Thread: American Politics during the Obama Presidency
+
Submit Report
Results 1,516 to 1,530 of 6582
-
12-14-13 12:54 #5067
Posts: 2556
Venues: 398Originally Posted by Esten [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by Punter 127 [View Original Post]
George Constanza
-
12-14-13 01:38 #5066
Posts: 1196ROFLMAO.
Originally Posted by Esten [View Original Post]
BTW.
Originally Posted by Esten [View Original Post]Originally Posted by Punter127 [View Original Post]
-
12-14-13 01:09 #5065
Posts: 1740Originally Posted by Punter127 [View Original Post]
-
12-13-13 23:34 #5064
Posts: 1196Obama Gets PolitiFact's 'Lie Of The Year' Prize For Healthcare Claims
Better luck next year Esten.
-
12-11-13 17:12 #5063
Posts: 2556
Venues: 398Originally Posted by Esten [View Original Post]
-
12-11-13 09:19 #5062
Posts: 1196Originally Posted by TatuHei [View Original Post]
While libertarians tend to be liberal on many issues todays Democrat party is not “liberal” it's progressive totalitarianism, (aka: nannyism) and that's a far cry from being “liberal”.
Now I know Investors Business Daily is not on the approved reading list so here's a little (“selected”) snip from the WSJ, (probably not on the approved reading list either.)
President Obama's decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the president on legal and constitutional issues, has repeatedly opined that the president may decline to enforce laws he believes are unconstitutional. But these opinions have always insisted that the president has no authority, as one such memo put it in 1990, to "refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons." Attorneys general under Presidents Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton all agreed on this point. With the exception of Richard Nixon, whose refusals to spend money appropriated by Congress were struck down by the courts, no prior president has claimed the power to negate a law that is concededly constitutional.
In 1998, the Supreme Court struck down a congressional grant of line-item veto authority to the president to cancel spending items in appropriations. The reason? The only constitutional power the president has to suspend or repeal statutes is to veto a bill or propose new legislation. Writing for the court in Clinton v. City of New York, Justice John Paul Stevens noted: "There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes." The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it. Section 1513(d) states in no uncertain terms that "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013."
Originally Posted by TatuHei [View Original Post]
“Even some Democrats were also dismayed by the White House’s actions. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and an author of the health law, questioned whether Mr. Obama had the authority to unilaterally delay the employer mandate. “This was the law. How can they change the law?” he asked.”
There is only one legitimate reason not to enforce a law and that's the Constitution. Even if past Presidents wrongly refused to enforce laws it doesn’t justify Obamas failure to enforce the law. I was taught as a wee lad that two wrongs do not equal a right, but they may not teach such thing in government schools today.
-
12-11-13 07:25 #5061
Posts: 1196Originally Posted by Esten [View Original Post]
Have you ever been to plant earth?
Both question seem a bit odd being on this thread. However I find yours somewhat intriguing, so I will answer it. But before I answer I would like to know why you would ask me such a question?
-
12-11-13 04:10 #5060
Posts: 1017You know me so well!
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
-
12-11-13 03:30 #5059
Posts: 2700Obama shook hands with Raul Castro
The Republicans are going Crazy.
Rushdrugbom still on Opiates, or what ever they were. Thank God he will be on less networks next Year.
Six or so marriages, the guy that hates women.
No Kids.
I think he is secret closet faggot.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...shake/3967087/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...erlain-hitler/
McCain shook hands with Muammar Gaddafi. But Gaddafi was a good man of lighter color.
But that is a little White Mistake.
The problem is that Cuba is a great country for us Mongers to go to, but the Politicians do not want us to have Fun.
PS: I forgot to tell you I have been there and the Chicas are waiting for Us.
-
12-11-13 02:10 #5058
Posts: 776Reverend BS
Did it just fly over my head, or were others also unaware that Black Shirt has become an ordained minister?
What's your angle Black Shirt? Living life tax free in Bangkok? Or did you create the Church of BS? If so it sounds like a great business model, you just get people to send you money. Your margins must be fantastic.
-
12-11-13 01:27 #5057
Posts: 1740Hey Punter
Have you ever mongered in Argentina?
-
12-11-13 01:25 #5056
Posts: 1740Originally Posted by TatuHei [View Original Post]
-
12-10-13 22:28 #5055
Posts: 776Originally Posted by TatuHei [View Original Post]
http://www.campaignmoney.com/finance...ria=journalist
I started counting and got about 1/3rd of the way through the list before I quit. At that point, 92% of contributions from journalists were directed towards Democrat candidates, Bernie Sanders and a Green candidate. And 8% were directed towards Republican candidates and a Libertarian candidate. I wasn't counting PAC's or national or state parties, because I didn't know who some of the PAC's supported.
Journalists are overwhelmingly biased in favor of Obama and the Democrat party.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Tiny12 For This Post:
-
12-10-13 22:21 #5054
Posts: 11Just read the Times and the Post and you will see
The Times and almost all the other liberal media have harshly and repeatedly criticized the Obama Administration for NSA surveillance. Also many liberal publications have criticized Obama in the strongest terms for expanding the war in Afghanistan. The reason Obama's popularity is down is that many people on the left have given up on him for taking a militaristic stance on the world and for overemphasis on national security. I have written several letters to the editors of the Times that they have lost the big picture in being overly critical of this president.
IBD itself has frequently cited Times' editorials that were critical of the President. So has Hannity. Facts continue to be pesky to minds that are not closed.
Is the repetition of haha and ROTFLMAO really that good of a strategy for discourse?. A puerile attempt to humiliate someone with an opposing point of view.. Or maybe just the end-of-day remark of a drowsy emperor who would know better in the morning.
Originally Posted by Jackson [View Original Post]
-
12-10-13 21:10 #5053
Posts: 2556
Venues: 398Originally Posted by TatuHei [View Original Post]
ROTFLMAO!
The funniest part is that, from your seat, you really believe that the lamestream media actually is "very critical" of Obama.
ROTFLMAO!
Please stop it. You're killing me.
Jax.
-
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jackson For This Post: