Elected Office Doesn't Come With A Crown

[ConHog]

That would only happen if the militant groups of yahoos taking up arms against the government actually follow through.

I disagree. I think that if anyone would use US troops on our citizens it would be the thin skinned bastard we have as POTUS now.

Oh please. Nobody's going to use troops against average citizens. I thought you were smarter than that. But if THEY start shooting or organizing a coup, which of course they talk about, clearly the military would be called out to stop them. Some of these illiterate creeps are determined to start another civil war.

You do realize that calling the military to action against even armed US citizens inside our borders is ILLEGAL right? Yet, you acknowledge that Obama might do it if these people started shooting first.

The National Guard could of course be called out, but that's it.

 

[annawatson123]

Bush had some big-government ideas. But his goal was not to shove America off its moorings.

 

[Intense]

I'd really like to know how the rabid right wing bloggers got the hilarious idea that the national service organization was some sort of front for Nazi-esque activities. Can you people BE any more stupid?

That plan simply calls for more Americans to play a part in America's future by volunteering and sacrificing their time to make it a better country. The national service corps expands AmeriCorps volunteer program dealing with education, clean energy, health care and homeland security, expands the Peace Corps, and sets goals for high school students to volunteer in exchange for credit toward college education. Maybe the issuance of some sort of T-shirt emblazoned with an insignia was offered, but that's it, fool.

Forced Labor, Slave Labor, Something of Value for Nothing of Value, I get your point Maggie, thanks for clarifying it. Here's an idea, Value for Value. Remember The Girl Scouts and Boy Scout's before you got your hands on them and fucked them up? Fucking Hypocrite. Fool is about 3 steps up for you.

Nobody's "forcing" anyone to do anything!!! You do know the difference between "volunteering" and "forced labor," I hope. And there's nothing wrong with the Scout program in my neighborhood, so us "libs" who live here haven't done anything to change it, ever. Maybe in your trailer park where honor badges are only given out for pulling the wings off butterflies or setting squirrels on fire?

You know the difference between education and indoctrination? Memorizing and Learning? I didn't think so. Slandering people who love in trailer parks does what for you now? Impressive shit in your arsenal.

 

[Intense]

Got a problem with this too, Intense?

In January 2002, President George W. Bush launched the USA Freedom Corps to promote volunteer service opportunities within the United States and abroad. Created within months of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the program sought in part to encourage volunteer participation in homeland security. Citizen Corps, a component of USA Freedom Corps, was developed to help coordinate such volunteer activities and to increase the capacity of American communities to respond to any emergency situation. The program's goal is to provide opportunities for people to participate in a range of measures to make their families, their homes, and their communities safer from the threats of crime, terrorism, and disasters of all kinds.

Citizen Corps | Uniting Communities - Preparing the Nation

Do I detect a Republican/Democrat rift in Freedom Corps? Is it Political or Humanitarian? Party Neutral? Have a nice day Comrade.

 

[MikeK]

While never prosecuted Clinton did use the army illegally at Waco. Seems like a left-wing tactic to trash the constitution that is fairly well established.

The army wasn't used at Waco... ATF was... and later the FBI.

Facts are our friends.

Then where did the FBI get the tank retriever they used to break through the wall and the flame-thrower tank they used to inject flammable tear gas into the Davidian residence?

The Army was there! In an "advisory" capacity, perhaps. But that is still use of the military against civilians!

 

[MikeK]

I disagree. I think that if anyone would use US troops on our citizens it would be the thin skinned bastard we have as POTUS now.

Here's an interesting story about the use of American soldiers against American citizens. In fact veterans and their families:
Hooverville, Bonus Marchers, General Smedley Butler

 

[Sallow]

Bush used signing statements, executive orders, recess appointments, reconcilation and a whole host of other "powers" available to the Unitary Executive. Couple that with his administration essentially ignoring or making up rules for congressional hearings. Heck..they were in contempt..and no one touched them.

Now..it's a problem? Even though President Obama probably been the most process driven president out of the last several elected.

Fucking hilarious.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

good editorial. People better wake up and see what's happening

really?

You're a hysterical lunatic.

 

[Si modo]

Bush used signing statements, executive orders, recess appointments, reconcilation and a whole host of other "powers" available to the Unitary Executive. Couple that with his administration essentially ignoring or making up rules for congressional hearings. Heck..they were in contempt..and no one touched them.

