100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Democrats' Response to the 2014 Elections | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Thank you for noticing - and taking special exception to - MY posted REply on this open-to-all discussion board.  I responded to a post made by a member. My response would have been the same no matter who that member was. Nahhhh...you had six other people responding within your thread, and you didn't pay them a whit of difference...skipped right passed the six of them, to *get at* me a second time, as a matter of fact. Factually-speaking, of course.   Now I know how Squit feels whenever Pesto starts ranting. Three times, now. The six other guests to your thread must feel left out...or that for *some* *reason* you don't care about their thoughts on this fascinating subject. Factually-speaking, of course.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see now, I watched open mouthed as the President said yesterday that, 2/3 of the U.S. population didn't vote. I'm thinking that the democrats are just coming to terms with how useless it is to vote for a govt that the public doesn't want. I also feel that the Republicans are just the last idiots to believe that our system still works for the people, and they still vote. Interesting point about the 2/3 that don't vote. As a republic is a government by consent of the people, then I would conclude that their is no consent. Also, politicians say they have the majority vote when in reality they barely have the majority of the minority with the majority giving them the finger. But I would pretty much say that your conclusions are in error. You seem to have premises that are in conflict and there can be no conflicts. Whatever. I think your brain functions in error also. Yep, finally got down to the basics. And from past conclusions, I would say this one follows due course. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
fleta_n_mach
on
Thu 11/06/14 05:18 PM
|
|
Let's see now, I watched open mouthed as the President said yesterday that, 2/3 of the U.S. population didn't vote. I'm thinking that the democrats are just coming to terms with how useless it is to vote for a govt that the public doesn't want. I also feel that the Republicans are just the last idiots to believe that our system still works for the people, and they still vote. Interesting point about the 2/3 that don't vote. As a republic is a government by consent of the people, then I would conclude that their is no consent. Also, politicians say they have the majority vote when in reality they barely have the majority of the minority with the majority giving them the finger. But I would pretty much say that your conclusions are in error. You seem to have premises that are in conflict and there can be no conflicts. Whatever. I think your brain functions in error also. Yep, finally got down to the basics. And from past conclusions, I would say this one follows due course. I could care less what your opinions are of my opinions. Much less when you make statements that my conclusions, which are my opinions are "in error" from your point of view. Unless you are trying to stir dissent. lol I never said that the 2/3 were NOT obviously consenting. Which IS WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY GOING ON. What's your point, big boy? eta: Really what I was getting at was that the democrats are NOT voting either. ha! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
fleta_n_mach
on
Thu 11/06/14 05:21 PM
|
|
Let's see now, I watched open mouthed as the President said yesterday that, 2/3 of the U.S. population didn't vote. I'm thinking that the democrats are just coming to terms with how useless it is to vote for a govt that the public doesn't want. I also feel that the Republicans are just the last idiots to believe that our system still works for the people, and they still vote. Interesting point about the 2/3 that don't vote. As a republic is a government by consent of the people, then I would conclude that their is no consent. Also, politicians say they have the majority vote when in reality they barely have the majority of the minority with the majority giving them the finger. But I would pretty much say that your conclusions are in error. You seem to have premises that are in conflict and there can be no conflicts. Whatever. I think your brain functions in error also. Yep, finally got down to the basics. And from past conclusions, I would say this one follows due course. I could care less what your opinions are of my opinions. Much less when you make statements that my conclusions, which are my opinions are "in error" from your point of view. Unless you are trying to stir dissent. lol I never said that the 2/3 were NOT obviously consenting. Which IS WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY GOING ON. What's your point, big boy? eta: Really what I was getting at( oh oh, there's that phrase again) was that the democrats are NOT voting either. ha! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...Really what I was getting at was that the democrats are NOT voting either. ha! Yup, yup...it sure does appear to be the case. At the last mid-term elections, the Republicans promised that they were going to completely overrun Congress and steal power back. It galvanized the Democrats and they got out and voted to ensure it didn't happen. Four more years of the same B.S. from BOTH sides of the aisle and everybody's had just about enough. The votes that WERE cast were probably mostly from the frothing-at-the-mouth diehards who hate anything not *right* and not 100% conservative in all things, at all times. It's nothing new; it's happened repeatedly when any lame-duck POTUS is finishing his second term, as the article I'd previously cited (and hotlinked) indicated. Currently, I'm *enjoying* the new Senate leader indicating that he now understands that the American people want compromise, so he'll work to do that. By saying this, he completely ignores the fact that for the last 4 years they've been in the minority and have not been interested in compromise, so it's doubtful they'll suddenly learn how, now. Likewise for President Obama...he, too, is stating that he now understands the American people want compromise, so he'll work to do that. He, too, is completely ignoring the fact that his party's been in the driver's seat and unwilling (unable?) to find compromise, so coming from a now-weakened position doesn't bode well for sudden break-throughs. But, IS *fun* to watch, no? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see now, I watched open mouthed as the President said yesterday that, 2/3 of the U.S. population didn't vote. I'm thinking that the democrats are just coming to terms with how useless it is to vote for a govt that the public doesn't want. I also feel that the Republicans are just the last idiots to believe that our system still works for the people, and they still vote. Interesting point about the 2/3 that don't vote. As a republic is a government by consent of the people, then I would conclude that their is no consent. Also, politicians say they have the majority vote when in reality they barely have the majority of the minority with the majority giving them the finger. But I would pretty much say that your conclusions are in error. You seem to have premises that are in conflict and there can be no conflicts. Whatever. I think your brain functions in error also. Yep, finally got down to the basics. And from past conclusions, I would say this one follows due course. I could care less what your opinions are of my opinions. Much less when you make statements that my conclusions, which are my opinions are "in error" from your point of view. Unless you are trying to stir dissent. lol I never said that the 2/3 were NOT obviously consenting. Which IS WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY GOING ON. What's your point, big boy? eta: Really what I was getting at was that the democrats are NOT voting either. ha! First off, the 2/3 not consenting was my remark, not yours. The conclusion that followed was also my conclusion. What was yours was the seed making the remark about the 2/3. And from all the political analysis, it was not that Democrats were not voting, it was the young idiots that slobber over Odumbo whose numbers had dropped. Supposedly all the other metrics showed an increase in those going to the polls. And if that was what you where getting at, that is not what was said. Your implication was that Repulseacons where bigger idiots than Odumbocrats and that is not the case at all. While both groups suffer from a very serious disease called "Statism", a large portion of the blue team supports also suffer from sheer stupidity based on worship Odumboism, the ideology of getting what they could never earn with the help of the governments guns. And my point is a math axiom that states if your premises are in conflict, then any conclusions drawn is in error. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I definitely can relate to Squit.
 Anyway, getting back to the main topic ... ... which is the way that Democrats have responded to the USA's 2014 elections. Like it or not, the Democrats' responses are news. For example, the featured writers over at the Huffington Post have been hysterical in their written responses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see now, I watched open mouthed as the President said yesterday that, 2/3 of the U.S. population didn't vote. I'm thinking that the democrats are just coming to terms with how useless it is to vote for a govt that the public doesn't want. I also feel that the Republicans are just the last idiots to believe that our system still works for the people, and they still vote. Interesting point about the 2/3 that don't vote. As a republic is a government by consent of the people, then I would conclude that their is no consent. Also, politicians say they have the majority vote when in reality they barely have the majority of the minority with the majority giving them the finger. But I would pretty much say that your conclusions are in error. You seem to have premises that are in conflict and there can be no conflicts. Whatever. I think your brain functions in error also. Yep, finally got down to the basics. And from past conclusions, I would say this one follows due course. I could care less what your opinions are of my opinions. Much less when you make statements that my conclusions, which are my opinions are "in error" from your point of view. Unless you are trying to stir dissent. lol I never said that the 2/3 were NOT obviously consenting. Which IS WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY GOING ON. What's your point, big boy? eta: Really what I was getting at was that the democrats are NOT voting either. ha! First off, the 2/3 not consenting was my remark, not yours. The conclusion that followed was also my conclusion. What was yours was the seed making the remark about the 2/3. And from all the political analysis, it was not that Democrats were not voting, it was the young idiots that slobber over Odumbo whose numbers had dropped. Supposedly all the other metrics showed an increase in those going to the polls. And if that was what you where getting at, that is not what was said. Your implication was that Repulseacons where bigger idiots than Odumbocrats and that is not the case at all. While both groups suffer from a very serious disease called "Statism", a large portion of the blue team supports also suffer from sheer stupidity based on worship Odumboism, the ideology of getting what they could never earn with the help of the governments guns. And my point is a math axiom that states if your premises are in conflict, then any conclusions drawn is in error.  STFU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...And my point is a math axiom that states if your premises are in conflict, then any conclusions drawn is in error. Who knew?!? There's rules to this posting stuff!!! Does EVERYone *have to* follow these rules before posting...or are the Rules-Makers/Givers automatically exempt? It's rhetorical...but that won't stop anyone, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...Really what I was getting at was that the democrats are NOT voting either. ha! Yup, yup...it sure does appear to be the case. At the last mid-term elections, the Republicans promised that they were going to completely overrun Congress and steal power back. It galvanized the Democrats and they got out and voted to ensure it didn't happen. Four more years of the same B.S. from BOTH sides of the aisle and everybody's had just about enough. The votes that WERE cast were probably mostly from the frothing-at-the-mouth diehards who hate anything not *right* and not 100% conservative in all things, at all times. It's nothing new; it's happened repeatedly when any lame-duck POTUS is finishing his second term, as the article I'd previously cited (and hotlinked) indicated. Currently, I'm *enjoying* the new Senate leader indicating that he now understands that the American people want compromise, so he'll work to do that. By saying this, he completely ignores the fact that for the last 4 years they've been in the minority and have not been interested in compromise, so it's doubtful they'll suddenly learn how, now. Likewise for President Obama...he, too, is stating that he now understands the American people want compromise, so he'll work to do that. He, too, is completely ignoring the fact that his party's been in the driver's seat and unwilling (unable?) to find compromise, so coming from a now-weakened position doesn't bode well for sudden break-throughs. But, IS *fun* to watch, no? Yes, it's fun to watch them lie after lie after lie and not be able to prove their azzes from a hole in the ground....as they ruin our country. Meanwhile executive orders are going to court.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...Meanwhile executive orders are going to court.... Actually, the Executive Orders debacle is pretty fricken genius. The POTUS said (before being elected the first time) he planned to come into Washington and *change* the way Business As Usual was run...and that he planned to tackle some of our most pressing issues that NO POTUS (red or blue) has wanted to touch for decades: immigration reform, healthcare reform, social security reform, etc. When attempting to get things through Congress, he was met with a brick wall and NObody wanted to touch 'em. Now, with the new Senate AND House majorities, there's no reason why bills CAN'T be introduced; the Conservatives are completely in charge of the wording of any reforms. President Obama has been real clear: come up with SOMEthing to vote on, or I'LL sign an Executive Order putting reforms into effect. Congress will either: a) get off their azzes and draft SOMEthing; b) do nothing and be left having to sue the POTUS for "over-reaching his authority". Either of those is NOT continuing to 'do nothing', now is it? And, skating through and doing nothing about these tough, pressing issues while continuing to take paychecks IS what the Senators and Representatives (for decades) HAVE been doing...and would like to continue to do. It's all going to get VERY interesting...with the current state of *compromise* lip service buzzing about... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that Harry Reid won't be the Senate Majority Leader, bills passed by the House will be voted on by the Senate, instead of being blocked Reid-style.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
fleta_n_mach
on
Thu 11/06/14 07:05 PM
|
|
Yes, it's genius. It's the new As The World Turns soap. But you have to admit, those exec. orders were padded into taking away all of our rights, even in peace times. Even took away each states right to gather their own state guard. The national guard will be in place if HE so deems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it's genius. It's the new As The World Turns soap. But you have to admit, those exec. orders were padded into taking away all of our rights, even in peace times. Even took away each states right to gather their own state guard. The national guard will be in place if HE so deems. Unfortunately, I can't admit that, as I'm not seeing where in any of the Executive Orders President Obama's enacted, that there HAS been any "taking away of ALL of our rights", let alone even some of 'em. I've hotlinked them, by year...perhaps you can draw my attention to the particular orders in which this has occurred? 2009 EOs 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 As to the claim that the Coast Guard is no longer under States' control and reports directly to the POTUS, that not true; the EO was signed after the Haiti earthquake and tsunami and was worded to allow emergency orders of deployment by the POTUS IF - and only IF - "...when it is not operating as a service in the Navy..." i.e., when the Coast Guard is inactive. EO13529 As an aside, if our current POTUS keeps up at his current pace, by the time he leaves office he will have signed 258 EOs. Several Presidents have signed more - some even WAAAAAY more - than that, during their terms in office: George W. Bush (291), Clinton (364), Reagan (381), Carter (320), Nixon (346), Johnson (325), Eisenhower (484), Truman (907), FDR (3,522), Hoover (968), Coolidge (1,203), Harding (522), Wilson (1,803), Taft (724), and Teddy Roosevelt (1,081). Hmmmm...what is so uniquely different about this POTUS that he's being accused of signing EOs all willy-nilly-*like*, when factually-speaking it's just simply not true?!? http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As to the claim that the Coast Guard is no longer under States' control . . . Fleta said "state guard", not "Coast Guard". So, who mentioned "Coast Guard"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As to the claim that the Coast Guard is no longer under States' control . . . Fleta said "state guard", not "Coast Guard". So, who mentioned "Coast Guard"? If you'd bothered to check the hotlink provided, the wording of EO13529 specifically referred to the "Coast Guard": "...Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy..." It was the closest EO I could find that had ANYthing to do with the subject she'd introduced... ...withOUT providing any specifics or any citations when making the claim. Apparently, part of the Newly-Adopted Posting Rules is that only SOME people *have to* provide citations to legitimate sources when introducing *facts* into a discussion, while others are provided a free pass...and free rein (reign?). Thanks for (only) noticing - and responding to! - a post of MINE in the thread you're hosting, again.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy..." It was the closest EO I could find that had ANYthing to do with the subject she'd introduced... ...withOUT providing any specifics or any citations when making the claim. When she said "state guard", it was clear to me that she was talking about the state guard, not the Coast Guard. I didn't accept her claim since she hadn't provided a link to evidence supporting such a claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 If a single picture is worth a thousand words, then the photo above says plenty. The photo originally accompanied an article published by The Hill titled "Democrats sift through the debris". That article has been updated and no longer includes the above photo. In its place, the article now includes the following image (which is in the accompanying video):  Anyway, it should be fun watching Democrats pointing fingers at each other and doing their Jake Blues impersonation.   Who let the dogs out?! Woof! Woof! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
fleta_n_mach
on
Fri 11/07/14 06:02 AM
|
|
Yes, it's genius. It's the new As The World Turns soap. But you have to admit, those exec. orders were padded into taking away all of our rights, even in peace times. Even took away each states right to gather their own state guard. The national guard will be in place if HE so deems. Unfortunately, I can't admit that, as I'm not seeing where in any of the Executive Orders President Obama's enacted, that there HAS been any "taking away of ALL of our rights", let alone even some of 'em. I've hotlinked them, by year...perhaps you can draw my attention to the particular orders in which this has occurred? 2009 EOs 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 As to the claim that the Coast Guard is no longer under States' control and reports directly to the POTUS, that not true; the EO was signed after the Haiti earthquake and tsunami and was worded to allow emergency orders of deployment by the POTUS IF - and only IF - "...when it is not operating as a service in the Navy..." i.e., when the Coast Guard is inactive. EO13529 As an aside, if our current POTUS keeps up at his current pace, by the time he leaves office he will have signed 258 EOs. Several Presidents have signed more - some even WAAAAAY more - than that, during their terms in office: George W. Bush (291), Clinton (364), Reagan (381), Carter (320), Nixon (346), Johnson (325), Eisenhower (484), Truman (907), FDR (3,522), Hoover (968), Coolidge (1,203), Harding (522), Wilson (1,803), Taft (724), and Teddy Roosevelt (1,081). Hmmmm...what is so uniquely different about this POTUS that he's being accused of signing EOs all willy-nilly-*like*, when factually-speaking it's just simply not true?!? http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php Executive Order 13603(you'll have to scroll down to it.) National Defense Resources Preparedness Signed: March 16, 2012 Federal Register page and date: 77 FR 16651, March 22, 2012 I haven't had enough coffee yet, but in there, it also takes laborers for their skills to work for no compensation. Although Executive Order 10996, from 1956 already stated this, but not about the general public... Section 1. As used in this order, the term: (a) "Employees" means civilian employees of the Army National Guard or Air National Guard of a State who are employed pursuant to section 709 of title 32 of the United States Code, and paid from Federal, appropriated funds. (b) "State" means one of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory of the United States. .... Sec. 3. Each such agreement shall: (a) Provide that the Secretary of the Army with respect to civilian employees of the Army National Guard, and the Secretary of the Air Force with respect to civilian employees of the Air National Guard, shall comply with the requirements of such State law in the case of employees subject to the said act of June 15, 1956, as amended, who are eligible for membership in such retirement, disability, or death benefits system for State employees; (b) Specify when the withholding of sums from the compensation of such State employees shall commence; and (c) Provide for procedures for the withholding, the filing of the returns, and the payment of the sums withheld from compensation to the officials of the State, or organization designated by such officials to receive sums withheld for such programs, which procedures shall conform, so far as practicable, to the usual fiscal practices of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force, respectively. Sec. 4. The Secretary of the Army with respect to civilian employees of the Army National Guard, and the Secretary of the Air Force with respect to civilian employees of the Air National Guard, shall designate, or provide for the designation of, the officers or employees whose duty it shall be to withhold sums from compensation, file required returns, and direct the payment of sums so withheld, in accordance with the terms of the agreements entered into between the Secretary of Defense and the States. But back to state rights to Guard...I was mistaken, It was not an EO, it was a National Security Letter. Which one? I dunno. National Security Archive Here's an article I did find on it, that you don't have to pay for: Governors NSL Letters Obama Threatens 14 US Governors With Immediate Arrest Posted by Europe on May 26, 2010 http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/obama-threatens-14-us-governors-with-immediate-arrest/ A chilling report from the Foreign Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) prepared for Prime Minister Putin warns today that United States President Barack Obama has had served on 14 US Governors National Security Letters (NSLs) warning that if their actions in attempting to form what are called State Defense Forces are not halted they will face "immediate" arrest for the crime of treason. The use of NSLs in the United States was authorized by the Patriot Act law enacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks and forbids anyone receiving them from even acknowledging their existence, and was reauthorized by Obama's "rubberstamp" Congress this past February over the objections of both civil and human rights groups who warned they mimic similar type "government security notices" enacted under both the former German Nazi and Soviet Communist regimes. To the issue angering Obama against these State Governors, this report continues, is their attempt to reestablish what are called State Defense Forces which are described as follows: "State Defense Forces (SDF) (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, or State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are not regulated by the National Guard Bureau nor are they part of the Army National Guard of the United States. State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state. State Defense Forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities. The federal government recognizes State Defense Forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that State Defense Forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard." Important to note is that Obama, as President of the United States is also its most powerful military leader known by the term of Commander in Chief, and is authorized by the Militia Act of 1903 to federalize his individual States National Guard Forces putting them under his command, something he does not have the power to do with State Defense Forces. Obama's fear of these State Defense Forces, this report says, rests with his not having power over them, and with the bulk of the US Military Forces he does control being stretched to near breaking with the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would leave these State military forces under the control of these Governors in "defacto control" of the United States. The two US Governors spearheading this rebellion against Obama, this report states, are the Republican opposition party Governors of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty and Texas, Rick Perry; both of whom have a deep fear their President is destroying their Nation. Governor Pawlenty's fear of Obama is that since he took office he has appeased America's enemies while at the same time shunning some of America's most stalwart allies, especially Israel. Governor Pawlenty recently castigated Obama for abandoning the US missile defense plan for Europe by saying, "The lessons of history are clear: Appeasement and weakness did not stop the Nazis, did not stop the Soviets, and did not stop the terrorists before 9/11. We must stand strong with allies like Israel and eastern Europe in the face of growing challenges to our national security." Governor Perry has blasted Obama and warned his fellow Texans that the President is "hell bent on socialism" and is punishing his State by dumping tens-of-thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants into their cities and small towns. Governor Perry further warned Texans that that if "Barack Obama's Washington doesn't stop being so oppressive, Texans might feel compelled to renounce their American citizenry and secede from the union." Note: Following the end of the Civil War the rights of the individual US States to succeed from the Union was heard by their Supreme Court in a case called Texas v. White (1869) and who ruled that the Constitution did not permit States to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding States intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". However, the decision did allow some possibility of divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States." Obama, in fearing a revolution against him by the States, this report continues, has moved swiftly against them, including nationalizing nearly all National Guard Forces in Governor Pawlenty's Minnesota in what is being described as their State's largest call up of troops since World War II. Other reports coming from the United States are stating that Obama has also nationalized the National Guard forces in Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, and perhaps Texas too. Though Obama may have taken from these dissident States their National Guard forces, the Governors of the States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia still have under their sole command their State Defense Forces to go against US Federal forces. Important to note in this report is its stating that there are no US laws prohibiting National Guard troops from also joining their State's Defense Forces, but would create a dilemma for those soldiers should they be called to service by them both at the same time. This dilemma occurred for many American soldiers during their Civil War with the great majority of them choosing to serve their States instead of the Federal Government. .... ^^^There are more links within this article if you want more details. Now for more coffee. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 11/07/14 06:47 AM
|
|
State Militias have ALWAYS been a Constitutional mandate What part of the 2nd amendment don't some people get..... including our POTUS.... the Constitutional law professor ? It's called Constitutional RIGHTS! As far as EOs..... it's never the number, it's the content!.... and they are NOT written in stone and can be over turned by another sitting POTUS Obozo's campaign rhetoric has proven to be just that....rhetoric.... as all of Bush's EOs have not only been allowed to exist, but have been extended and intensified under our present sitting POTUS Obozo is so daft he doesn't even understand what these past elections mean to the next 2 years of his presidency yet No more Reid and Holder to cover his ignorance....the Emperor has no clothes! |
|
|
|
|
