AURaptor 1,126 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Eliminate taxes ... More absurdity See Blue, even Raptor thinks your crazy and that's like a frog calling you ugly. He may think Im crazy, Ive certainly been accused of worse things especially in this forum but you could really help me out by directing me to the post where I advocated eliminating taxes...would ya please? Blue, sorry, but if you've advocated there be ZERO taxes, I must have missed it. I don't know anyone, to be taken seriously, who says that, but if you've done so, please elaborate. TIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Boy this got derailed big time. Back to Hillary. If there's any justice anywhere in the world, she'll be wearing an orange jumpsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 Eliminate taxes ... More absurdity See Blue, even Raptor thinks your crazy and that's like a frog calling you ugly. He may think Im crazy, Ive certainly been accused of worse things especially in this forum but you could really help me out by directing me to the post where I advocated eliminating taxes...would ya please? Blue, sorry, but if you've advocated there be ZERO taxes, I must have missed it. I don't know anyone, to be taken seriously, who says that, but if you've done so, please elaborate. TIA. I never did, thats Tex's way of trying to discredit my opinion that taxes are too high. When a country starts to experience wide spread corporate flight its probably a good time to re-examine tax policy because the nest is full of nothing once the bird has flown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 SOP for Tex, as I suspected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,431 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 No we don't We just don't need s nanny state running our lives Evidently, Tex has never seen a govt program that wasn't better than the private sector which requires enormous delusion. He'll have to pardon me if, unlike him, govt sponsored programs and govt employees do not spring immediately to my mind when contemplating competence, efficiency or effectiveness. So in your ideal world, do public roads exist? If so, please explain to me who pays for roads, how exactly that works, and who removes the snow and how that works. So, because public roads exist, and fire / police are paid for by taxes, we must ALSO allow the govt to dictate to us how much soda we drink, what our thermostat should be set at, which doctors we're allowed to see, how many guns ( if any ) we can own, etc...\ TexasTiger's position is Reductio ad absurdum. We have roads, therefore big, intrusive govt is good. Now that is just kick-ass irony. Pure invention based on a pathetic extrapolation. A traditional, cliche'd "Raptorism" but its the ironic flourish at the end that makes it a collectable. Reductio as absurdum indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selias 2,398 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I'm pretty sure that one thing that AUUSN and I agree on is, if she had Top Secret/SAP material on a personal server then she needs to face the full penalty of law. As a moderate libertarian, I'm no fan of any of the imbeciles currently running for POTUS but thus far, I've not seen enough to convict Ms. Clinton in the court of public opinion. That being said, if I had half of what's being reported on my personal server, I'd already be buried beneath Leavenworth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I'm pretty sure that one thing that AUUSN and I agree on is, if she had Top Secret/SAP material on a personal server then she needs to face the full penalty of law. As a moderate libertarian, I'm no fan of any of the imbeciles currently running for POTUS but thus far, I've not seen enough to convict Ms. Clinton in the court of public opinion. That being said, if I had half of what's being reported on my personal server, I'd already be buried beneath Leavenworth. I would love to see her there but the Clintons have a long history of lying , etc., to get out of prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 No we don't We just don't need s nanny state running our lives Evidently, Tex has never seen a govt program that wasn't better than the private sector which requires enormous delusion. He'll have to pardon me if, unlike him, govt sponsored programs and govt employees do not spring immediately to my mind when contemplating competence, efficiency or effectiveness. So in your ideal world, do public roads exist? If so, please explain to me who pays for roads, how exactly that works, and who removes the snow and how that works. Do you not know? Just aheads up..the govt doesn't pay for damned thing except with money they confiscate from citizens. Here's how it all works when the govt is involved..spend 10 times more than it actually costs regardless the job, then have public service union workers strike for more money and better benefits. Rinse and repeat.....other people's money is a helluva drug! Just because the govt is doing these things doesn't mean they're doing them efficiently or with the same sense of urgency as it relates to containing costs as private sector companies do. You