RP Listener Forum - Radio Paradise - eclectic commercial free Internet radio
[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant Massacree - painperson - Nov 27, 2014 - 11:02pm
 
By jimminy! Cricket! - MrsHobieJoe - Nov 27, 2014 - 10:53pm
 
ONE WORD - buzz - Nov 27, 2014 - 10:26pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - fractalv - Nov 27, 2014 - 9:44pm
 
RP Fifth Annual Gift Swap - 2010! - haresfur - Nov 27, 2014 - 6:56pm
 
Name My Band - buzz - Nov 27, 2014 - 6:17pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Toronto_Bhoy - Nov 27, 2014 - 3:49pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - buzz - Nov 27, 2014 - 3:13pm
 
Call 911 they passed out at Radio Paradise - DaveInVA - Nov 27, 2014 - 2:43pm
 
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year - DaveInVA - Nov 27, 2014 - 2:16pm
 
What makes you smile? - haresfur - Nov 27, 2014 - 1:57pm
 
Happy Thanksgiving! - haresfur - Nov 27, 2014 - 1:47pm
 
Way Cool Video - haresfur - Nov 27, 2014 - 1:37pm
 
Breaking News - DaveInVA - Nov 27, 2014 - 1:35pm
 
How's the weather? - oldbuzzard - Nov 27, 2014 - 1:12pm
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Nov 27, 2014 - 1:01pm
 
how do you feel right now? - oldbuzzard - Nov 27, 2014 - 12:59pm
 
Films you're excited about. - buzz - Nov 27, 2014 - 11:18am
 
Things You Thought Today - porphyrius - Nov 27, 2014 - 11:02am
 
FOUR WORDS - helenofjoy - Nov 27, 2014 - 10:52am
 
THREE WORDS - helenofjoy - Nov 27, 2014 - 10:52am
 
TWO WORDS - helenofjoy - Nov 27, 2014 - 10:51am
 
Quotations - helenofjoy - Nov 27, 2014 - 10:48am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Yonder - Nov 27, 2014 - 10:30am
 
The American Dream - oldviolin - Nov 27, 2014 - 9:04am
 
Things that piss me off - helenofjoy - Nov 27, 2014 - 8:22am
 
Economix - kurtster - Nov 27, 2014 - 8:21am
 
What is Humanity's best invention? - miamizsun - Nov 27, 2014 - 8:15am
 
Poetry Forum - Antigone - Nov 27, 2014 - 8:11am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - GeneP59 - Nov 27, 2014 - 12:45am
 
Road Trip! - BlueHeronDruid - Nov 26, 2014 - 3:35pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - DaveInVA - Nov 26, 2014 - 1:54pm
 
Questions. - kurtster - Nov 26, 2014 - 1:01pm
 
OUR CATS!! - JrzyTmata - Nov 26, 2014 - 12:52pm
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - KurtfromLaQuinta - Nov 26, 2014 - 10:08am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - oldviolin - Nov 26, 2014 - 9:50am
 
Amazing animals! - Coaxial - Nov 26, 2014 - 9:15am
 
Thought For The Day - Coaxial - Nov 26, 2014 - 9:03am
 
Bad Poetry - helenofjoy - Nov 26, 2014 - 7:43am
 
Make Lily34 Laugh - lily34 - Nov 26, 2014 - 7:31am
 
Important if you have small children - meower - Nov 26, 2014 - 7:13am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - islander - Nov 26, 2014 - 7:05am
 
RP App for Android - bstjames - Nov 26, 2014 - 6:41am
 
Radio Paradise on the Amazon Echo - Burkhardi - Nov 26, 2014 - 3:33am
 
NEED A COMPUTER GEEK! - Red_Dragon - Nov 25, 2014 - 7:27pm
 
Celebrity Deaths - bokey - Nov 25, 2014 - 6:20pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Alexandra - Nov 25, 2014 - 5:15pm
 
Stuff I've Said Out Loud - Red_Dragon - Nov 25, 2014 - 4:15pm
 
Nick Drake documentary 22/5/2004 - DaveInVA - Nov 25, 2014 - 12:34pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Nov 25, 2014 - 10:38am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Nov 25, 2014 - 10:33am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - sirdroseph - Nov 25, 2014 - 9:17am
 
