What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

So I am watching The Daily Show and I am not sure what I find more upsetting...the fact that HSBC is not going to be prosecuted for laundering money for terrorists because they are "To Big to Prosecute" and are instead allowed to pay $1.9 billion in fines or that AIG is suing the government over the bailout! This is the country we live in folks, companies get bailed out and sue because they didnt get enough or the terms werent perfect and other banks can help terrorist groups and not get in any real trouble ($1.9 billion to a massive bank is nothing) because they have too much power!
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Handyman said:
So I am watching The Daily Show and I am not sure what I find more upsetting...the fact that HSBC is not going to be prosecuted for laundering money for terrorists because they are "To Big to Prosecute" and are instead allowed to pay $1.9 billion in fines or that AIG is suing the government over the bailout! This is the country we live in folks, companies get bailed out and sue because they didnt get enough or the terms werent perfect and other banks can help terrorist groups and not get in any real trouble ($1.9 billion to a massive bank is nothing) because they have too much power!
Click to expand...

HSBC gave up most of New York State to the F-N Bank. Perhaps that was part of the "settlement" that they have less USA influence.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

So whats the deal with the GOP putting up a major fight with every single appointee (this person is not acceptable!)? Do they know that it adds to their current MO of just being obstructionist? An MO which they desperately need to change if they want to do well in the next election.
 
5mn_Major said:
So whats the deal with the GOP putting up a major fight with every single appointee (this person is not acceptable!)? Do they know that it adds to their current MO of just being obstructionist? An MO which they desperately need to change if they want to do well in the next election.
Click to expand...

Short answer: They're idiots.

Long answer: I agree with Bob Kerrey for once in that who knows what the hell the point is. For example, Hagel isn't being nominatee for Diversity Coordinator or head of the AIPAC. For the job of Sec of Defense he's than qualified, and Dems seem to realize that. Its amazing how a guy like McCain who's now become a joke can 6 years ago say how great Hagel is and now is 50/50 on the nomination. What exactly changed since then, except that he's butthurt about losing the election to Obama.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

5mn_Major said:
So whats the deal with the GOP putting up a major fight with every single appointee (this person is not acceptable!)? Do they know that it adds to their current MO of just being obstructionist? An MO which they desperately need to change if they want to do well in the next election.
Click to expand...

You mean like what the Dems did at around the time Chief Justice Roberts and other judges were being appointed to the bench?

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

FlagDUDE08 said:
Looks like the messiah dictator and "#1" want to bypass the second amendment: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/9/biden-executive-orders-action-can-be-taken-guns/
Click to expand...

Let's see who can fill in the blank...

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide for a citizens militia from foreign invasion or usurpation of the government, as well as for self-protection in the home. It has nothing to do with citizens individually purchasing guns without limit or type of gun....

The Second Amendment is a collective right rather than an individual right. Justice ________ called the whole charade around the debate of the Second Amendment as "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud on the American people."
Click to expand...
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

FlagDUDE08 said:
You mean like what the Dems did at around the time Chief Justice Roberts and other judges were being appointed to the bench?

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Click to expand...

True...but IMO there are major differences. One is that that was not just a defense guy who executes others decisions, but rather a supreme court justice who makes decisions...and in this case, the one replacing the chief as well. A second is that that one was relatively isolated vs. how many appointees have been rejected in the last 2 months? A third is that the Dems didn't have a public opinion issue in the area of obstructionism and were in need of picking their battles. Both sides do it...this is just a far more concentrated and potentially more damaging example of the practice.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

dxmnkd316 said:
An executive order on this issue would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Agree the practice is bad news...including here. It will be interesting to see if there is follow through or the threat is used as leverage.

Do keep in mind, that as with Flags comment...every single GOP candidate talked about using executive mandates day one that they entered office.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

5mn_Major said:
True...but IMO there are major differences. One is that that was not just a defense guy who executes others decisions, but rather a supreme court justice who makes decisions...and in this case, the one replacing the chief as well. A second is that that one was relatively isolated vs. how many appointees have been rejected in the last 2 months? A third is that the Dems didn't have a public opinion issue in the area of obstructionism and were in need of picking their battles. Both sides do it...this is just a far more concentrated and potentially more damaging example of the practice.
Click to expand...

Well then perhaps Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown?

You only see it as such because it's your side being filibustered. ;)
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

unofan said:
Depends on the order.
Click to expand...

What restrictions could possibly be deemed constitutional on an executive order?

5mn_Major said:
Agree the practice is bad news...including here. It will be interesting to see if there is follow through or the threat is used as leverage.

Do keep in mind, that as with Flags comment...every single GOP candidate talked about using executive mandates day one that they entered office.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. I've never liked executive orders. (Insert any number of posters questioning whether I actually said that during the Bush years, or insinuate I watch Fox, etc.)

It's a practice that needs to be carefully used. Obviously there are certain things that are well within the President's power to issue an executive order. Restrictions on the rights of the populace should not be one of them.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

The problem with excess filibuster use isn't the existence of that mechanism. Its that overusing it forces short term changes that may cause longer term problems.

So, the notion of filibustering cabinet nominees is absurd. The Prez is usually going to pick likeminded individuals to work for him and even if he doesn't the Prez has final say. Now that's not to say it can't happen once in awhile. I'd certainly support a filibuster of John Bolton to any postion above dog catcher because he's nuts. However, if President Romney wanted Newt Gingrich running Treasury, hey - that would be his choice to make. Someone pointed out the obvious difference with judicial appointments which are for life and don't answer to anybody else.

What this idiocy will force the Dems to do is get rid of the filibuster, especially if they hold the Senate after the mid terms. With a whole host of righties on the chopping block in 2016 (Johnson, Ayotte, Kirk, Toomey, Portman) they wouldn't have much to lose in the short term by doing so since they'd run the Senate for another 4 years at least. I don't necessarily think this would be a good thing.

It reminds me of conservative idiocy with lawsuits during the Clinton admin. By abusing to an unheard of degree the judicial system to launch baseless investigations, the country was too fatigued with all this crap to scrutize the next administration, which promptly doctored evidence to launch us into the Iraq War. So, while the Fishys and Flaggys of the world might get a kick out of these antics that their conservative heroes like Itch or McCain are pulling, it has real negative consquences for the country.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
What restrictions could possibly be deemed constitutional on an executive order?
Click to expand...

Not being a gun nut or even a gun owner, I don't know where the loopholes or areas open for agency interpretation would be. I'm guessing the enabling legislation for the ATF would be a good place to start, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top