don't know. Ok. All you did was complain about the current system. What do you propose that's better? Once we eliminate taxes, what you call confiscation, then what? Contribute something for once. Dazzle us with your brilliance. There is no then what? i simply get a bit weary having to listen how our society could not get along without the federal govt. The govt's role has expanded so far beyond what its role was originally envisioned the question that I'm preoccupied with is..... where does it ever stop? I'm fine with local govts providing services to local citizens. What Im not fine with is the incessant expansion of federal intrusion into things they should leave to states. Clearing the roads with snow plows is not a good example but the same MO applies to local govts as well, just on a smaller scale. Im sorry I dont believe that the govt is the best solution to every problem large and small. I'd much prefer they stick to public safety, national security, carrying the mail and securing our borders most of which they don't do a very good job of. List some of the actual intrusions you object to. Making schools serve certain lunches or cut off their funding. Common core. Un-elected judges engaging in judicial activism and making laws on whims rather than sticking to the Constitution. No child left behind may be the worst piece of legislation ever enacted and yes I know it was a Geo Bush initiative..its still awful because it encourages teacher fraud and grade fixing. Requiring citizens to buy health insurance or fining them $695 if they dont. I mean seriously Tex, there is an awful lot they do they needn't bother. Bloomberg outlawing sugary drinks in NYC...the list is virtually endless and it seems to grow each year. The use of administrative law to enact regulatory requirements that costs the private sector billions of dollars to be compliant. Most of the education regulations you mention a state can refuse-- if they comply they get funds. Bloomberg is local, not Federal. Where do those funds come from, pray tell? They come from the states. The feds bribe us to do their bidding with our own money. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,005 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 No we don't We just don't need s nanny state running our lives Evidently, Tex has never seen a govt program that wasn't better than the private sector which requires enormous delusion. He'll have to pardon me if, unlike him, govt sponsored programs and govt employees do not spring immediately to my mind when contemplating competence, efficiency or effectiveness. So in your ideal world, do public roads exist? If so, please explain to me who pays for roads, how exactly that works, and who removes the snow and how that works. Do you not know? Just aheads up..the govt doesn't pay for damned thing except with money they confiscate from citizens. Here's how it all works when the govt is involved..spend 10 times more than it actually costs regardless the job, then have public service union workers strike for more money and better benefits. Rinse and repeat.....other people's money is a helluva drug! Just because the govt is doing these things doesn't mean they're doing them efficiently or with the same sense of urgency as it relates to containing costs as private sector companies do. You don't know. Ok. All you did was complain about the current system. What do you propose that's better? Once we eliminate taxes, what you call confiscation, then what? Contribute something for once. Dazzle us with your brilliance. There is no then what? i simply get a bit weary having to listen how our society could not get along without the federal govt. The govt's role has expanded so far beyond what its role was originally envisioned the question that I'm preoccupied with is..... where does it ever stop? I'm fine with local govts providing services to local citizens. What Im not fine with is the incessant expansion of federal intrusion into things they should leave to states. Clearing the roads with snow plows is not a good example but the same MO applies to local govts as well, just on a smaller scale. Im sorry I dont believe that the govt is the best solution to every problem large and small. I'd much prefer they stick to public safety, national security, carrying the mail and securing our borders most of which they don't do a very good job of. List some of the actual intrusions you object to. Making schools serve certain lunches or cut off their funding. Common core. Un-elected judges engaging in judicial activism and making laws on whims rather than sticking to the Constitution. No child left behind may be the worst piece of legislation ever enacted and yes I know it was a Geo Bush initiative..its still awful because it encourages teacher fraud and grade fixing. Requiring citizens to buy health insurance or fining them $695 if they dont. I mean seriously Tex, there is an awful lot they do they needn't bother. Bloomberg outlawing sugary drinks in NYC...the list is virtually endless and it seems to grow each year. The use of administrative law to enact regulatory requirements that costs the private sector billions of dollars to be compliant. Most of the education regulations you mention a state can refuse-- if they comply they get funds. Bloomberg is local, not Federal. Where do those funds come from, pray tell? They come from the states. The feds bribe us to do their bidding with our own money. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. The states' congressmen pass the budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 No we don't We just don't need s nanny state running our lives Evidently, Tex has never seen a govt program that wasn't better than the private sector which requires enormous delusion. He'll have to pardon me if, unlike him, govt sponsored programs and govt employees do not spring immediately to my mind when contemplating competence, efficiency or effectiveness. So in your ideal world, do public roads exist? If so, please explain to me who pays for roads, how exactly that works, and who removes the snow and how that works. Do you not know? Just aheads up..the govt doesn't pay for damned thing except with money they confiscate from citizens. Here's how it all works when the govt is involved..spend 10 times more than it actually costs regardless the job, then have public service union workers strike for more money and better benefits. Rinse and repeat.....other people's money is a helluva drug! Just because the govt is doing these things doesn't mean they're doing them efficiently or with the same sense of urgency as it relates to containing costs as private sector companies do. You don't know. Ok. All you did was complain about the current system. What do you propose that's better? Once we eliminate taxes, what you call confiscation, then what? Contribute something for once. Dazzle us with your brilliance. There is no then what? i simply get a bit weary having to listen how our society could not get along without the federal govt. The govt's role has expanded so far beyond what its role was originally envisioned the question that I'm preoccupied with is..... where does it ever stop? I'm fine with local govts providing services to local citizens. What Im not fine with is the incessant expansion of federal intrusion into things they should leave to states. Clearing the roads with snow plows is not a good example but the same MO applies to local govts as well, just on a smaller scale. Im sorry I dont believe that the govt is the best solution to every problem large and small. I'd much prefer they stick to public safety, national security, carrying the mail and securing our borders most of which they don't do a very good job of. List some of the actual intrusions you object to. Making schools serve certain lunches or cut off their funding. Common core. Un-elected judges engaging in judicial activism and making laws on whims rather than sticking to the Constitution. No child left behind may be the worst piece of legislation ever enacted and yes I know it was a Geo Bush initiative..its still awful because it encourages teacher fraud and grade fixing. Requiring citizens to buy health insurance or fining them $695 if they dont. I mean seriously Tex, there is an awful lot they do they needn't bother. Bloomberg outlawing sugary drinks in NYC...the list is virtually endless and it seems to grow each year. The use of administrative law to enact regulatory requirements that costs the private sector billions of dollars to be compliant. Most of the education regulations you mention a state can refuse-- if they comply they get funds. Bloomberg is local, not Federal. Where do those funds come from, pray tell? They come from the states. The feds bribe us to do their bidding with our own money. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. The states' congressmen pass the budget. Which means... what, exactly? The whole sordid mess is legitimized because it has the veneer of democracy? The federal government is bound by a document that explicitly limits its functions to those deemed necessary and proper, and leaves all others to the states or to the people. That the people or those who represent them have forgotten or abandoned their roles does not make the actions of the imperial federal government any more legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 No we don't We just don't need s nanny state running our lives Evidently, Tex has never seen a govt program that wasn't better than the private sector which requires enormous delusion. He'll have to pardon me if, unlike him, govt sponsored programs and govt employees do not spring immediately to my mind when contemplating competence, efficiency or effectiveness. So in your ideal world, do public roads exist? If so, please explain to me who pays for roads, how exactly that works, and who removes the snow and how that works. So, because public roads exist, and fire / police are paid for by taxes, we must ALSO allow the govt to dictate to us how much soda we drink, what our thermostat should be set at, which doctors we're allowed to see, how many guns ( if any ) we can own, etc...\ TexasTiger's position is Reductio ad absurdum. We have roads, therefore big, intrusive govt is good. Now that is just kick-ass irony. Pure invention based on a pathetic extrapolation. A traditional, cliche'd "Raptorism" but its the ironic flourish at the end that makes it a collectable. Reductio as absurdum indeed! :roflol:/> You didn't say anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,005 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 No we don't We just don't need s nanny state running our lives Evidently, Tex has never seen a govt program that wasn't better than the private sector which requires enormous delusion. He'll have to pardon me if, unlike him, govt sponsored programs and govt employees do not spring immediately to my mind when contemplating competence, efficiency or effectiveness. So in your ideal world, do public roads exist? If so, please explain to me who pays for roads, how exactly that works, and who removes the snow and how that works. Do you not know? Just aheads up..the govt doesn't pay for damned thing except with money they confiscate from citizens. Here's how it all works when the govt is involved..spend 10 times more than it actually costs regardless the job, then have public service union workers strike for more money and better benefits. Rinse and repeat.....other people's money is a helluva drug! Just because the govt is doing these things doesn't mean they're doing them efficiently or with the same sense of urgency as it relates to containing costs as private sector companies do. You don't know. Ok. All you did was complain about the current system. What do you propose that's better? Once we eliminate taxes, what you call confiscation, then what? Contribute something for once. Dazzle us with your brilliance. There is no then what? i simply get a bit weary having to listen how our society could not get along without the federal govt. The govt's role has expanded so far beyond what its role was originally envisioned the question that I'm preoccupied with is..... where does it ever stop? I'm fine with local govts providing services to local citizens. What Im not fine with is the incessant expansion of federal intrusion into things they should leave to states. Clearing the roads with snow plows is not a good example but the same MO applies to local govts as well, just on a smaller scale. Im sorry I dont believe that the govt is the best solution to every problem large and small. I'd much prefer they stick to public safety, national security, carrying the mail and securing our borders most of which they don't do a very good job of. List some of the actual intrusions you object to. Making schools serve certain lunches or cut off their funding. Common core. Un-elected judges engaging in judicial activism and making laws on whims rather than sticking to the Constitution. No child left behind may be the worst piece of legislation ever enacted and yes I know it was a Geo Bush initiative..its still awful because it encourages teacher fraud and grade fixing. Requiring citizens to buy health insurance or fining them $695 if they dont. I mean seriously Tex, there is an awful lot they do they needn't bother. Bloomberg outlawing sugary drinks in NYC...the list is virtually endless and it seems to grow each year. The use of administrative law to enact regulatory requirements that costs the private sector billions of dollars to be compliant. Most of the education regulations you mention a state can refuse-- if they comply they get funds. Bloomberg is local, not Federal. Where do those funds come from, pray tell? They come from the states. The feds bribe us to do their bidding with our own money. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. The states' congressmen pass the budget. Which means... what, exactly? The whole sordid mess is legitimized because it has the veneer of democracy? The federal government is bound by a document that explicitly limits its functions to those deemed necessary and proper, and leaves all others to the states or to the people. That the people or those who represent them have forgotten or abandoned their roles does not make the actions of the imperial federal government any more legitimate. "Imperial federal government" . Okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 "Imperial federal government" . Okay. Tex do you believe Obama has acted well within the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Executive Branch? Or do you believe he has stretched it beyond what is reasonable? With 20 unanimous SCOTUS decisions having already have been rendered against him, I would say its a ridiculous position to contend he has, with good faith, acted w/i the range of power given him by the Constitution. I know, I know, Geo Bush used more Executive Orders than Obama has but, how many involved unanimous SCOTUS decisions over ruling his power grab? Through this report Obama's had doubled Bush's and, let us not forget, there are more likely on the way. And, quite frankly, one could make a good argument that a lot of his wins were a function of judicial activism and passed with slimmest 5 - 4 margins. http://www.nationalr...ton-joel-gehrke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Obama made it clear long before he took office that he held the Constitution in contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 John Kerry sent her secret email in 2011. http://dailycaller.c...