Favorite Quotes - DaveInVA - Nov 25, 2014 - 8:06am
 
Post your mobile phone photos. Please limit to 510px wide. - Southern_Boy - Nov 25, 2014 - 8:05am
 
Chumby is alive again July 2014. Need RP widget. - DrLex - Nov 25, 2014 - 7:54am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Nov 25, 2014 - 6:07am
 
Jesus Is Magic - sirdroseph - Nov 25, 2014 - 4:28am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - averybadcat - Nov 25, 2014 - 4:28am
 
Are you ready for some football? - sirdroseph - Nov 25, 2014 - 4:09am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 24, 2014 - 9:53pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 24, 2014 - 9:45pm
 
Caretakers Of Our Parents - Alexandra - Nov 24, 2014 - 6:37pm
 
Maps • Google • GeoGuessr - thedoctork - Nov 24, 2014 - 6:08pm
 
BillyGee's Greatest Segues - Alexandra - Nov 24, 2014 - 12:08pm
 
The Global War on Terror - Red_Dragon - Nov 24, 2014 - 11:12am
 
Scooter guilty! - Proclivities - Nov 24, 2014 - 10:58am
 
Eric Clapton plays the devil's music - meower - Nov 24, 2014 - 8:57am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - helenofjoy - Nov 24, 2014 - 7:23am
 
Beer - buzz - Nov 24, 2014 - 7:13am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Coaxial - Nov 24, 2014 - 6:15am
 
Bear! - oldviolin - Nov 24, 2014 - 6:05am
 
Vision Thing - UPDATE - Sadfish - Nov 24, 2014 - 4:46am
 
Android app - cash refresh procedure change proposal - PavelH - Nov 24, 2014 - 1:07am
 
Best Song Comments. - ScottN - Nov 23, 2014 - 9:58pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - buzz - Nov 23, 2014 - 9:53pm
 
(a public service of RP)
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Obama's Second Term Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 75, 76, 77  Next
Post to this Topic
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 4:05pm

 islander wrote:


 
Yep, the Democrats controlled both sides of Congress from 2006 to 2010.

That would be Reid and Pelosi.  The same folks in charge during Obama's first two years.

So your point is ? 


islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 1:05pm


kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 12:31pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

It's a pretty interesting demonstration of balance of power. We know that the 3 branches can wield some power, to which the other branches typically respond. My opinion is that a few years ago, when Obama said he did not have unilateral authority to take these actions, it was because there was still a glimmer of hope that the congress would exercise its power. So they did nothing, the executive did nothing, and lately, everything's gone to the judicial to make any decisions. Which is fine with most Republicans, right now. So now, my take is that congress has abdicated its responsibility to produce legislation that the executive can act upon, so it falls to the executive to do something. If the legislative wants that power back, they will have to generate something for the president to sign or veto. But absent that, the executive can/should/will continue to operate the country to the best of his ability. Because if not the executive, it will be the judicial. A pack of unelected elites, 6 Roman Catholic and 3 Jewish... that no one in America is comfortable with except for how, right now, it leans to the right. I admire about 3 of the justices, tolerate 4, despise 2. I'm sure most Americans have a similar breakdown.

Congress needs to get itself off the mat and solve some problems. Pass some laws, eliminate some laws, whatever. Until they do, they have no right to bitch when the boss scolds them and does their work for them.

 

 
Hmmm.   Let's start out with there are two divisions of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate.  The POTUS can propose legislation but cannot introduce legislation in either house.  A member of each division must do that.  That's two people minimum, one in each division / house.  Prior to 2010, both houses were controlled by the Democrats.  There was no action taken on immigration reform.  It was one of Obama's first year priorities, yet no Democrat introduced any legislation that got anywhere.  Prior to 2010, neither house passed a Budget, let alone bring one to the floor.  In 2010, when the House of Representatives flipped, the Repubs introduced the first Budget proposal in either house for the first time since Obama was elected.  Remember the ads showing Ryan pushing Grandma over the cliff in her wheel chair ?  The House sent it and others in successive years to the Senate where they just sat because Leader Reid would not bring them up for a vote.  We went over 1,000 days without Reid taking any action on the Budget which is the primary duty of Congress.  Only the Republicans complained.  It took the act of Sequestration to get a Budget passed.  Does anyone remember the Sequestration ?  This resulting Budget was the first one passed since Obama was elected.  Other than that we had nothing but debt ceiling drama and continuing resolutions.  Those seem to have been forgotten as well.

