PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues The left complained about dictatorship under Bush but not with this?


BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 02:24 PM
I mean the lack of regard for law and respect for being a nation of laws including the Constitution. This is seizing powers arbitrarily. This is material of dictatorship. Believe me, I didn't back Bush on this type of thing either where this stuff began. But how about a little, just a little consistency.

I love the part where they use Amtrak as a past example.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DkSVox-SEuI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DkSVox-SEuI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

wild1
06-07-2009, 02:27 PM
All this stuff that they sensationally claimed Bush was doing to erode people's rights, now they have nothing to say.

banyon
06-07-2009, 02:39 PM
For my part, I believe that I've continually opposed both bailouts as egregious since they were announced. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do to satisfy the hang wringing "oh noes!" apocalyptic crowd.

HonestChieffan
06-07-2009, 02:48 PM
Seems generally true that over the past 8 weeks or so the Obots are becoming quieter. As the truth sinks in and they see the promices made consistantly broken and the issues they held dear go ignored, there seems to be some buyers remorse taking place.

When they do come out to defend or argue the language is more starined and the logic less applicable as their support is shown to be unwarrented.

It looks as if the dissatisfaction is growing and starting to impact local politics as well. Recent bond issue elections would say people are fearful of the new tax load coming to pay for all of Obama's spending and people do know, regardless of the rhetoric, every level of earner will pay for the spending and lack of fiscal responsibility.

Brock
06-07-2009, 02:49 PM
We won, you lost, get over it /BigRedChief

alanm
06-07-2009, 03:58 PM
For my part, I believe that I've continually opposed both bailouts as egregious since they were announced. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do to satisfy the hang wringing "oh noes!" apocalyptic crowd.Uh... Don't vote for those people next time.

banyon
06-07-2009, 04:05 PM
Uh... Don't vote for those people next time.

You think McCain wouldn't have supported the bailouts?

HonestChieffan
06-07-2009, 04:17 PM
deflect.....off the side called Bush, into the side called McCain.....close call almost had to take a position....

banyon
06-07-2009, 04:39 PM
deflect.....off the side called Bush, into the side called McCain.....close call almost had to take a position....

I did take a position, I said I was against both the bailouts. What is wrong with you?

wild1
06-07-2009, 04:44 PM
We won, you lost, get over it /BigRedChief

Off to the gulag. Elections have consequences. /BigRedChief

irishjayhawk
06-07-2009, 04:49 PM
For my part, I believe that I've continually opposed both bailouts as egregious since they were announced. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do to satisfy the hang wringing "oh noes!" apocalyptic crowd.

This.

Saul Good
06-07-2009, 05:28 PM
I did take a position, I said I was against both the bailouts. What is wrong with you?

So when you disagreed with a Bush policy, did you sound off against it as often as possible, or did you calmly state that you were against it, move on, and wonder why the threads went on for pages?

banyon
06-07-2009, 05:31 PM
So when you disagreed with a Bush policy, did you sound off against it as often as possible, or did you calmly state that you were against it, move on, and wonder why the threads went on for pages?

I am pretty sure my opposition to the bailouts has been as vociferous as any Bush-era policy I've opposed.

blaise
06-07-2009, 05:47 PM
All this stuff that they sensationally claimed Bush was doing to erode people's rights, now they have nothing to say.

Weird how the people complaining about wiretapping as sinister Big Brother tactics just sort of went away.

patteeu
06-07-2009, 06:05 PM
We're all screwed. Get your job with the federal government while you can, I guess.

***SPRAYER
06-07-2009, 06:16 PM
All this stuff that they sensationally claimed Bush was doing to erode people's rights, now they have nothing to say.

Well obviously moonbats are either

A. Incredibly stupid
B. Complicit

KILLER_CLOWN
06-07-2009, 10:14 PM
It's about time everyone woke up and realised that neither party has their best interest.

J Diddy
06-07-2009, 10:18 PM
Well obviously moonbats are either

A. Incredibly stupid
B. Complicit

C. Laughing at you.


I'm C

SBK
06-07-2009, 10:18 PM
It's about time everyone woke up and realised that neither party has their best interest.

What's amazing is that this is correct, and there not 1 out of 100 people that realize it.

Direckshun
06-07-2009, 10:47 PM
Liberals will never complain about something that has been aired on Glenn Beck.

Enjoy tying yourself to that horse, BEP.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-07-2009, 10:54 PM
Liberals will never complain about something that has been aired on Glenn Beck.

Enjoy tying yourself to that horse, BEP.

I hate beck as much as the next guy but Andrew Napolitano is one of the few left with a voice in this country that knows and cares about what happens to the constitution.

BucEyedPea
06-08-2009, 02:26 AM
Liberals will never complain about something that has been aired on Glenn Beck.

Enjoy tying yourself to that horse, BEP.

I hardly ever watch Beck. That was linked via a libertarian site. But I love Judge Napolitano! He's a libertarian. I have his books.

No one's wrong 100% of the time—not even Beck. Not even you.

But I see you've got nothing. I wouldn't expect a lefty to like him because he's the opposite end of the spectrum from you.
Other than that you entirely assumed I was tying myself to that show. It was his guests I liked here.

BucEyedPea
06-08-2009, 02:27 AM
I hate beck as much as the next guy but Andrew Napolitano is one of the few left with a voice in this country that knows and cares about what happens to the constitution.

Amen.

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 05:51 AM
It's about time everyone woke up and realised that neither party has their best interest.