-from-his-ipad/ "Emails released by the State Department on Friday show that in 2011, then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry sent then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton an email from his iPad that has been deemed to contain information classified as “Secret.” Obama sent her 18 email about which he developed amnesia when asked about it because he said he learned about it from the news like everyone else. http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.2141378 President Obama discovered former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email at the same time as news readers. Obama, after delivering a Saturday speech in Selma, Ala., was asked when he found out about Clinton’s personal email system run from her Chappaqua home. http://dailycaller.c...ry-obama-video/ "The State Department is withholding 18 emails between former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama, agency spokesman John Kirby said Friday." Once again Obama is proven to be a liar who cannot be trusted in anything he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 You notice how quiet Kerry has been on all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 Obama made it clear long before he took office that he held the Constitution in contempt. And he calls himself a Constitutional scholar which seems paradoxical at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,005 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 "Imperial federal government" . Okay. Tex do you believe Obama has acted well within the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Executive Branch? Or do you believe he has stretched it beyond what is reasonable? With 20 unanimous SCOTUS decisions having already have been rendered against him, I would say its a ridiculous position to contend he has, with good faith, acted w/i the range of power given him by the Constitution. I know, I know, Geo Bush used more Executive Orders than Obama has but, how many involved unanimous SCOTUS decisions over ruling his power grab? Through this report Obama's had doubled Bush's and, let us not forget, there are more likely on the way. And, quite frankly, one could make a good argument that a lot of his wins were a function of judicial activism and passed with slimmest 5 - 4 margins. http://www.nationalr...ton-joel-gehrke If one takes that perspective they need to recall the scotus is part of the federal government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 "Imperial federal government" . Okay. Tex do you believe Obama has acted well within the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Executive Branch? Or do you believe he has stretched it beyond what is reasonable? With 20 unanimous SCOTUS decisions having already have been rendered against him, I would say its a ridiculous position to contend he has, with good faith, acted w/i the range of power given him by the Constitution. I know, I know, Geo Bush used more Executive Orders than Obama has but, how many involved unanimous SCOTUS decisions over ruling his power grab? Through this report Obama's had doubled Bush's and, let us not forget, there are more likely on the way. And, quite frankly, one could make a good argument that a lot of his wins were a function of judicial activism and passed with slimmest 5 - 4 margins. http://www.nationalr...ton-joel-gehrke If one takes that perspective they need to recall the scotus is part of the federal government. of course and also one that is abusing its power. It was never delegated w/i their authority to legislate but that is EXACTLY what they've done under Obama via judicial activism because so many of his proposals could never not pass Congress and he insisted on using his pen and phone. And, recalling "they're a part of the federal govt" as you state is just one more example of a federal govt making up the rules as they go as opposed to abiding by the laws set forth in the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,005 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 "Imperial federal government" . Okay. Tex do you believe Obama has acted well within the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Executive Branch? Or do you believe he has stretched it beyond what is reasonable? With 20 unanimous SCOTUS decisions having already have been rendered against him, I would say its a ridiculous position to contend he has, with good faith, acted w/i the range of power given him by the Constitution. I know, I know, Geo Bush used more Executive Orders than Obama has but, how many involved unanimous SCOTUS decisions over ruling his power grab? Through this report Obama's had doubled Bush's and, let us not forget, there are more likely on the way. And, quite frankly, one could make a good argument that a lot of his wins were a function of judicial activism and passed with slimmest 5 - 4 margins. http://www.nationalr...ton-joel-gehrke If one takes that perspective they need to recall the scotus is part of the federal government. of course and also one that is abusing its power. It was never delegated w/i their authority to legislate but that is EXACTLY what they've done under Obama via judicial activism