• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Protesters halt operations at some western ports

Fact...the bill could not be vetoed
Fact...the right supported the bill
Fact...the left did not

The president can veto any bill he does not like. It doesn't matter if there are 1/3rds or 2/3rds in congress who want it enacted.The 2/3rds just means they can enact a bill into law despite the president's veto.


Veto override - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the United States, Congress can override a presidential veto by having a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and Senate, thus enacting the bill into law despite the president's veto.
 
The president can veto any bill he does not like. It doesn't matter if there are 1/3rds or 2/3rds in congress who want it enacted.The 2/3rds just means they can enact a bill into law despite the president's veto.


Veto override - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the United States, Congress can override a presidential veto by having a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and Senate, thus enacting the bill into law despite the president's veto.

Vetoing a bill with a veto proof majority is a useless act. The fact remains that the bill was proposed by rightwinger, supported by rightwingers, voted for by rightwingers, and now the right wants to whine "Clinton made us do it"

It's the ABC's of republicanism "Always Blame Clinton"
 
Vetoing a bill with a veto proof majority is a useless act.

It still does not change the fact that if Clinton didn't want it then he could have vetoed it.No one forced him to sign the bill.The fact he signed the bill means he supports it.


The fact remains that the bill was proposed by rightwinger, supported by rightwingers, voted for by rightwingers, and now the right wants to whine "Clinton made us do it"

The fact remains it is democrat president who signed it into law. if he didn't sign into law it would have been republican veto that signed it into law. You seem to have the misconception that liberal politicians give a **** about the working class. The truth is both parties kiss the ass of businesses.

It's the ABC's of republicanism "Always Blame Clinton"

The ABC's of partisan hack libs is to always blame republicans.
 
what the **** does bill clinton have to do with this ****? Holy **** man!!!!!!!!
 
Yes. Do you have a point, or should I expect more non-sequitors from you?

The point is democrats have screwed workers just as much or if not more than republicans have done.
 
It still does not change the fact that if Clinton didn't want it then he could have vetoed it.No one forced him to sign the bill.The fact he signed the bill means he supports it.




The fact remains it is democrat president who signed it into law. if he didn't sign into law it would have been republican veto that signed it into law. You seem to have the misconception that liberal politicians give a **** about the working class. The truth is both parties kiss the ass of businesses.



The ABC's of partisan hack libs is to always blame republicans.

That doesn't change the fact that signing a bill that didn't need his signature does not make him wholly responsible for it. The fact remains that it was the rightwing who supported the bill and the left who opposed it. You seem to have the misconception that rightwing politicians give a **** about the working class and had nothing to do with repealing Glass-Steagall.
 
The point is democrats have screwed workers just as much or if not more than republicans have done.

Which is why I'm an independent, but at least I'm not so dishonest that I try to pretend that the right had nothing to do with repealing Glass-Steagall.
 
That doesn't change the fact that signing a bill that didn't need his signature does not make him wholly responsible for it. The fact remains that it was the rightwing who supported the bill and the left who opposed it. You seem to have the misconception that rightwing politicians give a **** about the working class and had nothing to do with repealing Glass-Steagall.

Again if Clinton really opposed it he could have refused to sign it.
 
Which is why I'm an independent,
An independent partisan hack lib.

but at least I'm not so dishonest that I try to pretend that the right had nothing to do with repealing Glass-Steagall.
Did I ever say the right had nothing to do with repealing the Glass-Steagall act?
 
It still does not change the fact that if Clinton didn't want it then he could have vetoed it.No one forced him to sign the bill.The fact he signed the bill means he supports it.

Again if Clinton really opposed it he could have refused to sign it.

Seriously?
 
How did the OWS cordinate shutting down the west coast? Twitter? Why weren't the intercepted?

I think the better question should be why aren't the police tossing the protester in jail to blocking the ports.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stick to the topic and stop attacking each other please.
 
I think the better question should be why aren't the police tossing the protester in jail to blocking the ports.

The police, throughout this whole OWS thing, have been very careful to avoid conflict whenever possible.

Frankly, I think this must irritate Adbusters to no end, since they really want violent confrontation...and they are NOT getting it.
 
Child labor laws take away the freedom that families have to provide for themselves. 40 hour work week takes freedom away from the worker to choose to work extra hours for extra pay to support his/her family. Blah blah blah.

Got any docs showing what egg-head made that argument?
 
No, Wall St is screwing with the economy, with the ability of workers to earn income and pay their bills and the ability of consumers world wide access to products. Wall St is hurting the people they claim to be the champions of because in their greedy little world, it will benefit their portfolios. Their actions are destructive and corrupt.

The government is screwing with it, more.
 
Typical rightwing idolatry for authority. The wingnuts on the right can't bring themselves to criticize the Wall St a-holes responsible for putting millions out of work. After all, those rightwing nutbags voted for the republicans who allowed them do it by deregulating Wall St.

That's because the Wall Street assholes aren't the ones that put millions of people out of work.
 
Like I said, the worshipers of authoritrianism refuse to criticize their corporate masters. That's the only pay (their own) that they're concerned with.

So, where are these working folks supposed to earn a living? From the government? Where does the government get it's money?
 
FACT...Presidents don't pass legislation; Congress does. The bill that dismantled Glass-Steagall was introduced by repub Phil Gramm and supported by the right and opposed by liberals

FACT: Clinton had veto power and the Democrats had a fliibuster.
 
that's, kinda ironic.

anyways, shutting down port operations for one day is meaningless.

Unless you're that guy that will miss a day's pay because of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom