100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Democrats' Response to the 2014 Elections | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
@ fleta:
Thanks for providing all of that. I read through EO13603 and I'm just not taking away from it what you got from it. In plain English (and as an example) when I read it, it simply is a bolstering of local forces for times of extreme national distress and defense (think 9/11, hijacked planes, and The Towers) - mobilizing 'local' State forces in response to a localized but national emergency. It seems to address which Directors on a national level will be in charge of which parts of the local emergency response (energy, food, transportation, etc.). I saw NOTHING that spoke of these local forces providing labor with no compensation; the closest I could get to THAT thought was (again, in simple English) a provision for the ability to withhold taxes when issuing compensation. As to the article which discussed President Obama's threat to arrest some governors...no offense, but I question its validity. In part from 'considering the source' (a report written to advise President Putin?!?), but especially due to the rhetoric and hyperbolic speech contained within it, as evidenced here: "...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..." The POTUS - ANY POTUS - has always been known as the "Commander in Chief"; this is not new nor is it news. It was specifically worded to read *like*, "President Obama, who really DOES believe himself to be God Almighty, Himself..." It was deliberately worded TO elicit an emotional and knee-jerk response; it appears to have worked, for/on some. In none of the citations did I find anything to substantiate your earlier claim that President Obama's EOs "are taking away ALLof our rights", let alone ANY of our rights. Again, thanks for providing all of that. The bottom line is, as private citizens we'll read into and take from whatever we read, whatever we will. If any of these EOs have done - or even attempt to do - what it is you claim/fear they've done/will do, there's one or two people on Capitol Hill who are itching for an excuse - ANY excuse - to *get after* this current POTUS. I have faith in them that - IF true - they'll jump all over it. Hell, they were practically willing to move to impeach him simply for wearing a tan suit to a press conference...something NO previous POTUS had ever done.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 So now you must result to vulgarity. And I don't ever shut up in a discussion forum until I feel like it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...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.  Follow them, don't follow them. What do you need, instructions? However, when premises clash, expect a response. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ fleta: Thanks for providing all of that. I read through EO13603 and I'm just not taking away from it what you got from it. In plain English (and as an example) when I read it, it simply is a bolstering of local forces for times of extreme national distress and defense (think 9/11, hijacked planes, and The Towers) - mobilizing 'local' State forces in response to a localized but national emergency. It seems to address which Directors on a national level will be in charge of which parts of the local emergency response (energy, food, transportation, etc.). I saw NOTHING that spoke of these local forces providing labor with no compensation; the closest I could get to THAT thought was (again, in simple English) a provision for the ability to withhold taxes when issuing compensation. As to the article which discussed President Obama's threat to arrest some governors...no offense, but I question its validity. In part from 'considering the source' (a report written to advise President Putin?!?), but especially due to the rhetoric and hyperbolic speech contained within it, as evidenced here: "...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..." The POTUS - ANY POTUS - has always been known as the "Commander in Chief"; this is not new nor is it news. It was specifically worded to read *like*, "President Obama, who really DOES believe himself to be God Almighty, Himself..." It was deliberately worded TO elicit an emotional and knee-jerk response; it appears to have worked, for/on some. In none of the citations did I find anything to substantiate your earlier claim that President Obama's EOs "are taking away ALLof our rights", let alone ANY of our rights. Again, thanks for providing all of that. The bottom line is, as private citizens we'll read into and take from whatever we read, whatever we will. If any of these EOs have done - or even attempt to do - what it is you claim/fear they've done/will do, there's one or two people on Capitol Hill who are itching for an excuse - ANY excuse - to *get after* this current POTUS. I have faith in them that - IF true - they'll jump all over it. Hell, they were practically willing to move to impeach him simply for wearing a tan suit to a press conference...something NO previous POTUS had ever done. Sec. 308. Government-Owned Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to: (a) procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government-owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons; (b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App.2091, 2092, 2093; and Sec. 312. Modernization of Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, in accordance with section 108(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b), may utilize the authority of title III of the Act to guarantee the purchase or lease of advance manufacturing equipment, and any related services with respect to any such equipmentfor purposes of the Act. In considering title III projects, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense shall provide a strong preference for proposals submitted by a small business supplier or subcontractor in accordance with section 108(b)(2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b)(2). Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated. PART VI—LABOR REQUIREMENTS Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall: (1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense; (2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services; (3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor; (4) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order: (i) formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs; and (5) develop and implement an effective labor-management relations policy to support the activities and programs under this order, with the cooperation of other agencies as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the National Mediation Board, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. (b) All agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary of Labor, upon request, for the purposes of this section, to the extent permitted by law. This doesn't seem right. A few months ago I read this very same document and it appears changed. There was more in there about specifically procuring without compensation private lands and farm foods before, within times of peace. There is only one mention of within times of peace in the document now. Maybe it's that LSD I'm on. jk  I do agree with you on the National Security Letter. bwahahaha, it's on snopes now I see from July this year: False Arresting Developments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. I was right. Fleta didn't say anything about the Coast Guard, and she didn't imply "Coast Guard". |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Fri 11/07/14 10:53 AM
|
|
Obama Threatens 14 US Governors With Immediate Arrest
Posted by EU Times on May 26th, 2010 // 193 Comments Share This story has been confirmed by our readers to be a Sorcha Faal hoax. It has been removed. http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/obama-threatens-14-us-governors-with-immediate-arrest/ Site reminds me of BeforeItsNews,and similar trashy sites!  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sorcha_Faal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama Threatens 14 US Governors With Immediate Arrest Posted by EU Times on May 26th, 2010 // 193 Comments Share This story has been confirmed by our readers to be a Sorcha Faal hoax. It has been removed. http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/obama-threatens-14-us-governors-with-immediate-arrest/ Site reminds me of BeforeItsNews,and similar trashy sites! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sorcha_Faal yup. I do agree with you on the National Security Letter. bwahahaha, it's on snopes now I see from July this year: False
Arresting Developments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was right. Fleta didn't say anything about the Coast Guard, and she didn't imply "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... According to The New Rules, because my font's bigger, bolder, AND brighter, I am *righter*.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol, boyz you can't make friends like mrld and I fight with or about each other. She has her own mind, and so do I, we respect each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama Threatens 14 US Governors With Immediate Arrest Posted by EU Times on May 26th, 2010 // 193 Comments Share This story has been confirmed by our readers to be a Sorcha Faal hoax. It has been removed. http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/obama-threatens-14-us-governors-with-immediate-arrest/ Site reminds me of BeforeItsNews,and similar trashy sites! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sorcha_Faal  yup. I do agree with you on the National Security Letter. bwahahaha, it's on snopes now I see from July this year: False Arresting Developments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol, boyz you can't make friends like mrld and I fight with or about each other. She has her own mind, and so do I, we respect each other. Oh, my goodness...is THAT what they're trying to do?!? Sorry, boyz...fleta and I have been virtual friends and have virtually had each other's backs for waaaaay too long for that to happen. She's one of a very few group of people I've met online that I would happily meet in person...one of an even smaller handful of people I'd gladly go out and throw back (quite a) few beers with. She and I would tear up a real-live joint and all the real-live men in it, guaranteed. Friends like that are rare...and extremely valued. fleta----> <----mrld |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
fleta_n_mach
on
Fri 11/07/14 11:38 AM
|
|
lol, boyz you can't make friends like mrld and I fight with or about each other. She has her own mind, and so do I, we respect each other. Oh, my goodness...is THAT what they're trying to do?!? Sorry, boyz...fleta and I have been virtual friends and have virtually had each other's backs for waaaaay too long for that to happen. She's one of a very few group of people I've met online that I would happily meet in person...one of an even smaller handful of people I'd gladly go out and throw back (quite a) few beers with. She and I would tear up a real-live joint and all the real-live men in it, guaranteed. Friends like that are rare...and extremely valued. fleta----> <----mrld  Wouldn't that be something if you were my maid of honor? Eeeegads, there would be that "M" word.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was right. Fleta didn't say anything about the Coast Guard, and she didn't imply "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... According to The New Rules, because my font's bigger, bolder, AND brighter, I am *righter*. This is what fleta said: 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. In your reply to her, you said the following: As to the claim that the Coast Guard is no longer under States' control and reports directly to the POTUS, that not true. Now, where in fleta's above-quoted statement did she say "Coast Guard"? * * * * * * Personal Note: Lately I have been trying different font sizes and different font colors to see if any of them would make it easier for me to see what I have written. I wear bifocals, and they don't work well when I am looking at things on a computer screen. Thus, I don't always see my typing errors until they have been posted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mrld_ii
on
Fri 11/07/14 02:05 PM
|
|
I was right. Fleta didn't say anything about the Coast Guard, and she didn't imply "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... According to The New Rules, because my font's bigger, bolder, AND brighter, I am *righter*. This is what fleta said: 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. In your reply to her, you said the following: As to the claim that the Coast Guard is no longer under States' control and reports directly to the POTUS, that not true. Now, where in fleta's above-quoted statement did she say "Coast Guard"? *AHEM* (For the third time, now) Fleta didn't say "Coast Guard"; she said "state guard" and "national guard" when making her presented-as-fact statement that President Obama had issued EOs which have stripped us of all of our rights, and used the placing of "state guards" under POTUS' authority as an example, She DID NOT include a reference to THE Executive Order which did this, leaving ME (or any other reader) to sift through President Obama's 191 EOs issued thus far TO find the one to whence she referred. EO13529 was the closest one I could find which appeared to address what fleta had mentioned; EO13529 specifically referred to the "Coast Guard". Because I am NOT The Person in Charge of Everything, I had nothing to do with the wording of EO13529 which appeared to be the only Executive Order out of the 191 which DID address the concern fleta had raised. ****** Public Note: Your difficulty seeing the screen with bifocals does NOT seem to impair your ability to accurately read what fleta types while being unable to accurately read what I type, even though BOTH of us have been using the same font size and color when making our posts. Nice try, though.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pass the mashed potatoes please...
this discussion is making me hungry! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...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? No, not really. But somehow I sense resentment that things did not go another direction, that things would have been perceived as going in the right direction if the whole of Congress turned blue. Actually I would love to see congress turn very blue, but in a literal and not metaphorical sense. However, back on subject. The last time all was "blue" we got that great legislation know as Odumbocare, how's that going for you? All these millions get to pay their hard earned money for medical insurance and still have no health coverage. What an outstanding contribution to society. Can't wait for those non-existent death panels to start making decisions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? No, not really. But somehow I sense resentment that things did not go another direction, that things would have been perceived as going in the right direction if the whole of Congress turned blue. Actually I would love to see congress turn very blue, but in a literal and not metaphorical sense. However, back on subject. The last time all was "blue" we got that great legislation know as Odumbocare, how's that going for you? All these millions get to pay their hard earned money for medical insurance and still have no health coverage. What an outstanding contribution to society. Can't wait for those non-existent death panels to start making decisions. I seriously doubt you "sense" anything, let alone "resentment", and most particularly NOT on my part. I prefer balance in all things, including my politics; if a POTUS is blue, I prefer a majority red Congress and vice-versa. It's a nifty little built-in checks-and-balances system that helps control those who exercise little self-control. "The last time all was 'blue'..." NEVER in the history of the United States has Congress been "all blue" or 'all red'. Factually-speaking, of course.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...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.... Really, you mean like this? GOP spokesman says Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Barack Obama's executive orders 13 times And what needs to be remembered is that no matter how bad a choice the electors make, the President is the chief executive until either his term expires or he is removed by congress. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Thank god I live in the republic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...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... Really and just how does one account for Odumbocare? And how about the renewal of the Federal Reserve Act, the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc., etc., etc. And it would be truly refreshing if those "Senators" and "Representatives" would actually sit on their backsides and do nothing. It is pretty obvious that most of the unwashed masses have no clue as to what really occurs, just the clamber over the current argument that masks the actual deeds. And I totally disagree with your use of descriptors, "VERY interesting" as a way of projecting what is about to transpire with the 114th Congress. What would be "interesting" would be to understand just what you meant by the word! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. I would say that would be a very true statement, things are going to be passed, but the question is what? And to think Odumbo would use that many vetoes, not likely. Some nasty things are a brewin'. And taxes could very well be at the top of that list: national sales tax, tax on internet, tax on this, tax on that. All aimed at the middle class to help complete the destruction. |
|
|
|
|