because so many of his proposals could never not pass Congress and he insisted on using his pen and phone. And, recalling "they're a part of the federal govt" as you state is just one more example of a federal govt making up the rules as they go as opposed to abiding by the laws set forth in the Constitution. On the one hand, you say one branch had to prevent perceived abuse of power by another branch. When I point out that's an example of the system "working" you go off on another substance-free pre-formed rant about that same body that voted against him is doing his bidding. Just another great example of how your obsessive Obama hatred drives your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 "Imperial federal government" . Okay. Tex do you believe Obama has acted well within the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Executive Branch? Or do you believe he has stretched it beyond what is reasonable? With 20 unanimous SCOTUS decisions having already have been rendered against him, I would say its a ridiculous position to contend he has, with good faith, acted w/i the range of power given him by the Constitution. I know, I know, Geo Bush used more Executive Orders than Obama has but, how many involved unanimous SCOTUS decisions over ruling his power grab? Through this report Obama's had doubled Bush's and, let us not forget, there are more likely on the way. And, quite frankly, one could make a good argument that a lot of his wins were a function of judicial activism and passed with slimmest 5 - 4 margins. http://www.nationalr...ton-joel-gehrke If one takes that perspective they need to recall the scotus is part of the federal government. of course and also one that is abusing its power. It was never delegated w/i their authority to legislate but that is EXACTLY what they've done under Obama via judicial activism because so many of his proposals could never not pass Congress and he insisted on using his pen and phone. And, recalling "they're a part of the federal govt" as you state is just one more example of a federal govt making up the rules as they go as opposed to abiding by the laws set forth in the Constitution. On the one hand, you say one branch had to prevent perceived abuse of power by another branch. When I point out that's an example of the system "working" you go off on another substance-free pre-formed rant about that same body that voted against him is doing his bidding. Just another great example of how your obsessive Obama hatred drives your life. Substance free? The SCOTUS is checking Obama at an alarming rate as evidenced by the 20 unanimous rulings against. They are ALSO abusing their power by legislating on issues like gay marriage and Obamacare because Obama is forcing the issues to them...both were 5- 4 rulings and both required judicial activism to clear the hurdles in their path. BTW, I never mentioned the checks of one branch versus another but thanks for bringing it up it helps make my point. My point was to illustrate how egregiously Obama is abusing executive power not to prop up the merit of the court for simply doing their job as set forth in the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,005 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 "Imperial federal government" . Okay. Tex do you believe Obama has acted well within the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Executive Branch? Or do you believe he has stretched it beyond what is reasonable? With 20 unanimous SCOTUS decisions having already have been rendered against him, I would say its a ridiculous position to contend he has, with good faith, acted w/i the range of power given him by the Constitution. I know, I know, Geo Bush used more Executive Orders than Obama has but, how many involved unanimous SCOTUS decisions over ruling his power grab? Through this report Obama's had doubled Bush's and, let us not forget, there are more likely on the way. And, quite frankly, one could make a good argument that a lot of his wins were a function of judicial activism and passed with slimmest 5 - 4 margins. http://www.nationalr...ton-joel-gehrke If one takes that perspective they need to recall the scotus is part of the federal government. of course and also one that is abusing its power. It was never delegated w/i their authority to legislate but that is EXACTLY what they've done under Obama via judicial activism because so many of his proposals could never not pass Congress and he insisted on using his pen and phone. And, recalling "they're a part of the federal govt" as you state is just one more example of a federal govt making up the rules as they go as opposed to abiding by the laws set forth in the Constitution. On the one hand, you say one branch had to prevent perceived abuse of power by another branch. When I point out that's an example of the system "working" you go off on another substance-free pre-formed rant about that same body that voted against him is doing his bidding. Just another great example of how your obsessive Obama hatred drives your life. Substance free? The SCOTUS is checking Obama at an alarming rate as evidenced by the 20 unanimous rulings against. They are ALSO abusing their power by