RE: Magical thinking

RE: Magical thinking (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 7:31:41 PM)
Which offers a great segue back to the topic, Lucy. We can laugh stuff off (a little later, sometimes) and let it go, but I don't see how my current President is going to get past his rhetoric with the Repubs, to get anything done, even if he gets through this delusion that he's going to find them more willing to embrace his vision, should he squeak into a second term with significantly less support than he had the first time.

Lucylastic -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 7:34:46 PM)
It would help if the repubs had any intention of working with him or the dems. instead of just ousting him

TheHeretic -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 7:42:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It would help if the repubs had any intention of working with him or the dems. instead of just ousting him And it would help more if he had brought some natural leadership ability to the office, instead of empty charisma, or had some skills in cultivating the sort of friendly relationships that allow people to disagree, without always being disagreeable about it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 7:47:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I have heard that lame rhetoric all of my life while the reality is just the opposite. For you not to have noticed the disconnect between your rhetoric and what is indicates nothing but willful ignorance on your part. Willful ignorance? Bah. So, are you saying that we should all be treated differently? Should we all have different rules and laws we have to live by? Are you fucking serious with this shit?!? quote: Since you share the largess of those inequalities why should you not be liable for the sanctions imposed for those inequalities? What largesse?!? What largesse am I sharing from those inequalities? quote: I have asked you to provide us with some instance when your "wishful rhetoric" was true...we are still waiting. I have yet to be treated any differently than any neighbor I've had that supported any politician other than the one whose campaign I've donated to. You know, I've stated several things that should be. That, in and of itself, states that either it isn't that way now, or that it still could change away from the ideal. Now, you're telling me to prove something that should have been was? quote: 14th Amendment to the US Constitution Article 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Due Process Clause stipulated that there not be any difference between Citizens who were former slaves, and Citizens who had been Citizens before Emancipation. That is why I state that we all should be treated equally.

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 8:14:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim And if I'm not mistaken....Mitt Romney's record as Governor of MA backs up his claim of being able to work better than Obama with Congress.... Well then... You'd be mistaken then. mitt Romney vetoed about 800 bill sent to him for signing by the legislature he worked so "well" with, And they in turn overturned nearly 750 of his vetoes. Oh, and one of his big planks is how he delivered a "free tuition" program for top students. Not so much... See in Massachusetts, in-state tuition is about 20-25% of the cost of attending a Massachusetts State College. "Romney's" [;an pays between $750 an $1000 of their college costs. Oh, and the nuts and bolts of it are the work of William Bulger, former DEMOCRATIC President of the Senate, during his tenure as President of the University of Massachusetts. Mitt was of course happy to take credit. And based on how the pigeons show up to defend him. The scam seems to work.

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 8:20:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: And if I'm not mistaken....Mitt Romney's record as Governor of MA backs up his claim of being able to work better than Obama with Congress.... You're mistaken. State politics are as much like Federal politics as apples to oranges. State Politics ARE different... Even more so when you are just the in the corner office because you need a notch in your belt to make the white house plausible. Mitt might as well have been at a Denny's

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 8:22:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk I think it is clear that Democrats will work with Republicans...ie....Mittens in Mass, Dubya, HW, Reagan..etc etc.....>What isn't clear is that Republicans will work with Democrats. Republicans time and again have shown the inability to govern. Think Executive Orders... LOTS

TheHeretic -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 8:29:26 PM)
Speaking of burned out bridges...

tazzygirl -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 8:49:43 PM)
EO's by President. Hoover, 995. Roosevelt, 3466. Truman, 893 Eisenhower, 481 Kennedy, 213 Johnson, 323 Nixon, 345 Ford , 168 Carter, 319 Reagan, 380 Bush, 165 Clinton. 363 Bush, 290 Obama, 137 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html [:D]

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 8:53:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Speaking of burned out bridges... You shouldn't talk about your friend Jim that way. [:D]

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 8:56:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl EO's by President. Hoover, 995. Roosevelt, 3466. Truman, 893 Eisenhower, 481 Kennedy, 213 Johnson, 323 Nixon, 345 Ford , 168 Carter, 319 Reagan, 380 Bush, 165 Clinton. 363 Bush, 290 Obama, 137 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html [:D] I hope he goes All Roosevelt on them.

tazzygirl -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 8:57:50 PM)
hahahahahaha... now wouldnt that make for some interesting sound bites.

