan.
He's being hoisted with his own petard.
tl;dr
Siri Cruz
Nov 11, 2015, 7:45:34 PM11/11/15
to
In article <n20m8m$kh7$2...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 3:46 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> > In article <n1u8k6$1qr$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
> >>
> >> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
> >> year.
> >
> >
> > In article <n1use2$gen$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
> >
> > http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/09/global-recession-two-years-l
> > ikely
> > -economist-buiter
> >
> > Global recession in next two years is 'most likely' scenario,
> > says economist.
> >
> > Willem Buiter, chief economist at Citi and former Bank of
> > England policymaker, warns China1s woes are set to spread
> On 11/11/2015 3:46 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> > In article <n1u8k6$1qr$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.
> >>
> >> What fruit? Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next
> >> year.
> >
> >
> > In article <n1use2$gen$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Willem Buiter and David Levy, to name two.
> >
> > http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/09/global-recession-two-years-l
> > ikely
> > -economist-buiter
> >
> > Global recession in next two years is 'most likely' scenario,
> > says economist.
> >
> > Willem Buiter, chief economist at Citi and former Bank of
> >
> > So Obama is controlling the Chinese economy?
> >
> > Just as the US economy strengthens, other countries threaten
> > to drag it down. Employers in the US are creating jobs at the
> > fastest pace since the late 1990s and the economy finally looks
> > ready to expand at a healthy rate.
> >
> > But sluggish growth in France, Italy, Russia, Brazil and China
> > suggests that the old truism 3When the US sneezes, the rest of
> > So Obama is controlling the Chinese economy?
> >
> > Just as the US economy strengthens, other countries threaten
> > to drag it down. Employers in the US are creating jobs at the
> > fastest pace since the late 1990s and the economy finally looks
> > ready to expand at a healthy rate.
> >
> > But sluggish growth in France, Italy, Russia, Brazil and China
> > the world catches a cold2 may need to be flipped.
> >
> > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/doom-and-gl
> > oom-2
> > 015-global-recession-warning-from-financial-seers-of-the-century-9624700.htm
> > l
> >
> > As well as France, Italy, and Brazil?
> >
> > As for Russia.....you do remember Ukraine, don't you?
>
> That's what you got out of that, that I'm saying Obama controls China's
> economy?
To blame Obama ('Obama's long game is finally bearing fruit.' 'What fruit?
> > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/doom-and-gl
> > oom-2
> > 015-global-recession-warning-from-financial-seers-of-the-century-9624700.htm
> > l
> >
> > As well as France, Italy, and Brazil?
> >
> > As for Russia.....you do remember Ukraine, don't you?
>
> That's what you got out of that, that I'm saying Obama controls China's
> economy?
Economists are starting to buzz about another recession next year.') cite
economists that blame Obama instead two who talk about everyone but Obama.
The only one Obama has any responsibility for is Russia. Do you want the US to
do nothing about Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
Wayne
Nov 11, 2015, 7:48:23 PM11/11/15
to
"Siri Cruz" wrote in message
In article <n20fta$ric$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> "Siri Cruz" wrote in message
> news:chine.bleu-2C6C3...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
>
> In article <n2073v$mbd$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne"
> <mygarb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued
> > EOs
> > that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
>
> # and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences
> against the
> # United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
>
> So you are in favor of dictatorships. That figures.
pardon
# offences to federal law, thus not to enforce that aspect of law. How does
that
# make them dictators? What presidents cannot do is punish people without
trial or
# beyond that allowed by the law: they are not allowed to be Deciders and
imprison
# people without trial or suspension of habeas corpus by the Congress.
Changing the goalposts a bit, huh? Power to pardon is written into law.
Obama selectively enforces laws and ignores laws he doesn't like.
That takes on aspects of being a dictatorship.
Siri Cruz
Nov 11, 2015, 8:25:27 PM11/11/15
to
In article <n20ngd$oj4$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
A pardon is a selective enforcement of laws and ignores laws the president
doesn't want to enforce in those cases. I don't see how refusing to use the
power of the government is being a dictator. On the other hand declaring oneself
to be the Decider and imprisonning people without trial does sound a wee bit
dictatorish to me.
To summarise, in Wayne's world:
refusing to use government power to arrest people = dictator
usurping courts and congress to imprison people = not a dictator
What else? Is black the presence of all wavelengths of light while white is
their absence?
doesn't want to enforce in those cases. I don't see how refusing to use the
power of the government is being a dictator. On the other hand declaring oneself
to be the Decider and imprisonning people without trial does sound a wee bit
dictatorish to me.
To summarise, in Wayne's world:
refusing to use government power to arrest people = dictator
usurping courts and congress to imprison people = not a dictator
What else? Is black the presence of all wavelengths of light while white is
their absence?
Beam Me Up Scotty
Nov 11, 2015, 9:19:02 PM11/11/15
to
Chavez's book on Buying power by showering your friends with gifts while
he mercilessly back stabs his enemies....
What was it MLK said about judging a man by the content of his character?
--
That's Karma
Rüdy Canôza
Nov 11, 2015, 9:53:58 PM11/11/15
to
convicts have served their prison sentences.
Stop lying, shitbag.
Rüdy Canôza
Nov 11, 2015, 9:55:43 PM11/11/15
to
to throw you a bone here. Fight this stupid cocksucker on the fact that
the presidential pardon power is a *prescribed* power, and in no way
represents "dictatorship."
You probably won't. That's because you're stupid, in addition to being
your own kind of asshole.
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 10:30:47 PM11/11/15
to
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:50:52 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <so174bhjrklbekhcv...@4ax.com>,
> Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You want folks to save, Carly? Then exempt savings account interest
>> from taxation the way it used to be. You want working folks to save,
>> Carly? Increase their wages.
>
>How would you pay for that? Surely you wouldn't suggest increasing capital gains
>tax?
>
>I found it very funny that US Savings Bond interest is taxed but Treasury paper
>isn't.
Simple savings accounts used to be untaxed but that went away in the
eighties when Reagan raised tax^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H implemented
"revenue enhancement".
Huckabee wants to eliminate income tax on both labor and investment
income sources and replace it with "consumption" taxes, i.e., VAT and
sales taxes.
That means working people could pay up to 25% plus current sales takes
on 70 to 90% of their incomes while the affluent and wealthy will pay
the same rate on less than 30% of theirs.
wrote:
>In article <so174bhjrklbekhcv...@4ax.com>,
> Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You want folks to save, Carly? Then exempt savings account interest
>> from taxation the way it used to be. You want working folks to save,
>> Carly? Increase their wages.
>
>How would you pay for that? Surely you wouldn't suggest increasing capital gains
>tax?
>
>I found it very funny that US Savings Bond interest is taxed but Treasury paper
>isn't.
eighties when Reagan raised tax^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H implemented
"revenue enhancement".
Huckabee wants to eliminate income tax on both labor and investment
income sources and replace it with "consumption" taxes, i.e., VAT and
sales taxes.
That means working people could pay up to 25% plus current sales takes
on 70 to 90% of their incomes while the affluent and wealthy will pay
the same rate on less than 30% of theirs.
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 10:35:27 PM11/11/15
to
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:06:02 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
>that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
Which Bush also did. He became notorious for attaching signing
>The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
>that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
statements that effectively modified the bills Congress put on his
desk.
Why is it Republicans raised hell at Obama insisting he sign or veto,
but not sign then issue a signing statement, but were utterly silent
when a Republican President did the same thing?
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 10:38:39 PM11/11/15
to
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:36:12 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>"Siri Cruz" wrote
Um, that's not the same as changing a law passed by Congress. The
line item veto has already been overruled by the SCOTUS. We need a
suit brought against the signing statement principle.
>So you are in favor of dictatorships. That figures.
BZZZZT! Nope. She wasn't a Bush supporter at all.
>"Siri Cruz" wrote
>>"Wayne" wrote:
>>> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
>>> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
>
>>> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
>>> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
>
>>and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences
>>against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Um, that's not the same as changing a law passed by Congress. The
line item veto has already been overruled by the SCOTUS. We need a
suit brought against the signing statement principle.
>So you are in favor of dictatorships. That figures.
Rüdy Canôza
Nov 11, 2015, 11:26:39 PM11/11/15
to
On 11/11/2015 7:35 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:06:02 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>
>> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
>> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
>
> Which Bush also did. He became notorious for attaching signing
> statements that effectively modified the bills Congress
Signing statements, while problematic, are not executive orders. Try to
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:06:02 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>
>> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
>> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
>
> Which Bush also did. He became notorious for attaching signing
> statements that effectively modified the bills Congress
stay on topic, cocksucker.
Rüdy Canôza
Nov 11, 2015, 11:28:14 PM11/11/15
to
On 11/11/2015 7:38 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:36:12 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>
>> "Siri Cruz" wrote
>>> "Wayne" wrote:
>>>> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
>>>> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
>>
>>> and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences
>>> against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
>
> Um, that's not the same as changing a law passed by Congress. The
> line item veto has already been overruled by the SCOTUS. We need a
> suit brought against the signing statement principle.
Signing statements to indicate what the president takes the law to mean
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:36:12 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>
>> "Siri Cruz" wrote
>>> "Wayne" wrote:
>>>> The EO is supposed to provide a path to implement a law. Obama issued EOs
>>>> that nullifies existing law, just because he doesn't like the law.
>>
>>> and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences
>>> against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
>
> Um, that's not the same as changing a law passed by Congress. The
> line item veto has already been overruled by the SCOTUS. We need a
> suit brought against the signing statement principle.
have been used for over 200 years.
Governor Swill
Nov 12, 2015, 1:19:22 PM11/12/15
to
legislation and I certainly never said it.
Governor Swill
Nov 12, 2015, 1:22:00 PM11/12/15
to
Republicans. Strange bedfellows?
Governor Swill
Nov 12, 2015, 1:23:21 PM11/12/15
to
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:48:15 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
Moving the goalposts a bit, huh? So tell me what Obama has done that
other Presidents have not also done.
other Presidents have not also done.
Vandar
Nov 12, 2015, 1:30:26 PM11/12/15
to
much more likely that it's only Democrats who praise him. Even then it's
only some, not all.
Vandar
Nov 12, 2015, 1:32:26 PM11/12/15
to
said "the number of "blocks", Filibusters, and refusal to bring
legislation to a vote is historic."?
He's wrong about everything he discusses.
Siri Cruz
Nov 12, 2015, 1:40:35 PM11/12/15
to
Joe Cooper
Nov 12, 2015, 2:23:00 PM11/12/15
to
Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:n22lrf$5rj$2...@dont-email.me:
> Do you think Yogurt was referring to Congressional Democrats when he
> said "the number of "blocks", Filibusters, and refusal to bring
> legislation to a vote is historic."?
> He's wrong about everything he discusses.
We must make allowances for poor, stupid Gary.It's not his fault he's
stupid, he was born that way.
--
The Leading Cause of Poverty Are Progressives - Help Raise the Poor:
Promote Capitalism
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who didn’t
ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really believe."
(Ann Coulter)
> Do you think Yogurt was referring to Congressional Democrats when he
> said "the number of "blocks", Filibusters, and refusal to bring
> legislation to a vote is historic."?
> He's wrong about everything he discusses.
stupid, he was born that way.
--
The Leading Cause of Poverty Are Progressives - Help Raise the Poor:
Promote Capitalism
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who didn’t
ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really believe."
(Ann Coulter)
Wayne
Nov 12, 2015, 5:14:36 PM11/12/15
to
"Governor Swill" wrote in message
news:l7m94blljoj11nf8s...@4ax.com...
# other Presidents have not also done.
Other president have done various things, but they are not in office.
A specific, and there are many more examples, Obama decided that he didn't
like DOMA and instructed the DOJ and military to ignore the law.
I don't recall another president doing that.
Governor Swill
Nov 12, 2015, 7:32:06 PM11/12/15
to
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:32:09 -0500, Vandar wrote:
>> Which changes nothing. Nobody claimed the minority can bring
>> legislation and I certainly never said it.
>
>Do you think Yogurt was referring to Congressional Democrats when he
>said "the number of "blocks", Filibusters, and refusal to bring
>legislation to a vote is historic."?
>
>He's wrong about everything he discusses.
He's rarely correct and tends to conflate things. He still believes,
>> Which changes nothing. Nobody claimed the minority can bring
>> legislation and I certainly never said it.
>
>Do you think Yogurt was referring to Congressional Democrats when he
>said "the number of "blocks", Filibusters, and refusal to bring
>legislation to a vote is historic."?
>
>He's wrong about everything he discusses.
whether he admits it or not, that it was Reagan's GOP that kicked off
deregulation of banking and industry and that they did it over the
objections of the Democratic party.
Governor Swill
Nov 12, 2015, 7:38:58 PM11/12/15
to
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:30:09 -0500, Vandar wrote:
>>> I am neither a Republican nor anti-gay marriage.
>>>
>>> Act like an adult and perhaps I'll continue.
>>
>> I didn't say you were, but you are an Obama critic and so are
>> Republicans. Strange bedfellows?
>
>It's a lot more than just Republicans who criticize Obama. In fact, it's
>much more likely that it's only Democrats who praise him. Even then it's
>only some, not all.
You would be wrong. I'm neither Democrat or Republican. Not
>>> I am neither a Republican nor anti-gay marriage.
>>>
>>> Act like an adult and perhaps I'll continue.
>>
>> I didn't say you were, but you are an Obama critic and so are
>> Republicans. Strange bedfellows?
>
>It's a lot more than just Republicans who criticize Obama. In fact, it's
>much more likely that it's only Democrats who praise him. Even then it's
>only some, not all.
conservative or liberal. The fact of national elections is that it's
usually the middle that does the electing. The bases vote for their
guy and the middle decides which side is going to win.
Governor Swill
Nov 12, 2015, 7:41:32 PM11/12/15
to
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:14:27 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>Other president have done various things, but they are not in office.
I see you trying to dodge, but we're discussing what Presidents do IN
>Other president have done various things, but they are not in office.
office.
>A specific, and there are many more examples, Obama decided that he didn't
>like DOMA and instructed the DOJ and military to ignore the law.
>I don't recall another president doing that.
And guess what? He was right. The SCOTUS has since struck it down as
>A specific, and there are many more examples, Obama decided that he didn't
>like DOMA and instructed the DOJ and military to ignore the law.
>I don't recall another president doing that.
unconstitutional.
Siri Cruz
Nov 12, 2015, 9:54:13 PM11/12/15
to
In article <n232s1$uev$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
No, he didn't. He enforced DOMA until part of it was struck down. What he did do
was not appeal it when the decision came. He did defend it in trial court, just
not appeal when he lost there. The losing party is never required to appeal a
decision.
wrote:
was not appeal it when the decision came. He did defend it in trial court, just
not appeal when he lost there. The losing party is never required to appeal a
decision.
Siri Cruz
Nov 12, 2015, 10:07:14 PM11/12/15
to
In article <v6ca4btm61lbprh6s...@4ax.com>,
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:30:09 -0500, Vandar wrote:
> >>> I am neither a Republican nor anti-gay marriage.
> >>>
> >>> Act like an adult and perhaps I'll continue.
> >>
> >> I didn't say you were, but you are an Obama critic and so are
> >> Republicans. Strange bedfellows?
> >
> >It's a lot more than just Republicans who criticize Obama. In fact, it's
> >much more likely that it's only Democrats who praise him. Even then it's
> >only some, not all.
>
> You would be wrong. I'm neither Democrat or Republican. Not
> conservative or liberal. The fact of national elections is that it's
> usually the middle that does the electing. The bases vote for their
> guy and the middle decides which side is going to win.
Vote Green!
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:30:09 -0500, Vandar wrote:
> >>> I am neither a Republican nor anti-gay marriage.
> >>>
> >>> Act like an adult and perhaps I'll continue.
> >>
> >> I didn't say you were, but you are an Obama critic and so are
> >> Republicans. Strange bedfellows?
> >
> >It's a lot more than just Republicans who criticize Obama. In fact, it's
> >much more likely that it's only Democrats who praise him. Even then it's
> >only some, not all.