But but but not voting is worse.

:drool:

Radar Chief
06-08-2009, 07:42 AM
We won, you lost, get over it /BigRedChief

Off to the gulag. Elections have consequences. /BigRedChief

But just look at those glorious approval ratings. They’re so, so, big. /BigRedChief :whackit:

KILLER_CLOWN
06-08-2009, 09:37 AM
But but but not voting is worse.

:drool:

Oh I vote just not for either of the 2 schmucks pranced out in front.

InChiefsHell
06-08-2009, 10:54 AM
Liberals will never complain about something that has been aired on Glenn Beck.

Enjoy tying yourself to that horse, BEP.

I don't understand this comment. Obviously you didn't watch the segment, Beck isn't even on it. Care to pull your fingers out of your ears, stop yelling lalalalala and actually deal with the content?

BucEyedPea
06-08-2009, 10:59 AM
I don't understand this comment. Obviously you didn't watch the segment, Beck isn't even on it. Care to pull your fingers out of your ears, stop yelling lalalalala and actually deal with the content?

I was wondering why he wasn't on that clip. :thumb:

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 12:29 PM
I don't understand this comment. Obviously you didn't watch the segment, Beck isn't even on it. Care to pull your fingers out of your ears, stop yelling lalalalala and actually deal with the content?


:LOL:

Chief Faithful
06-08-2009, 12:31 PM
Get your job with the federal government while you can, I guess.

You got it backward, you don't have to worry because the Federal Government will give you a job. You don't have to go out and get anything.

memyselfI
06-08-2009, 01:53 PM
Bush Lite may end up more filling than Regular. We'll all be bloated and hungover.

Calcountry
06-08-2009, 02:34 PM
We won, you lost, get over it /BigRedChiefROFL

Calcountry
06-08-2009, 02:35 PM
You think McCain wouldn't have supported the bailouts?I am sure that he would have. But one thing I know for sure, there aint no goddamned way he appologizes for the United States!

Calcountry
06-08-2009, 02:38 PM
But just look at those glorious approval ratings. They’re so, so, big. /BigRedChief :whackit:And where is your link? /BigRedChief.

Calcountry
06-08-2009, 02:40 PM
In other news, the Chinese want us to sell bonds denominated in Yuan.

Stewie
06-08-2009, 02:52 PM
In other news, the Chinese want us to sell bonds denominated in Yuan.

Why wouldn't they? The dollar has no where to go but down. Why would anyone want to own anything in dollars?

The Yuan is tied to the dollar, but the rumor is that China is going to break from the dollar and have some sort of gold-backed Yuan. That's why they been buying and mining gold as fast as they can.

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 03:07 PM
In other news, the Chinese want us to sell bonds denominated in Yuan.

Awesome.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Change_Asshole_160.gif

KcFanInGA
06-10-2009, 10:13 PM
The president is like the queen, a figurehead, a puppet. Obama is a salesman, and a damn good one.

kcfanXIII
06-11-2009, 12:31 AM
All this stuff that they sensationally claimed Bush was doing to erode people's rights, now they have nothing to say.

bush did it. obama is doing it. just more proof the left vs right debate is a false one.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-11-2009, 12:32 AM
bush did it. obama is doing it. just more proof the left vs right debate is a false one.

Amen.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 12:54 AM
So when you disagreed with a Bush policy, did you sound off against it as often as possible, or did you calmly state that you were against it, move on, and wonder why the threads went on for pages?
The key difference between Bush's policies that eroded civil rights, and the government's intervention in the control of Big Auto is that in the case of the Bush policies, those affected by the changes had no say in the matter. The auto industry had to the choice to accept or reject what the government offered. I'm not going to weigh in on whether the bailouts were a good idea or bad, as it's not particularly relevant, and only time will tell, since that whole thing is only just getting started. (Cue BEP saying, "No, don't wait, you coward, Leap!")

InChiefsHell
06-11-2009, 09:20 AM
The key difference between Bush's policies that eroded civil rights, and the government's intervention in the control of Big Auto is that in the case of the Bush policies, those affected by the changes had no say in the matter. The auto industry had to the choice to accept or reject what the government offered. I'm not going to weigh in on whether the bailouts were a good idea or bad, as it's not particularly relevant, and only time will tell, since that whole thing is only just getting started. (Cue BEP saying, "No, don't wait, you coward, Leap!")

They had a choice...did they really? Did the banks have a choice? Not all of them. The auto companies did indeed have a choice between bankruptcy and a bailout...which resulted in a bankruptcy anyway and now government ownership. Sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't. The only entity that didn't get screwed here was the government.

...coincidence? I don't think so...

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 01:22 PM
They had a choice...did they really? Did the banks have a choice? Not all of them. The auto companies did indeed have a choice between bankruptcy and a bailout...which resulted in a bankruptcy anyway and now government ownership. Sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
They got themselves into it. The only people the banks and the auto industry have to blame for their predicament is themselves. If their only real choices were bankrupcty or bailout, it was because of the choices they made. The government didn't pin them into a corner and say, "Okay, we're going to screw you now." The screwing had already been done, and they did it to themselves.

***SPRAYER
06-11-2009, 01:25 PM
The key difference between Bush's policies that eroded civil rights,

Name one case where Bush's policies eroded someones civil rights.

:drool:

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 01:33 PM
Name one case where Bush's policies eroded someones civil rights.
Ever heard of the Patriot Act? Warrantless wiretapping? That's just for starters.

blaise
06-11-2009, 01:35 PM
Ever heard of the Patriot Act? Warrantless wiretapping? That's just for starters.