legislating on issues like gay marriage and Obamacare because Obama is forcing the issues to them...both were 5- 4 rulings and both required judicial activism to clear the hurdles in their path. BTW, I never mentioned the checks of one branch versus another but thanks for bringing it up it helps make my point. My point was to illustrate how egregiously Obama is abusing executive power not to prop up the merit of the court for simply doing their job as set forth in the Constitution. This thread wasn't even about Obama-- that's my point. The post you responded to had nothing to do with Obama. You can't help yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 "Imperial federal government" . Okay. Tex do you believe Obama has acted well within the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Executive Branch? Or do you believe he has stretched it beyond what is reasonable? With 20 unanimous SCOTUS decisions having already have been rendered against him, I would say its a ridiculous position to contend he has, with good faith, acted w/i the range of power given him by the Constitution. I know, I know, Geo Bush used more Executive Orders than Obama has but, how many involved unanimous SCOTUS decisions over ruling his power grab? Through this report Obama's had doubled Bush's and, let us not forget, there are more likely on the way. And, quite frankly, one could make a good argument that a lot of his wins were a function of judicial activism and passed with slimmest 5 - 4 margins. http://www.nationalr...ton-joel-gehrke If one takes that perspective they need to recall the scotus is part of the federal government. of course and also one that is abusing its power. It was never delegated w/i their authority to legislate but that is EXACTLY what they've done under Obama via judicial activism because so many of his proposals could never not pass Congress and he insisted on using his pen and phone. And, recalling "they're a part of the federal govt" as you state is just one more example of a federal govt making up the rules as they go as opposed to abiding by the laws set forth in the Constitution. On the one hand, you say one branch had to prevent perceived abuse of power by another branch. When I point out that's an example of the system "working" you go off on another substance-free pre-formed rant about that same body that voted against him is doing his bidding. Just another great example of how your obsessive Obama hatred drives your life. Substance free? The SCOTUS is checking Obama at an alarming rate as evidenced by the 20 unanimous rulings against. They are ALSO abusing their power by legislating on issues like gay marriage and Obamacare because Obama is forcing the issues to them...both were 5- 4 rulings and both required judicial activism to clear the hurdles in their path. BTW, I never mentioned the checks of one branch versus another but thanks for bringing it up it helps make my point. My point was to illustrate how egregiously Obama is abusing executive power not to prop up the merit of the court for simply doing their job as set forth in the Constitution. This thread wasn't even about Obama-- that's my point. The post you responded to had nothing to do with Obama. You can't help yourself. It had everything to do with Obama because I was responding to your snark about someone's use of the descriptor "imperial govt". BTW, you NEVER answered the question. As it specifically relates to an imperial govt which is an assertion someone else made, do you believe Obama has consistently acted w/i his power as POTUS..yes or no. Sorry to say this Tex but it is painfully obvious you'd much prefer to make this a personal thing about me than simply answer the question. I have a pretty good idea why thats the case too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,005 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 "Imperial federal government" . Okay. Tex do you believe Obama has acted well within the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Executive Branch? Or do you believe he has stretched it beyond what is reasonable? With 20 unanimous SCOTUS decisions having already have been rendered against him, I would say its a ridiculous position to contend he has, with good faith, acted w/i the range of power given him by the Constitution. I know, I know, Geo Bush used more Executive Orders than Obama has but, how many involved unanimous SCOTUS decisions over ruling his power grab? Through this report Obama's had doubled Bush's and, let us not forget, there are more likely on the way. And, quite frankly, one could make a good argument that a lot of his wins were a function of judicial activism and passed with slimmest 5 - 4 margins. http://www.nationalr...ton-joel-gehrke If one takes that perspective they need to recall the scotus is part of the federal government. of course and also one that is abusing its power. It was never delegated w/i their authority to legislate but that is EXACTLY what they've done under Obama via judicial activism because so many of his proposals could never not pass Congress and he insisted on using his pen and phone. And, recalling "they're a part of the federal govt" as you state is just one