>
> You would be wrong. I'm neither Democrat or Republican. Not
> conservative or liberal. The fact of national elections is that it's
> usually the middle that does the electing. The bases vote for their
> guy and the middle decides which side is going to win.
Wayne
Nov 13, 2015, 1:15:30 PM11/13/15
to
"Governor Swill" wrote in message
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:14:27 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>Other president have done various things, but they are not in office.
I see you trying to dodge, but we're discussing what Presidents do IN
office.
>A specific, and there are many more examples, Obama decided that he didn't
>like DOMA and instructed the DOJ and military to ignore the law.
>I don't recall another president doing that.
# unconstitutional.
Without debating right/wrong of DOMA, it is definitely wrong to do it the
Obama way.
The net result is a law on the books not enforced. Why not just get the law
taken to court or modified/repealed by natural legislative processes?
Look at the mess going on with CO vs federal drug laws.
Governor Swill
Nov 13, 2015, 2:06:45 PM11/13/15
to
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:15:20 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Actually, the net result is zero. He directed the law was to be
ignored and it was later nullified by the SCOTUS.
As for the drug reference, Obama is acting in accordance with States'
Rights imperatives by allowing states to directly contravene federal
law.
So, why does he get no credit from conservatives for following this
archconservative principle?
wrote:
ignored and it was later nullified by the SCOTUS.
As for the drug reference, Obama is acting in accordance with States'
Rights imperatives by allowing states to directly contravene federal
law.
So, why does he get no credit from conservatives for following this
archconservative principle?
Siri Cruz
Nov 13, 2015, 2:25:16 PM11/13/15
to
In article <n2597m$b20$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> Without debating right/wrong of DOMA, it is definitely wrong to do it the
> Obama way.
The Obama way was to defend it at trial court the way he was supposed to. He
didn't pursue an appeal which is within the perogative of a defendant, not to
waste time and money on an appeal the defendant thinks they will still lose.
Congress handled the appeal and lost, wasting their time and money as Obama
foresaw.
> The net result is a law on the books not enforced. Why not just get the law
> taken to court or modified/repealed by natural legislative processes?
The law was taken court and the third clause struck. Congress appealed and lost
on appeal.
wrote:
> Without debating right/wrong of DOMA, it is definitely wrong to do it the
> Obama way.
didn't pursue an appeal which is within the perogative of a defendant, not to
waste time and money on an appeal the defendant thinks they will still lose.
Congress handled the appeal and lost, wasting their time and money as Obama
foresaw.
> The net result is a law on the books not enforced. Why not just get the law
> taken to court or modified/repealed by natural legislative processes?
on appeal.
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 13, 2015, 2:46:10 PM11/13/15
to
>The net result is a law on the books not enforced. Why not just get the law
>taken to court or modified/repealed by natural legislative processes?
IOW---take it before known idiots like Scalia and his personal servant
>taken to court or modified/repealed by natural legislative processes?
Thomas?
>==========================================================
"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s
founding fathers.
Ronald Regan introducing the Mujahideen leaders, 1985).
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 13, 2015, 2:47:44 PM11/13/15
to
the first inaugaration---when they declared they were never going to
give him any assistance, any cooperation, and would do everything in
their power to destroy him?
Governor Swill
Nov 13, 2015, 5:16:53 PM11/13/15
to
Governor Swill
Nov 13, 2015, 5:18:07 PM11/13/15
to
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:46:10 -0700, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:15:20 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>
>>The net result is a law on the books not enforced. Why not just get the law
>>taken to court or modified/repealed by natural legislative processes?
>
>IOW---take it before known idiots like Scalia and his personal servant
>Thomas?
Don't you have that backwards?
>
>>The net result is a law on the books not enforced. Why not just get the law
>>taken to court or modified/repealed by natural legislative processes?
>
>IOW---take it before known idiots like Scalia and his personal servant
>Thomas?
Wayne
Nov 14, 2015, 2:14:35 PM11/14/15
to
"Governor Swill" wrote in message
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:15:20 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
>
>"Governor Swill" wrote in message
>news:5aca4b9ocujcf3sfo...@4ax.com...
>
>On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:14:27 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>>Other president have done various things, but they are not in office.
>
>I see you trying to dodge, but we're discussing what Presidents do IN
>office.
>
>>A specific, and there are many more examples, Obama decided that he didn't
>>like DOMA and instructed the DOJ and military to ignore the law.
>>I don't recall another president doing that.
>
># And guess what? He was right. The SCOTUS has since struck it down as
># unconstitutional.
>
>Without debating right/wrong of DOMA, it is definitely wrong to do it the
>Obama way.
>The net result is a law on the books not enforced. Why not just get the
>law
>taken to court or modified/repealed by natural legislative processes?
>
>Look at the mess going on with CO vs federal drug laws.
# ignored and it was later nullified by the SCOTUS.
The problem is "he directed the law was to be ignored". That's a BIG
problem, and SCOTUS has nothing to do with that.
# As for the drug reference, Obama is acting in accordance with States'
# Rights imperatives by allowing states to directly contravene federal
# law.
Ahhhh....
so you have not problem with CO striking out on its own in defiance of
federal law.
That's good. For consistency, you have no problem with AZ and CA having
their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
definition of marriage?
Governor Swill
Nov 14, 2015, 8:34:37 PM11/14/15
to
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:13:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
># As for the drug reference, Obama is acting in accordance with States'
># Rights imperatives by allowing states to directly contravene federal
># law.
>
>Ahhhh....
>so you have not problem with CO striking out on its own in defiance of
>federal law.
>
>That's good. For consistency, you have no problem with AZ and CA having
>their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
>definition of marriage?
As Clinton did with welfare reform, letting the states experiment to
># As for the drug reference, Obama is acting in accordance with States'
># Rights imperatives by allowing states to directly contravene federal
># law.
>
>Ahhhh....
>so you have not problem with CO striking out on its own in defiance of
>federal law.
>
>That's good. For consistency, you have no problem with AZ and CA having
>their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
>definition of marriage?
see what works, so we now allow states to experiment with recreational
pot to see what works.
Governor Swill
Nov 15, 2015, 12:17:18 AM11/15/15
to
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:13:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>That's good. For consistency, you have no problem with AZ and CA having
>their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
>definition of marriage?
In fairness, I should answer your question directly.
>their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
>definition of marriage?
Pot legality is not a Constitutional issue.
Wayne
Nov 15, 2015, 12:13:21 PM11/15/15
to
"Governor Swill" wrote in message
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:13:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>That's good. For consistency, you have no problem with AZ and CA having
>their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
>definition of marriage?
# Pot legality is not a Constitutional issue.
Nor is the definition of marriage.
Wayne
Nov 15, 2015, 12:15:35 PM11/15/15
to
"Governor Swill" wrote in message
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:13:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>That's good. For consistency, you have no problem with AZ and CA having
>their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
>definition of marriage?
Governor Swill
Nov 15, 2015, 2:00:39 PM11/15/15
to
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 09:10:47 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Yeah, actually, it is. Under equal protection.
In pot allowing states, no class of citizen is denied access to pot
except minors. This means those states are providing equal treatment
under the law for pot use. Marriage was being regulated in an unequal
fashion with regard to legal access to it by the citizens.
wrote:
In pot allowing states, no class of citizen is denied access to pot
except minors. This means those states are providing equal treatment
under the law for pot use. Marriage was being regulated in an unequal
fashion with regard to legal access to it by the citizens.
Governor Swill
Nov 15, 2015, 2:01:13 PM11/15/15
to
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 09:10:47 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>"Governor Swill" wrote
>"Governor Swill" wrote
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:13:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>
>>That's good. For consistency, you have no problem with AZ and CA having
>>their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
>>definition of marriage?
>
># In fairness, I should answer your question directly.
>
># Pot legality is not a Constitutional issue.
>
>Nor is the definition of marriage.
Saying it twice doesn't make it true.
>
>>That's good. For consistency, you have no problem with AZ and CA having
>>their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
>>definition of marriage?
>
># In fairness, I should answer your question directly.
>
># Pot legality is not a Constitutional issue.
>
>Nor is the definition of marriage.