Then we had Obama's famous Jobs Bill.  It was introduced in the House and voted down before anyone in the senate even introduced it.  It sat for over 3 months IIRC before Reid finally introduced it because no other Democrat would.  Everyone was blaming the Republicans for stalling Obama's Jobs Bill when it was the Senate democrats who were stalling the Bill. Then it got voted down unanimously when Reid finally brought it up for a vote.  Yet everyone still blamed the Republicans.

I could bring up other examples of this phony obstructionism leveled at Republicans.  But these two are enough for the point being made.

That Congress either chooses to do nothing or does not pass a Bill that the POTUS wants is not grounds for the POTUS to act against the Constitution to get something he wants done.  Obama announced that he would take the action he announced last night after the election.  Why not before ?  Duh ...  He waited 6 years to get around to something that was so important, he made it a campaign promise for his first year in office.  And then after the last election during his last term.  It wasn't important enough before the election, but suddenly it got important after the election.  Hmmmm.

Congress is independent of the Executive Branch and equal to it.  Congress can pass Bills it wants, but the POTUS doesn't have to sign them and make them law.  If Congress doesn't give the POTUS the laws he / she wants, it does not give the POTUS an excuse to act on their own and create their own laws.  Its a two way street.  We shall soon see more Bills passed in the coming two years than the prior six, is my prediction.  Obama is going to get writers' cramp from either signing them or vetoing them.  Remember that gridlock in Congress is a Constitutional design to prevent bad laws from being passed.

And all this fuss over one Bill when Reid has refused to hold votes on 400 Bills sent over from the House ?  Paalleeese ....

That's all for now.  If my tone was terse, its only because I get that way when I have to go down memory lane to help people remember the things conveniently left out of discussions.  Nothing personal, just trying to get this stuff out.


sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:48am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Hmm, he was acting in spite of an engaged congress. They just didn't want him doing the stuff he wanted to do. But yeah, in the absence of power, someone else will fill the gap. Congress back then was pretty weak too, so it's expected that the prez would do some freelancing. This is why it's important to elect sane people who understand how to cooperate, both to congress and to the presidency. All these people whose platform is "overturn Obama..." are just indicating they have nothing to offer. Likewise the people who run/ran just to counter Bush. 

 

I agree, I have also come to the conclusion we will not get this from either a Democrat or a Republican.
ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints.
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:44am

 sirdroseph wrote:


So I guess you were good with Bush doing the same things, after all he was just trying to get stuff done.

 
Hmm, he was acting in spite of an engaged congress. They just didn't want him doing the stuff he wanted to do. But yeah, in the absence of power, someone else will fill the gap. Congress back then was pretty weak too, so it's expected that the prez would do some freelancing. This is why it's important to elect sane people who understand how to cooperate, both to congress and to the presidency. All these people whose platform is "overturn Obama..." are just indicating they have nothing to offer. Likewise the people who run/ran just to counter Bush. 
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:34am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Post too long to reply: So in other words, you do not agree with Obama in regards to law; 
 
I hate it when he feels like dissembling lawyer-speak is the best option, but his parsing (as far as I have read it, which is not very far or deep) seems agreeable to me. I agree that 3 years ago, he did not have the authority. I agree that now, he does. Nothing's changed, no. Except that the responsibility to act has shifted to him via the "to the best of my ability" pledge. 

 

So I guess you were good with Bush doing the same things, after all he was just trying to get stuff done. I find it amusing when Cheney criticizes Obama for anything.  I think it is jealousy, Obama is getting more done than Cheney did.


islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:28am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Post too long to reply: So in other words, you do not agree with Obama in regards to law; 
 
I hate it when he feels like dissembling lawyer-speak is the best option, but his parsing (as far as I have read it, which is not very far or deep) seems agreeable to me. I agree that 3 years ago, he did not have the authority. I agree that now, he does. Nothing's changed, no. Except that the responsibility to act has shifted to him via the "to the best of my ability" pledge. 