I notice Obama hasn't exactly been in any rush to get rid of those things.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 01:37 PM
I notice Obama hasn't exactly been in any rush to get rid of those things.
And?

blaise
06-11-2009, 01:38 PM
And?

And every day that goes by he's just as guilty of infringing on rights as Bush was.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 02:06 PM
And every day that goes by he's just as guilty of infringing on rights as Bush was.
I'm not sure that that's true. The most egregious aspects of the Patriot Act were amended in 2006, and two of the more controversial provisions that survived the amendment will expire at the end of this year. It would have been a waste of effort to enact legislation to bring to an end what is already coming to an end.

Regardless, though, BEP's latest conspiracy theory about Obama's Big Bad Socialism wasn't about the degree to which Obama supports the Patriot Act or warrantless wiretapping, it was about the financial and corporate arrangements surrounding the bank and auto bailouts.

blaise
06-11-2009, 02:15 PM
I'm not sure that that's true. The most egregious aspects of the Patriot Act were amended in 2006, and two of the more controversial provisions that survived the amendment will expire at the end of this year. It would have been a waste of effort to enact legislation to bring to an end what is already coming to an end.

Regardless, though, BEP's latest conspiracy theory about Obama's Big Bad Socialism wasn't about the degree to which Obama supports the Patriot Act or warrantless wiretapping, it was about the financial and corporate arrangements surrounding the bank and auto bailouts.

I understand that, but I didn't bring up the wiretapping or Patriot Act. I was commenting on your post. As far as I understand Obama is planning to continue to use the warrantless wiretapping the same way Bush did. Is that untrue?

Direckshun
06-11-2009, 02:17 PM
I don't get it, maybe someone can explain it to me:

Exactly how is Obama a dissent-crushing tyrant when he's such a total paper-mache-backboned wuss when it comes to foreign policy?

Do you not have any trouble reconciling those two beliefs?

blaise
06-11-2009, 02:21 PM
I don't get it, maybe someone can explain it to me:

Exactly how is Obama a dissent-crushing tyrant when he's such a total paper-mache-backboned wuss when it comes to foreign policy?

Do you not have any trouble reconciling those two beliefs?


Those aren't necessarily my beliefs but I wouldn't see how there's trouble reconciling them.

Direckshun
06-11-2009, 02:23 PM
Those aren't necessarily my beliefs but I wouldn't see how there's trouble reconciling them.

That he basically is such a fairy that he doesn't want to bother upsetting the precious rulers around the world, but that he also wants to ruthlessly dictate every activity of modern american life?

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 02:31 PM
I understand that, but I didn't bring up the wiretapping or Patriot Act. I was commenting on your post.
And I was responding to another post which asked me to provide specific examples of Bush policies that eroded civil rights. It had nothing to do with comparisons between Bush and Obama.

As far as I understand Obama is planning to continue to use the warrantless wiretapping the same way Bush did. Is that untrue?
His intentions are unknown in that regard. He originally voted against allowing telecom companies legal immunity for conducting warrantless wiretaps. Then, when the Bush administration played hardball and threatened to allow FISA to expire altogether (the only thing that was providing a modicum of civil protection in wiretapping cases), he and other Congressional Dems agreed to a compromise that would allow provisions for legal immunity for the above, in the interest of keeping FISA from expiring. So far, he hasn't taken any further action on it. Whether he will or not remains to be seen, but his views on the topic are well known.

blaise
06-11-2009, 03:02 PM
That he basically is such a fairy that he doesn't want to bother upsetting the precious rulers around the world, but that he also wants to ruthlessly dictate every activity of modern american life?


He wants to implement his policies here and stifle dissent but he also desires to be adored in the other parts of the world.

Garcia Bronco
06-11-2009, 03:05 PM
You think McCain wouldn't have supported the bailouts?

Not only would he have supported them but it would be exactly the same.

blaise
06-11-2009, 03:14 PM
And I was responding to another post which asked me to provide specific examples of Bush policies that eroded civil rights. It had nothing to do with comparisons between Bush and Obama.


His intentions are unknown in that regard. He originally voted against allowing telecom companies legal immunity for conducting warrantless wiretaps. Then, when the Bush administration played hardball and threatened to allow FISA to expire altogether (the only thing that was providing a modicum of civil protection in wiretapping cases), he and other Congressional Dems agreed to a compromise that would allow provisions for legal immunity for the above, in the interest of keeping FISA from expiring. So far, he hasn't taken any further action on it. Whether he will or not remains to be seen, but his views on the topic are well known.

He took some action when he invoked the sovereign immunity to prevent the government from being sued over the wiretaps didn't he?
I don't have time to look it up from what I remember he almost exceeded Bush's policies on wiretapping.
I'll try and find a link later but I seem to remember someone posting a lengthy salon.com article about it here.

BucEyedPea
06-11-2009, 05:34 PM
That he basically is such a fairy that he doesn't want to bother upsetting the precious rulers around the world, but that he also wants to ruthlessly dictate every activity of modern american life?