more example of a federal govt making up the rules as they go as opposed to abiding by the laws set forth in the Constitution. On the one hand, you say one branch had to prevent perceived abuse of power by another branch. When I point out that's an example of the system "working" you go off on another substance-free pre-formed rant about that same body that voted against him is doing his bidding. Just another great example of how your obsessive Obama hatred drives your life. Substance free? The SCOTUS is checking Obama at an alarming rate as evidenced by the 20 unanimous rulings against. They are ALSO abusing their power by legislating on issues like gay marriage and Obamacare because Obama is forcing the issues to them...both were 5- 4 rulings and both required judicial activism to clear the hurdles in their path. BTW, I never mentioned the checks of one branch versus another but thanks for bringing it up it helps make my point. My point was to illustrate how egregiously Obama is abusing executive power not to prop up the merit of the court for simply doing their job as set forth in the Constitution. This thread wasn't even about Obama-- that's my point. The post you responded to had nothing to do with Obama. You can't help yourself. It had everything to do with Obama because I was responding to your snark about someone's use of the descriptor "imperial govt". BTW, you NEVER answered the question. As it specifically relates to an imperial govt which is an assertion someone else made, do you believe Obama has acted w/i his power as POTUS..yes or no. You joined a more theoretical argument not about individual personalities and tried to make it another hate Obama thread. I'm not enabling your illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted January 31, 2016 Author Share Posted January 31, 2016 "Imperial federal government" . Okay. Tex do you believe Obama has acted well within the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Executive Branch? Or do you believe he has stretched it beyond what is reasonable? With 20 unanimous SCOTUS decisions having already have been rendered against him, I would say its a ridiculous position to contend he has, with good faith, acted w/i the range of power given him by the Constitution. I know, I know, Geo Bush used more Executive Orders than Obama has but, how many involved unanimous SCOTUS decisions over ruling his power grab? Through this report Obama's had doubled Bush's and, let us not forget, there are more likely on the way. And, quite frankly, one could make a good argument that a lot of his wins were a function of judicial activism and passed with slimmest 5 - 4 margins. http://www.nationalr...ton-joel-gehrke If one takes that perspective they need to recall the scotus is part of the federal government. of course and also one that is abusing its power. It was never delegated w/i their authority to legislate but that is EXACTLY what they've done under Obama via judicial activism because so many of his proposals could never not pass Congress and he insisted on using his pen and phone. And, recalling "they're a part of the federal govt" as you state is just one more example of a federal govt making up the rules as they go as opposed to abiding by the laws set forth in the Constitution. On the one hand, you say one branch had to prevent perceived abuse of power by another branch. When I point out that's an example of the system "working" you go off on another substance-free pre-formed rant about that same body that voted against him is doing his bidding. Just another great example of how your obsessive Obama hatred drives your life. Substance free? The SCOTUS is checking Obama at an alarming rate as evidenced by the 20 unanimous rulings against. They are ALSO abusing their power by legislating on issues like gay marriage and Obamacare because Obama is forcing the issues to them...both were 5- 4 rulings and both required judicial activism to clear the hurdles in their path. BTW, I never mentioned the checks of one branch versus another but thanks for bringing it up it helps make my point. My point was to illustrate how egregiously Obama is abusing executive power not to prop up the merit of the court for simply doing their job as set forth in the Constitution. This thread wasn't even about Obama-- that's my point. The post you responded to had nothing to do with Obama. You can't help yourself. It had everything to do with Obama because I was responding to your snark about someone's use of the descriptor "imperial govt". BTW, you NEVER answered the question. As it specifically relates to an imperial govt which is an assertion someone else made, do you believe Obama has acted w/i his power as POTUS..yes or no. You joined a more theoretical argument not about individual personalities and tried to make it another hate Obama thread. I'm not enabling your illness. Thanks for making my point once again. You simply cannot bring yourself to be honest can you? Typical liberal trait that you posses in spades. Make it all a personal attack, flay the messenger, ignore the substance while claiming Im presenting no substance. hey pot....meet keetle. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.