 
I've never been a fan of the 'executive authority' stuff. But like you said, at some point when you want to force action you need to do something.  I don't think this will go over well, but I don't think the republicans had any intention of acting to get anything done either. It's not like they were lining up to confirm appointees, or looking for opportunities to compromise on policy anyway.  So now we are on to 2016 - let's get the names out so we can start to tear them down.

I'm really hoping for Clinton/Bush. I think that might be a contest where a notable contingent would vote for a 3rd option. 
ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints.
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:23am

Post too long to reply: So in other words, you do not agree with Obama in regards to law; 
 
I hate it when he feels like dissembling lawyer-speak is the best option, but his parsing (as far as I have read it, which is not very far or deep) seems agreeable to me. I agree that 3 years ago, he did not have the authority. I agree that now, he does. Nothing's changed, no. Except that the responsibility to act has shifted to him via the "to the best of my ability" pledge. 


sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:14am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

It's a pretty interesting demonstration of balance of power. We know that the 3 branches can wield some power, to which the other branches typically respond. My opinion is that a few years ago, when Obama said he did not have unilateral authority to take these actions, it was because there was still a glimmer of hope that the congress would exercise its power. So they did nothing, the executive did nothing, and lately, everything's gone to the judicial to make any decisions. Which is fine with most Republicans, right now. So now, my take is that congress has abdicated its responsibility to produce legislation that the executive can act upon, so it falls to the executive to do something. If the legislative wants that power back, they will have to generate something for the president to sign or veto. But absent that, the executive can/should/will continue to operate the country to the best of his ability. Because if not the executive, it will be the judicial. A pack of unelected elites, 6 Roman Catholic and 3 Jewish... that no one in America is comfortable with except for how, right now, it leans to the right. I admire about 3 of the justices, tolerate 4, despise 2. I'm sure most Americans have a similar breakdown.

Congress needs to get itself off the mat and solve some problems. Pass some laws, eliminate some laws, whatever. Until they do, they have no right to bitch when the boss scolds them and does their work for them.

 

 

So in other words, you do not agree with Obama in regards to law;

President Barack Obama tried to rewrite history by claiming that his position had not changed regarding legal authority for executive orders on immigration that he is now considering.

During a press conference in Brisbane, Australia, Obama was asked what had changed since he made comments in 2013 that he was “not king” and “not the emperor” in response to questions about stopping deportations and providing temporary legal status to undocumented workers — much as he is now contemplating.

Obama replied that his “position hasn’t changed” and that the questions then were about him unilaterally enacting comprehensive immigration changes similar to the Senate bill that passed in 2013, but stalled in the House. But those questions in early 2013 weren’t about a comprehensive immigration overhaul, they were about Obama taking the kinds of executive actions he is now mulling.

Here’s how the question was raised in Australia on Nov. 16:

Jim Avila of ABC News, Nov. 16: Following up on immigration — in 2010, when asked by immigration reform advocates to stop deportations and act alone on providing legal status for the undocumented, you said, “I’m President, I’m not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.” In 2013, you said, “I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.” Mr. President, what has changed since then? And since you’ve now had a chance to talk since July with your legal advisors, what do you now believe are your limits so that you can continue to act as president and not as emperor or king?

Obama: Well, actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress. And getting a comprehensive deal of the sort that is in the Senate legislation, for example, does extend beyond my legal authorities. There are certain things I cannot do. There are certain limits to what falls within the realm of prosecutorial discretion in terms of how we apply existing immigration laws.

But the questions posed to Obama earlier were very specific. They asked the president whether he had the authority to do the very kinds of things he is considering now. For weeks, Obama has been saying that if Congress fails to act on immigration, he will “do everything I can lawfully with my executive authority to make sure that we don’t keep on making the system worse.” According to the New York Times, Obama plans to lift the threat of deportation from as many as 5 million immigrants in the country illegally — mainly the relatives of people already in the country legally — and to offer many of them work permits.

Obama’s action would not permanently change a person’s immigration status and would not provide a pathway to citizenship, as was proposed in the Senate immigration bill that stalled. Obama is correct that that kind of lasting, comprehensive immigration overhaul has to come through Congress. But that’s not what was asked of him in the interviews back in early 2013.

The “I’m not a king” comment came during an interview of Obama on Univision on Jan. 30, 2013.

Maria Elena Salinas of Univision: Now I know that you have reduced, this is another concern on Twitter, the number of deportations of non-criminals. However, in 2012 more than 184,000 non-criminals were deported. In the spirit of your push for immigration reform, would you consider a moratorium on deportations of non-criminals? Remember, these are your words: “This is not about policy. It’s about people.”

Obama: Well, I think it is important to remind everybody that, as I said I think previously, and I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law. And that’s what we’ve done. But what I’ve also said is, let’s make sure that we’re applying the law in a way that takes into account people’s humanity. That’s the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law. The same is true with respect to the kinds of the length of time that people have to spend outside of the country when their spouses are already here for example.

The “I’m not the emperor of the United States” comment came during a Google Hangout interview two weeks later, on Feb. 14, 2013, (starting at the 18:42 mark).

Jacky Guerrero of California: Your administration has deported a record high number of 1.5 million undocumented immigrants, more than your predecessor. And I know your administration took some steps last year to protect unintended undocumented immigrants from being deported. However many people say that those efforts weren’t enough. What I’d like to know is what you’re going to do now until the time immigration reform is passed, to insure that more people aren’t being deported and families aren’t being broken apart.

Obama: Well, look Jacky, this is something that I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that, you know, I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed, and Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system.

And what that means is is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place, even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. And what we have been able to do is to make sure that we’re focusing our enforcement resources on criminals, as opposed to somebody who’s here just trying to work and look after their families.

What we have tried to do is administratively reduce the burdens and hardships on families being separated. And what we’ve done is, obviously, pass the deferred action which made sure that the DREAMers, young people who were brought here and think of themselves as Americans, are American except for their papers, that they’re not deported.

Having said all that, we’ve kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can. And that’s why making sure we get comprehensive immigration reform done is so important.

In both cases, the president was asked about executive actions to remove the threat of deportations from a much larger group, to prevent the breakup of families — the very thing Obama is proposing to do now. Then, Obama said, “e’ve kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can.” Now, he believes he has the legal authority to do it.

In a similar analysis of Obama’s claim that his “position hasn’t changed,” Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler noted two other instances in which Obama previously claimed he lacked the authority to extend a freeze of deportations to a larger class of immigrants in the country illegally, or to grant temporary status.

The first came in a Univision town hall meeting on March 28, 2011, in which Obama was asked if he could “grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students.” Obama said that he could not.

Obama, 2011: With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.

The other example cited by Kessler was an interview with Noticias Telemundo on Sept. 17, 2013, during which Obama was specifically asked if he would “at least consider unilaterally freezing the deportations for parents of deferred-action kids.” Again, Obama said he could not.

Obama, Sept. 17, 2013: My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said, here’s the law when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they allocate a whole bunch of money for enforcement.

Obama continued to say that he had made the legal argument that the government did not have the resources to deport so-called DREAMers — people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as young children. But he didn’t think it was legally possible to extend that policy beyond DREAMers.

“But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally,” Obama said. “So that’s not an option. I do get a little worried that advocates of immigration reform start losing heart and immediately thinking, well, somehow there’s an out here — if Congress doesn’t act, we will just have the president sign something and that will take care of it, and we won’t have to worry about it. What I have said is that there is a path to get this done and that is through Congress.”

According to the New York Times, White House officials insist the evolution of Obama’s comments reflects a change in emphasis, rather than a change in opinion, and that at the time Obama was focused on convincing Congress to pass comprehensive immigration legislation.

We take no position on whether Obama has the legal authority to enact the kinds of immigration changes he is considering via executive authority. Ultimately, that may have to be decided in federal courts (as Republicans have threatened a legal challenge). But then, Obama said he lacked the legal authority to suspend deportation of family members. Now, he says he has just such legal authority.


ScottN
"Thought for today" has been postponed until tomorrow.
ScottN Avatar

Location: An inch above the K/T boundary. But smth near fracking still has appeal.
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aries
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 9:09am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

It's a pretty interesting demonstration of balance of power. We know that the 3 branches can wield some power, to which the other branches typically respond. My opinion is that a few years ago, when Obama said he did not have unilateral authority to take these actions, it was because there was still a glimmer of hope that the congress would exercise its power. So they did nothing, the executive did nothing, and lately, everything's gone to the judicial to make any decisions. Which is fine with most Republicans, right now. So now, my take is that congress has abdicated its responsibility to produce legislation that the executive can act upon, so it falls to the executive to do something. If the legislative wants that power back, they will have to generate something for the president to sign or veto. But absent that, the executive can/should/will continue to operate the country to the best of his ability. Because if not the executive, it will be the judicial. A pack of unelected elites, 6 Roman Catholic and 3 Jewish... that no one in America is comfortable with except for how, right now, it leans to the right. I admire about 3 of the justices, tolerate 4, despise 2. I'm sure most Americans have a similar breakdown.

Congress needs to get itself off the mat and solve some problems. Pass some laws, eliminate some laws, whatever. Until they do, they have no right to bitch when the boss scolds them and does their work for them.

 
My bolds

Well done, Scott. Succinct and deft summary, imo.
ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints.
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 8:56am

 sirdroseph wrote:
I couldn't care less about the Republicans in congress's opinion, you are correct they have lost their right to complain about executive action.  I am more concerned with the opinion of the US citizens presumably under the protection of law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in regards to executive and federal government action and inaction according to their political whims.  It is all a joke and the joke is not on those in power I assure you.
 
It's a pretty interesting demonstration of balance of power. We know that the 3 branches can wield some power, to which the other branches typically respond. My opinion is that a few years ago, when Obama said he did not have unilateral authority to take these actions, it was because there was still a glimmer of hope that the congress would exercise its power. So they did nothing, the executive did nothing, and lately, everything's gone to the judicial to make any decisions. Which is fine with most Republicans, right now. So now, my take is that congress has abdicated its responsibility to produce legislation that the executive can act upon, so it falls to the executive to do something. If the legislative wants that power back, they will have to generate something for the president to sign or veto. But absent that, the executive can/should/will continue to operate the country to the best of his ability. Because if not the executive, it will be the judicial. A pack of unelected elites, 6 Roman Catholic and 3 Jewish... that no one in America is comfortable with except for how, right now, it leans to the right. I admire about 3 of the justices, tolerate 4, despise 2. I'm sure most Americans have a similar breakdown.

Congress needs to get itself off the mat and solve some problems. Pass some laws, eliminate some laws, whatever. Until they do, they have no right to bitch when the boss scolds them and does their work for them.

 
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 8:25am

 kurtster wrote:

I don't do blogs or any news feeds.  Never have and unlikely I will.  Because I happen to agree with some opinions expressed does not mean they are the source of my opinions.  I listen to what is said by the person saying it as much as possible.  I rarely rely on someone's opinion of what I have not heard myself.  I see the lips move and hear the words.  Kinda like, you don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows ...  Or being told that its raining when someone is simply pissing on you ...

If I read a blog, it only happens for two reasons.  A) I read a link someone else posted to one and B) its what came up in a search on a topic.  And if a blog does come up in a search, I look for an actual news source first, using a blog for a reference as a last resort, if at all.

You really do find independent thought impossible.  Sad ...  Who does your thinking for you ?

Edit:  I made it through the first 50 years of my life without the benefit of a computer and the first 55 years without the benefit of google.  I learned long ago of how to figure things out on my own and make decisions based upon my own homework and research through the means available.  And with a public school edumacation ...

 
This reminds me of that scene in Hamlet . . .

 
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 7:25am

 islander wrote:

Every 'opinion' you have on this (and nearly every other issue besides marijuana) comes straight from a right wing blog somewhere. It's pretty predictable - if Obama is for it, you are against it. 