Wayne
Nov 15, 2015, 3:15:39 PM11/15/15
to
"Governor Swill" wrote in message
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 09:10:47 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
>
>"Governor Swill" wrote in message
>news:0a5g4b1g4u8gc106a...@4ax.com...
>
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:13:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>
>>That's good. For consistency, you have no problem with AZ and CA having
>>their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
>>definition of marriage?
>
># In fairness, I should answer your question directly.
>
># Pot legality is not a Constitutional issue.
>
>Nor is the definition of marriage.
Nope. That's a stretch. Equal protection is equal rights, not equal
definitions.
The FFs didn't address the definition of marriage because in the 1770s as
well as today, everybody knows what the real definition is.
Siri Cruz
Nov 15, 2015, 9:56:34 PM11/15/15
to
In article <n2aefb$k7m$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Citizenship and immigration are constitutional issues in article one designated
to Congress not the states. This has never been a state's rights issue.
Marijuana is based on an interpretation of the Congress's power to regulate
interstate commerce. Defendants have a right to be tried near the crime so that
the jury representing the community can nullify laws their community does not
want.
Marriage is not based on any power of Congress but a generalisation of the 14th
that governments cannot discriminate against a class of people without
demonstrating an overriding need to discriminate.
wrote:
to Congress not the states. This has never been a state's rights issue.
Marijuana is based on an interpretation of the Congress's power to regulate
interstate commerce. Defendants have a right to be tried near the crime so that
the jury representing the community can nullify laws their community does not
want.
Marriage is not based on any power of Congress but a generalisation of the 14th
that governments cannot discriminate against a class of people without
demonstrating an overriding need to discriminate.
Siri Cruz
Nov 15, 2015, 10:03:22 PM11/15/15
to
In article <n2ap0u$1af$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> The FFs didn't address the definition of marriage because in the 1770s as
> well as today, everybody knows what the real definition is.
With DOMA the Supremes had already decided the federal government doesn't define
marriage when it struck the third clause of DOMA.
1: Name of the act.
2: States don't have to recognise other states's marriages. This is a power of
Congress to control how states have to interpret legal proceedings of other
states. Since all states now have to allow same sex marriage, this clause has no
purpose.
3: Federal definition of marriage. Struck. Between this and nationwide same sex
marriage, the federal government had to apply state definitions to federal
references.
wrote:
> The FFs didn't address the definition of marriage because in the 1770s as
> well as today, everybody knows what the real definition is.
marriage when it struck the third clause of DOMA.
1: Name of the act.
2: States don't have to recognise other states's marriages. This is a power of
Congress to control how states have to interpret legal proceedings of other
states. Since all states now have to allow same sex marriage, this clause has no
purpose.
3: Federal definition of marriage. Struck. Between this and nationwide same sex
marriage, the federal government had to apply state definitions to federal
references.
Wayne
Nov 15, 2015, 10:06:06 PM11/15/15
to
"Siri Cruz" wrote in message
In article <n2aefb$k7m$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> "Governor Swill" wrote in message
> news:0a5g4b1g4u8gc106a...@4ax.com...
>
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:13:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>
> >That's good. For consistency, you have no problem with AZ and CA having
> >their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
> >definition of marriage?
>
> # In fairness, I should answer your question directly.
>
> # Pot legality is not a Constitutional issue.
>
> Nor is the definition of marriage.
designated
# to Congress not the states. This has never been a state's rights issue.
Yet the feds selectively let states do their own thing.
# Marijuana is based on an interpretation of the Congress's power to
regulate
# interstate commerce. Defendants have a right to be tried near the crime so
that
# the jury representing the community can nullify laws their community does
not
# want.
Ahhhh...there we go...juries nullifying laws. It's just as easy to get the
dirty end of that stick as getting the clean end.
# Marriage is not based on any power of Congress but a generalisation of the
14th
# that governments cannot discriminate against a class of people without
# demonstrating an overriding need to discriminate.
An extreme generalization that is based on emotion and political leaning
rather than logic.
There is no reason that the "rights" have to be tied to the definition of
marriage. In fact, the correct reasoning is that the government should do
civil contracts for all and marriages for nobody.
