2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

[Handyman]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

As for whether Mr. Obama can do what Mr. Bailey suggests, his track record since taking office tells me and the millions I speak of that it will never happen. His hubris and his actions against the traditional values and beliefs this country was founded upon have spoken volumes.

Please...do further explain this. I want to hear what "traditional values" and "beliefs this country was founded on" did he somehow bite his thumb at? Oh and a follow up question, who do you feel acts in respect to those supposed values and beliefs out of the current crop of hopefuls and which politcos previously did especially in the more recent election cycles?

(of course anyone who has taken civics knows that there are no "traditional values and beliefs" because no one agreed on anything...but please enlighten)

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Please...do further explain this. I want to hear what "traditional values" and "beliefs this country was founded on" did he somehow bite his thumb at? Oh and a follow up question, who do you feel acts in respect to those supposed values and beliefs out of the current crop of hopefuls and which politcos previously did especially in the more recent election cycles?

(of course anyone who has taken civics knows that there are no "traditional values and beliefs" because no one agreed on anything...but please enlighten)

Well he's a black man taking a position of power over whites, when he should understand that he's only 3/5ths.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

He's actually scared about the path on which we're headed? No possible way to take such a thought process seriously and summarizes why the GOP is currently a joke.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Please...do further explain this. I want to hear what "traditional values" and "beliefs this country was founded on" did he somehow bite his thumb at? Oh and a follow up question, who do you feel acts in respect to those supposed values and beliefs out of the current crop of hopefuls and which politcos previously did especially in the more recent election cycles?

(of course anyone who has taken civics knows that there are no "traditional values and beliefs" because no one agreed on anything...but please enlighten)

They've been called out on this before, and the fact is, the Boomers' idea of "traditional values and beliefs of the US" is grounded in their own values and beliefs from the 1950s, not those of the 18th century. The values and beliefs of the founders were far from traditional. In fact, they were radical, treasonous, and dangerous from the point of view of any European monarchy at the time. Now think, which generation has largely espoused the latter description of the current administration's worldview?

It's hardly a coincidence. 'Twas ever thus, and someday when it's their turn to hit old age, the Xers and the Mils will go through the same experience with whatever scary "librul" values and beliefs are sweeping the country at the time. They will wish they could all go back to when Clinton, or Obama, or whoever was in office, and life seemed simple.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

They've been called out on this before, and the fact is, the Boomers' idea of "traditional values and beliefs of the US" is grounded in their own values and beliefs from the 1950s, not those of the 18th century. The values and beliefs of the founders were far from traditional. In fact, they were radical, treasonous, and dangerous from the point of view of any European monarchy at the time. Now think, which generation has largely espoused the latter description of the current administration's worldview?

It's hardly a coincidence. 'Twas ever thus, and someday when it's their turn to hit old age, the Xers and the Mils will go through the same experience with whatever scary "librul" values and beliefs are sweeping the country at the time. They will wish they could all go back to when Clinton, or Obama, or whoever was in office, and life seemed simple.

Crash Davis once said:

Well, I believe in the soul, the c0ck, the pu$$y, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

They better double his secret service detail.

President Barack Obama is expected to announce in the coming days a new executive action with the goal of expanding background checks on gun sales, people familiar with White House planning said.

Described as "imminent," the set of executive actions would fulfill a promise by the President to take further unilateral steps the White House says could help curb gun deaths.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

If the Congress will not do what the President wants, does the President have the right, the duty, or the moral obligation to bypass the Congress and enact his wishes via Executive Orders or Rules?

 

[GrinCDXX]

If the Congress will not do what the President wants, does the President have the right, the duty, or the moral obligation to bypass the Congress and enact his wishes via Executive Orders or Rules?

Replace "what the president wants" with "what the majority of voters want" and you have a more intellectually honest question.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Replace "what the president wants" with "what the majority of voters want" and you have a more intellectually honest question.

Why do you say that? Your insertion, I'd argue, of what the majority of voters want can't be verified if they're not asked directly. You're committing a logical fallacy. Ask the majority of voters, would they have wanted No Child Left Behind? What about ______ that President _____ implemented?

Presidents have long had a history of initiating projects or making various decisions that were terribly unpopular. Those decisions might've been the best route for the country to take, but it wasn't necessarily the electorate's will.

 

[joecct]

Replace "what the president wants" with "what the majority of voters want" and you have a more intellectually honest question.

Watch what happens this week.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Watch what happens this week.

You mean after Obama implements a few common-sense measures that Congress should have passed years ago and that 90% of the population would agree with, but a vocal, minuscule special interest group spins them as bordering on treason?

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

You mean after Obama implements a few common-sense measures that Congress should have passed years ago and that 90% of the population would agree with, but a vocal, minuscule special interest group spins them as bordering on treason?

Most actual workaday members of the interest group agree with them, too. It's just the industry lobby opposing them, and even they only do it in order to trigger panic buying to fatten their wallets.

It's a wonderful racket. I mean, except for all the needless deaths (the vast majority being the gun owners' own family members), but hey, gotta keep those profits rolling in.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

You mean after Obama implements a few common-sense measures that Congress should have passed years ago and that 90% of the population would agree with, but a vocal, minuscule special interest group spins them as bordering on treason?

It's the principle that a president can bypass the legislative to implement his personal wishes (if 90% of the populace agrees, then the Congress would have a different makeup). It's another step in tilting the balance way towards the Executive.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Why do you say that? Your insertion, I'd argue, of what the majority of voters want can't be verified if they're not asked directly. You're committing a logical fallacy. Ask the majority of voters, would they have wanted No Child Left Behind? What about ______ that President _____ implemented?

Presidents have long had a history of initiating projects or making various decisions that were terribly unpopular. Those decisions might've been the best route for the country to take, but it wasn't necessarily the electorate's will.

Polls have shown the vast majority of respondents favor expanded background checks. From what I understand, that is what the president is planning.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Watch what happens this week.

I don't have to. A vocal minority will scream bloody murder.

 

[GrinCDXX]

It's the principle that a president can bypass the legislative to implement his personal wishes (if 90% of the populace agrees, then the Congress would have a different makeup). It's another step in tilting the balance way towards the Executive.

You're suggesting that the makeup of congress is a simple referendum on a single issue?

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

(if 90% of the populace agrees, then the Congress would have a different makeup).

A complete b.s. remark and your're smarter than this.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

US citizens want more gun control than what Obama is proposing...by a long shot.

Here's the focus of the Obama gun control approach:

Gun control advocates and White House officials say the focus remains on the so-called "gun show loophole," which allows certain sellers of guns -- at gun shows and elsewhere -- to avoid conducting background checks before making sales. Congress would still need to act in order to make background checks fully universal. But advocates and administration lawyers have struck upon a provision in the law that could allow for Obama to expand the background check requirement to additional sellers. Federal law currently requires all individuals "engaged in the business" of selling guns to obtain a license and conduct background checks on buyers. But others who only make occasional sales or are selling firearms from a personal collection are exempted from the background check requirement.

Here's a poll on current public opinion:

Currently, 85% of Americans – including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and Republicans (79%) – favor expanded background checks, little changed from May 2013 (81%). Almost identical shares of Republicans (81%) and Democrats (79%) support laws to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns. But other proposals are more divisive: 85% of Democrats favor creation of a database for the federal government to track gun sales, compared with 55% of Republicans. And while 70% of Democrats back an assault-weapons ban, only about half of Republicans (48%) favor this proposal. due to 'no opinion results', even more Republicans support an assault weapons ban than reject it

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08...-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/

 

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Guys

It's not the gun control, which may be a good thing, it is the usurpation of the powers of the legislative branch by the executive branch.

It's not a recent thing, either. Congress is too often delegating what the effect of a law is by letting the executive branch make rules to explain/enforce the law.

If this keeps up, the effectiveess of Congress will me marginalized to zero. Then we have a mess.