 
I don't do blogs or any news feeds.  Never have and unlikely I will.  Because I happen to agree with some opinions expressed does not mean they are the source of my opinions.  I listen to what is said by the person saying it as much as possible.  I rarely rely on someone's opinion of what I have not heard myself.  I see the lips move and hear the words.  Kinda like, you don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows ...  Or being told that its raining when someone is simply pissing on you ...

If I read a blog, it only happens for two reasons.  A) I read a link someone else posted to one and B) its what came up in a search on a topic.  And if a blog does come up in a search, I look for an actual news source first, using a blog for a reference as a last resort, if at all.

You really do find independent thought impossible.  Sad ...  Who does your thinking for you ?

Edit:  I made it through the first 50 years of my life without the benefit of a computer and the first 55 years without the benefit of google.  I learned long ago of how to figure things out on my own and make decisions based upon my own homework and research through the means available.  And with a public school edumacation ...


sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 7:15am

 ScottN wrote:
Someone please tell me how to reconcile this seeming contradiction:

The House refuses to even allow a floor vote on a comprehensive Immigration Bill sent to them from The Senate; a bill that had significant bi-partisan support. Yet, while still refusing to even allow a vote, The House (many members and Speaker Boehner) rail against Obama's use of executive action and his statement literally pleading for Congressional action. 

Imo, had The House voted, and then defeated said Bill, they would have a right to opine.  Their inaction relieves them of the right to criticize BO or anyone on Immigration policy.  We need solutions from, and a genuinely thoughtful, "loyal opposition". We need ideas, dialogue and debate instead of constant complaint while offering no, or few, ideas of their own.

 

I couldn't care less about the Republicans in congress's opinion, you are correct they have lost their right to complain about executive action.  I am more concerned with the opinion of the US citizens presumably under the protection of law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in regards to executive and federal government action and inaction according to their political whims.  It is all a joke and the joke is not on those in power I assure you.
ScottN
"Thought for today" has been postponed until tomorrow.
ScottN Avatar

Location: An inch above the K/T boundary. But smth near fracking still has appeal.
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aries
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 7:01am

Someone please tell me how to reconcile this seeming contradiction:

The House refuses to even allow a floor vote on a comprehensive Immigration Bill sent to them from The Senate; a bill that had significant bi-partisan support. Yet, while still refusing to even allow a vote, The House (many members and Speaker Boehner) rail against Obama's use of executive action and his statement literally pleading for Congressional action. 

Imo, had The House voted, and then defeated said Bill, they would have a right to opine.  Their inaction relieves them of the right to criticize BO or anyone on Immigration policy.  We need solutions from, and a genuinely thoughtful, "loyal opposition". We need ideas, dialogue and debate instead of constant complaint while offering no, or few, ideas of their own.
islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 7:00am

 kurtster wrote:

Then show me where I took sides, other than where I hope Republicans are not that stupid.  But is that remark really taking sides ?  I don't think it is.

 
Every 'opinion' you have on this (and nearly every other issue besides marijuana) comes straight from a right wing blog somewhere. It's pretty predictable - if Obama is for it, you are against it. 
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 6:58am

 Red_Dragon wrote:


wait. what?

 
Pure straw when looked at case by case and in relations to laws on the books that these orders support, not undermine.
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 6:55am

 islander wrote:

I was more confused by your claim of non-partisan. 

 
Then show me where I took sides, other than where I hope Republicans are not that stupid.  But is that remark really taking sides ?  I don't think it is.


islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 6:44am

 kurtster wrote:

There was no advice offered anywhere in my comments.  Where you might be confused about that would be by misreading the parts where I said that if I were, I would be (this is the transitive tense for all those grammar cops out there), into what I did not say that you are trying to infer that I did as if I were, then they should do.

If I did give any actual advice, please show me where I did.  I will be happy to discuss it.  I thought that it was an analysis and nothing more.

 
I was more confused by your claim of non-partisan. 
Red_Dragon
y ddraig goch ddyry gychwyn
Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Redneck Nation


Posted: Nov 21, 2014 - 6:43am



wait. what?
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 75, 76, 77  Next