Now..it's a problem? Even though President Obama probably been the most process driven president out of the last several elected.

Fucking hilarious.

What's hilarious is the tu quoque argument you attempt.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bush used signing statements, executive orders, recess appointments, reconcilation and a whole host of other "powers" available to the Unitary Executive. Couple that with his administration essentially ignoring or making up rules for congressional hearings. Heck..they were in contempt..and no one touched them.

Now..it's a problem? Even though President Obama probably been the most process driven president out of the last several elected.

Fucking hilarious.

 

[MaggieMae]

Forced Labor, Slave Labor, Something of Value for Nothing of Value, I get your point Maggie, thanks for clarifying it. Here's an idea, Value for Value. Remember The Girl Scouts and Boy Scout's before you got your hands on them and fucked them up? Fucking Hypocrite. Fool is about 3 steps up for you.

Nobody's "forcing" anyone to do anything!!! You do know the difference between "volunteering" and "forced labor," I hope. And there's nothing wrong with the Scout program in my neighborhood, so us "libs" who live here haven't done anything to change it, ever. Maybe in your trailer park where honor badges are only given out for pulling the wings off butterflies or setting squirrels on fire?

You know the difference between education and indoctrination? Memorizing and Learning? I didn't think so. Slandering people who love in trailer parks does what for you now? Impressive shit in your arsenal.

It's the only way to deal with morons: Get right down in the dirt at their level.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nobody's "forcing" anyone to do anything!!! You do know the difference between "volunteering" and "forced labor," I hope. And there's nothing wrong with the Scout program in my neighborhood, so us "libs" who live here haven't done anything to change it, ever. Maybe in your trailer park where honor badges are only given out for pulling the wings off butterflies or setting squirrels on fire?

You know the difference between education and indoctrination? Memorizing and Learning? I didn't think so. Slandering people who love in trailer parks does what for you now? Impressive shit in your arsenal.

It's the only way to deal with morons: Get right down in the dirt at their level.

 

[Sallow]

Bush used signing statements, executive orders, recess appointments, reconcilation and a whole host of other "powers" available to the Unitary Executive. Couple that with his administration essentially ignoring or making up rules for congressional hearings. Heck..they were in contempt..and no one touched them.

Now..it's a problem? Even though President Obama probably been the most process driven president out of the last several elected.

Fucking hilarious.

What's hilarious is the tu quoque argument you attempt.

Well not really..

But thanks for playing. There are door prizes.

 

[Si modo]

Bush used signing statements, executive orders, recess appointments, reconcilation and a whole host of other "powers" available to the Unitary Executive. Couple that with his administration essentially ignoring or making up rules for congressional hearings. Heck..they were in contempt..and no one touched them.

Now..it's a problem? Even though President Obama probably been the most process driven president out of the last several elected.

Fucking hilarious.

What's hilarious is the tu quoque argument you attempt.

Well not really..

But thanks for playing. There are door prizes.

Logic is annoying to you, apparently.

 

[George Costanza]

good editorial. People better wake up and see what's happening

Posted 11/17/2010 07:12 PM ET


Change: How out of touch with America is the political left? It's convinced it has the authority to reign. But this country was founded on the idea that the governing was to be done by representatives, not rulers.

Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes tells the Daily Beast that President Obama "has a different belief system than most Americans." Nothing new there, but true nonetheless. Traditions of limited government, individual liberty and free markets are foreign to this president. This is a man who said he wanted to transform America and went about doing so as soon as he took office.

The stinging rebuke he suffered two weeks ago at the midterm elections doesn't mean Obama will slow down. He's being encouraged to stay on his big-government agenda by allies including John Podesta, the Clinton chief of staff who ran Obama's transition team.

Podesta, who now heads a "progressive" think tank that carries heavy weight with the White House, told the media this week that the former community organizer still has an opportunity to "push the country to a better place."

Podesta tried to qualify his remarks, saying Obama must work under the "constraint" of law and the "restraint" of wisdom.


read it all here.
Elected Office Doesn't Come With A Crown - Investors.com

Stephanie, do you have any idea how far off the mark this is? Have you ever heard the phrase, "Imperial Presidency"? It means a president who knows no limitations. He does whatever he wants, without having to answer to any other branch of government.

You do realize that the recent 8 years of the Bush administration did everything possible to achieve an imperial presidency, don't you? Gaining unlimited power for the president was the sole mission of Dick Cheney. He ran roughshod over the Constitution in an attempt to accomplish that and, to a very large part, succeeded.

And Bush ("The Decider") rode that wave for all it was worth. From the seclusion of the Oval Office, he "decided" what was going to happen, with little concern for the American public, the Constitution or anything else.

President Obama is, and has been ever since taking office, totally accessable to the American public. If anything, he is TOO much in the public eye. Press conference after press conference - answering questions, explaining positions taken, etc.

It doesn't surprise me that the Right is, once again, mischaracterizing the present administration and then arguing that mischaracterization. But you are dead wrong on this one. You want to talk about a "Regal Presidency" - all you have to do is look back to Bush's eight-year reign.

 

[George Costanza]

What's hilarious is the tu quoque argument you attempt.

Well not really..

But thanks for playing. There are door prizes.

Logic is annoying to you, apparently.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Maybe I missed it, but how is Sallow's post an example of tu quoque? Stephanie argues that the present administration is asserting too much power. Sallow points out that the prior administration did the same thing and then some.

I think Sallow's only point is, that it is hypocritical for the Right to condemn Obama for being an imperial president, when they supported exactly the same thing themselves for the past 8 years. I will grant you that this does not reach whether or not being an imperial president is a good thing or a bad thing (although, obviously, it is a bad thing) - but I don't think that was what Sallow was trying to address.

 

[Sallow]

What's hilarious is the tu quoque argument you attempt.

Well not really..

But thanks for playing. There are door prizes.

Logic is annoying to you, apparently.

Logic..isn't.

Stupidity..well sorta..but it's hilarious too.

And you got me rolling..

 

[Sallow]

good editorial. People better wake up and see what's happening

Posted 11/17/2010 07:12 PM ET


Change: How out of touch with America is the political left? It's convinced it has the authority to reign. But this country was founded on the idea that the governing was to be done by representatives, not rulers.

Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes tells the Daily Beast that President Obama "has a different belief system than most Americans." Nothing new there, but true nonetheless. Traditions of limited government, individual liberty and free markets are foreign to this president. This is a man who said he wanted to transform America and went about doing so as soon as he took office.

The stinging rebuke he suffered two weeks ago at the midterm elections doesn't mean Obama will slow down. He's being encouraged to stay on his big-government agenda by allies including John Podesta, the Clinton chief of staff who ran Obama's transition team.

Podesta, who now heads a "progressive" think tank that carries heavy weight with the White House, told the media this week that the former community organizer still has an opportunity to "push the country to a better place."

Podesta tried to qualify his remarks, saying Obama must work under the "constraint" of law and the "restraint" of wisdom.


read it all here.
Elected Office Doesn't Come With A Crown - Investors.com

Stephanie, do you have any idea how far off the mark this is? Have you ever heard the phrase, "Imperial Presidency"? It means a president who knows no limitations. He does whatever he wants, without having to answer to any other branch of government.

You do realize that the recent 8 years of the Bush administration did everything possible to achieve an imperial presidency, don't you? Gaining unlimited power for the president was the sole mission of Dick Cheney. He ran roughshod over the Constitution in an attempt to accomplish that and, to a very large part, succeeded.

And Bush ("The Decider") rode that wave for all it was worth. From the seclusion of the Oval Office, he "decided" what was going to happen, with little concern for the American public, the Constitution or anything else.

President Obama is, and has been ever since taking office, totally accessable to the American public. If anything, he is TOO much in the public eye. Press conference after press conference - answering questions, explaining positions taken, etc.

It doesn't surprise me that the Right is, once again, mischaracterizing the present administration and then arguing that mischaracterization. But you are dead wrong on this one. You want to talk about a "Regal Presidency" - all you have to do is look back to Bush's eight-year reign.

Well not exactly.

President Obama..is painfully process driven. Even with something like "Don't Ask Don't Tell". It seems he wants both consenus..and to use the legislative process to forward his agenda..not signing statements, executive orders or recess appointments.

He sure doesn't govern like an Imperial President..but the right goes crazy anyway.

 

[Si modo]

Well not really..

But thanks for playing. There are door prizes.

Logic is annoying to you, apparently.

Logic..isn't.

....

So, you use a fallacy, get called on it and laughed at for attempting it, then get angry.