Governor Swill
Nov 16, 2015, 10:43:35 PM11/16/15
to
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 19:05:48 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
>
>"Siri Cruz" wrote in message
>news:chine.bleu-648C3...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
>
>In article <n2aefb$k7m$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>> "Governor Swill" wrote in message
>> news:0a5g4b1g4u8gc106a...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:13:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>>
>> >That's good. For consistency, you have no problem with AZ and CA having
>> >their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
>> >definition of marriage?
>>
>> # In fairness, I should answer your question directly.
>>
>> # Pot legality is not a Constitutional issue.
>>
>> Nor is the definition of marriage.
>
># Citizenship and immigration are constitutional issues in article one
>designated
># to Congress not the states. This has never been a state's rights issue.
>
>Yet the feds selectively let states do their own thing.
That's how it went down with welfare reform too. Thing is, the feds
would have a hard time convincing the SCOTUS to let them enforce a law
that had no interstate component. That is, the supply chain from
producer to end user is entirely within the state so doesn't come
under interstate commerce.
The ironic thing is the number of conservatives who would criticize
Obama for NOT enforcing federal drug law in the pot legal states,
would turn on him in a heartbeat and complain on states' rights
grounds if he DID.
Iow, some people are going to criticize him no matter what he does.
># Marijuana is based on an interpretation of the Congress's power to
>regulate
># interstate commerce. Defendants have a right to be tried near the crime so
>that
># the jury representing the community can nullify laws their community does
>not
># want.
>
>Ahhhh...there we go...juries nullifying laws. It's just as easy to get the
>dirty end of that stick as getting the clean end.
>
>
># Marriage is not based on any power of Congress but a generalisation of the
>14th
># that governments cannot discriminate against a class of people without
># demonstrating an overriding need to discriminate.
>
>An extreme generalization that is based on emotion and political leaning
>rather than logic.
>There is no reason that the "rights" have to be tied to the definition of
>marriage. In fact, the correct reasoning is that the government should do
>civil contracts for all and marriages for nobody.
The ruling was less about the SCOTUS defining a "right" that some sex
couples could take as it was about denying states the right to deny
same sex couples the same protections and considerations under the
law.
wrote:
>
>
>"Siri Cruz" wrote in message
>news:chine.bleu-648C3...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...
>
>In article <n2aefb$k7m$1...@dont-email.me>, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>> "Governor Swill" wrote in message
>> news:0a5g4b1g4u8gc106a...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:13:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
>>
>> >That's good. For consistency, you have no problem with AZ and CA having
>> >their own immigration laws, and Utah and Kentucky having their own
>> >definition of marriage?
>>
>> # In fairness, I should answer your question directly.
>>
>> # Pot legality is not a Constitutional issue.
>>
>> Nor is the definition of marriage.
>
># Citizenship and immigration are constitutional issues in article one
>designated
># to Congress not the states. This has never been a state's rights issue.
>
>Yet the feds selectively let states do their own thing.
would have a hard time convincing the SCOTUS to let them enforce a law
that had no interstate component. That is, the supply chain from
producer to end user is entirely within the state so doesn't come
under interstate commerce.
The ironic thing is the number of conservatives who would criticize
Obama for NOT enforcing federal drug law in the pot legal states,
would turn on him in a heartbeat and complain on states' rights
grounds if he DID.
Iow, some people are going to criticize him no matter what he does.
># Marijuana is based on an interpretation of the Congress's power to
>regulate
># interstate commerce. Defendants have a right to be tried near the crime so
>that
># the jury representing the community can nullify laws their community does
>not
># want.
>
>Ahhhh...there we go...juries nullifying laws. It's just as easy to get the
>dirty end of that stick as getting the clean end.
>
>
># Marriage is not based on any power of Congress but a generalisation of the
>14th
># that governments cannot discriminate against a class of people without
># demonstrating an overriding need to discriminate.
>
>An extreme generalization that is based on emotion and political leaning
>rather than logic.
>There is no reason that the "rights" have to be tied to the definition of
>marriage. In fact, the correct reasoning is that the government should do
>civil contracts for all and marriages for nobody.
couples could take as it was about denying states the right to deny
same sex couples the same protections and considerations under the
law.
0 new messages