Well, he has appointed how many czars? It comes from the word Caesar. Others have but he has the most. These are unelected positions that can operate under the radar and as such are accountable to no one except the president. This is hungar for power...a power grab.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 08:27 PM
Well, he has appointed how many czars? It comes from the word Caesar. Others have but he has the most. These are unelected positions that can operate under the radar and as such are accountable to no one except the president.
Untrue. Czar is not a formal title, it is a slang term given to the highest official or advisor in certain departments. The positions have always been there, at least for as long as the departments they head have been there. For instance, the "Drug Czar" is the head of the DEA. There has always been a head for the DEA, it's not a new position. It just has a new nickname popularized during previous administrations. It's just a new vernacular, it doesn't confer any special powers or priveleges that the position hasn't already held since its inception.

Simplex3
06-11-2009, 08:57 PM
The key difference between Bush's policies that eroded civil rights, and the government's intervention in the control of Big Auto is that in the case of the Bush policies, those affected by the changes had no say in the matter. The auto industry had to the choice to accept or reject what the government offered.

Did the secured creditors of those auto companies have a say in getting fucked out of what was legally theirs?

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 08:58 PM
Did the secured creditors of those auto companies have a say in getting ****ed out of what was legally theirs?
Again, the automakers got themselves into this bind. If you want to blame anyone for someone getting screwed, that's who you blame.

Simplex3
06-11-2009, 08:59 PM
That he basically is such a fairy that he doesn't want to bother upsetting the precious rulers around the world, but that he also wants to ruthlessly dictate every activity of modern american life?

He isn't a fairy, he's a kiss ass. He thinks America, and by proxy its citizens, are mean and evil and everyone else good and kind.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, you know.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 09:06 PM
He isn't a fairy, he's a kiss ass. He thinks America, and by proxy its citizens, are mean and evil and everyone else good and kind.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, you know.
Where do you people come up with this stuff?

Simplex3
06-11-2009, 09:07 PM
Again, the automakers got themselves into this bind. If you want to blame anyone for someone getting screwed, that's who you blame.

Give me a break. Here's the situation.

I loan you $50. We sign a contract saying that if you don't pay me back my $50 by the end of the month I get first crack at your Wii.

A month goes by and you drink like a sailor and spend your nights at titty bars. I show up to collect, but the government says "no, no, we're going to put you on hold, give him a bunch of cash, you just ride it out for a bit." They give you another $100, which you promptly piss down a drain and you declare bankruptcy.

Now the law says I get your Wii. I have a contract with you that guarantees me that. If I didn't have that contract there is no fucking way you'd have my $50, plain and simple. That collateral was the only reason you got that loan in the first place. The government, however, steps in and decides that it is more fair to give your Wii to your drunken freeloading friend who hung out with you at the titty bars.

I sue, trying to get what is rightfully mine. The courts throw out all legal precedent and allow the government to have its way.

Explain to me, in layman's terms, how I didn't just get fucked and/or was somehow complicit.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-11-2009, 09:09 PM
Where do you people come up with this stuff?

I don't know i guess some of the talking heads push people into the false left/right paradigm. So you must know every stereotype is true. :doh!:

RedNeckRaider
06-11-2009, 09:12 PM
It's about time everyone woke up and realised that neither party has their best interest.

Yep!

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 09:40 PM
Now the law says I get your Wii.
Not necessarily. It depends on whether the value of the collateral exceeds the value of the debt at the time the bankruptcy is filed. My sister recently went through bunkruptcy and lost a little bit of secured asset for that very reason. I don't know what the situation is with the automakers, as far as how their debt compares to the collateral.

Saul Good
06-11-2009, 10:06 PM
Not necessarily. It depends on whether the value of the collateral exceeds the value of the debt at the time the bankruptcy is filed. My sister recently went through bunkruptcy and lost a little bit of secured asset for that very reason. I don't know what the situation is with the automakers, as far as how their debt compares to the collateral.

That doesn't change the fact that the bondholders had the first claim to the collateral and that this was taken away from them by Fiat.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 10:47 PM
That doesn't change the fact that the bondholders had the first claim to the collateral and that this was taken away from them by Fiat.
The Supreme Court decided those bondholders didn't have a claim. I'd say that indicates that their claim didn't pass the value test for a stay reversal. That's a risk every creditor takes, and the ones who know what they're doing are already aware of that legal landscape. That's been the case for several years.

Simplex3
06-11-2009, 11:13 PM
The Supreme Court made that decision on bullshit grounds. The 'argument' against the bond holders was that they were taking TARP funds by virtue of accepting the interest payments that were due to them from a company that took TARP funds, despite the fact that the bond holders never agreed to allow it or were ever asked.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 11:25 PM
The Supreme Court made that decision on bullshit grounds. The 'argument' against the bond holders was that they were taking TARP funds by virtue of accepting the interest payments that were due to them from a company that took TARP funds, despite the fact that the bond holders never agreed to allow it or were ever asked.
You'll have to forgive me if I think the decision of the highest court in the land holds a tad more weight than the expressed opinion of a meager ChiefsPlanet poster.

blaise
06-11-2009, 11:42 PM
Just to follow up on Obama's wiretap position:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

patteeu
06-12-2009, 08:29 AM
Untrue. Czar is not a formal title, it is a slang term given to the highest official or advisor in certain departments. The positions have always been there, at least for as long as the departments they head have been there. For instance, the "Drug Czar" is the head of the DEA. There has always been a head for the DEA, it's not a new position. It just has a new nickname popularized during previous administrations. It's just a new vernacular, it doesn't confer any special powers or priveleges that the position hasn't already held since its inception.

You don't know what you're talking about. You should put "I don't know what I'm talking about" in your sig so this kind of post won't be so frequently necessary.

1. She didn't say that Czar was a formal title.

2. The Drug Czar is not the same as the head of the DEA and it does have separate responsibilities even if they might not be characterized as "special powers or privileges".

The things you got right in this post are:

1. "Czar" is slang. The Drug Czar, for example, is really the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

2. Using the term was popularized by previous administrations.

patteeu
06-12-2009, 08:36 AM
The Supreme Court decided those bondholders didn't have a claim. I'd say that indicates that their claim didn't pass the value test for a stay reversal. That's a risk every creditor takes, and the ones who know what they're doing are already aware of that legal landscape. That's been the case for several years.

The Supreme Court didn't decide that. You really need that sig disclaimer.

patteeu
06-12-2009, 08:39 AM
Just to follow up on Obama's wiretap position:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

Trifecta of wrong.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2009, 08:45 AM
You don't know what you're talking about. You should put "I don't know what I'm talking about" in your sig so this kind of post won't be so frequently necessary.

1. She didn't say that Czar was a formal title.

2. The Drug Czar is not the same as the head of the DEA and it does have separate responsibilities even if they might not be characterized as "special powers or privileges".

The things you got right in this post are:

1. "Czar" is slang. The Drug Czar, for example, is really the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

2. Using the term was popularized by previous administrations.

He's being too literal. Even if they are the Director of Office of National Drug Control Policy it's still another bureaucratic position answerable to the president and not the people which means they fly under the radar. It's more and more govt. And less of them are elected. We need a LOT less of this stuff. Not more.

I mean just LOOK at the frickin' real name. I can imagine what they do.

patteeu
06-12-2009, 09:10 AM
He's being too literal. Even if they are the Director of Office of National Drug Control Policy it's still another bureaucratic position answerable to the president and not the people which means they fly under the radar. It's more and more govt. And less of them are elected. We need a LOT less of this stuff. Not more.

I mean just LOOK at the frickin' real name. I can imagine what they do.

He's not even being literal, he's just being wrong. I agree with your description (fly[ing] under the radar) even if I don't share as much concern as you have. IMO, the POTUS ought to be able to run the executive branch without micromanagment from Congress and if he needs an assistant to coordinate policy among the executive branch departments to do his job, I don't mind him hiring such a person.

I do share your concern over more and more government though and I'm not at all a fan of the Drug Czar and the war on drugs from that perspective.

***SPRAYER
06-12-2009, 11:38 AM
http://www.moonbattery.com/ObamaCorps.jpg

banyon
06-12-2009, 11:55 AM
The Supreme Court didn't decide that. You really need that sig disclaimer.

patteeu is correct. They didn't decide anything on the merits of the case, they just decided not to grant a permanent judicial stay of the sale of assets to Fiat while the case was pending.

Calcountry
06-12-2009, 12:16 PM
Why wouldn't they? The dollar has no where to go but down. Why would anyone want to own anything in dollars?

The Yuan is tied to the dollar, but the rumor is that China is going to break from the dollar and have some sort of gold-backed Yuan. That's why they been buying and mining gold as fast as they can.I can't say that I blame them. This whole thing reminds me of the Golden Rule: He who owns the gold, rules the world.

Bye Bye miss American pie, drove my chevy(govt motors) to the levy but the levy was dry.


THATS THE CHANGE WE NEED.

Calcountry
06-12-2009, 12:18 PM
They got themselves into it. The only people the banks and the auto industry have to blame for their predicament is themselves. If their only real choices were bankrupcty or bailout, it was because of the choices they made. The government didn't pin them into a corner and say, "Okay, we're going to screw you now." The screwing had already been done, and they did it to themselves.yes, by not standing up to the unions, they fugged themselves.

Nightwish
06-12-2009, 10:53 PM
He's not even being literal, he's just being wrong.
Maybe, maybe not. You'll have to take that up with wikipedia, where it appears to have passed muster with the review process. Either way, whether he's the head of the DEA or the head of another government agency is an irrelevant distinction. Does it bother you that in order to prove me "wrong" on something, you continually have to reduce yourself to irrelevant semantic arguments? Comparing the number of times I've been wrong on a word choice, versus the number of times you've been wrong in sheer substance, I'll take my track record over yours any day.

Nevertheless, I'm not seeing much substance from BEP's latest conspiracy theory either. She merely alleges that there is no oversight to these czars, that they operate completely under the radar, and that they answer to nobody but the President himself. But does she offer one shred of evidence to back any of that up? No.

Nightwish
06-12-2009, 10:54 PM
yes, by not standing up to the unions, they fugged themselves.
Maybe. But that doesn't appear to have much to do with the government, does it?

patteeu
06-12-2009, 11:00 PM
Maybe, maybe not. You'll have to take that up with wikipedia, where it appears to have passed muster with the review process. Either way, whether he's the head of the DEA or the head of another government agency is an irrelevant distinction. Does it bother you that in order to prove me "wrong" on something, you continually have to reduce yourself to irrelevant semantic arguments? Comparing the number of times I've been wrong on a word choice, versus the number of times you've been wrong in sheer substance, I'll take my track record over yours any day.

Nevertheless, I'm not seeing much substance from BEP's latest conspiracy theory either. She merely alleges that there is no oversight to these czars, that they operate completely under the radar, and that they answer to nobody but the President himself. But does she offer one shred of evidence to back any of that up? No.

No "maybe" about it.

Nightwish
06-13-2009, 12:37 AM
No "maybe" about it.
Take it up with wikipedia. And the distinction is still irrelevant. Honestly, are irrelevant semantic challenges the best you have to offer these days?

patteeu
06-13-2009, 06:00 AM
Take it up with wikipedia. And the distinction is still irrelevant. Honestly, are irrelevant semantic challenges the best you have to offer these days?

This isn't a semantic thing. You were just wrong when you said that the Drug Czar is the head of the DEA. Those are two different positions held by two different people. If wikipedia says otherwise, it's wrong too.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 06:08 AM
I see Nightwish doesn't even know the definition of "conspiracy" which is a crime committed by several in secret. LMAO

It's simply the nature of bureaucratic stucture. That's what they do. They write rules and regs on their own with little fanfare or public debate. NW needs proof for that? LMAO When Hillary didn't get her healthcare passed she simply rewrote some regs on Medicaid. Yup!

"Hooked on Phonics" Nightwish. Look into it. Or a dictionary.

Oh and I don't have to spend hours backing up every statement with links and long posts. This is a message board. Not academia. I couldn't be bothered doing so just so I'd have to spend hours going back and forth with you. Or needing to educate you on basics. Go back to Europe if you like big govt while your at it.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2009, 06:34 AM
State health officials and governors from both parties are lobbying the White House to revoke rules issued in the final hours of the Clinton administration that would provide a vast array of new rights to Medicaid patients in health maintenance organizations.

The National Governors' Association, meeting here this weekend, and the National Association of State Medicaid Directors have convinced the new administration that the rules are flawed and should be reconsidered, with a new opportunity for public comment, federal officials said.


Bureacracy at it's finest....

Direckshun
06-13-2009, 09:16 AM
He isn't a fairy, he's a kiss ass. He thinks America, and by proxy its citizens, are mean and evil and everyone else good and kind.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, you know.

Alright, you understand you are marrying yourself to the idea that Obama literally thinks that everybody who isn't an American is good, and that Americans are evil.

Enjoy yourself.

Nightwish
06-13-2009, 06:44 PM
This isn't a semantic thing. You were just wrong when you said that the Drug Czar is the head of the DEA.
It is a semantic thing, and it's more importantly an irrelevant thing, because the germaine point was that a 'czar' is a slang term for a head of a department or a close advisor chosen for his/her considered expertise on a topic. Whether it is the head of the DEA or the head of another agency is meaningless in that regard. But by all means, keep trying to distract from that point by playing word games. That seems to be your preferred tactic these days since you haven't seemed capable of submitting an argument of substance for some time now.

Nightwish
06-13-2009, 06:54 PM
I see Nightwish doesn't even know the definition of "conspiracy" which is a crime committed by several in secret. LMAO
Which conspiracy would that be?

It's simply the nature of bureaucratic stucture. That's what they do.
Despite the paranoia heaped into that statement, I don't entirely disagree. I don't tend to trust government much more than you do. The difference between you and me, though, is that I prefer to wait to see how things play out before I jump on one bandwagon or the other. I know it bugs you that I haven't chosen a position either as a cheerleader or a naysayer wrt Obama (hell, I didn't choose a position on Bush until after he dropped the ball in Afghanistan and moved into Iraq without good cause).

Oh and I don't have to spend hours backing up every statement with links and long posts. This is a message board. Not academia. I couldn't be bothered doing so just so I'd have to spend hours going back and forth with you.
This is why so few people take you seriously here. You consistently make wild and grand assumptions based on remarkably few known facts, then try to prop up your positions by claiming personal expertise (i.e. "I'm a history teacher, don't question me") or handwaved sources (i.e. emails from friends, or articles that you're sure you've seen but conveniently can't find, and so on). That's not saying those sources aren't legitimate (hell, I do the same thing from time to time, but not with nearly the frequency you seem to), but when you can't offer anything more concrete than that, it doesn't lend you much credibility.

Or needing to educate you on basics.
The problem is that "the basics," from your pov are neither standard nor basic, and tend to have the flavor of wild conspiracy theories more than anything else.

Go back to Europe if you like big govt while your at it.
You seem to have a problem with my European heritage. Was someone close to you killed in an IRA bombing, is that it?

patteeu
06-13-2009, 08:01 PM
It is a semantic thing, and it's more importantly an irrelevant thing, because the germaine point was that a 'czar' is a slang term for a head of a department or a close advisor chosen for his/her considered expertise on a topic. Whether it is the head of the DEA or the head of another agency is meaningless in that regard. But by all means, keep trying to distract from that point by playing word games. That seems to be your preferred tactic these days since you haven't seemed capable of submitting an argument of substance for some time now.

It's sad that you can't just admit that you were wrong.

Nightwish
06-14-2009, 01:25 AM
It's sad that you can't just admit that you were wrong.
I don't know if I'm wrong or not. I repeated exactly what wikipedia said, and it passed muster with their review process. You made a different allegation but offered nothing to support it at all. And it isn't relevant either way. What's truly sad is that you can't bring substance to the table, so you have to try to distract from the point by playing word games.

patteeu
06-14-2009, 08:24 AM
I don't know if I'm wrong or not. I repeated exactly what wikipedia said, and it passed muster with their review process. You made a different allegation but offered nothing to support it at all. And it isn't relevant either way. What's truly sad is that you can't bring substance to the table, so you have to try to distract from the point by playing word games.

It's not a word game. Feel free to educate yourself on the substantive difference between the Drug Czar and the head of the DEA. Start here. (http://www.google.com)

banyon
06-14-2009, 10:09 AM
I see Nightwish doesn't even know the definition of "conspiracy" which is a crime committed by several in secret. LMAO

.