Lucylastic -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 9:20:43 PM)
But they have been SO agreeable with him for so long.... why would that change?[;)]

slvemike4u -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 9:36:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim By forcing his pro-abortion and free contraception ideology on churchs Obama has already dismantled the wall of separation between church and state.... Actually, you have it completely backwards. By treating a church like anyone else, not giving them special priveleges and telling them that they have to follow the law, he is keeping the wall between church and state in place. Which one of the Kool-Aid delivery services on the radio gave you that stupid idea? It's RacerJim, assume stormfront. That's not all I'm going to assume.....[8\|]

Owner59 -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 9:39:22 PM)
Everyone knows the President tried to work with the cons for the 1st two years.....and who baulked If they wanted "bipartisanship"....they had ample time to help the President and America at her most vulnerable time....after the worst crash since the 30s. Instead....they didn`t work with the President......not even once. After the credit rating cut/black-mail stunt....the President didn`t have to give them much respect.....and the 9% congressional ratings reflect that same public sentiment .

slvemike4u -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 9:39:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Your point of Obama's not enforcing laws is accurate and something should be done about it. It may very well turn out that the laws he's decided to not enforce aren't Constitutional, but that needs to be worked out prior to non-enforcement, IMO. Which laws are you claiming the President is refusing to enforce? Obama has refused to defend DOMA in court. It is indefensible ,and will eventually be ruled unconstitutional ...so what's the problem ?

slvemike4u -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 9:45:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: It doesn't make a damn bit of difference who gets elected. Two words: Supreme Court Elections have consequences [:)]

tazzygirl -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 10:04:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim By forcing his pro-abortion and free contraception ideology on churchs Obama has already dismantled the wall of separation between church and state.... Actually, you have it completely backwards. By treating a church like anyone else, not giving them special priveleges and telling them that they have to follow the law, he is keeping the wall between church and state in place. Which one of the Kool-Aid delivery services on the radio gave you that stupid idea? Its not being forced on churches.... Houses of worship are allowed to opt out, but religiously affiliated charities and institutions, such as colleges and hospitals, are not. What this does is prevents an employer from forcing their morality onto employees.

tazzygirl -> RE: Magical thinking (10/25/2012 10:09:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Your point of Obama's not enforcing laws is accurate and something should be done about it. It may very well turn out that the laws he's decided to not enforce aren't Constitutional, but that needs to be worked out prior to non-enforcement, IMO. Which laws are you claiming the President is refusing to enforce? Obama has refused to defend DOMA in court. Although the Executive Branch should defend laws from court challenges in most instances, I have identified in this Essay four factors that a President should consider in determining whether to take the extraordinary step of refusing to defend the constitutionality of a federal law. If (1) there are no binding judicial precedents on the relevant constitutional issues; (2) those issues are sufficiently broad to raise fundamental normative and policy questions; (3) Congress failed to consider the relevant constitutional issues when it enacted the law; and (4) it is unlikely that the President's decision will preclude judicial review, then he is on firm ground in refusing to defend the statute in question. President Obama's decision not to defend DOMA's constitutionality was appropriate because it satisfied all of these criteria. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2011/21/index.html During the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman administrations, the presidents, in one form or another, refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals. The Ford Justice Department refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, much of which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law, a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a 7-to-1 vote. It also refused to defend the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions; in that case, the administration was more successful, winning 7-2 in the Supreme Court. The Clinton administration refused to defend a federal law mandating the dismissal of military personnel who were HIV-positive. The George W. Bush administration refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana. And in the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department refused to defend a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses — a law subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. http://www.volokh.com/2011/03/01/precedent-for-presidential-refusal-to-defend-statutes-the-administration-believes-to-be-unconstitutional/

GotSteel -> RE: Magical thinking (10/26/2012 4:23:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic the fact that the American people have now seen Romney without the filter of the negative advertising blitz, and decided that he's well worth a look as an acceptable alternative to this failed administration. Which Romney, because I kind of like liberal Romney?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875