Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 162

Thread: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

  1. #41
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,935

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    While I know you're being factious, I think anyone who thought Obama was actually going to bring "hope" and "change" is fooling themselves. He's standard politician and that's it; Chicago at that. There will be no hope or change with Obama, there will merely be a continuation of the standard government tyranny.
    In a nutshell!!
    It's nothing more than X's and O's.

  2. #42
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,437

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by shiznit770 View Post
    Let me clarify. Your argument is unfocused and thus easily dismissed. You think that recent scandals in the democratic party are evidence of Obama rescinding on his promises. Since you won't coherently phrase your argument it is hopeless to respond to.
    In otherwords you don't like what I say about obama so you are gonna go with this incoherent nonsense to avoid an actual discussion.


    See Obama said no to politics as usual, then he picked insiders and the usuals..... Here we see people marred in scandal that he chose. To me it looks like more of the same old.


    That is the discussion. Feel free to participate or not.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #43
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Hmmm, how does that apply to the US and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? How has the government expanded it's power? Specifics, please, no partisan rhetoric about liberty being denied. And how has the government built up the military? Of course, it hasn't...but how do you think it has?
    Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Real ID Act, No Fly list, wiretaps, etc. Plus spending what is it, a trillion or so on a war, setting up a puppet governmnet, occupying sovereign land, going to war without formal declaration, etc. How did the government not increase in size? More laws, more control, more surveillance. We need less of all these things, not more.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Huh? While I recognize that nations have agreed to how conduct war (see Geneva, for example), they didn't do so in order to check their own ambitions to expand their power or build up their military might. They did so because such agreements recognize long-established morals of fighting wars.

    Where do you get the idea that nations have agreed to restrictions on the reasons they choose to go to war? I don't know of any nation that subscribes to the idea that they have subjugated their sovereignty to any NGO, to the UN, or any other body. Do you?
    Supposed to take a formal declaration of war by Congress. President is commander in chief when forces are called up. The only mechanism in the Constitution to call up is a declaration of war by Congress. When going against other nations, other government, as we did in Iraq you rightfully need a formal declaration of war. War should not be permitted without it. Not some vote to "authorize" blah blah blah; whatever the treasonous Congress did to give away part of their checks and balances over military use. The Constitution says only Congress can declare war, thus if you want to go to war, Congress must declare it. Congress is also to control the purse strings, unfortunately that too has been corrupted. Now it's "they won't fund the troops, they don't care about our military men and women" blah blah blah. How the hell is Congress supposed to exert any amount of control without being able to exercise that which was granted to it by the People? The President for all intensive purposes fully and always controls the military. He can use it as he sees fit, that sounds like the power of a King; not that of a public servant.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    We don't?
    No, we don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    It seems to me that the reigning argument nowadays is that Congress or the Courts should be supreme in order to check a President they hate. And this depends on the individual's policy preferences. If you're pro-abortion you want the Courts to be a superior branch to be the final arbiter of what is constitutional and to invent and protect new rights that you find preferable. If you're anti-war you demand that Congress be superior and conduct non-stop, over-arching investigations of whatever it wants to within the Executive Branch.
    Yes, Congress and the SCOTUS have some say in this. The President isn't to be king. In fact, I would say the President wasn't meant to be the most powerful political position in the US. The President is merely the Executive, the most powerful branch was to be Congress. The Congress must be made to retake the powers it gave away. Those powers aren't theirs to give away, those were demands and restrictions by the People. There must be friction between the 3 branches, there must be checks and balances. As it stands now, the President has well too much power; we weren't meant to be ruled by a king.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    I have faith in the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances, but it seems to me that liberals and Democrats hate both concepts currently. And most likely becuase both concepts limit their ability to reign in the branches they need to in order to realize their policy preferences.
    I think many people hate checks and balances. I would say neo-cons especially hate that. They hate the courts coming in and telling them that their fascist laws are unconstitutional. While there may be areas in which the democrats hate check and balances, you saying it's only liberals shows your true partisan behavior. Both sides do it, both sides are corrupt, both sides want nothing more than power even if it comes at the expense of the rights and liberties of the People.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    What pop culture rubbish this is. No wonder our younger generations do not deserve our respect.
    Maybe the younger generation is just getting sick of bowing their heads to government. You take not even the time to consider the words, knee-jerk reactionary sentiment. Oh those youngin's these days...they don't know blah blah blah. Condescending tripe. Maybe those whom have lost the will to oppose government growth don't deserve our respect. Those willing to excuse the treason and tyranny of the State for a little "safety". Franklin was right, the founders were right. Distrust the government, watch it and constrain it. It's not something to let go, it's not something to have blind faith it, it is something that will always have to be opposed. That's reality.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #44
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Supposed to take a formal declaration of war by Congress. President is commander in chief when forces are called up.
    The President is -always- the CinC.
    The "when called into service" clause refers to federalizing the militia, which does not require a DoW from congress.