This is not the legal definition of conspiracy as it is used in criminal law.

Nightwish
06-14-2009, 01:25 PM
It's not a word game.
It is a word game, because the distinction between which department he is the head of is meaningless, and it is irrelevant. Please either bring something of substance to the discussion and stop trying to distract from the point, or move on. You really need to stop obsessing over word choices that have no bearing on the point. This isn't the first time you've attempted such distractions. But, hey, I understand your position - when you've been on the wrong side of just about everything, you'l take what you can get, right?

ILChief
06-14-2009, 02:26 PM
I find it funny when people call our democratically elected President a dictator.

patteeu
06-14-2009, 08:55 PM
It is a word game, because the distinction between which department he is the head of is meaningless, and it is irrelevant. Please either bring something of substance to the discussion and stop trying to distract from the point, or move on. You really need to stop obsessing over word choices that have no bearing on the point. This isn't the first time you've attempted such distractions. But, hey, I understand your position - when you've been on the wrong side of just about everything, you'l take what you can get, right?

Yeah, and if I say the President is the head of the Congress, it will just be a word game when you say I'm wrong. :rolleyes:

Sorry dude, you're just wrong.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2009, 09:04 PM
I find it funny when people call our democratically elected President a dictator.

Hitler was democratically elected too. So was Bush and Allende.
What's one of the hallmarks of fascism? A rubber stamp congress.
I mean come one, once these men get in power if they sieze powers that are not provided for in the Constitution it's still a type of power grab. It's rule by decree because the checks and balances are gone.
It's not a good trend. Wake up and smell the coffee.

banyon
06-14-2009, 09:16 PM
Hitler was democratically elected too. So was Bush and Allende.
What's one of the hallmarks of fascism? A rubber stamp congress.
I mean come one, once these men get in power if they sieze powers that are not provided for in the Constitution it's still a type of power grab. It's rule by decree because the checks and balances are gone.
It's not a good trend. Wake up and smell the coffee.

God you're so right when you put it that way, we're all so enslaved by the dictator! It's just like Hitler! Truly, none of us who get up and work where we want, do what we want, travel where we want, and socialize with who we want have it any better off than the Jews in the concentration camps!


:rolleyes:

I think we should start calling this "Hitlerperbole"

KILLER_CLOWN
06-14-2009, 09:20 PM
God you're so right when you put it that way, we're all so enslaved by the dictator! It's just like Hitler! Truly, none of us who get up and work where we want, do what we want, travel where we want, and socialize with who we want have it any better off than the Jews in the concentration camps!


:rolleyes:

I think we should dtart calling this "Hitlerperbole"

Your house is on fire...No it's not why those flames are harmless.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2009, 09:22 PM
You can slowly lose your form of govt by decree as oppose to overnight. But a controlling personality like bunyon who desires society to be "ordered" thinks it's all okay. LMAO

banyon
06-14-2009, 09:29 PM
You can slowly lose your form of govt by decree as oppose to overnight. But a controlling personality like bunyon who desires society to be "ordered" thinks it's all okay. LMAO

I think basic order in society and the rule of law is a positive thing, yes. Countries without it don't rate too well in almost any measurable statistic.

Does that mean that I want to see a Tiananmen Square styled crushed revolt of American demonstrators? Of course not. Does it mean that I can point out hyperventilating nonsense when I see it without having the polar opposite view? Of course I can.

Nightwish
06-15-2009, 03:12 AM
Yeah, and if I say the President is the head of the Congress, it will just be a word game when you say I'm wrong. :rolleyes:

Sorry dude, you're just wrong.
I know this dense, pat, so your obsession over word choices really reaks of desperation. So let me spell it out for you, since the point seems to keep flying right over your head:

It doesn't matter what the name of the department is, it doesn't even matter which department was used in the example. I could have referred instead to NASA and called their head the "space czar" and made the very same point. This discussion isn't about the duties of the "drug czar" specifically. It was one example. If the discussion were about the duties of the drug czar, your distinction might have some bearing. But this discussion is about whether the "czars" are specially appointed persons who operate independently of pre-existing departments, under the radar, without oversight, answering only to the President, or whether they are the heads of existing departments, given fancy unofficial titles relating to their fields of expertise, answerable not only to the President but also to the rules and bylaws of their departments. Now, if you have something to offer that is relevant to that, then please bring it. But if all you can do is stand on the sideline and cry because I used the term DEA instead of the name of some other organization, then please, go back to your sandbox and leave the grown-ups alone.

Nightwish
06-15-2009, 03:17 AM
God you're so right when you put it that way, we're all so enslaved by the dictator! It's just like Hitler! Truly, none of us who get up and work where we want, do what we want, travel where we want, and socialize with who we want have it any better off than the Jews in the concentration camps!


:rolleyes:

I think we should start calling this "Hitlerperbole"
It's already got a name. It's called Godwin's Law. It is generally recognized as the last gasp in a failed debate. It tolls the death knell for the side who brings it up.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 07:13 PM
I know this dense, pat, so your obsession over word choices really reaks of desperation. So let me spell it out for you, since the point seems to keep flying right over your head:

It doesn't matter what the name of the department is, it doesn't even matter which department was used in the example. I could have referred instead to NASA and called their head the "space czar" and made the very same point. This discussion isn't about the duties of the "drug czar" specifically. It was one example. If the discussion were about the duties of the drug czar, your distinction might have some bearing. But this discussion is about whether the "czars" are specially appointed persons who operate independently of pre-existing departments, under the radar, without oversight, answering only to the President, or whether they are the heads of existing departments, given fancy unofficial titles relating to their fields of expertise, answerable not only to the President but also to the rules and bylaws of their departments. Now, if you have something to offer that is relevant to that, then please bring it. But if all you can do is stand on the sideline and cry because I used the term DEA instead of the name of some other organization, then please, go back to your sandbox and leave the grown-ups alone.

The more you say about this, the more clear it is that you don't know what you're talking about. The Drug Czar doesn't head any department or agency. He works for the White House and coordinates drug policy across executive branch agencies and departments. He's not like the head of the DEA or the head of NASA, which are both agencies nor is he the head of a department. He does not work for a department so he's not subject to any rules of any department. BEP is right that he's independent of these departments and I guess it's a matter of opinion as to how "under the radar" he is. I'd say he's somewhat analogous to the national security advisor in terms of position within an administration and oversight but not nearly as important.

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 01:52 AM
The more you say about this, the more clear it is that you don't know what you're talking about.
We call this "projection."

The Drug Czar doesn't head any department or agency.
Make up your mind. Either he directs the Office of National Drug Control Policy (which is an organized department, with multiple personnel, rules, regulations and by-laws to which the Director is beholden), or he doesn't. Which is it?

He works for the White House and coordinates drug policy across executive branch agencies and departments.
There are several departments and agencies that work for the White House. The ONDC is no longer a direct component of the Executive Office, and is now its own agency, a change that occurred when Obama took office. Now, you can nitpick all you want about whether or not it can truly be called a "department" or "agency," since neither word appears in its title, but operates in the same manner as titled departments and agencies, and contrary to your claims, its Director is not immune to its regulatory procedings.

Incidentally, if you do wish to nitpick about whether or not it is an agency, you may want to take that up with the White House, which lists it under the "Agencies" heading on its '09 Drug Policy Budget, and refers to it directly as an "agency" in its own budget page.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/index.html
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/ondcp.pdf

patteeu
06-16-2009, 07:38 AM
We call this "projection."


Make up your mind. Either he directs the Office of National Drug Control Policy (which is an organized department, with multiple personnel, rules, regulations and by-laws to which the Director is beholden), or he doesn't. Which is it?


There are several departments and agencies that work for the White House. The ONDC is no longer a direct component of the Executive Office, and is now its own agency, a change that occurred when Obama took office. Now, you can nitpick all you want about whether or not it can truly be called a "department" or "agency," since neither word appears in its title, but operates in the same manner as titled departments and agencies, and contrary to your claims, its Director is not immune to its regulatory procedings.

Incidentally, if you do wish to nitpick about whether or not it is an agency, you may want to take that up with the White House, which lists it under the "Agencies" heading on its '09 Drug Policy Budget, and refers to it directly as an "agency" in its own budget page.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/index.html
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/ondcp.pdf

LOL, OK Nightwish. I think you've shown just how far you're willing to backpedal in order to avoid admitting you were wrong. If what you meant by "department" and "head of the DEA" was really anything more than a guy working out of a closet without so much as a secretary at his disposal, I guess you were right all along. :rolleyes:

Nightwish
06-16-2009, 03:32 PM
LOL, OK Nightwish. I think you've shown just how far you're willing to backpedal in order to avoid admitting you were wrong. If what you meant by "department" and "head of the DEA" was really anything more than a guy working out of a closet without so much as a secretary at his disposal, I guess you were right all along. :rolleyes:
Are you suggesting that he is the only member of the ONDP? I'd like to see you prove that one! And you still haven't addressed the fact that the White House itself considers it an Agency. I understand how badly you want for this to be just a guy working out of a closet without so much as a secretary, because if it turns out to be anything but that, your dog won't hunt. And we all know from the years we've been reading your posts just how far you'll divorce yourself from reality just to avoid admitting you were on the wrong side of an argument. So if you want to keep up your fantasy and prop it up with impotent semantics, don't let me stop you. But don't you think it's about time you joined the real world again?

patteeu
06-16-2009, 09:16 PM
Are you suggesting that he is the only member of the ONDP? I'd like to see you prove that one! And you still haven't addressed the fact that the White House itself considers it an Agency. I understand how badly you want for this to be just a guy working out of a closet without so much as a secretary, because if it turns out to be anything but that, your dog won't hunt. And we all know from the years we've been reading your posts just how far you'll divorce yourself from reality just to avoid admitting you were on the wrong side of an argument. So if you want to keep up your fantasy and prop it up with impotent semantics, don't let me stop you. But don't you think it's about time you joined the real world again?

As I've been saying for years now, reading comprehension is a big part of your problem

Hasty Puddings
12-02-2011, 04:46 PM
Ever heard of the Patriot Act? Warrantless wiretapping? That's just for starters.

LMAO

go bowe
12-02-2011, 07:09 PM
LMAO

bumping old threads again?

nothing new in that empty head of yours?

i bet you voted for obama but you're too embarrassed to admit it...

Hasty Puddings
12-02-2011, 08:56 PM
bumping old threads again?

nothing new in that empty head of yours?

i bet you voted for obama but you're too embarrassed to admit it...

Why are you angry? You finally got a black president, and JUST LIKE EVERYBODY KNEW HE WOULD BE, he's a retard? You don't have to take it out on me because your genetic inferiority has been confirmed.