  5. #45
    Professor
    shiznit770's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    07-08-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,393

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Is this trolling or is it just whining?




    Do you have any issues with the sheer amount of scandals that already surround the obama picks?

    Or are you cool with politics as usual?
    Maybe I'm not aware of the scandals. Lets recap and try to keep them limited to those related to Obama's actions since that's the point you seem to want to make.

    Secretary Of State nominees

    Hilary Clinton - Passed legislation before husband received 100,000 donation to presidential library

    Bill Richardson - Subject to a grand jury hearing.
    Apparently some brilliant financial company that advised Jefferson County, Alabama into near-bankruptcy was also hired to work its magic on the state of New Mexico after it donated 100 grand to various political action committees formed by Bill Richardson.
    While this may seem a huge controversy to you, I find the list rather small and inconclusive in the least. Do you have anything besides the Op-Ed's partisan conclusions and cheap rhetoric to back your claim?

  6. #46
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,437

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by shiznit770 View Post
    Maybe I'm not aware of the scandals. Lets recap and try to keep them limited to those related to Obama's actions since that's the point you seem to want to make.

    Secretary Of State nominees

    Hilary Clinton - Passed legislation before husband received 100,000 donation to presidential library

    Bill Richardson - Subject to a grand jury hearing.


    While this may seem a huge controversy to you, I find the list rather small and inconclusive in the least. Do you have anything besides the Op-Ed's partisan conclusions and cheap rhetoric to back your claim?



    Nothing you would not cackle that its no big deal and call it "Cheap rhetortic" whitout submitting the intellectual exercise to explain why its cheap. .....


    It's funny how you excuse the scandals that surround Obamas picks....
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  7. #47
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The President is -always- the CinC.
    The "when called into service" clause refers to federalizing the militia, which does not require a DoW from congress.
    While there is need for a standing army, at the time there wasn't a standing army. It had to be called up. Washington's army was comprised of called up militia and was disbanded afterwards. Congress must have a check in terms of war, the President is not king.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #48
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Nothing you would not cackle that its no big deal and call it "Cheap rhetortic" whitout submitting the intellectual exercise to explain why its cheap. .....


    It's funny how you excuse the scandals that surround Obamas picks....
    About all you have posted is coincidences.

  9. #49
    Professor
    shiznit770's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    07-08-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,393

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Nothing you would cackle that its no big deal and call it "Cheap rhetortic".....


    It's funny how you excuse the scandals that surround Obamas picks....
    So there aren't any more? Am I mistaken in pointing out that both nominees were discarded after these issues were discovered?

    Isn't the whole idea of choosing cabinet members from lists of nominees to weed out corruption and scandal?

    I'm sorry, but it still seems as if the good Reverend found an Op-Ed and failed to turn it into "Breaking News"

  10. #50
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    While there is need for a standing army, at the time there wasn't a standing army. It had to be called up. Washington's army was comprised of called up militia and was disbanded afterwards. Congress must have a check in terms of war, the President is not king.
    However right or wrong this may be, none of this changes anything I said.

    I am baffled as to where the 'The President isn't CinC unless called into service by a DoW from Congress' idea comes from.

    Who, exactly, is the CinC, if not the President?

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •